Original source · versioned page text
2019-10-28 Special Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Special Meeting
Monday, 28 October 2019
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Crs Tony Wellington (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson, Joe Jurisevic,
Frank Pardon, Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 43 sections
Section 2
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
REPORTS 3
1 RAL18/0023 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 LOT
INTO 24 LOTS), AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE 3
2 PROCUREMENT AND FLEET BRANCH RESTRUCTURE AND POSITION
ESTABLISHMENT 39
MEETING CLOSURE -
Page 2 of 44
Section 3
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
REPORTS
1 RAL18/0023 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 LOT INTO
24 LOTS), AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment and Sustainable Development
Index ECM/ Application/ RAL18/0023
Attachments 1. Existing lot layout
2. Proposed lot layout
3. Master Plan Stage 1 (Note: 29 pg attachment provided separately to this report)
4. Master Stage Plan 2 (Note: 32 pg attachment provided separately to this report)
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Stockwell Building & Development
Proposal Reconfiguring A Lot – 1 lot into 24 lots
Properly Made Date 26 November 2018
Information Request Date 21 December 2018
Information Response Date 26 April 2019
Decision Due Date 31 October 2019
Number of Submissions Nil
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Noosa Civic 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville Qld 4566
RP Description Lot 3 SP 246584
Land Area 31.73 hectares
Existing Use of Land Noosa Civic shopping centre, showrooms, offices and
undeveloped land
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville
Zone Shire Business Centre
Overlays Biodiversity Overlay: Environmental Enhancement Area,
Environmental Protection Area, Koala Habitat Area and Riparian
Buffer
Natural Hazard Overlay: Bushfire and Acid Sulfate Soils (Low
Potential)
Assessment Type Code
Page 3 of 44
Section 4
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Special Meeting dated 28
October 2019 regarding Application No. RAL18/0023 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring
A Lot – 1 lot into 24 lots, situated at Noosa Civic, 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville and:
A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is contrary to schedule 11, part 2, section 7 of the Planning Regulation
2017 as the development is situated in a koala assessable development area and
does not avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in circumstances in which
any significant residual impact of the clearing is unable to be offset.
2. The proposal is contrary to the State Planning Policy as the proposed development
will adversely impact on koala habitat, with koala populations recognised as being
matters of both national and state environmental significance.
3. The proposal is contrary to the State Planning Policy as the proposed development
hinders disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities.
4. The proposed development is contrary to the Overall and Specific Outcomes of the
Noosaville Locality Code as:
i. The proposed subdivision and lot sizes are not suitable for the planned future
use of land and compromise the ability to achieve the code’s outcomes for a
park like setting.
ii. The proposal does not provide a lot for the planned inter-regional transit facility,
potentially compromising the future provision of this important community
facility.
iii. The proposal does not provide a satisfactory pedestrian and cycle network for
the future development of the area and fails to provide satisfactory linkages with
the existing development in the Shire Business Centre.
iv. The proposal fails to ensure a high level of residential amenity as it does not
provide for acoustic fencing to lots 17, 18 and 19.
v. The proposal will adversely impact on the site’s environmental values.
5. The proposed development is contrary to the Biodiversity Overlay Code as the
proposal will adversely impact on koala habitat, does not maximise the retention of
existing vegetation, and proposes to prematurely clear significant vegetation
inconsistent with the needs of the community.
6. The proposal includes clearing of significant vegetation as part of the proposed
measures for bushfire and stormwater management contrary to the purpose of
current environmental covenants registered over the site.
7. The proposed subdivision is contrary to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as:
i. The proposal includes lots which are smaller than the minimum lot size required
for the Shire Business Centre and the area and shape of these lots are not
appropriate for their intended use, with some lots highly constrained by bushfire
mitigation measures and access requirements.
ii. The proposed access to lot 2 is not suitable and appropriate as it forms a cross
intersection within the site.
iii. Insufficient provision has been made for walking, cycling and public transport
facilities and linkages with the existing development in the Shire Business
Centre.
iv. The proposal does not include a strategy or plans to retain vegetation or
significant trees for the future development of the proposed lots.
Page 4 of 44
Section 5
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
8. The proposed development is contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code as
bushfire mitigation measures do not satisfactorily address the risk of bushfire, are
inappropriate and potentially place a burden on Council and National Parks and
Wildlife Services, given the area contains vegetation classified as very high potential
bushfire hazard.
9. The proposed road layout is unsatisfactory in the following respects:
i. It does not satisfactorily accommodate design vehicle movements for the
planned uses for the area with particular reference to Road B;
ii. The proposed private road, between lots 3 and 7, is of an insufficient width to
satisfy its intended main street function, contrary to the Transport, Roads and
Drainage Code and the draft planning scheme;
iii. Access to the potential transit area has not been satisfactorily demonstrated;
iv. The access location for lot 2 is unsatisfactory from a traffic perspective;
v. The proposed geometry of the access to the Walter Hay Drive roundabout from
lots 23-25 is unsatisfactory.
10. The proposed stormwater management strategies involving bio-retention basins are
in some respects inappropriate causing additional clearing of vegetation which is
unacceptable. The proposed strategies are otherwise contrary to the Water Sensitive
Design Code and Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
11. The proposed development is contrary to the draft Noosa Plan provisions, which
reinforce the current Noosa Plan’s requirements for appropriate access to lots,
pedestrian/cycle links, provision for a transit facility, protection of the site’s
environmental values, vegetation retention, and to appropriately respond to the site’s
natural hazards.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The proposed development seeks to reconfigure the Shire Business Centre (SBC) into 24 lots.
The submitted layout retains the existing shopping centre, offices, service station and showrooms
within proposed lot 1 and subdivides the remaining area of the site. The proposed lots range in
size from 2307m2 to 13.229ha. The applicant has advised that it is intended to release all lots for
sale with the exception of lots 3 and 7 which the applicant intends to develop. The proposal also
includes the extension of Hofmann Drive in an easterly direction to connect with Walter Hay
Drive. A new private internal road is proposed connecting the existing internal road with the
Hofmann Drive extension by running in north/south direction between lots 3 and 7. An additional
private road off the Hofmann Drive extension is proposed to service lots 10 to 16.
Easements and covenants are proposed throughout the site as detailed below:
To the west and south of lots 12 -15 for bushfire protection;
To the south and east of lot 22 for access; and
Within lots 23 -25 for the purpose of access with a 20 metre wide bushfire setback
covenant for bushfire protection.
Access to proposed lots 23 -25 is off the existing roundabout via an existing Energex easement.
Page 5 of 44
Section 6
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The application proposes to remove all vegetation on all lots other than lots 3 and 7, apart from a
10 metre wide strip to the south of these lots which is proposed to be removed for bushfire
protection purposes.
Recent vegetation removal has occurred throughout the site determined by the applicant to be
‘essential urgent bushfire management’. The removal of vegetation occurred essentially along
the same alignment as the areas defined by the proposed Hofmann Drive extension, the
proposed new private road dissecting Lots 3 and 7, to the proposed bushfire covenant area to
the west and south of lots 12 -15 and to the northern boundary of proposed lots 23 -25. This is
discussed further in the Bushfire Management section of this report.
The following table details the proposed lot sizes:
Lot No. Lot size Lot No. Lot size
1 13.229ha 2 9550m2
3 4.188ha 4 2365m2
5 2307m2 6 2473m2
7 2.963ha 8 3257m2
9 3219m2 10 4704m2
11 4999m2 12 7972m2
13 4117m2 14 4005m2
15 4247m2 16 4339m2
17 3719m2 18 3243m2
19 3147m2 21 3820m2
22 3827m2 23 5055m2
24 6079m2 25 1.497ha
Table 1: Proposed lot sizes
Page 6 of 44
Section 7
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The proposed lot layout is detailed in the following image:
Figure 1: Proposed lot layout
Page 7 of 44
Section 8
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The applicant provided the following table to demonstrate the staged release of the proposed
new lots, staging was initially proposed to commence in August 2019 and all lots with the
exception of lots 3 and 7 were to be released over a four month period.
Table 2: Applicant’s proposed market release staging
The existing and proposed lot layouts are included in Attachments 1 and 2.
The following images provide a locality plan.
Figure 2: Locality plan (broad scale)
Page 8 of 44
Section 9
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Figure 3: Locality plan (local scale)
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
The intended form for the development of the site was originally identified through a master plan
process nominated by the 1997 Strategic Plan. Master plans (MP1 and MP2 attached –
Attachment 3 and 4) were developed in consultation with the owners of the site, various external
consultants and the community to achieve the aim of the Strategic Plan and to inform the
development of the Noosa Plan. When the Noosa Plan was created in 2006 it captured MP2 via
the inclusion of various provisions under the Noosaville Locality Code and the current master
plan within the Noosa Plan known as the Shire Business Centre precinct map (see figure 9 page
16).
The site has partly been developed with the Noosa Civic established in October 2006 as Stage 1.
Stage 1 involved the establishment of a discount department store based shopping centre of
approximately 23,900m2 gross floor area, along with 7,200m2 gross floor of retail showrooms, a
service station and 4,925m2 gross floor area of commercial office space. As part of the approval
for Stage 1, Lot 3 SP182845 was dedicated as open space to the State.
