General Committee Report - 13 November 2023

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that Cr Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that there is no personal relationship with the applicant and Cr Lorentson will not be positively or negatively impacted by the decision so a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0118 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation, situated at 94 & 142 Noosa Dr, Noosa Heads and:

A.    Refuse the application for the following reasons:

1.   The proposed development has failed to demonstrate a significant planning need to develop outside of Noosa Plan 2020's urban boundary, particularly at the density and height proposed and is inconsistent with the local landscape character. No overriding community benefit been demonstrated, which would justify approval despite its conflict with the planning scheme. 

2.    Valid planning grounds have been raised by submitters that the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on the biodiversity of the locality. Further, the development exceeds what a community member could reasonably expect to be developed outside of the Urban Boundary and within the Environmental Management and Conservation Zone. 

3.    The proposed development of the subject land is inappropriate, in circumstances where:

(a)    The proposed development seeks to expand the existing resort complex in circumstances where part of that land is located outside of the urban boundary in Noosa Plan 2020;

(b)    The proponent seeks to utilise the land for Short-term accommodation, which is an inconsistent use in the Environmental Management and Conservation zone; 

(c)    The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the land at the expense of the natural values of the land, as the proposal would result in unacceptable clearing of vegetation in an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive area, including proposed development located on mapped Areas of Biodiversity Significance, Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) Environmental Values and Riparian Buffer Area under the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay and mapped Core Koala Habitat area;

(d)    The stormwater treatment proposed is not of a sufficient size to achieve the water quality objectives and protection of biodiversity areas required under the Water Quality and Drainage Code.

(e)    The built form of the proposed development is unacceptable, being slightly over height in metres in the Tourist Accommodation zone and substantially over height in metres and storeys in the Environmental Management and Conservation zone.

In respect of the above, the proposed development is inconsistent with the following provisions of Noosa Plan 2020: 

(i)    Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p);

(ii)    Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO6 and PO11;

(iii)    Water Quality and Drainage Code – 9.4.82(2)(a) and (b) and Table 9.4.8.3 PO6;

(iv)    Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – Overall Outcomes (2)(b)(d)(e) and (ad) and Table 7.2.5.3 PO4, PO5, PO6 and PO26;

(v)    Environmental Management and Conservation Zone Code – Overall Outcomes (2)(a) and (b), Table 6.7.1.3 PO1, PO5, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO11 and PO13;

(vi)   Tourist Accommodation Zone Code - Table 6.3.4.3 PO9 and PO10.

4.    When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (SEQRP) does not lend support to the proposed use of the land, as: 

4.1.    the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for the region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of urban development occurring within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the planning for which is implemented through local government planning schemes; 

4.2.    the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply that all that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and

4.3.    when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not suitable for urban development.

5.    The following relevant matters support refusal:

5.1.    The proposed development will involve an unacceptable loss of vegetation in a locality which is an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive and serves as an important ecological linkage,

5.2.    There is no planning, economic or community need for the proposed development on the subject land.

5.3.    Approval of the proposed development would not be in the public interest as reflected in the provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 referred to in these reasons for refusal.

B.    That the CEO be requested to review the zone and urban boundaries as part of a future review of the Planning Scheme; and

C.    Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Application No. MCU21/0194.01 for an other change to a Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Roadside Stall) to include a Food and Drink Outlet, situated at 201 Mary River Rd, Cooroy and:

A.    App

rove, in part, only (with amended Condition 2) and part refusal.

B.    Approve the change to Condition 2 as outlined in Attachment 1.

C.    Refuse the Food and Drink Outlet component of the application for the following reasons:

1.    This element of the proposal does not advance the elements and strategies of the South East Queensland Regional Plan as it does not value add to the site’s on-farm agricultural activities.

2.    This element of the proposal is contrary to the Intent and Outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Section 3.3.1 (e) and Section 3.3.5 (h), (v) and (w) as:

       a)    The proposal is not a rural activity or a rural enterprise and such uses are intended to be located in business centres to contribute to their vibrancy.

       b)    The proposal does not value add to the site’s rural activities, would be the primary use on the site and is in no way ancillary to the approved roadside stall.

       c)    The proposal predominantly caters to passing trade, largely locals in the area, and has only a limited tourism focus.

