Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, 12 September 2023
Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2023 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:09:00
Synopsis: Flying-fox SoMI endorsed: staged management and comms, Dispersal rejected, Goodchap St day surgery refused over zoning and water-quality conflicts, Satinay Dr subdivision refused for bushfire risk.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Tom Wegener Karen Finzel Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Frank Wilkie Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director - Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings (Via Microsoft Teams) Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Flying-fox SoMI endorsed with actions : Council approved the Statement of Management Intent (SoMI), mandated comms planning, review of the subsidy program, and flagged extra resourcing needs (Item 5.1; 35:49–35:54). Shift to staged management : SoMI replaces “conflict level” triggers with a staged approach applied equitably across roosts; site-specific plans to set local triggers and responses (10:52–12:00; Item 5.1). Consultation outcomes : Extensive Your Say Noosa plus roost-area engagement informed the model; residents’ feedback drove subsidy review and clearer comms (15:40–17:30; Item 5.1). Roost management pipeline : Existing plans at Wallace Park, Waratah Reserve, Keys Creek, Cooroy; flagged future plans for Pinaroo Park and a regional plan to codify influx procedures (17:45–19:45; Item 5.1). Dispersal not an option : Evidence cites low success, high cost/risks; notable Sunshine Coast example split a roost creating dual problems (27:50–30:10; Item 5.1). Mental health impacts addressed : Queensland Health engaged at community sessions; Council leveraging higher subsidies at high-impact sites (31:30–33:40; Item 5.1). Subdivision refused at 28 Satinay Dr : 1-into-2 lot refused due to prohibition in scheme, character/amenity inconsistency, and inadequate bushfire-compliant envelopes; reliance on third-party firebreak maintenance rejected (36:56–41:14; Item 5.2). Bushfire hazard concerns : Proximity to National Park/reserve with tall eucalypt forest yields unacceptable risk; layout would unduly burden disaster management (39:18–41:51; Item 5.2). Day surgery at 47 Goodchap St refused : Non-residential use expands beyond hospital precinct onto low-density residential land; scale, amenity impacts, inadequate parking, water quality risks to Lake Doonella (54:35–01:00:20; Item 5.4). Planning need absent : Council noted existing approvals and zoned sites for medical uses; “overriding community need” not demonstrated to justify zoning conflict (56:32–59:31; Item 5.4). Water quality non-compliance : Failure to demonstrate no increase in key pollutants to Lake Doonella under Water Quality & Drainage Code (Item 5.4). Permaculture/golf course change deferred : Item on adding group farm-stay accommodation at 59 Kabi Rd referred to General Committee due to significance (45:39–52:55; Item 5.3). Delegations report noted : July 2023 planning decisions under delegated authority received and noted (01:05:35–01:08:38; Item 6.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Tom Wegener : Declared a conflict on Item 5.3 (friendship with report author; role as President, Permaculture Noosa); Council opted to refer the matter, avoiding participation/vote issues at committee (42:38–53:55; Item 5.3). Karen Finzel : Disclosed a campaign donation link in the delegated report; allowed to participate as item was for noting and decisions already made under delegation (01:02:26–01:05:08; Item 6.1). Public interest management : Conscious application of Chapter 5B LGA 2009 tests; emphasis on “abundance of caution” to protect decision integrity (49:39–51:08; Items 5.3, 6.1). Community expectations : Hospital expansion into residential street drew amenity/parking/scale objections from seven adjoining residents, reinforcing refusal (58:53–59:31; Item 5.4). Equity in wildlife responses : Staged SoMI approach aims to avoid subjective “conflict level” bias and ensure consistent treatment across neighborhoods (11:25–12:00; Item 5.1). Legal / Risk Planning Act 2016 s63(5) : Noted in refusals for subdivision and day surgery, ensuring transparent reasons protecting against appeal risk (Items 5.2, 5.4). Scheme conflicts : Subdivision contravened Reconfiguring a Lot Code and Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code; day surgery conflicted with Strategic Framework, Local Plan Codes, Low Density Residential Zone Code, Community Activities Code, Driveways & Parking Code, and Water Quality & Drainage Code (Items 5.2, 5.4). Bushfire safety : Proposal’s reliance on QPWS/Council firebreak maintenance contravened overlay principles; envelopes inadequate for safe siting, increasing response burden (Item 5.2). Environmental statutes : Flying-fox management constrained by Qld Nature Conservation Act and Commonwealth EPBC Act; SoMI clarifies lawful practices, codes of practice, and mitigates legislative exposure (18:35–19:45; Item 5.1). Waterway protection : Day surgery failed pollutant benchmarks for a high-ecological-value receiving environment (Lake Doonella), posing regulatory non-compliance risk (Item 5.4). Grant leverage : State’s 50:50 grants require SoMI and resourcing to access funds for regional planning and comms; missed opportunities without implementation (13:45–15:30; 18:55–20:52; Item 5.1). Conflicts of Interest Tom Wegener : Declarable conflict (friendship with Tom Kendall; President, Permaculture Noosa) on 59 Kabi Rd item; Council resolved referral to General Committee; he did not vote (42:38–53:55; Item 5.3). Karen Finzel : Declarable conflict (2020 donor Peter Butt in delegated report); Council determined participation in public interest as report was for noting of pre-made decisions (01:02:26–01:05:08; Item 6.1). Environmental Concerns Flying-fox ecology : Little Reds’ seasonal influxes create acute impacts; SoMI/regional plan to codify non-dispersal strategies, nighttime arborist protocols, and habitat mapping with SEQ analysis project (20:52–26:52; Item 5.1). Amenity/health : Odour, droppings, stress addressed via subsidies, targeted trimming at high-sensitivity sites (e.g., retirement village near Waratah Reserve), and QHealth engagement (31:30–35:35; Item 5.1). Lake Doonella protection : Hospital proposal lacked compliant stormwater quality outcomes, risking nutrient/sediment loading to a high-value lake (Item 5.4). Bushfire interface : Subdivision would intensify occupation at the national park edge with high-fuel forests; unacceptable hazard escalation (39:18–41:51; Item 5.2). Planning Scheme and Development Posture Zoning integrity : Council defended low-density residential zoning by rejecting hospital expansion off the hospital site and retaining rare, well-located land for housing supply (54:35–01:01:07; Item 5.4). Housing priority : Up to six lots (plus potential secondary dwellings) could be delivered at Goodchap St if retained for housing; this outweighed health facility dispersal into residential streets (01:01:07–01:01:37; Item 5.4). Character and scale : Proposals must integrate with area character; hospital’s proposal and subdivision both failed on established character/amenity benchmarks (36:56–41:51; 54:35–59:31; Items 5.2, 5.4). Co-location principle : Scheme expects medical growth to maximize the hospital site or zoned precincts; the standalone day surgery lacked integration and parking (54:35–59:31; Item 5.4).