In 2003, the applicant entered into an Infrastructure Agreement which in part provided for
infrastructure items to be provided by the applicant for the existing and future development of the
land in total. The agreement also included dedication of land as road reserve and for public open
space purposes. Furthermore, the agreement provided that there would be no requirement for
contributions to be paid (by way of conditions imposed on any application) nor pay infrastructure
charges associated with the future development of the land provided that the intensity of
development of a future stage did not exceed that envisaged by MP2.
A Stage 2 development was approved by Council in 2008 and comprised four office buildings
with a combined gross floor area of 7,701m2. This development never proceeded and has since
lapsed.
Page 9 of 44
Section 10
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
A development application for a major shopping centre expansion proposal was lodged with
Noosa Council in 2007 and ultimately decided by Sunshine Coast Council. The development was
referred to as Noosa Civic Stage 3 and involved a 41,050m2 expansion to the existing shopping
centre, comprising 35,850m2 of additional retail floor space and 5,200m2 of commercial office
space. The development’s location occupied most of SBC Precinct E1 and extended further to
the east toward Walter Hay Drive and occupied most of Precinct E6.
Sunshine Coast Council refused the application at its Ordinary Meeting of 4 June 2009. The
decision was appealed by the applicant (Planning & Environment Court appeal ref. 182/09) and a
number of parties elected to become co-respondents to defending the appeal. The case
proceeded to trial but the appellant subsequently discontinued the appeal in May 2011 partway
through the trial. The applicant and owner at the time subsequently sold the site to QIC early in
2012.
A further application for a major expansion of the shopping centre was lodged by QIC with
Council in January 2015. The application sought approval for a major expansion of the Noosa
Civic shopping centre involving 32,525m2 of additional floor area and 22,870m2 of gross
leasable area, 66 new commercial tenancies were proposed, comprising 2 supermarkets, a
discount department store, specialty stores, food outlets and restaurants. The expansion was
proposed at the eastern end of the existing shopping centre, where the existing food court is
located. Some reconfiguration of that end of the existing centre was also proposed. Notably the
application included contributions to offset the loss of koala habitat at the time as the proposed
development was of a greater intensity than that envisaged by MP2.
Noosa Council refused the application at its Ordinary Meeting on 24 September 2015 citing 10
reasons. An appeal was lodged with the Planning and Environment Court on 23 October 2015 by
the applicant. The Planning and Environment Court upheld Council’s refusal on 16 December
2016 with the judgement concluding that that the combination of conflicts outweighed the
grounds advanced by the appellant, including:
(i) the negative traffic implications;
(ii) the likely negative outcomes for the intended “Civic” area;
(iii) the bulk and scale of the proposed development insofar as it could result in more intensive
development and that it does not enhance or form an extension of OS7/ Covenant J;
(iv) the likely overestimation of the need for and the extent and variety of speciality shops;
(v) the likely negative impacts on the Noosa Junction Centre; and
(vi) the substantive conflict between long term proposed use and mix of uses intended for the
SBC, at its centre or core.
2.2. Infrastructure Agreement
The application material states the Infrastructure Agreement negates the need to provide any
additional contributions for nature conservation, which includes native habitat removal with
respect to koalas.
It is noted the Infrastructure Agreement was made in 2003 and the Environmental Offset Act
came into effect in 2014 with the Planning Regulations coming into effect in 2017. This was
raised with the applicant in the Information Request at which time the applicant was requested to
provide evidence to support the applicant’s position that under the Infrastructure Agreement no
further contributions, including provisions of offsets in accordance with the Environmental Offset
Act 2014, are required to be provided. Specifically it was requested that the applicant provide
written advice from the administrating body of the Environmental Offset Act 2014, Department of
Environment and Science, that the proposed development is not required to provide koala
offsets.
Page 10 of 44
Section 11
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The applicant did not provide written advice from the Department of Environment and Science
instead providing legal advice which in part concluded that Council could not impose an
environmental offset condition on approval of the Development Application. Consequently,
council officers sought legal advice which concluded that Council is precluded from imposing
contributions of a financial nature or require land dedications in respect of environmental
considerations on future development stages of the SBC. The advice confirmed that this is the
consequence of the agreement reached with the then applicant at the time of the first stage
approval of the SBC on the basis that future development was not of a greater intensity than
MP2. However, council’s planning solicitor also advised that while the Infrastructure Agreement
precludes financial contributions, it does not and should not preclude full consideration of the
impact any development proposal may have on koala habitat, state and local planning
requirements.
2.3. Site Description
The site is part of Lot 3 SP 246584 located at 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville. The lot is
irregularly shaped and approximately 31.73ha in area. The following image is of the current title:
Figure 4: Current title
Page 11 of 44
Section 12
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The site has frontages to Eenie Creek Road (approximately 730m) and Walter Hay Drive
(approximately 1,030m), which both form part of the major road network identified by The Noosa
Plan. Neither of the roads are State controlled. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided
from Eenie Creek Road, Walter Hay Drive and Hofmann Drive, with both intersections functioning
as roundabouts. An additional roundabout intersection has been constructed on Walter Hay Drive
at the southern end of the site in anticipation of future development. Pedestrian and cyclist
access to the site is primarily provided via a path from the Eenie Creek Road frontage, with
pedestrian/cycle tunnels constructed under both Eenie Creek Road and Walter Hay Drive. The
site is within a few kilometres of secondary activity centres at Tewantin, Noosaville and Noosa
Junction. The Noosaville industrial estate is located to the immediate west of the site, with a large
retirement village located to the north, with the North Weyba section of the Noosa National Park
and Lake Weyba to the east. At a regional scale, the site is located approximately 27km north of
Maroochydore, the primary activity centre.
The land is generally flat and gently sloping toward Eenie Creek to the south of the site. The site
is part of a system of coastal lowlands that flow to Lake Weyba and the Noosa River. A drainage
corridor is also situated on the subject site, running generally in a north east to south west
direction to Eenie Creek south of the site. This corridor is identified as precinct OS7 – open
space (environmental drainage) by the precinct plan for the SBC and has been created as
Covenant J, with Noosa Council as covenantee.
The area of the subject site, which this application proposes to develop, is vacant land and is
currently vegetated. The vegetation is intact regrowth vegetation. The vegetation was
predominately cleared in 1979, with the development footprint mapped as “regrowth” vegetation
for the purposes of the Vegetation Management Act 1999. On-ground surveys have identified
remnant patches too small for inclusion in regional ecosystem mapping. The regional ecosystem
the vegetation is associated with is predominantly Regional Ecosystem 12.9-10.1, described as
Tall open forest. Canopy species include Eucalyptus resinifera, E. grandis, E. robusta, Corymbia
intermedia +/- E. microcorys, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Syncarpia glomulifera subsp. glomulifera
and Lophostemon confertus. The dominant canopy tree is Syncarpia glomulifera subsp.
glomulifera (Turpentine), with other species such as Eucalyptus resinifera, E. grandis and
Corymbia intermedia occurring less frequently. The sub-canopy contains representations of the
upper canopy, as well as Alphitonia excelsa, Melaleuca salignus and Cryptocarya glaucescens.
Under the Vegetation Management Act, there are no regional ecosystems listed as ‘Endangered’
known to occur at the SBC site. There are also no recorded flora species found on the site that
are listed as vulnerable or endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 or the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Further, no nationally significant
fauna species have been recorded recently within the site by the applicant; however national
significant fauna species have been recorded in the vicinity of the site, with 1 of these within the
immediate locality being the Koala.
This area between the SBC and Eenie Creek has been retained as natural vegetation providing
habitat for these species and buffering Eenie Creek from development. This conservation
allocation was done as part of Stage 1 development of SBC and is identified as Lot 3 SP182845
and has a total area of 11.15 hectares.
Four parts of the site are subject to a statutory covenant, which seek to preserve existing native
vegetation on the land. The covenanted areas generally correspond with open space precincts
OS3, OS5 and OS7 as identified on the precinct plan for the SBC (refer figure 9, pg. 16), OS3
being for visual amenity. Notably the terms of the covenant provide that existing vegetation is
preserved, however the covenant does allow that fixtures, buildings, structures or paths may be
constructed within the covenanted areas where shown on plans approved by Council. In
summary, any proposed intrusion by development into covenanted areas which seek to be
protect visual amenity and vegetation may be only occur in accordance with Council approval.
Page 12 of 44
Section 13
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Figure 5: Zoning Map
Figure 6: Aerial Photograph of Site and Surrounds
Page 13 of 44
Section 14
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
2.4. Surrounding Land Uses
The Noosaville industrial estate is adjacent the site to the west, with Rene Street extending into
the SBC and connecting to Hofmann Drive. The estate contains a broad mix of industrial and
business uses. Adjacent lots within the SBC to the west and south west of the site fronting
Hofmann Drive and Rene Street have been developed for warehousing, storage, distribution,
manufacturing and trade showroom uses. Lionel Donovan Drive is to the north of the site, across
Eenie Creek Road, and is predominantly developed for motor vehicle sales businesses and
complimentary industrial business uses. Noosa Domain retirement village is north of the site
across Eenie Creek Road. Substantial open space and conservation lands containing remnant
vegetation are adjacent the site to the south and east and conserved in National Park or
Environmental Reserve, with Eenie Creek approximately 500m to the south flowing to Lake
Weyba 1.5km to the southeast.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
Biodiversity
The State Interest is “Matters of environmental significance are valued and protected, and the
health and resilience of biodiversity is maintained or enhanced to support ecological processes”.