3.    This element of the proposal is not consistent with overall outcomes (b), (i) and performance outcomes PO1, PO4 and PO8 of the Local Plan Code for Cooroy as:

       a)    The proposed use is located outside the urban boundary and the Cooroy town centre.

       b)    The proposed use will adversely interrupt the landscape character and visual amenity of Mary River Road, being very different to uses envisaged in rural areas of the Shire.

4.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a) & (l) and performance outcomes PO1, PO5 & PO13 of the Rural Zone Code as:

      a)    The proposal is not a rural activity, it is an urban activity, and will not value add to goods produced on site.

      b)    The proposal does not have an indelible connection to the rural or ecological values of the site and is more appropriately located in an urban area.

      c)    There is no overriding community benefit for the food and drink outlet to be located on the site, with no particular circumstances relevant that warrant the proposal.

      d)    The proposal will detract from the scenic amenity of Mary River Road being part of the major road network for the Shire.

5.    This element of the proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO1, PO2, PO3, PO11, PO12, PO13 of the Business Activities Code as:

     a)    The proposal is a type of business activity that is at odds and is not compatible with the purpose of the site’s rural zoning.

     b)    The proposal seeks to locate a business activity outside the business centres shown in the Noosa Shire Centres Hierarchy.

     c)    The proposed food and drink outlet is a use that is not typically expected to be found in the rural areas of the Shire.

    d)   The proposal is adversely impacting the amenity of nearby residents, with its early and week-end operating hours, uncoordinated and uncontrolled carparking on the road reserve and coffee shop customers coming and going from the site.

6.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcome (b) and performance outcome PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code and overall outcome (e) and performance outcome PO16 of the Business Activities Code as the proposed on-site car parking is insufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles generated by the development.

D.    Refuse to amend Condition 4 of the development approval for the following reason:

7.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the requested change includes the sale of food and beverages that are not ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site.

E.    Refuse to delete Conditions 5 and 7 of the development approval for the following reasons:

8.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the request to delete these conditions relates to the proposal for a food and drink outlet to operate from the site which is not supported. Any provision for the tasting of foods and beverages proposed to be produced on site would not be ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site. 

F.     Advise the applicant that the food and drink outlet must cease operating from the site within 24 months of the date of Council’s decision, with any unapproved structures removed.

G.   Advise the applicant that the roasting of coffee beans on site must cease within 24 months of the date of Council’s decision, and to lodge a subsequent code assessable development application for a Material Change of Use – Home-based Business (coffee roasting).

H.    Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

I.     Authorise the CEO to work with the applicant to find an appropriate location for the food and drink outlet/bus. 

Lost.

That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Application No. MCU21/0194.01 for an other change to a Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Roadside Stall) to include a Food and Drink Outlet, situated at 201 Mary River Rd, Cooroy and:

A.    Approve, in part, only (with amended Condition 2) and part refusal.

B.    Approve the change to Condition 2 as outlined in Attachment 1.

C.    Refuse the Food and Drink Outlet component of the application for the following reasons:

1.    This element of the proposal does not advance the elements and strategies of the South East Queensland Regional Plan as it does not value add to the site’s on-farm agricultural activities.

2.    This element of the proposal is contrary to the Intent and Outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Section 3.3.1 (e) and Section 3.3.5 (h), (v) and (w) as:

a)    The proposal is not a rural activity or a rural enterprise and such uses are intended to be located in business centres to contribute to their vibrancy.

b)    The proposal does not value add to the site’s rural activities, would be the primary use on the site and is in no way ancillary to the approved roadside stall.

c)    The proposal predominantly caters to passing trade, largely locals in the area, and has only a limited tourism focus.

3.    This element of the proposal is not consistent with overall outcomes (b), (i) and performance outcomes PO1, PO4 and PO8 of the Local Plan Code for Cooroy as:

a)    The proposed use is located outside the urban boundary and the Cooroy town centre.

b)    The proposed use will adversely interrupt the landscape character and visual amenity of Mary River Road, being very different to uses envisaged in rural areas of the Shire.