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 12 September 2023 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Tom Wegener (Chair), Karen Finzel, Clare Stewart, Brian Stockwell “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Tom Wegener (Chair) Councillor Karen Finzel Councillor Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councillor Amelia Lorentson Councillor Frank Wilkie EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director - Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings (via Microsoft Teams) Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Councillor Clare Stewart 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 8 August 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. FLYING FOX STATEMENT OF MANAGEMENT INTENT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Fauna Management Project Officer to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 regarding Noosa Council's Flying-fox Statement of Management Intent (SoMI) and: A. Approve the Flying Fox Statement of Management Intent (SoMI) for the purpose of implementation, B. Note that following endorsement of the SoMI, Environmental Services will undertake a priority review of the Flying-fox Subsidy Program considering community feedback and seek future Council endorsement of any recommended changes to the Flying-fox Subsidy Program as required; C. Develop and implement an internal and external communications plan for flying-fox influxes to ensure clear information is provided to relevant stakeholders during these events; D. Note that additional resources are required as outlined in this report to fully and effectively deliver the requirements of the SoMI and flying-fox management in the Noosa Shire and that consideration of these be referred to the budget consideration process. Carried unanimously. 5.2. RAL22/0027 - APPLICATION FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT (1 INTO 2 LOTS) AT 28 SATINAY DRIVE, TEWANTIN Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. RAL22/0027 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 2 lots, situated at 28 Satinay Dr Tewantin Qld 4565 and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1)(a), (b) and (c), (2)(a), (b) and (e)(i), Acceptable Outcome AO7.3 and Performance Outcomes PO4 and PO7, of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as: a. The development application is for subdivision in an area identified as being not suitable for subdivision. b. The lot size and subdivision layout in not consistent with the established character and amenity of Noosa Parklands Estate. c. The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate to accommodate a dwelling house and associated structures and services, and therefore is not fit its intended use. 2. The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1) and (2)(a), (b) and (e), Acceptable Outcomes AO1, AO7, AO8.3 and Performance Outcomes PO1 and PO7 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as: a. The methodology for determining the building envelopes assumes that Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Council will maintain the firebreak between the existing lot and adjoining National Park and Council Reserve. Preservation of the separation from hazardous vegetation should not be dependent on third parties. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 b. The proposed reconfiguration does not minimise the risk to people and property from bushfire hazard. c. The proposed layout will unduly burden disaster management services. d. The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.3. 131998.981211.5 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Tom Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Tom Wegener inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest. The author of the Permaculture Report, Tom Kendall, is a friend of mine. I am also the President of permaculture Noosa. I believe I can make a judgment in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Finzel be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this item for the purpose of considering the conflict of interest declaration by Cr Wegener. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel assumed the Chair. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wegener and determine that it is in the public interest that Cr Wegener can remain the in the room to listen to the discussion but does not participate or vote on this matter. Motion lapsed for want of a seconder. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 Cr Wegener did not vote on the above motion Cr Wegener resumed the Chair 5.4. MCU22/0131 - APPLICATION FOR A HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE SERVICE (DAY SURGERY AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES) AT 47 GOODCHAP STREET, TEWANTIN Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0131 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use – Health care service & Hospital, situated at 47 Goodchap St Tewantin and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal conflicts with Section 3.3.2, strategic outcomes (k), (n) and Section 3.3.3, strategic outcome (a) of the Strategic Framework as: a. The proposal expands health care services further along Goodchap Street beyond the Noosa Hospital site and into a residential area. b. The proposal is located on land zoned for housing, removes a lot that is well suited for residential development and is needed to cater for future housing. 2. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (o), (p) & (q) of the Tewantin Local Plan Area Code and overall outcomes (h), (n) and acceptable outcome AO16.3 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code as: a. The proposal expands health services into an area zoned for low density housing and on a large, well located site with significant opportunities to create further housing. b. The land is not committed or planned for community purposes. c. The proposal does not maximise or make more efficient use of the Noosa Hospital site and is not located on land identified for the growth of health and medical services. 3. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (c), (g), (j) and performance outcomes PO1, PO2 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code as: a. The proposal is not residential being identified as a community activity under the Noosa Plan and is of a scale and design that is incompatible with and will impact adversely on nearby residents’ amenity. b. The proposal offers no integration or internal connection with the Noosa hospital. c. The proposal is not small scale and will service the wider community and not just local residents. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 4. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and performance and acceptable outcomes PO1, PO3, AO3, PO5, A)5, PO8 of the Community Activities Code as: a. The proposal is not integrated with the hospital or co-located on the Noosa Hospital site. b. The proposal is of a type, scale and intensity that is not consistent with surrounding development and character of the area and zone, includes substantial infrastructure to the site’s frontage and will remove mature native trees that significantly contribute to the streetscape. c. The proposal is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by adjoining and nearby residents with insufficient buffering proposed for residents. 5. The proposal is contrary to overall outcomes (a), (b) and PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code as insufficient car parking has been provided to accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the development. 6. The proposal does not comply with performance and acceptable outcome PO6, AO6.1 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code as the site discharges into Lake Doonella which is of high ecological value and it has not been demonstrated the development will not cause an increase in gross pollutants, total suspended solids, total phosphorous or total nitrogen compared to a pre-development scenario as required. 7. There is no Planning need for the site to be developed for the proposed community activity given there are other approved medical and health centres that are yet to establish and other areas where the use could locate consistent with the scheme’s zoning pattern. 8. The site ought to be retained for housing, with lots of this potential rare in Noosa Shire. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY JULY 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Finzel provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5 March 2020, Mr Peter Butt who is an applicant listed in the delegated report (applicant no.1) donated $1666.66 to my 2020 Election Campaign where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as 'Future Noosa' (which is no longer an entity). Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 report is for noting only. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener 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 the decision has already been made under delegated authority and the report is for noting only. Carried unanimously. Cr Finzel did not vote on the above motion Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Manager, Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.45 am.