Benchmark 1 requires “development is located in areas to avoid significant impacts on matters of
national environmental significance and considers the requirements of the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.”
Benchmark 2 requires “Matters of state environmental significance are identified and
development is located in areas that avoid adverse impacts; where adverse impacts cannot be
reasonably avoided, they are minimised”.
Benchmark 5 specifically addresses koala habitat by requiring “Viable koala populations in South
East Queensland are protected by conserving and enhancing koala habitat extent and condition”.
As the proposal would result in the removal of koala habit it does not comply with item 1, 2 and 5
of State Interest- Biodiversity of the State Planning Policy July 2017.
Natural Hazards
The proposed development fails to meet the assessment benchmarks for natural hazards, risk
and resilience. Council’s bushfire consultant advises Benchmark 4 Development supports and
does not hinder disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities is not
adequately addressed.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the Urban Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Page 14 of 44
Section 15
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmarks from the Planning Regulation 2017 apply to the
application:
Koala Habitat Area
The Planning Regulation 2017 provides assessment benchmarks for development in koala
habitat areas including requirements to minimise the impact on koala habitat.
The subject lot is mapped as Koala Assessable Development Area containing Bushland Habitat
by State Planning Regulatory Provisions mapping (Fig 7). The lot is mapped as Bushland Habitat
for Koalas according to the State Planning Policy. Based on the State Planning Regulatory
Provisions mapping, the site subject to the proposed subdivision contains 15.65 ha mapped as
Bushland Habitat for koalas.
Figure 7: SEQ SPRP Koala Conservation Map
Page 15 of 44
Section 16
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The applicant’s ecological report has stated Koalas utilisation of the site is “unlikely due to the
habitat not being particularly favourable. It is possible the koala occurs in surrounding more
suitable habitat and could occasionally wander onto the subject land.” The majority of the main
canopy species on the site are known koala food trees.
Given the size of the land and the location of suitable non-juvenile koala food trees, koalas are
likely to utilise the area for feeding purposes. A recent Koala Corridor study, commissioned by
Council, has reported koalas immediately adjacent to the site and within 500m of the site on a
number of occasions.
The Planning Regulation 2017 requires development to avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat
trees, and where clearing cannot be avoided, the clearing is minimised with any unavoidable
clearing to be offset.
Using the methodology of the Queensland Government Environmental Offset calculator the
quantum of the offset should be balanced against the previously dedicated land for
environmental purposes. This land has an area of 11.15 ha and is identified lot 3 on SP182845.
An area of 1.87 ha was also registered as environmental covenants, totally 13.02 ha of land set
aside for environmental purposes, including habitat for koalas. Notably some of the covenant
areas are likely to be reduced due to the required pedestrian linkages and the proposed bushfire
clearing.
Figure 8: 11.15 ha Park Dedication Lot 3SP182845 (Red Outlines)
Page 16 of 44
Section 17
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The 13.02 ha originally dedicated for environmental purposes occurred at the first stage of the
development, the first stage developing 40% of the entire site. The remaining area to be
developed represents approximately 60% of the lot. Proportioning the dedicated land based on
these percentages equates to 5.2 ha dedicated for the existing development (stage 1) and 7.8 ha
attributed to the area proposed to be subdivided.
There is approximately 13 ha of koala habitat area proposed to be cleared to enable the
proposed subdivision, taking into account the previous bushfire clearing of approximately 2.65ha
undertaken in 2018. The Queensland Government Environmental Offset calculator prescribes a
total offset area of 39 ha. When taking into account the previously dedicated area of 7.8 ha
attributed to the undeveloped portion of the site, an approximate offset area of 31.2 ha is required
to satisfy the Schedule 11 of the Planning Regulation 2017. The total land set aside for
environmental purposes is deficient to meet the current requirements of Schedule 11 of the
Planning Regulations 2017 for clearing koala habitat area.
Should the applicant elect to pay a financial contribution, the Queensland Government
Environmental Offset calculator prescribes an estimated financial offset amount of $1,190,904 for
an offset area of 31.2 ha.
The Planning Regulation 2017 requires that any significant residual impact be addressed prior to
vegetation clearing being undertaken.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against each of the following codes to the extent they are
relevant to the development:
Noosaville Locality Code
Reconfiguring a Lot Code
Landscaping Code
Engineering Works Codes including Water Sensitive Design Code
Locality Provisions
The subject site is located in the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Shire Business Centre Zone.
The zone is further broken down into precincts, with the proposed reconfiguration extending
across Precincts E1, E2, E6, E7, REC/MU and the eastern and western extents of B3, as shown
in the following Business Centre Map.
Page 17 of 44
Section 18
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Figure 9: Shire Business Centre Map
The Noosaville Locality Code contains a range of Overall and Specific Outcomes which are
relevant to the assessment of this application including outcomes which are specific to the Shire
Business Centre zone.
The relevant Overall and Specific Outcomes are:
11.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noosaville Locality are the following—
a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
i be compatible with other uses and works;
ii maintain the safety of people and works;
iii avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other
premises or surrounding area, including acoustic and visual qualities; and
iv avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native
habitat removal, fragmentation and attrition;
Page 18 of 44
Section 19
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
ii) Areas of native remnant or regrowth vegetation, including their biodiversity and
habitat values are protected and retained in their natural state;
tt) For the Shire Business Centre Zone—the Shire Business Centre—
i is a Major Activity Centre for the purposes of the SEQ Regional Plan, and
the principle(sic) business centre for Noosa, servicing Noosa-wide business
and employment needs by providing for a wide range of Business Uses as
well as administrative, community, and open space functions;
ii is a multi-function employment node forming the major focus of employment
growth in the coastal area of Noosa;
iii follows a logical sequencing of development consistent with the needs of
the community that is dependent on the—
A) timing and construction of the external and internal road systems;
B) dedication of a substantial area of open space; and
C) development of a substantive amount of non-retailing development for
employment opportunities beyond Retail business;
iv is developed at a low scale and density with distinctive and unique design
elements, determined by the setting and recognisable as a Noosa
development;
v comprises buildings of low rise form separated by attractive and low key
informal spaces that are integrated with landscaping and open space areas;
vi has an outdoor focus, particularly for Retail business uses, office uses and
Community Uses;
vii provides for an inter-regional transit facility that functions as an integrated
public transport node, with pedestrian and bicycle paths and appropriate
external connections;
viii provides visual and physical connectivity across and throughout the site;
ix is designed to ensure that peak traffic flows and access to the Shire
Business Centre do not impact on the wider functions of Eenie Creek Road
and Walter Hay Drive;
x retains development capacity within the Shire Business Centre in the longer
term to take advantage of potential new employment opportunities;
xi is developed into precincts, as depicted on Schedule 4 - Shire Business
Centre Map, which include a dynamic mix of development with an
appropriate integration of uses within each, including—
A) Business Precincts (B1-B2), which provide for the highest order of
retail development in Noosa and comprises the retail core of the Shire
Business Centre site, with associated car parking generally located
with Precinct B2;
B) Precinct B3, which provides for showroom and office development;
C) Employment Precincts (E1-E7) for future employment growth, which
include 3 precincts (E1, E2, E3) with preferred themes to allow these
precincts to take advantage of new employment opportunities;
D) a civic area located within Precinct E1, which provides for a range of
civic uses and functions;
E) an inter-regional transit facility in Precinct E6;
Page 19 of 44
Section 20
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
F) a Residential Precinct (RES), which provides residential support
accommodation to the other key precincts; and
G) a Minor Recreation/Minor Mixed Use/Open Space Precinct (REC/MU),
developed for the purposes of a minor recreation use or minor mixed-
use development;
O100 Pedestrian and bicycle paths are constructed throughout the Shire Business Centre site,
with appropriate external connections provided;
O101 Pedestrian and bicycle movements between key nodes within the Shire Business Centre
site are designated to minimise the need to cross over roads and where road crossovers
are necessary, central refuges are provided.
O104 Subsequent development stages provide for the—
a) completion of the access intersections leading into the Shire Business Centre
site;
b) completion of further stages of the internal loop road;
c) completion of further stages of development within the precincts;
d) completion of the pedestrian and bikeway network;
e) construction of the link road to the Noosaville Industrial Estate;
f) construction of a inter-regional transit facility (public transport node);
g) completion of the stormwater management systems;
h) completion of landscaping design elements; and
i) further dedication of land to public open space.
O112 Development has strong pedestrian and bikeway connectivity with Precincts B2, B3, E1
and E2;
O125 Development is designed and sited within a park like setting, with landscape treatment
enhancing and forming an extension of the adjoining open space areas;
O154 The northern section of Precinct E6 contains an inter-regional transit facility;
The proposed re-configuration aligns, or partially aligns, with some of the above Overall and
Specific Outcomes in that the proposal makes land available for development and is reflective of
the precinct layout envisaged by the current Noosa Plan. Development on the newly created lots
would provide for potential new employment opportunities. The proposal also includes the
extension of Hofmann Drive in an easterly direction to connect with Walter Hay Drive and the
provision of a north/south internal road which connects the existing private road with the
Hofmann Drive extension. The new roads will complete the internal link road, deliver improved
circulation within the precinct, connectivity from Rene Street to Walter Hay Drive and potentially
reduce traffic demand on the northern extent of Walter Hay Drive benefitting the overall external
network.