4.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a) & (l) and performance outcomes PO1, PO5 & PO13 of the Rural Zone Code as:

a)    The proposal is not a rural activity, it is an urban activity, and will not value add to goods produced on site.

b)    The proposal does not have an indelible connection to the rural or ecological values of the site and is more appropriately located in an urban area.

c)    There is no overriding community benefit for the food and drink outlet to be located on the site, with no particular circumstances relevant that warrant the proposal.

d)    The proposal will detract from the scenic amenity of Mary River Road being part of the major road network for the Shire.

5.    This element of the proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO1, PO2, PO3, PO11, PO12, PO13 of the Business Activities Code as:

a)    The proposal is a type of business activity that is at odds and is not compatible with the purpose of the site’s rural zoning.

b)    The proposal seeks to locate a business activity outside the business centres shown in the Noosa Shire Centres Hierarchy.

c)    The proposed food and drink outlet is a use that is not typically expected to be found in the rural areas of the Shire.

d)   The proposal is adversely impacting the amenity of nearby residents, with its early and week-end operating hours, uncoordinated and uncontrolled carparking on the road reserve and coffee shop customers coming and going from the site.

6.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcome (b) and performance outcome PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code and overall outcome (e) and performance outcome PO16 of the Business Activities Code as the proposed on-site car parking is insufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles generated by the development.

D.    Refuse to amend Condition 4 of the development approval for the following reason:

7.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the requested change includes the sale of food and beverages that are not ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site.

E.    Refuse to delete Conditions 5 and 7 of the development approval for the following reasons:

8.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the request to delete these conditions relates to the proposal for a food and drink outlet to operate from the site which is not supported. Any provision for the tasting of foods and beverages proposed to be produced on site would not be ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site. 

F.   Advise the applicant that the food and drink outlet must cease operating from the site within 3 months of the date of Council’s decision, with any unapproved structures removed.

G.    Advise the applicant that the roasting of coffee beans on site must cease within 3 months of the date of Council’s decision, and to lodge a subsequent code assessable development application for a Material Change of Use – Home-based Business (coffee roasting).

H.    Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

I.     Authorise the CEO to work with the applicant to find an appropriate location for the food and drink outlet/bus.

J.   That Council request the CEO to expedite an investigation into the feasibility of the provision of a mobile coffee trader or similar at suitable locations in the Hinterland which may include sites such as the Noosa Botanic Gardens and Hinterland Adventure Playground.  

That Item K be added to read:

K. Request the CEO to investigate extending the 60km per hour speed limit on Mary River Road to Lawnville Road to enhance the safety of vehicle interactions in this location associated with the transfer station and truck movements.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Application No. MCU21/0194.01 for an other change to a Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Roadside Stall) to include a Food and Drink Outlet, situated at 201 Mary River Rd, Cooroy and:

A.    Approve, in part, only (with amended Condition 2) and part refusal.

B.    Approve the change to Condition 2 as outlined in Attachment 1.

C.    Refuse the Food and Drink Outlet component of the application for the following reasons:

1.    This element of the proposal does not advance the elements and strategies of the South East Queensland Regional Plan as it does not value add to the site’s on-farm agricultural activities.

2.    This element of the proposal is contrary to the Intent and Outcomes of the Strategic Framework, Section 3.3.1 (e) and Section 3.3.5 (h), (v) and (w) as:

a)    The proposal is not a rural activity or a rural enterprise and such uses are intended to be located in business centres to contribute to their vibrancy.

b)    The proposal does not value add to the site’s rural activities, would be the primary use on the site and is in no way ancillary to the approved roadside stall.

c)    The proposal predominantly caters to passing trade, largely locals in the area, and has only a limited tourism focus.

3.    This element of the proposal is not consistent with overall outcomes (b), (i) and performance outcomes PO1, PO4 and PO8 of the Local Plan Code for Cooroy as:

a)    The proposed use is located outside the urban boundary and the Cooroy town centre.

b)    The proposed use will adversely interrupt the landscape character and visual amenity of Mary River Road, being very different to uses envisaged in rural areas of the Shire.