Meeting Transcript
Tom Wegener 00:04.360
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated September 12th, 2023, and I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi People, and I pay my respects to their past, present, and emerging elders. We also have Councillors Lorentson and Wilkie attending as well. Welcome to the gallery. It's a little bit funny because we have technical issues today and we've been working through them, but this is not being live streamed today. This will be recorded and put up on YouTube later on. We did it in the past. May I have a mover and a seconder for the confirmations of the Minutes of Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held in August? 7. Happy to second. Thank you. All in favour? We have no presentations, no deputations. We're looking at the reports for consideration by the committee. And the first up is the flying fox statement of management, and we have David Gorman here. Thank you. To walk us through this. Would you give us an overview? David Gorman 01:28.413
Flux Yeah, great. Thanks for everyone attending today. So we're seeking environmental services, seeking final endorsement on the flying fox Statement of Management Intent. The purpose of the is to articulate Noosa Shire council's approach to flying fox management. Now that's across Council land, private and also state owned land. Too is just to provide that guidance to all the different stakeholders across the Noosa Shire on how Noosa Council plans manage blind boxes foxes moving into the future. So that's providing advice to residents, landholders, stakeholders, whether it be, you know, businesses or health facilities or whatever it is. It's just to provide that overall guidance on the framework around flying fox management and how Council will approach that moving forward. A little bit of a background on flying foxes across the Noosa Shire just quickly. We currently have around 10 active roosts across the Shire. Now that number is variable. Flying fox roosts are highly dynamic. It can change overnight. Out of the 10 active roosts that we have at the moment, around 8 demonstrate some level of community conflict. It may be low or high. It just depends on the site and the numbers of the flying foxes relative to residential properties and other businesses and other stakeholders. So across the Shire too we have a bit of an interesting dynamic and this is not just across Noosa, this is South East Queensland as a whole. We have two species of flying foxes, the grey-headed and the black flying fox, which permanently reside within the Noosa year round. We also have third species of flying fox called the little red flying fox. Now these do occur over the Noosa Shire around those warmer months, so anywhere from November to April. When they do arrive at certain locations they can have greater impacts on residents or stakeholders surrounding flying fox roosts just because of the numbers that we can see. It's not uncommon to see anywhere from 50 to 400,000. Little red flying foxes occasionally in fluxes in areas across South East Queensland. We haven't had too many over the last couple of years we had some major influxes of little reds back in 2015 and 2016 at Wallace recent influx we had was at Waratah Reserve earlier this year where we had around 70,000 flying foxes. I may add though the little red flying do only stay for around that six to eight weeks mark at a maximum before they migrate out west again so they're a different situation than I guess what we face year-round across the Shire. Now why does Council require a SoMI? Well that's because the State government delegated flying fox management responsibilities to local councils in 2021 so state government devolved that responsibility to manage flying foxes within urban flying fox management areas which basically cover all of the urbanised areas across local governments within Queensland. As part of that transition the State government also established grants program so that kicked off in 2021, it was a three-year grants program which offered around one and a half to two million dollars for local governments to implement I guess to transition to that management approach so that was for the generation of statement of management intents, risk management actions, developing site specific risk management plans so the SoMI the Statement of Management Intent is the overall arching Council policy approach for flying foxes that's a regional context so everything under that we're looking at site-specific risk management plans that we need to develop for high conflict risk I should note too that the grants program is a little bit limited in fact offers a 50 / split for funding of local governments with a population above 50,000 so that is the Noosa Shire Council situation so any projects that we elect to chase under that grants program it's a 50 / contribution between the State and Council. Since 2021 when the State devolved that responsibility over to Council we have generated a flying fox Statement of Management Intent which to discuss today. And we've also generated four site-specific flying fox roost management plans. So we have one now for Wallace Park, Noosaville. For Waratah Reserve, Tewantin. A located out of Kin Kin called Keys Creek. We also have one for a roost located at Cooroy next to an aged care facility moving back to the SoMI, Council did endorse this document back in May 2022 for the purpose of community consultation. Was endorsed, we've undertaken an extensive consultation program over the last 12 months. That's included obviously publication on our Your Say Noosa survey. We've advertised that opportunity for the community to provide feedback through the, you know, obviously councils, media and comms avenues, Facebook, social et cetera. We've also targeted in the roos groups where were developing our site-specific management plans for, so we're inviting those residents to not only provide feedback on the site-specific roost management plans, but at the same time have a read of the SoMI, understand, know, read that document first, how it sits and presents that overall framework and guidance for stakeholders. And that was really productive because we were actually able to apply the SoMI in a real life situation at conflict roost. So, as I said, two sort of sectors to the consultation process, the wider community Your Say Noosa option, and then we went to the site-specific roost applications. So, in detail, I provided the results within the Council report, so I won't go through every page of that report, but the main outcomes that we needed discuss today is the main feedback that we got from the consultation progress program through the Your Say Noosa surveys and the application at site-specific roost was that originally within the Statement of Management Intent the SoMI we used level of conflict to guide Council through the transitioning of management actions so within the original SoMI we had we basically classified roost as low medium or high conflict and from there that would trigger councils approach and moving down the management actions so management actions can include things like monitoring of it of application of Noosa Council's flying fox subsidy program for residents it can move into the generation of site-specific roost management plans and then from there we can go into potentially works buffer so trimming of vegetation etc. Just a little bit of an overview there. Issue with having conflict as our main guide for Council to transition through these management approaches is that conflict is very subjective obviously so conflict can be different for people living a flying fox roost some people actually really enjoy having flying foxes next to