However, while there are some noted benefits the proposal raises other matters which conflict
with the relevant Overall and Specific Outcomes, including:
Bushfire management
Road layout/Traffic management
Pedestrian/cycle linkages
Provision of Transit Centre
Vegetation removal
Lot layout and lot size
Page 20 of 44
Section 21
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
These matters are further discussed below.
Bushfire Management
Council’s Bushfire Mapping assigns a hazard rating of very high bushfire intensity. A Bushfire
Management Plan (BMP) has been prepared as part of the application on the basis that the
vegetation will be cleared on all lots with the exception of the majority of vegetation within lots 3
and 7 being retained.
The BMP included the following recommendations (in italics):
Lots 12 -15
The area adjoining the environmental reserve at Lots 12 – 15 requires a 20m buffer from
development. This land will be cleared and will be used for car parks and access and it is
proposed that no building be constructed in this area.
The southernmost section of Lot 12 includes an existing 40 metre wide environmental covenant
area. The immediate 20 metres in this environmental covenant will be managed with the
following actions:
All weeds will be removed.
All understorey up to 6m in height will be removed and the ground fuels maintained at less
than 8 tonnes per hectare by manual means which is proposed to be the responsibility of
the owner of Lot 12.
Lots 23 -25:
….any design for development of these lots would require a perimeter road around the eastern
and northern boundary to provide adequate separation to achieve a maximum Construction
Standard of BAL 29 under AS3959-2018.
The area under the power line be managed as manicured grassland as is the current practice.
The provision of low threat separation up to 20 metres with access and adjoining vegetation with
fuel loads of 20+tonnes/ha will confirm that proposed residences will be constructed to Bushfire
Attack Levels (BAL) under AS3959-2018 of 29 and less for those lots with greater separation
distances.
Energex were an advice agency referral authority as an existing Energex easement is located
within proposed lot 23 adjacent to the eastern boundary, the applicant proposes that access for
lots 23 -25 be via this easement and that the easement area form part of the bushfire buffer.
Energex have advised that they did not object to the application on the basis that any bushfire
protection works within the easement are undertaken by the owner of lot 25.
However, Council’s consultant bushfire expert advises that the reconfiguring of these lots is not
appropriate as no satisfactory secondary emergency egress has been provided from the site so
that the eastern end does not present an entrapment constraint. Further advice from Council’s
consultant bushfire expert states the layout is problematic due to the constrained and singular
access into and out of these lots and the proximity of the hazardous vegetation would
compromise the safety of people and property from a bushfire event within the Noosa National
Park – Weyba Section. This is a similar issue to that which was raised in the recent aged care
application for the site which was refused by Council.
Further measures proposed by the applicant’s BMP include:
Reduction of fuel loads in existing environmental covenant areas for which Council is a
covenantee including the clearance of vegetation within Covenant L. The applicant
maintains that under section 3.2 and 4.3 of the covenant that vegetation management for
fire safety is appropriate and in fact was the original purpose of the covenant area. This
management would be restricted to ground fuel management similar to the result of an
intermittent fire passing through the area i.e. all ground fuels would be removed and
managed but upper canopy of fire safe trees can be retained; and
Page 21 of 44
Section 22
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The provision of a detailed management covenant for the Asset Protection Zones of lots 13
-15. This would include acceptable uses and exclusions e.g. concrete parking bays or
similar is acceptable and proposed.
The BMP also makes reference to the following fire management measures:
The patch of vegetation north of Area 2 (Lots 23 -25) in the National Park should be
considered for a cooperative hazard reduction burn with National Parks. This would only be
needed on a once in 7-10 year cycle.
The entire Park area south to Eenie Creek should also have management that would
include hazard reduction burning.
The BMP maintains that the use of a Body Corporate system does not improve the
effectiveness of the covenant as the required management is detailed in the covenant
document for each Lot.
Further, the applicant has recently undertaken significant vegetation removal on the site which
the applicant determined to be essential urgent bushfire management. The areas which were
cleared are identified in yellow below in Figure 10 and are generally 20 metres wide. There is an
existing approved BMP for the SBC and the recent works were not in accordance with this BMP.
No approval was obtained from Council prior to the works being undertaken. The extent of the
vegetation removal is identified in yellow in the following image with the 20 metre wide clearing
generally in an east-west direction.
Figure 10: Essential Bushfire Management clearing plan
Page 22 of 44
Section 23
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Council’s consultant bushfire expert has reviewed the applicant’s BMP and raised concern with
the proposed recommendations of the BMP with regards to the use of a covenant for the Asset
Protection Zones of lots 13 -15 and the recommendation for fire management measures to be
maintained external to the site, both in the National Park and previously dedicated environmental
reserves. Reliance on owners/managers of adjoining public land to provide bushfire mitigation to
improve commercial development yields is not considered appropriate in this circumstance, may
impact on long term biodiversity outcomes and places an undue burden on the third parties.
Furthermore the use of a covenant raises the following issues:
How vegetation management will be undertaken in a coordinated and consistent approach
and the impacts for the occupier of a lot should an adjoining landowner not comply with the
requirements of the covenant.
The use of a covenant will result in Council being a party to the covenant and potentially
responsible for any non-compliance.
The concern with the proposed covenant has been raised with the applicant and it was
suggested that the bushfire management area be included either as a road consistent with the
Natural Hazards Overlay code or as common property with a body corporate responsible for the
bushfire management measures.
The use of covenants and easements to provide suitable bushfire controls relies on all lot owners
implementing the control measures to ensure that the purpose of the covenant/easement is
achieved. If one lot owner does not comply with the requirements of the covenant/easement they
will be placing persons and assets of benefitting lots at risk. It is inadequate that in a very high
bushfire hazard area that bushfire control measures be undertaken in an uncoordinated manner,
accordingly the bushfire control measures should be managed by one body such as a body
corporate.
Accordingly this aspect of the proposal cannot be conditioned as it would change the form of the
application. The applicant has indicated they do not support this approach and prefer this issue
be managed via a covenant.
With regard to Lots 23-25, Council’s bushfire expert has concluded these lots do not minimise the
bushfire hazard to people who might work in those lots nor property within those lots. The three
lots present significant challenges with regards to disaster management response and as such
cannot be supported.
Furthermore, bushfire management within the existing environmental covenant areas is not
supported. This is consistent with the assessment of previous applications where all bushfire
management requirements have been required to be contained within the site and not external to
the site.
Road Layout/Traffic Management
Civil drawings and supporting written documentation was provided with the application supporting
the configuration of the new roads and access to the lots. This documentation was reviewed by
council’s consultant traffic engineer who has identified a number of issues with the proposal.
These issues include:
The driveway for Lot 9 needs to be wider than shown on the plans to satisfactorily
accommodate design vehicle movements. The resultant change to the access means that
the utility of that allotment for access to a commercial use is unlikely to be suitable.
The applicant has been advised that Road B (new private road off Hofmann Drive) would
need to be to an industrial standard to accommodate the intended uses for these lots with
development likely to occur after the implementation of the draft planning scheme.
Constructing the road to an industrial standard will impact on the width and geometry of the
road. The applicant has not amended the plans to reflect this as the current planning
scheme does not prescribe industrial uses for the site.
Page 23 of 44
Section 24
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
For Road B to operate in a satisfactory manner with its currently proposed width, parking
along both sides of the street would need to be prohibited at all times which is an
unsatisfactory outcome. Amending the width of the road will impact on the lot layouts and
the access arrangements for these lots.
The application material has not adequately addressed the private roadway that runs
parallel with Walter Hay Drive between lots 3 and 7. The applicant has been requested to
provide a 25 metre access easement width for the private road however has only
demonstrated a 23 metre width for the road reserve. Furthermore, the proposed access
arrangements to lots 3 and 7 do not reflect the road being constructed with access being
taken off the ends of temporary ends of that roadway.
Access to the potential transit area has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. It is
considered that rectification of this issue will impact on the proposed Lot 3 boundary
location.
The proposed lot 2 access location is not ideal from a traffic perspective. It undesirably
forms a cross intersection just within the site. The cross intersection results in the potential
for conflicts between entry and exiting vehicles, both customer and service/delivery.
The proposed geometry of the egress from lot 23-25 on to the Walter Hay Drive
roundabout is not satisfactory as it does not sufficiently slow traffic down for entering the
roundabout.
It is not appropriate to approve the application subject to conditions to seek to address the above
issues as the conditions would require significant amendments to the current layout including the
geometry at intersections, access to lots, lot layout and potentially lot yield.
Public and private roads
The current extent of Hofmann Drive is a public road whilst the existing road located between the
showrooms and the shopping centre is a private road. The extension to Hofmann Drive is also
proposed to be a public road whilst the north/south extension of the private road and the new
road off Hofmann Drive are proposed to be private roads. The following figure identifies the
existing and proposed public and private roads within the subject site.