4.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a) & (l) and performance outcomes PO1, PO5 & PO13 of the Rural Zone Code as:

a)    The proposal is not a rural activity, it is an urban activity, and will not value add to goods produced on site.

b)    The proposal does not have an indelible connection to the rural or ecological values of the site and is more appropriately located in an urban area.

c)    There is no overriding community benefit for the food and drink outlet to be located on the site, with no particular circumstances relevant that warrant the proposal.

d)    The proposal will detract from the scenic amenity of Mary River Road being part of the major road network for the Shire.

5.    This element of the proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO1, PO2, PO3, PO11, PO12, PO13 of the Business Activities Code as:

a)    The proposal is a type of business activity that is at odds and is not compatible with the purpose of the site’s rural zoning.

b)    The proposal seeks to locate a business activity outside the business centres shown in the Noosa Shire Centres Hierarchy.

c)    The proposed food and drink outlet is a use that is not typically expected to be found in the rural areas of the Shire.

d)   The proposal is adversely impacting the amenity of nearby residents, with its early and week-end operating hours, uncoordinated and uncontrolled carparking on the road reserve and coffee shop customers coming and going from the site.

6.    This element of the proposal is contrary to overall outcome (b) and performance outcome PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code and overall outcome (e) and performance outcome PO16 of the Business Activities Code as the proposed on-site car parking is insufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles generated by the development.

D.    Refuse to amend Condition 4 of the development approval for the following reason:

7.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the requested change includes the sale of food and beverages that are not ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site.

E.    Refuse to delete Conditions 5 and 7 of the development approval for the following reasons:

8.    The proposal is contrary to performance outcomes PO25 and PO26 of the Rural Activities Code as the request to delete these conditions relates to the proposal for a food and drink outlet to operate from the site which is not supported. Any provision for the tasting of foods and beverages proposed to be produced on site would not be ancillary to a bona fide cropping or animal husbandry use on site. 

F.    Advise the applicant that the food and drink outlet must cease operating from the site within 3 months of the date of Council’s decision, with any unapproved structures removed.

G.  Advise the applicant that the roasting of coffee beans on site must cease within 3 months of the date of Council’s decision, and to lodge a subsequent code assessable development application for a Material Change of Use – Home-based Business (coffee roasting).

H.   Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

I.     Authorise the CEO to work with the applicant to find an appropriate location for the food and drink outlet/bus.

J.   That Council request the CEO to expedite an investigation into the feasibility of the provision of a mobile coffee trader or similar at suitable locations in the Hinterland which may include sites such as the Noosa Botanic Gardens and Hinterland Adventure Playground. 

K.   Request the CEO to investigate extending the 60km per hour speed limit on Mary River Road to Lawnville Road to enhance the safety of vehicle interactions in this location associated with the transfer station and truck movements.

Carried.

That Cr Jurisevic be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Cr Stewart leaving the meeting.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Finzel and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Finzel participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 13 November 2023 and approve Round Two 2023-24 Community Project Grants – Program/Projects provided in Attachment 1 to this report. 

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Cr Stockwell’s queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Community Connection Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 13 November 2023 and approve Round Two 2023-24 Community Project Grants – Equipment provided in Attachment 1 to this report.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilkie and determine that Cr Wilkie participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public

interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 13 November 2023 regarding applications to the Regional Arts Development Fund Round 20, 2023/24 and approve the recommendations of the Assessment Committee as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and Cr Stockwell’s queries at that time were in the public interest and neither he nor Ms McCready stood to personally gain or lose from that advice and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

Carried unanimously.

That Council note the report by the Director Strategy and Environment to the General Committee Meeting dated 13 November 2023 regarding Tourism Noosa's Destination Noosa Strategic Plan 2023-2027 as provided at Attachment 1 to this report and:  

A. Endorse Tourism Noosa's Destination Noosa Strategy 2023-2027 in accordance with Tourism Noosa's Funding and Performance Deed with Council; and 

B. Note Tourism Noosa's Destination Noosa Strategy 2023-2027 will be reviewed following the completion of the Destination Management Plan to ensure alignment and to reflect any shifts required in Tourism Noosa's strategic focus as specified in Tourism Noosa's Funding and Performance Deed with Council. 

Carried unanimously.

That the report of the General Committee meeting dated 13 November 2023 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution.

Carried unanimously.