their property other people it's not what they're after and that's fair enough too so the idea of having that conflict there it's very difficult to attribute an accurate level of a roost as well because roosts move around within the footprint and they can affect different properties at different times with greater impacts we can have residents that may work from home or they may you know be out all day so it's not really impacting their day-to life. So we didn't view that as a suitable trigger within the SoMI so we've now updated the SoMI to reflect other councils approaches where they've actually regardless of trigger level we've gone through a stage management action approach so if we have a roosters exhibiting some level of conflict Council work through our staged approach now which is presented on page 10 within the Statement of Management Intent not within the report and that basically as I said so that approach allows few things so firstly it promotes equity between stakeholders so councils applying the same approach across all of our flying foxes it also sorry yeah as I said but basically having does allow Council to provide that equity between different stakeholders so we can look at a roost we can say okay there's conflict observed at this roost we're going to action this conflict by going through a stage management approach now noting that doesn't prevent Council from recognising that at a particular roost potentially overnight had a huge influx of flying foxes we may have a very high level of conflict the SoMI jumping through those stage management approaches to find the appropriate mitigation so that was outcome of consultation process which was a fairly major change to the SoMI as I said removing that level of conflict as a trigger replacing it with a staged approach regardless of the situation and the risk dynamics Karen Finzel 11:23.189
Probably the only thing I can of the say is in terms of having specific numbers of flying fox triggers that wasn't included in the SoMI because that will be then reflected in a site-specific risk management plan because obviously you can have very small risk that cause high conflict or have very large if that makes sense. So it's hard to put an arbitrary number on it on that conflict trigger level so that's why we haven't done it in this case. David Gorman 11:51.051
And that's the importance as said it is a little bit you know there's a lot in this but as I said the Statement of Management Intent is the overall arch overarching document on how Council approaches flying foxes across the Shire. When we get into actually looking at management options for specific roost we need to have those site-based management plans which identify things like Camille mentioned in terms of actual proximity of flying foxes roosting to private property numbers triggers etc not possible within the Sonia we just have that stage management approach throughout there which may trigger the development of a site-based flying fox roost management plan if required future application of the in SoMI if it's endorsed the SoMI is highly important for Council to be able to again communicate our approach to flying fox management to stakeholders whether it be residents business owners whatever it may be schools etc it's also equally important to guide Council staff in the communications of things about how Council will manage flying foxes when we do get requests coming from the community it also provides guidance to those staff members on site as well so often we'll have natural areas staff working within proximity to flying fox roosts we get a lot of questions from the community about, hey what can Council do here what assistance can you provide at the moment we don't have that document that clearly says this is what Council will not do based on state and commonwealth legislation now that I also see the document being assistance to Councillors and the executive team as well so this document will also provide that clear information for Councillors to distribute to their residents in terms of providing that initial guidance it also prevents the opportunity for potentially missing miscommunication to occur whether it be you know natural areas staff members that may not have a complete understanding of flying fox management legislation it removes that potential for miscommunication to come into the play of things when we're dealing with the community and the residents and I think that's one of the most important thing was said to provide that clear and concise information. We've done a lot of work on our website recently as well so we've provided a lot of information within our website which we've referenced to within the SoMI so if people do want to dig down a little bit to find out additional information about our subsidy program about state legislation that council's bound to. Delivering our management approaches that about that information is now available on our website and people are directed from the SoMI to the website if they choose to have a look. Obviously we invite all residents to contact Council so if the further information is required. So the commitments under SoMI the as it stands now as I mentioned earlier we do have four risk management plans current across the Noosa Shire so our commitments under the SoMI would be the continued implementation of those risk management plans obviously and also provide that clear guidance to residents so moving forward with the recommendations of this report that's in front of us here obviously I approve the SoMI for the purpose of implementation so that we can provide those clear directions to our community staff members and councils and executive team we're also noting report that environmental services would like to undertake a review of our subsidy program as well earlier I mentioned that Council does have a flying fox subsidy program some feedback during the consultation process was that program did not really satisfy the needs of some residents are very appreciative of the program as well I might add but I think it is timely for Council to have a look at that program review it Noosa Council's is actually one of three councils across the city. South East Queensland region that has a flying fox subsidy program it's not standard it's a very very valuable offering the Council has at the moment for the residents and it does help relieve a lot of stresses of flying foxes can cause but regardless of that it is probably time for a review on our subsidy program based on the feedback we've obtained. Also haven't quite got to the stage of communications with the broader community. So, flying fox management is all that education across the community the understanding of about building flying foxes where they fit into you know our urban environment and natural environment and ultimately building a little bit more tolerance amongst the community to live with flying foxes at a little bit times where there are no other options so that communications program is something Council hasn't implemented as yet there are other cancers, of course. The region that do that extremely well and they have actually seen really positive outcomes for the residents and the flying foxes and the environment as a whole, so that's something Council would really like to look at environmental services if we do have the adequate resources there to deliver that in the future talking about resources we also are noticing within the report that environmental services are seeking additional resources to implement the SoMI and also requirements under the SoMI in the pipeline we do have a flying fox ruse management plan for pinaroo park that we'd like to get delivered to the community and also align with other