Page 24 of 44
Section 25
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Figure 11: Allocation of existing and proposed public and private roads
Council’s Infrastructure Services have confirmed that the proposed distribution of public and
private roads by the applicant is supported given the condition of the existing private road,
maintenance costs and the appropriateness of Council having a public road servicing a private
development. The Hofmann Drive extension was supported as a public road acknowledging the
important linkage from Rene Street to Walter Hay Drive.
Pedestrian/cycle linkages
The Shire Business Centre Map includes bicycle and walking paths which provide connectivity
within and around the subject site (see figure 9 page 16). The paths include a link from the
existing Noosa Civic development to the eastern side of precinct E6, to the west of precinct E1
and north/south connectivity adjacent to the western boundary of precinct E6. As part of the
Information Request the applicant was requested to demonstrate how the provision of pedestrian
and bicycle paths and external connections from the civic space and transit hub to existing and
future development is to be achieved. In response to this request and further discussions
regarding pedestrian/bicycle connectivity the applicant provided a review of the existing
pedestrian and cycling facilities within the vicinity of the Noosa Business Centre and provided the
following pedestrian and cycle network plan.
Page 25 of 44
Section 26
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Figure 12: Noosa Civic Pedestrian and Cycle Network Plan (provided by applicant)
The plan generally provides for adequate pedestrian and cycle connectivity consistent with the
Shire Business Centre Map with the exception of a linkage to the west of lots 3 and 4. It has also
been identified that a pedestrian linkage should be provided to the west of proposed lot 2 to
facilitate connectivity from the triangle shaped site on the opposite side of Walter Hay Drive to the
remainder of the site (currently proposed as lots 23-25).
The existing pedestrian linkage to the east of proposed lot 7 and to the north of proposed lot 2 is
incomplete. In accordance with the existing Infrastructure Agreement Council cannot require that
the applicants construct these sections of pathway as they are external to the site. Should
Council consider that these connections are required the works could be undertaken as part of
the delivery of future pathway infrastructure by Council. It is noted that a small section of the
existing path adjacent to the roundabout to the west of the service station is incomplete and also
requires rectification to facilitate suitable connectivity in this area.
The future on road cycle lanes would be required to be developed as part of this development at
the time when the additional road network is completed. The pedestrian linkages adjacent to
Hofmann Drive and the new north/south private road between lots 3 and 7 would also be
required to be completed at this time. Council officers have advised the applicant that provision
for a future pedestrian linkage to the west of lots 3 and 4 and east/west through lot 3 and
adjacent covenant area to be included within a public thoroughfare easement. It is the applicant’s
position that these pathways are provided as part of future Development Applications over the
proposed lot and that the refinement of exact locations as well as materiality of finishes, precise
connections with built form and responsibility for ownership and maintenance can be provided by
the relevant developer/landowner and Council at this point. This position is not supported as the
development, construction and ownership of the path network by different property owners raises
a number of practical issues and raises potential conflict with Specific outcome 104 which seeks
for the completion of the pedestrian and bikeway network.
Page 26 of 44
Section 27
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Council officers maintain these aspects of the pedestrian network to be included in a
thoroughfare easement and to occur at this stage of the development when the lot layout is being
considered.
Furthermore the applicant has been requested to identify pedestrian linkages from proposed new
location of the transit facility to the lot which contains the shopping centre. The applicant has not
adequately demonstrated how this would be achieved.
Transit Facility
Specific outcome O104(f) also seeks the construction of an inter-regional transit facility (public
transport node), this is further reinforced through Specific Outcome O154 which identifies that the
inter-regional transit facility be located at the northern section of Precinct E6. This was addressed
with the applicant who has provided concept plans for a transit facility with an area of
approximately 4,800m2 located in an alternate located at the northern section of Precinct E1. It is
recognised that the proposed alternate location is suitable as it located centrally within the site
and therefore enables accessibility to and from the shopping centre and future development
within the site. The proposed location of the transit facility results in the loss of approximately
1,000m2 of an existing environmental covenant area. Although the alternate location for the
transit centre may be appropriate, the proposed plans have been reviewed by Council’s external
traffic consultant who has raised concern that access to the potential transit area has not been
satisfactorily demonstrated. As it is currently proposed, access would occur directly off the
roundabout. Council’s external consultant is not satisfied with the proposed geometry at the
roundabout for both access and egress. Furthermore, it was requested that a separate lot be
provided for the transit facility, however the applicant has not amended the layout to
accommodate this. As such, the proposal does not provide for a suitable unencumbered area for
the transit facility. The proposed alternate location currently sits across an existing covenant
area. Adequate provision for the transit centre would result in an amended lot layout to address
the geometry at the roundabout and change to the covenant area. The following figure details the
proposed transit facility layout.
Figure 13: Transit facility plan
Page 27 of 44
Section 28
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Extent of vegetation removal
The Biodiversity Overlay applies to the site and seeks to ensure development is managed so as
to avoid, or where avoidance is not practicable, minimises or mitigates the impacts on the Shire’s
biodiversity values and natural resources. The proposed development requires the removal of
vegetation to allow for the development of roads and for services to be provided to each lot. The
applicant proposes to remove all vegetation to make the majority of the lots ‘development ready’
for the market. The applicant has provided the following figure with regards to the proposed
vegetation removal.
Figure 14: Details of vegetation removal (provided by applicant)
Areas to be cleared in yellow
The proposed complete clearing of all vegetation significantly limits the capacity for future
development to be consistent with the Noosa Plan which seeks for development of the SBC to
create a ‘park like setting’. It is considered possible for the lots to be made available to the
market with significantly less vegetation removal. The extent of vegetation removal is not
consistent with the outcomes of the Biodiversity Overlay and is not supported.
Lot layout and size
Broadly, the Reconfiguring a Lot code provides for outcomes which seek to enable lot
reconfigurations which facilitate development via suitable lot sizes which are able to contain
required infrastructure and for which appropriate access is provided. In this regard, it is noted that
10 of the proposed 24 lots do not comply with the minimum 4,000m2 size requirement.
When assessing the proposed development it is important to consider whether the layout, lot
sizes and shape enable the lots to be used for their intended purpose and developed in
accordance with the planning scheme requirements including setbacks to enable development
within a parkland setting.
Page 28 of 44
Section 29
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The Specific Outcomes for the Shire Business Centre zone prescribe the consistent and
inconsistent uses for each precinct. The following table summarises the consistent uses for each
of the precincts which have not already been fully developed.
Precinct Proposed lots Consistent Uses
E1 3, 4, 5 and 6 Offices, Medical, Education, Veterinary
E2 17, 18, 19 and 21 Offices, Medical, Education, Veterinary
E6 7, 8 and 9 Offices, Medical, Education, Veterinary, Service
Station, Vehicle Hire
E7 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 Offices, Medical, Education, Veterinary
REC/MU 23, 24 and 25 Childcare, Emergency Service (Station), Outdoor
Sport and Recreation, Place of Worship
B3 2 and 22 Office, Medical, Veterinary, Showroom, Service
station, Vehicle hire, Hardware store, Garden and
Lifestyle Centre
In this regard, it is unclear how the re-configuring of the REC/MU precinct (Lots 23-25), located in
the north-eastern corner of the site, facilitates the on-going use of the precinct for identified
consistent uses. The applicant’s bushfire consultant recommends a setback of at least 20 metres
to the northern boundary and 25 metres to the eastern boundary are required to address bushfire
risk. Council’s consultant bushfire expert considers a 17.9 metre buffer to the northern boundary
and the 25 metre wide easement to the eastern boundary as appropriate bushfire buffers. The
proposed setbacks constrain the developable area of each lot. This constraint is particularly
evident for lot 23 which is accentuated by the irregular shape of the lot and existing 10 metre
wide environmental covenant to the southern boundary.
This results in a developable area of approximately 1800m2 which is further constrained by the
irregular shape of the lot which has a width of approximately 8 metres at the western boundary,
this area is likely to be unsuitable to accommodate development for the intended use.
As discussed earlier in this report, Council’s bushfire expert has stated “Lots 23, 24 and 25 do
not minimise the bushfire hazard to people who might work in those lots nor property within those
lots” and the applicant proposes using building standards as a solution however it is not
considered appropriate to rely on building standards. The design and layout at the
reconfiguration of a lot stage is the appropriate stage to adequately address these risks. The
proposed lot layout is likely to impact on biodiversity values, including Koala habitat trees, in the
adjacent National Park due to increasing the pressure to manage vegetation with the National
Park for bushfire hazard reduction.
Page 29 of 44
Section 30
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The following image details lots 23 -25 and the bushfire buffer to the northern boundary and the
environmental covenant to the southern boundary.
Figure 15: Lots 23 - 25
Furthermore, lots 4 – 6 are all less than 2500m2, which is less than the 4000m2 required by the
planning scheme, and raises concern with regards to their capacity to provide for development
consistent with the planning scheme. In the current planning scheme the consistent uses for
these lots are offices, medical, veterinary and education whilst in the draft scheme these lots are
within the Business Park Precinct for which it is intended that the zone facilitates
commercial office space for businesses and a range of professional services including health and
wellbeing, education, research and technology and knowledge-based industries.
Lot 6 is irregular in shape due to the significant frontage and results in a triangle shaped lot. A 6
metre frontage setback is required for the 1st and 2nd storeys of any new development and
reduces the developable footprint by approximately 350m2. As the lot is only 2,473m2 in area this
reduces the developable area to approximately 2100m2 which is significantly less than the
4000m2 minimum lot size required by the planning scheme. The reduced developable footprint
will impact on future developments capacity to provide for buildings to be within a park like setting
for which it would reasonably be expected that there is some form of building separation with
vegetation maintained and planted in the separation area.
Accordingly, the constraints on the developable areas of lots 6 and 23 results in them being
unsuitable for their intended development purposes and limits the opportunity for development to
occur within a park like setting as required by the Noosa Plan.
Whilst lots 10 – 15 are larger in area a requirement of the applicant’s Bushfire Management Plan
(BMP) is for the rear of lots 12 -15 to be cleared and only used for car parking and access for
bushfire management purposes. This requirement constrains the area of the site able to be
developed with buildings to approximately 2500m2 which is significantly less than the minimum lot
size within the Noosa Plan. Due to these factors it is considered that the developable area of the
lots are constrained and will likely result in buildings being situated towards the front of each
proposed lot which are the narrowest parts of each lot and likely impact on suitable separation
between buildings.
Furthermore, stormwater treatment for the new lots will be addressed at the time of further
development approvals for each lot and will further reduce the development footprint of the lots.
Page 30 of 44
Section 31
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
It is noted that the draft planning scheme proposes minimum lot sizes of 400m2 for the Major
centre zone and 1000m2 lot sizes for the Innovation Zone, lots 10 - 15 are situated in the
Innovation Zone. Further subdivision of the proposed lots is likely to result in additional access
arrangements to the proposed lots noting that there are currently outstanding issues associated
with the proposed access to lots off Hofmann Drive. These issues could be further compounded
if existing access arrangements, which in some circumstances are not suitable, are indeed to
service additional lots in the future.
Acoustic fence
Lots 17 – 19 are situated within close proximity to the existing loading dock at Noosa Civic.
Under the current planning scheme an Ancillary dwelling unit is a consistent use whilst the Draft
Framework and Character Plan within the draft planning scheme identifies the site for High
Density Residential. The loading dock has the potential for adverse impacts on the amenity of
any future residential use of these lots, including private open space, and accordingly this issue
was raised with the applicant and that an acoustic fence should be provided as part of this
application. An overall outcome of the Noosaville Locality code seeks for the resident population
to be accommodated in both detached housing and multiple housing forms with high levels of
residential amenity. It is the applicant’s position that acoustic treatment should be addressed as
part of future development applications of these lots. The applicant’s position is not supported as
similar to the pedestrian linkage raised earlier in this report the development, construction and
ownership of the acoustic fence by different property owners raises a number of practical issues.
Stormwater quality
The application has been accompanied by a stormwater management plan which addresses
stormwater runoff on the proposed roads. Assessment of stormwater quality and quantity will
also be undertaken for each lot at the time an application is submitted for development on those
lots specific to each development and site.
The proposed stormwater treatment however for the whole site involves bio-retention basins and
tree pits within the road reserve. The proposal has been reviewed by council’s external
consultant who has noted that there are however a number of issues with the engineering
drawings. Two bio-retention basins are shown within the existing vegetation covenant area, this
is not acceptable as clearing will be required and is contrary to the intent of the covenant. One
bio-retention basin is shown in the existing easement south of Hoffman Drive. While this may be
consistent with the easement purpose, it will likely require additional clearing and alternative
options should be considered. No stormwater stub is shown to service proposed Lot 7, two stub
connections will be required (one north, one south) due to the topography. The effect of showing
the stubs is significant. The northern bio-retention basin is end-of-line (i.e. receives flows from a
stormwater pipe). Lot 7 will flow to this basin via the pipe network and will significantly affect the
basin performance contrary to the way it has been modelled. Furthermore, there are several
areas of road with no treatment which has not been reflected in the modelling provided by the
applicant.
As the applicant has not adequately demonstrated how stormwater management will be
managed the proposal has not demonstrated compliance with the relevant provisions within the
Water Sensitive Design Code and the Reconfiguring a Lot Code
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The draft Noosa Plan differs from the existing planning scheme as it introduces new zoning and a
Framework and Character Plan. The site is currently zoned Shire Business Centre Zone and
Open Space Conservation. Under the draft planning scheme it is proposed that the site be
comprised of the following zones:
Major Centre;
Community Facilities;
Recreation and Open Space ;
Page 31 of 44
Section 32
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Innovation; and
Environmental Management and Conservation
The existing and proposed zoning are detailed in the figure below:
Figure 16: Existing zoning and proposed zoning of draft planning scheme
Page 32 of 44
Section 33
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
A Business Park precinct has been applied to the site which allocates sub precincts throughout
the site. Furthermore, a Framework and Character Plan has been developed which supersedes
the Shire Business Centre Map and provides a framework for the development of the site. The
extent of the Biodiversity Overlay and Bushfire Overlay is generally consistent with the current
planning scheme with respect to the undeveloped areas of the site noting that the Biodiversity
Overlay has been removed from the developed parts of the site.
Figure 17: Draft Framework and Character Plan
The provisions within the draft planning scheme align with the Framework and Character Plan
and provide overall outcomes which differ from the current planning scheme insofar as they
envisage development of a main street environment with mixed use development and a diversity
of housing options.
The proposed reconfiguration layout is generally consistent with the draft Framework and
Character Plan and will not compromise how the preferred land uses can be delivered in
accordance with the plan. Notwithstanding, concerns remain regarding the proposals compliance
with some of the performance outcomes within the scheme in regards to lot layout, bushfire
management, the development of new roads and vehicle access, vegetation removal and the
provision of a transit facility and pedestrian and bicycle links
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following Referral Agencies:
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (SARA)
Energex (Advice)
Page 33 of 44
Section 34
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
The Department is a referral agency for Development impacting on state transport infrastructure
and has responded advising that they have no requirements.
5.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Environment Officer (Ecology)
Coordinator Development Engineering
Strategic Planning
Asset Infrastructure
The application was also assessed by external consultants for bushfire, traffic and water
quality/quantity.
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The application proposes to reconfigure the SBC from 1 lot into 24 lots and involves the
extension of Hofmann Drive to Walter Hay Drive and the development of 2 private roads. The
reconfiguration is generally contained to the undeveloped parts of the site with the exception of 2
lots proposed adjacent to the perimeter of the showrooms situated on the existing internal road.
The layout of the proposal generally aligns with the existing Shire Business Centre precinct map.
Reconfiguration of the site will allow for the development potential of the land to be realised,
providing for the creation of new employment opportunities within the Shire.
An Infrastructure Agreement was entered into in 2003 and restricts Council’s capacity to include
conditions for further contributions provided the development is not of an intensity greater than
MP2. Since the time that the agreement was entered into the State Government have introduced
new assessment benchmarks to avoid and offset significant impacts to koala habitat. As a
consequence of the Infrastructure Agreement the proposal is unable to comply with these
benchmarks.
Aspects of the proposals non-compliance with the planning scheme relate to the Overall and
Specific outcomes of the Noosaville Locality Code, koala habitat, bushfire management, vehicle
access, provision of a transit facility, pedestrian/bicycle linkages, extent of vegetation removal
and insufficient lot sizes. It is not suitable to condition compliance with these matters as it would
transform the form of the development and the applicant has expressed that they are not
agreeable with the position that council officers has taken on these issues. Furthermore, the
applicant has not adequately demonstrated stormwater management strategies that are
consistent with the Water Sensitive Design Code and Reconfiguring a Lot Code
Due to the non-compliance with the state assessment benchmarks and the concerns raised
above it is recommended that the application be refused.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development x Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning x Infrastructure Planning,
X
Design and Delivery
Page 34 of 44
Section 35
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Page 35 of 44
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
rn : : ~ ATTACHMENT 1
tam aterena manta SURVEY PLAN Pegplaced at alaew corners. unless El
z x Shee’
otherwise stated,
Original information compiled from SP222982,
SP182880 & SP182878 in the Department of
£nvironment and Resource Management.
CovAA
L£mt6 fmt.ge $P222982 COV Y
N wettiay TO Pe e
CP j KS, / Bh
" Y EgSa, <
i %, SB ife Le
Emi. on SUP 0375 1 IN : ete,
RP230888 ° ett Emt 8D “oP C5 S oh.