councils and the State government's recommendations we would like to have a what's called a regional flying fox management plan now as I said the SoMI sits at the higher level we have the roost management plans underneath between that it would be great to have so that can go into specifics about how Council manages roost across the Shire as a whole it can identify you know what triggers we may have between roosts if we get influxes it will also generate procedure for influxes of little red flying foxes the benefits of that is obviously Council then has a firm procedure on how to deal with unexpected influxes of flying foxes, presenting, I guess, cost opportunities and avoiding knee jacks. Jerk reactions that are you know can occur with flying foxes because as I said they can literally turn up overnight in their hundreds of thousands in locations and if Council doesn't have a SoMI and a supporting regional flying fox management plan, we really no justification or guidance on how we're going to deal with a future influx, which don't it's important. Now, I'll I guess I have touched a little bit on the risks there but we do also hold some legislative risk if Council doesn't actually have Statement of Management Intent so as I said the aim of the is provide guide that legislative guidance to all stakeholders including Council staff and Councillors on how we manage flying foxes across the Noosa Shire so flying foxes are protected under the nature conservation act and the commonwealth legislation the EPBC Act as well so without that's only there without guidance and the legislative constraints clearly communicated to all stakeholders we do possess some legislative risk in terms of the flying fox management if we don't have procedures in place I should mention say that obviously I mentioned the grant program earlier that was over the last three years which was administered by the State to help local governments transition to flying fox management the State has just offered an additional two million dollars worth of funding over the next three years to further allow councils to transition through that management delegation now I guess without the appropriate resources and a statement of management and it's going to be very difficult for Council to make the most of those grant funding opportunities for items as mentioned before a management plan for Pinaroo Park and a regional flying fox management plan and also program that we want to develop over the coming years so I think that's covered most of it there so I guess I'll open it up to questions unless Ben or Camille would like to add anything further? Tom Wegener 20:51.584
Okay, no, that was a thorough discussion, thank you very much. That's alright. Are something when where you think your life is hard and then the flying foxes come and roost next door and then your life gets a whole lot harder so I'm glad that you put so much incredible effort into any questions? Unidentified Speaker 21:13.387
Yeah, so for Brian Stockwell 21:15.966
The last X number of years we have really been spending all our flying fox on a management time reacting to influxes and you know in this report it's suggesting that we think we need more staff to actually implement the plan appropriately which we'll do in the next budget. The question is long-term strategies, like the little red for example, seems to come here just for the Corymbia intermedia, the bloodwoods. Do we start looking at trying to attract them away from the urban areas by places like Ringtail Yurol and other large plans we have start to establish those alternative roosting sites away from urban areas? Are there other long-term strategies we should be thinking about which isn't purely reacting to the urban wildlife conflict? David Gorman 22:09.260
Yes, I totally agree so I do see this work that we're talking about here is trying to reduce some of that reactive approaches that Council have I should have mentioned to you that Noosa Council is part of a project called the South East Queensland regional flying fox analysis project so that is exactly what you're talking about identifying flying fox habitat across the South East Queensland region actually collectively mapping all of our roosts across South East Queensland tracking the movement of flying foxes and even down to you know planting guides for local governments in terms of if they do or do not want to attract flying foxes to a certain area and that can be in our streetscape or whatever it may be but yeah um so there is some research being done in that area Noosa Council yeah actively involved in that which is nice Unidentified Speaker 23:01.606
Can also I've had um with when our gershaw made the presentations to the community members we did look at a couple of cases attempted dispersal which was basically use that mechanism of trying to create a habitat to draw them away from those high conflict areas and most notably it was the Botanic Gardens in Melbourne and Sydney and they'd spent quite some millions of dollars creating habitat and flying foxes eventually predominantly moved away from the Botanic Gardens but moved somewhere else and so they created this palace for them um which is basically baking house so when we do that we'll undertake some work is to find out whether that investment is likely to achieve success um some of the information we've got for similar programs yeah it's hedging bets as to whether that'll work um particularly you know when you consider you know the cost of planting specific species does tend to run up fairly high when you look at the broader term of elder attraction so. Brian Stockwell 24:03.242
So does the current project analyse all the sites from multiple different criteria to see can whether there is some method in their madness or whether it's just random? David Gorman 24:14.979
So it's actually a diet analysis of flying foxes so they're getting an indication of what their predominant food sources are and as I said also mapping the roosts across the Shire but sorry not Shire across South East Queensland as a whole. Now the benefit that I see that feeding into hopefully a regional flying fox management plan for Noosa is that at the moment we don't actually map our roosts across the Shire you know obviously we have that information in but we don't have that opportunity within the SoMI to actually map all of our flying fox roosts also map out the potential regional ecosystem that flying foxes you know do prefer in terms of habitat so it's about identifying those potential future roosts and yeah if you get what I of tying it all in nicely. Brian Stockwell 25:00.178
There may be something in there that we can just research find out. I remember one time I think it was a dry hot spring and the from around the library started moving over to Goat Island you know where it was cooler, surrounded by water. So is temperature you know are they finding cool hollows for example and things like that. Unidentified Speaker 25:24.400
Yeah I would are the, predominantly in the urban areas, the riparian zones which we've grabbed these great vegetation buffers which just draw them in, hence an area like Wallace David Gorman 25:35.800
Park is absolutely perfect for them. Obviously associated with water as well so a lot of our stormwater retention areas are vegetated and they do provide favourable habitat for Tom Wegener 25:51.420
With the difficulties pipeline. In the fire fox program, just one of them is that when you're going to out there and trim the trees and so forth and take, you know, go to steps, you have to do it at night because the flying foxes aren't there at night so you can't disturb them during day so that just adds, you know, another level of the complexity of the plan and how to deal with it. David Gorman 26:13.080