EMS. pp 3 1 | s167964 Ey A ° i Sy pod
#P230886°"..," 50688 | i874 By Noy Sears a
tna “oe ye’ 8 4 $1, FN is 2 ae
SPro4g2, 252 t ! ory Q ky 5 SSNXeo. oN, émt. Ww
a 16 SO BLS Des. Sh cere NPWBE9
“von, SPl0425 9 If SPZ229B2 Wye oP S53 Bo 29 eee pp 844425
COMED eRe TY ee 6 cent x Ra EV ONO SY a
SPi04, oy : MU gk SSR 6 es
287 Oe wie, Poggi oo, Q b ~ BES SS zi betes Km bE
VS Swe Ay to ges od Se SWRES, ae l
® es fae BPI? Poco PR RSS ey x8. & SPI67978 is
& PA OE ie :
e OSS SRR UF RRND, ig
Ho | [Ss Yom ith : oe So Ly yX
\ g| / ay TO 5, mee Sq a Q i g
wl { Si ; ~\ 8 EmtP SSS SO / ig
ON wHene a ~ d b .
w& x 1 [ear f tis! SP182880 Rat p XY Ly IQ
Ws «| yo h =" i, EmtQ Lease H Bo 4 wea R 1 I
256 wa wo__ 7 |S3 i SP 182880 No, 710981233 \ , 8]
MCH4. ez, &% i) a mH Covl y !
$39 yg —HGS Ff) BPH cov \ oe
2 He ‘s a el” fs 3 SPI82845 ) 0
Wire gH LOY ABN. Ny 57182848 —a : he geomet eoanibent VI fe
VRP ’sP22cq¢o \ oR S ONE 57182880)
fmta ioiege) a. 3 _ yp 2 ; : 3173 vo Soy wt be om |]: >
27. A Abe 73h D> —
"96940 rere ea} VIDE DIAGS His 9 Emt'n sf Ngee oll > g
CP wwe TI Vx SHEETS pnorns oe oo eg Th Ne %
SP184294 i xs ; ea SP192396 2 wf 07 ai ake X
ee Er a LS MO SHEETS KO c Lat < SE
iy | 2 TR te Se Covad : oP Sh IRS
5P222982 | OK Nas 262962 / L 8 NS
ema’ ead E || 2?
Zz RP215933 a O, a SP 182845 fs :
Pi AN ook se / 2) SBS |
s SP222982 b f
Le nd eget 2a i BRR YS
1, Sp282983 Fy Fa Ly aeavess Bing Ye, ee. 33, [s 5 | ‘
i ! P # » BQ ° ye
apg ff eaeRe ae a oY
RP2I933 Fag Ss “Bo, 49, sd mares
Emt E. ve fRIS me ROG ;
SP222983 dale liga lil O%.. ph : .
&I~ ea O35. a f° Ney z |
~ sl r 3 oe, ee 4 Bee x
xe Bt Soo, *ecseaND Se 2
g| ANa =s So 0, p 23755» / RP 160983
| “Np Covl “wh, "ea Pit 9? ~
ON i 69 O%., 2370 <2,Prig QO}.
so. P spezets of 246037 O59 & <
5 Ses ms f ne Siig 3 oF Orie : -Y
402% 607% ~~ 9, "wn 20a % G9 | S
vee Py Sie FYE, CE AS © o gy
“955% apy [eS Fa
OS SV
3
SP182845 3
Total Area_of New Road paerse
229 m2
BENNETT & FRANCIS PTY LTD (ACN 053 307 172) hereby certify
that the lond comprised in this plan wos surveyed by the 200 m 400 m 600m
corporation, by Benjomin John OAWES, surveying ossociate, for 0 50jmen 100 |mm 150 [mm State copyright reserved.
Supervision of lanes Paterson Mekenaie WORRELL, codestrl
Borvavor:cord thot the plon ja eet ural, #rok nel Sike aurvey Wu Plan of Lo ts J; 4 and Co venan £ Y ae 1:4000
performed in accordance with the Survey and Mapping ; ‘
Infrastructure Act 2003 ond Surveyors Act 2003 ond associated Format: STANDARD
BENNETT ito Cancelling Lot 20 on SP222982 Baal
Regulations and Stondords ond that ¢
completed on 18/7/2011,
j oe
Pry tio. need SP246584
069307 172,4 PARISH: TE WANTIN COUNTY: March Pion Stolun
f + Director
Na <r" dots 2O- ¥- Zo | weridion: H.G.A. (Zone 56) vide SP222982
Page 35 of 44Section 36
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 36 of 44
Sheet ”
Pi |'s | m
m
‘ seat O
ao ABN 49 446 453 598 >
gm 8 S 8/8 R95 <<a rc
% &
XQ RA RH] NS =
amd st GC fm SFE“ Bw
sys en RE; 2 NES a 4 Mm
RS 8 > 4 RM srreer “ : m
eme sw Bm eg > ln |S a
m,, “en, Sz R HOF M4 > |S i >
sua a3 GX RG coe PORCH POOLEY ID o =
a 8 8 CO a4 = So oS IO 5
\ &9 § 2 SSS ‘a r+ 19
\ \? > , Om A FSS Pron Wy 3 ND >
en ASAE Whe es] eR gS . 5
am N QS J eV IS8O 83 // % \
Emtc SQ sO Sso S % & m
= & 2 U./ i g JPSRS 8ST el KB BaA ]
#215935 eS a 6, [2 BS 32% BO VW RE 2 g g =
ess dX, & 9 K-Q0T ay ass 9 yoy
8 —— Re LS PL ™ Lae [R a ON Oo
& © we 7 229. —— SA sf. fe e/§ PT, Ve & ~ ry lw >
Si. ao Ce =~ VK 4 Mk ff oi si FQ BB prProgde US My sts
oS = Se sg - a f S WY UE s ¥ DNs SS >
Lig Po NAP 8S seep NS So &
, Fy bs od O Vi 3 J slot
% PE VD Nola oN. & $2 83 85 j tS BL
& % bo! S| d Sz QV 1S fg * S
yo & Q_# IS J O O° m oS / / G S
PI S/SET ER? 2 ae SWI] £9 5
N 9 nN nm & IS ef J _& rs / / 0) » SF
> Q d oN ond Ny : 7 26 4 6
Ley WEST BE ES, % SHS] $8 .
hy, A Le 3 a \ CS BPAY fle’ *® gh e
MM S650 am Pp e NN = > ¢ fy 1 acseene Dr ae
%, = Sod % : <' Q Sy fF /, / ?)
7 aN ey & ne 6, > HSE aon a
i a a a eS fly p sds SL p
4 : prr, Y gy M/, 1p 33m “| a
4 ard op ory & > ee Uy 7 sam o
s £ “>T? Os Q P i iS i 2m el
© ef 3 “p oo ; i f hs PAB rere ® Y BP
w i =: 4 fj AN
u x : \ 7B orto, HK /\ / = ®
Rw s 2 . ee ee S/ gS ald
a N aS nny Sy 3 p00=0 SS o-Lo
& vy Om o,f 3 S| a
a A 4 S y t j =
wy NS ane 1 ROA Fh \B
u q\
os o \ p p d °o &
Sale aS eS io 7 ind [® g
—-, oO RP 177. 100-9 ° 2S : a MIL 1X 8S
—~— ee GOB] Fa
ey ORT Y, =” S23 RP NW (ks |
ee (E- 3 Im IQ f> 8
‘ a ‘5 8S KB 3
Farisp ae — Lmip~ ——_ ID
3 2 qo Fee
8 MN & N of 6 eh : —/ = ~ no
® 8 L *, ~ ~” ©
: 8 yo 8B BS >
eyba So © + oO
3° — QO
S = > —|
© Client PROPOSED SUBDIVISION of 2 o
o ; Lots I-19, 2I-25, Easements in Lots |, :
wo ee land are Stockwell Development 3, 22-25 and Covenants in Lots 2, Bennett & Francis Pty. Ltd. 78 —«L7B__‘|Appyoyed Dete | = m
a Indicative lot layout compiled from design Group Pty Ltd 7—II, 13-15 & 23-25 Goocha tam eoae Computing, File 93438949 SS 25/09/19 | MM a
ompie . yu ing, 5 ing, = J 1 .
° files and is subject to survey. Project Cancelling Lot 3 on SP246584, ACN. 053 307 172 SCALE = nN
z Contour Information cormeled yids ae 100 Ipswich Roos, | ™ I: 4000 a | °
a zi i HI \
z Bennett & Francis plan 032310. Noosa Civic, Noosaville Gountyof itor Nedlernictoa a ice, PLAN REFERENCE N ©o
Local Authority: Noosa Shire. nfipiy/ /werw.bisurveys:com:ou 034389.51Section 37
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Page 37 of 44
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
je log Scale 1:2000 — Lengths are in Metres. o
283 Goutal fp dd
ars 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 =
3M] sss P
sR 8. 3g ce upd
se ff DIAGRAM A fr ro
we BQ 88 SP uw Scale 1:2000 Up Q
Be FF ON T02 ae! j "h
ebay “peien KY \'
3346/45" 93 SNS 0508 | {Nd 2
12428 “ "XP al° 0 WN 7.905 % \ j b
g°51'35" sna f Pa. 192°20°05" R 2
12-535 4 9920 m2 "8 566 Cov.J/ \ SPAS
smh P04, 209°18'39" SPI82845 y 1658m2) p
hy Mn, att 18-594 i 1
Pe gs SK LY \ be Lo CEMT Ad
oe Se, /s 1 ZOD 4888 m2
sf 45. g ea
oye 3147 mes a. : / | Wot
Soo | oh | > : i
wg Re FB O 4 SING 3A0'35" Pp 9 ~ oat
on PON is 17 PR, 2194015 6 58 0
$40 QV 324328 ne Q p w
VY ee ° ie 20604 No AY ro “|
N s es r 5.53 45+ &
On Bo KV SAIMY Covs™ rT 1 ,
te 88 af Se Peas
TF ° Sh AM I ;
£ Sev ff 080
t ‘oo i d %, W585,
Poe fF WK, eS
Bs FP Bs ee Ns
Ss Pes 9 VBS ] % :
& 8 38 Ses Proposed
° aa _ p 6 Covenant AE
/ 7 3260 m2
% Cov.J / e908 7a <
Be SPIE2B45 | S
CP ae i 3 /
SP285856 ce GB j EMT AR o |
R 6508 mf
>
5 Bme2 Ty 4 L- /
PETOIed esses by b 0
proposed | Si Q 6 & A” p
Moceiaet ~ \ 2473 mayo ff soil
m Q Q Fo og
| % § 4 COO, ofr Proposed
| 4 Q ¢ B oreth se Covenant AD
| 005m2\, a J y 10 Q Covenant AC m
1 9 J f Proposed 389 m2
led \ Agee AX aro me
. x dy f/f q 485 m2
& / ? oo Proposed
| & 7 X “ l | al "Covenant AB
Proposed 732 m2
Covenant AN 4999 m2 O DIAGRAM B
1561 m2 4 LSP Scale 1:2000
35 ? ° o / oe
sp222982 Proposed 7972 m2 j P Proposed
Covenant AK Covenant AA
1624 m2 “a. / 4 998 m? a
Cov.L & Boundaries of the subject land are
a 4 Vv compiled from 1S274197.
Indicative lot layout compiled from design
SP152Z845 ¥ files and is subject to survey.
Contour Information compiled from
Bennett & Francis plan 032310.09
3 cf Contour Interval = 0-5m
SPI82845
Page 37 of 44Section 38
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Page 38 of 44
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
: in
ig Proposed EMT BE o
358 Emt.W Covenant BA 479 m2 ©
sss EMT BI s%e+#425 — 1822.m2 Proposed : o
% SBe 33 m2 : Ce tBB i ts
Pies 594 me Tigre | EMT BF fo
OMI men Ree EMT BG
np bb I LT ep eee GF L816 m2
SS of eh Sr Ho a
Emt.£ Bee ee Lo Py ae PI J
oor IRIS 19 Fay [aie Pa — FF covenant BC
DIAGRAM C proposed ~~ 23/8 > 24 Ra py ome
Scale 1:2000 6079 m2 |X ‘ capeEmt D
Covenant AH “"""" x
N 1286 m2 é Sif 3 2 5 4 RPI77294
NX | 1497 ho| | sg, SN oe
‘S I EMT BH
: Y 64 m2?
Way Proposed 2 | ve
7% Covenant AG |
a 835 m oy
P 2 /47
Fy Proposed. = wae
Oo Covenant AF J | e
- 690 m2 | -
“a
ws " 10
%
%
Pleas DIAGRAM D
eo s Scale 1:1000
on Ay.
FT) g "Coy. | Cc,
> oN P spiecees Pee
x “N & 5m? A-
Q | ty, Fo,
3 4 se vy IO
d 10
ff 2]
2
8 EMT BH ~
® / 825 m2
Emt Sun ©
Pa 0
| pence. of fiery a land are
oo” j SS Y > >0 inientiee lot layout compiled from design
C mpiled from §
EMT AN Z Bang files and is subject to survey.
A Se Contour Information compiled from
249 m2 J Pas < Bennett & Francis plan 032310.09
e g ae Soe Contour Interval = Im
See
oe
Page 38 of 44Section 39
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
2 PROCUREMENT AND FLEET BRANCH RESTRUCTURE AND POSITION
ESTABLISHMENT
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Director Corporate Services, Michael Shave
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ 53.32 Organisation Structures, Staff Management
Attachments 1. Corporate Services Existing Structure
2. Corporate Services Proposed Structure
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Special Meeting dated 28
October 2019 and approve the new Corporate Services Department structure provided in
Attachment 2 to the report.
REPORT
Since de-amalgamation, the Procurement and Fleet functions have operated under a single
Council branch. This structure was adopted as the current Manager had the necessary skills and
experience across both disciplines to allow the management of the two separate functions under
the one branch, which has proved to be highly successful. The current branch structure is
provided in the figure below.
The Manager’s impending resignation (in December 2019) has triggered a rapid workforce
planning exercise to consider the most appropriate structure for these functions moving forward,
acknowledging the unique nature of the skill-set of the incumbent. This has included identifying
that Council’s Fleet operation represents a significant investment (annual operating expenditure
$2.7m, annual capital expenditure $1-2m) and its ongoing strategy and development plays a key
role in delivering effective and efficient services to the organisation and ultimately the community
through Council service delivery.
Page 39 of 44
Section 40
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Additionally, the continued development of Council’s Procurement function is critical in
maintaining ongoing compliance, probity, transparency and value for money across Council’s
procurement of goods and services.
As such, the People and Culture branch were engaged to undertake a rapid workforce planning
exercise for Procurement and Fleet that resulted in the development of a number of structural
options (including opportunities and risks) which were presented to the Executive Team for
discussion. The three options considered included:
1. Separation of Procurement and Fleet into two distinct branches with separate managers.
2. Maintaining the current branch current structure with the addition of a specialist Fleet Co-
ordinator position.
3. Maintaining the current branch current structure.
All three options also included an additional Procurement Officer resource which has been
previously endorsed by the Executive Team to address workload pressures within the
Procurement team.
The recommended structural option moving forward was Option 1 – the separation of the
Procurement and Fleet branch into two distinct branches with separate managers as per the
figure below.
The opportunities regarding this new structure include:
Provides two distinct branches under Corporate Services with appropriate resourcing to
deliver both operational and strategic outcomes.
Provides a dedicated management resource for both branches to focus on the strategic
development and delivery of respective Fleet and Procurement functions across Council.
Provides a dedicated management resource for both branches to focus on internal
engagement and stakeholder management in the delivery of services.
Enables the Director to shape strategy individually for each branch and assign responsibility
of an achievable workload and deliverables to each manager i.e. increased accountability.
Provides a clear chain of responsibility and structure for the organisation including clarity for
Fleet and Procurement staff and internal and external customers.
Page 40 of 44
Section 41
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Provides both branches increased opportunity to focus on key strategic initiatives i.e. electric
vehicles, GPS, fleet performance reporting, cooperative procurement contracts/
arrangements, local supplier engagement, systems development.
Will allow the Fleet Manager to be location based at the Noosaville Depot to ensure day to
day support for the fleet branch which will improve branch culture.
Previous Council Consideration
Special Meeting Minutes, 28 June 2019, Item 6, Page 10
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Special Meeting dated 28 June
2019 and adopt the Noosa Council Organisational Structure as set out in Attachment 1 to the
report.
Finance
The proposed structure identifies the need for two additional full time equivalent positions in the
Council structure. The new Procurement Officer role can be funded via the capital budget
through procurement costing their time to capital projects. The additional Fleet Manager salary
incurred during 2019/20 would be absorbed in the fleet operating budget through to June 2020.
Ongoing employee costs for the Fleet Manager position would be incorporated into the fleet
costing and charging model and recovered through hire charges (noting however that the cost
would still likely have some impact on Council’s operating position and decision making as part of
2020/21 budget development).
Risks & Opportunities
A number of risks relating to the resignation of the Procurement & Fleet Manager were identified
as part of the workforce planning exercise, in particular relating to retaining the status quo. These
risks included:
Inability to recruit a new Manager with the required skills needed across both functions,
requiring the Director to provide additional direct operational and strategic support.
Strategic deliverables not able to be achieved across both functions.
Likelihood of increased level of service complaints across both Fleet and Procurement
functions due to resourcing levels.
Inability to progress current Fleet/Procurement initiatives in train i.e. cooperative procurement
arrangements, system enhancements, promoting vendor panel opportunities.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
People and Culture Advisor.
Executive Team.
Procurement and Fleet Branch.
Page 41 of 44
Section 42
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 28 OCTOBER 2019
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer x Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer x Director x Director
Executive Support Community Development x Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries x Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development x Infrastructure Services
x Director x Director x Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
x People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 42 of 44
Section 43
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 43 of 44
ATTACHMENT 1
Corporate Services
DIRECTOR Administrative
CORPORATE SERVICES Support
LEFT 0.6 EFT
Property Financial Services Revenue Services ICT Procurement & Fleet
ee 9 EFT 6.5 EFT 12.5 EFT 6 EFT
Note — Fixed term appointments approved by Council are not included within the EFT totals as shown on this structure.
Further details are available on the individual branch/team structures. Total EFT: 41.6
Page 43 of 44Section 44
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 44 of 44
P ATTACHMENT 2
Corporate Services
jl DIRECTOR | Administrative
CORPORATE SERVICES Support
NM 1 EFT y nee y,
Property Financial Services Revenue Services ICT | Procurement Fleet
(incl. pa one 9 EFT 6.5 EFT 12.5 EFT 4EFT 4 EFT
SY SS We SS
Note — Fixed term appointments approved by Council are not included within the EFT totals as shown on this structure.
Further details are available on the individual branch/team structures. Total EFT: 43.6
Page 44 of 44