Yeah it's in those sort of emergency work situations which we had at Waratah Reserve earlier this year with the red flying foxes, we are, as I said, flying foxes are protected under state and commonwealth legislation so councils have to operate under codes of practice in terms of managing foreign fox roosts and that does require in some situations a Councillor to have a reset out there at night time working under lights to do emergency trimming work so obviously we try to avoid you know those sort of works because of obviously their health and safety concerns for our contractors and staff and whatnot it's a big process. Unidentified Speaker 26:58.892
All the councils we've Amelia Lorentson 27:03.792
Met with the residents and you know some residents as you say are really quite content living next to a resting and others not so happy. So part of the report you note that dispersals is not an option for this Council and it was quite interesting because was starting to think well how else do you move them. I did find a really good report by CSIRO and it probably touches a little bit on what Councillor Stockwell was referring to. It actually reviewed 48 dispersal management across all of Australia and their conclusions, and maybe this should be as part of the education to our residents. Is this a question? It is a question. So dispersals are high risk, cost activities with low success rates. And in the majority of cases, flying foxes will either not move or only a kilometre away. So my question to you is can we have some of that peer reviewed scientific information as part of the information we feed to residents who understandably are tormented, are under a lot of mental stress, because that helped me understand why dispersal is not always, well, it's not an option. David Gorman 28:32.508
100%. We do that at the roost level at the moment. So with, for example, our much recent management plan that we delivered for Waratah reserve, long fox roost, we had a lot of members of the public come to those community meetings. Chasing dispersal, but once we actually had our consultants and Council present those case studies that they were talking about earlier, the success rates, what the issues are, you know, the unlikelihood of what's them working and what's actually required to implement those programs. I actually saw, and I think Camille and Ben would agree, that we definitely saw a shift in people's opinions and it was actually quite surprising. I will give credit to Ecosure, they very well as but we definitely saw that shift in attitude within 20 minutes of the community meeting. They said we are doing that at the roost level, but we need do that across the Shire because as I said, flying foxes can show up anywhere at time. And we don't have that information out there with community at this point, so yeah. Any Unidentified Speaker 29:38.988
Dave, isn't there a good example of that down at Coolum in recent years where the Sunshine Coast Council dispersed a roost and the. Actually split the roost and caused problems in two locations rather than one? David Gorman 29:52.277
That's exactly right. So that was the last dispersal, I believe, the Sunshine Coast attempted quite number of years ago. And, you know, the other thing to consider too is that. Know, as I said, it's a high-risk activity. If we go dispersing 70,000 little red flying foxes, scientific evidence and literature says that they will probably move a couple hundred metres and they'll be a problem at another person's it's behind their property so it's not a space that Council or other local governments across South East Queensland want to enter or pursue and it's because we simply don't have the science to work out how to do it successfully at the moment. If we did, it would probably be a good option but we don't have that at this point in the science to show us Councillor Finzel has a question. Karen Finzel 30:42.952
Yes, thank you Through the Chair. Firstly, I'd like to commend the staff on the report, the strategic thinking and planning around this process, I would like to commend, especially when you're moving away from conflict to more, you know, the content around that strategic plan is to have a higher level of how we can approach this as a Council. My question is around the health and safety of the communities with their mental health and well-being in relation to when the roost is really active in that space. I've been out to the sites, the smell is overwhelming, the droppings, you know, the mess that they've got to live within every day and I receive like lots of emails regarding this. I'm just wondering how we are supporting the people that are living in our biosphere, that are having to live with us on a day-to basis. I see we offer some program where people can get support but I'm looking more like their mental health and well-being. David Gorman 31:47.010
Yeah, it's a tricky one. So I guess the first thing to touch on there is probably a couple of things but the first thing is the subsidy program certainly doesn't relieve all the answers for the residents but under site-specific risk management plans we have actually sought funding from the State government to increase our subsidy allowance so at OneRoost we're actually offering $1,500 per property to alleviate some of those mental health and impacts that we see from flying fox roost. Secondly I should note that Queensland the Maroochydore office yeah they are fantastic in terms of offering that support so we actually had Queensland Health representatives at the community meeting that we held for the Waratah Reserve residents back when we had the influx so we actually representatives come down there they supplied a doctor who talked to the health risks around flying foxes and provided that mental health advice as well so this support is there it's very challenging I guess for people to certainly in those situations in some cases it's a little bit tricky as I said Queensland Health is the I guess the governing agency for health not Council but we need to strike that balance and it again it's very dependent on the roost dynamics with Waratah Reserve we were working very closely with the Hibiscus Retirement Village staff there to address some of those concerns that they had for retirement village there as Karen Finzel 33:35.122
Well so yeah it's something we probably could look at but as part of that regional find fox plan and the management of that I know sunnycoast are grappling with it as well and sort of where does our responsibility end and know our duty of care to the community yeah during that influx obviously we did provide contact numbers for people for lifeline and you know that sort of thing but it's obviously something that yeah if it had gone on longer David Gorman 34:01.051
Yeah and everyone's sorry, impacted differently too. Oh it's probably not really that big of an impact that property but I don't know the situation in that household there could be an elderly resident who's quite vulnerable and home most of the day or something it's extremely variable but I think it's that comes down to that consultation to working with all the residents closely when we have those influxes to identify what the impacts are and when we develop those site-specific risk management plans we obviously take that into consideration so during the consultation process we on the residents are by talking to them and that's incorporated into our management actions and at some risk we will I guess progress management actions based on whether there's a sensitive resident nearby or a sensitive receiver like a school or a healthcare facility or whatever it might be Karen Finzel 34:58.922
It all plays into when we generate those plans. Sorry lastest point that's why we escalated the trimming so quickly at Waratah given the impacts on the retirement village residents there and stress it was causing those residents we made the decision that we needed to do something and that was what we could do in that instance. David Gorman 35:17.820
So yeah even though those swine foxes were only ever going to be there for a maximum of six to eight weeks because of the species the little reds but the priority was there so it was in a different situation we wouldn't have gone to that level of works. We probably spent about a hundred thousand bucks on that so in the last six months or seven years. Karen Finzel 35:38.341
Okay, thank you. Tom Wegener 35:42.339
I don't see a reason to put this to general, so would anybody like to? Happy to move it. Happy to second. Okay, all in favour? Thank you very much. It is a very, very difficult situation. For our foxes and we all congratulate think you, but I congratulate you especially on the strategy here and the management stages. It is very easy to understand for people that it is really difficult. David Gorman 36:14.938
Thank you very much and pass it on to Camille and Ben as well. They have been quite involved in the process. I appreciate it. Yeah, thanks, have a good day. Karen Finzel 36:25.696
You too, bye. Tom Wegener 36:26.936
Okay, we're on to 5.2 application for re-configuring a lot. One of the two lots at 28 Satinay Drive, Tewantin. Here's Patrick and Georgina, she's sitting saying, "Hey, what's up today. He and he says, Georgina, are you going to walk us through these issues things Georgina 36:56.900
Yes, good morning. So the application in front of us today is a one into two lot subdivision at 28 Satinay Drive. And today this application is recommended for refusal. As you will note, we do have, we have made a minor amendment to the recommendations. So this just relates to 0.2a. So just in red, you'll see that we've made reference Council land as well as Council reserve. Unidentified Speaker 37:22.020
Well. And then I suppose more so leading to one of the reasons why this application has been recommended for refusal is that there is a provision in the scheme that stipulates to be no further subdivision of land in this location. The main intent behind this requirement is so that we can retain the character of this area and the larger lot sizes in particular in Noosa Parklands. So subdivision of this lot would essentially change the density of the development that Noosa parklands currently has and it would impact the amenity afforded by the larger lot here. And then in addition to, I suppose the character element of concern here the site is also boarded by the national park and Council reserve so the site is identified as having high bushfire risk here. And then as you refer to in the report that the building envelope provided in support of the application does not achieve the 28 kilowatts, sorry the 29 kilowatts I think it is, as required by the State planning policy. So we don't have an adequate area essentially to accommodate a dwelling on the site should it be supported and further developed. So essentially I suppose in summary approval of the subdivision here would result in intensification of an area, increasing the number of persons and property at risk it's also I'm sorry the lot size is not characteristic in the area since two main elements of concern are bushfire and the lot size. Unidentified Speaker 39:18.260
Questions? How should I start there? Brian Stockwell 39:22.260
Good question. Do you want to go to the open side? Vegetation behind the block? I did go outside with our environment officer as well. I believe it quite approximately would be around the 20 metres I believe. Least when you meet some of those mature trees, just in terms of the fire risk, it's substantial. I'm just looking at the RE but reasonably it's a MAP 1256 which is grey, iron, black and it also has some blackbuck. Now can get up to 340 metres and generally for fire protection you want to be more than one and a half metres the height of the tree away for your building where if we touch by this there's probably no way that they could get even that percent of the thing and hence here. Why you're saying that the rating is they can't get the safe rating I know we're much more sophisticated in our fire planning but in the old days these forests we used to have a 1 to 10 scale for fire risk and these sort of fire forests were ten that's because they don't often burn but when they burn very very hot so they're actually some of the studies show that they have some highest carbon ladings any forest in the world, and it's dry. October understory you get these really hot fires that go through so it is purely from that perspective it would be an unwise move to increase the opportunity for buildings quite close to the back boundary and as the report says it would rely on both Council QPWS having responsibilities which we generally do not agree to I'm happy to move the motion I'll second it and I've said all I need to say is yeah yeah I think yeah with this one in Noosa park we need to balance it between creating more dwellings and if there were if it didn't have a range of these the other constraints particularly fire then perhaps there would be some need to look at discretion that particular clause within the planning scheme but creating a lot that can't meet the same standards for fire this will set out as a question. Tom Wegener 41:47.584
Thank you. Okay, now the 5.3 application for other changes. Development approval. 12637, C, A. Integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course complex. 18 walls. To include group farm stay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi road Cootharaba. And we have Nadine here to walk us through this. You told me do your COI. Unidentified Speaker 42:32.779
Oh, yes. And when you took one of me on. Tom Wegener 42:36.737
Thank you. I have a potential conflict of interest in this action, so we'd like to change the Chair. In accordance with chapter 50 sorry then the deck screen is not changing no it's not sorry 58B, the Local Government Act of 2009, Councillor Wegener, that needs another E, provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter I have the author of the permaculture report Tom Kendall is a friend of mine and I am also the president of new set I believe I could make a judgment in a public interest I believe have, but we haven't changed the chariot. Can I read this out? Yeah, we can do that after you. Okay. I believe I can the public interest. Therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Larry Sengstock 43:49.112
So let's I'll take charge from here. We can um we can point it but Brian Stockwell 43:56.251
Yeah I can't cancel to be the Chair? Yes I'm happy to take the Chair, Karen Finzel 44:06.271
Thank you Mr CEO. So we now need to deal with the matter? Okay so we'll before us. The conflict. Now do we, do you have any questions Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 44:27.325
Is there any potential ongoing involvement of plymouth Hodge and Noosa in this development, in this site, to use commences? Unidentified Speaker 44:35.105
I would say no. Okay so you know if there, Brian Stockwell 44:49.472
Your, I suppose it depends on, you talked about Mr Kendall as a friend, does it constitute a close personal relationship under the act, in terms of regular? Social gatherings or is it just because you're the president of permaculture nation and he's a member Tom Wegener 45:10.098
I would suspect it wouldn't follow that under the act because it's meetings, not social. It's usually permaculture centred activities that we've come into contact with. Brian Stockwell 45:22.663
And then the last question, do you know whether there's any ongoing benefit attributing to Mr kendall's failure to government. Tom Wegener 45:31.649
I would I don't know for a fact if there would be or not but I suspect it would be because it's a very small world out there of experts. Karen Finzel 45:39.707
I have a question, given the report talks about distribution of food from as part of the rationale as to why you know they want to proceed forward here, I have concerns around that relationship in that conflict because it definitely to me would be a close connection to food permaculture. And where you're acting. How do you see yourself not being influenced in a person to influence in that space. Tom Wegener 46:16.985
Oh I really have nothing to do with what they're doing with the food or it's just very separate. I have an interest in permaculture in general but how they deal with the food on their property is well and truly really outside of my scope of influence or benefit or it's just a matter of the way that there's going to be a growing food I suspect and then the principles we share principles and an ideology but that's about it. Brian Stockwell 46:55.737
Going to try something. I'm going to say move that Councillor Wegener remain in the room but not vote on this matter. And I think should be made by more than just two Councillors, that's what I'm, is that I'm quite happy for Councillor Wegener that the conference has been declared, the matter is likely to be deferred to the General Committee, so it allows them to stay in the room, but just not vote on the matter. And then we can have the decision about whether to stay or vote on next monday's meeting. I'm not looking to set a precedent, I'm just thinking there's only two Councillors, I think I might have a different view to Councillor Finzel Larry Sengstock 47:48.041
And. Given that we're looking to probably. The general, then that may be a position we take, that we lay this on the table, and we take a decision immediately to refer it to general. Brian Stockwell 48:15.330
We could do that, but it's not. They might view. Be picking in the cabinet who came, particularly for the discussion on this item, that's what I was Karen Finzel 48:22.669
I just think given your public link, and it's very public, with permaculture and what you do there and your involvement there, which is fantastic, a community champion there, I just think we have to be cautious. It's an overabundance of caution around how we manage your conflict, know, that protects you as well further down the track to make sure that, you know, there's no issues going to arise. So I think that I'd like to take it to the vote that we laid on the table and refer the matter to the general. Larry Sengstock 49:07.193
A older. Little bit odd. I don't know, I just have to think with our Standing Orders. Brian Stockwell 49:11.570
I think we can a procedural motion occur probably a I probably can't do lot of wine as we expected it. A procedural matter can occur at any time. Unidentified Speaker 49:25.865
I'm just thinking whether we have to actually make decision on the conference at all. Now it's been delegated. Unidentified Speaker 49:32.446
A couple of meetings ago we did the same thing where we had that many conferences that you Unidentified Speaker 49:36.117
Moved it to the forum meeting. Yeah, okay, we'll go that way. I think so. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Larry Sengstock 49:48.197
Unfortunately here today, but I think that's Karen Finzel 49:51.830
Yeah, I think it's the. Dealing with conflicts, in my opinion, I think we've got to just make sure that we're protecting everybody in the space. Larry Sengstock 50:01.413
This is a matter that requires discussion with the whole Council. Unidentified Speaker 50:06.633
Through the Chair, recollection. Is when we're in a situation like this, a person with a declarable conflict of interest to exercise abundance of caution will leave the room, however at the General Committee make the declaration again for the whole of Council to make a decision whether to stay or not stay and that allows discussion of the matter today. So declare, walk out and then re-declare at general for Amelia Lorentson 50:40.398
Their mind up. That's my recollection of how Larry Sengstock 50:46.546
We could do that. We could have would allow today. How's the conversation today? Or whether we want to just immediately refer it to general and have that conversation at general. Otherwise we're going to be prosecuting it twice. Yeah. I think we'll refer to general. Unidentified Speaker 51:04.126
Okay. So I think it's been moved and seconded then? Brian Stockwell 51:08.886
Which one hasn't been seconded yet. I think I seconded it, didn't I? Karen Finzel 51:13.706
Did you second it? Unidentified Speaker 51:15.586
We've only wanted to Chair. You've moved this motion where you are. Unidentified Speaker 51:20.146
Yeah, that hasn't been seconded. That wasn't seconded. Unidentified Speaker 51:27.190
So we can just give in the significance of the matter, move it to the general, if that wasn't even seconded. Unidentified Speaker 51:36.054
Can I ask why there's no seconder for the appointment of Chair? Karen Finzel 51:44.374
Oh, I second myself? Yeah. Thank you. And then, Councillor Finzel moved that the matter be. Yeah, given the significance of the matter, that we move it to the General Committee. Yeah, that's just a statement. I'm just going to back to the menu system. Sorry everyone, we've got technical issues here today, so thank you for your patience, and to the people that have come in the gallery, we apologise for the inconvenience. Thank you. A lot of people who are going to be community. So home, we are just waiting for the staff to oh, okay. Thank you. So Karen, you move that one and second time. You want a second time? Okay. All in favour? Due to the significance. Yeah, of the matter. Unidentified Speaker 53:05.560
That's right. Larry Sengstock 53:07.260
So Tom, yours is laid on the table for the 10am? You two can go for Karen Finzel 53:12.080
Yeah. Okay, so we'll take it to the vote. Due to the significance of the matter we refer this agenda item to the General Committee. All in favour? Thank you, that's unanimous. And we welcome Councillor Wegener back to the Chair. Unidentified Speaker 53:35.880
Thank you. Tom Wegener 53:40.120
Good, Cathy, catch up. Unidentified Speaker 53:48.920
And you can roll it, yeah? I've got the next one. Karen Finzel 53:55.824
So, yeah, I think that's the best way to go through the discussion in general. Yeah, of conduct towards Tom make sure that he's, you know, we're going to look after your mate, so. Unidentified Speaker 54:09.884
Yep, I think that covers that. Yeah. Thank you. Tom Wegener 54:17.392
Thank you. Okay, we're up to 5.4, application for hospital and health care service surgery and associated facilities at 47. Goodchap Street, Tewantin. And we have Nadine back in Thank you very much, Nadine. Nadine 54:35.742
Good morning, everyone. Good morning. So this is a development application for Material Change of Use, as Tom said, for a hospital and health care service at Goodchap Street. So it's the site right next door to the northwest of the existing hospital. The site's owned by Ramsay Health Care. Now, the proposal is for two buildings on the site. The front building is for a health care centre of about 453 square metres. The second building is a two-storey building over some basement car parking, and that's for a day surgery of around 1,083 square metres. The site is included in the residential low-density zone, the intent of which is for residential dwellings. This proposal is inconsistent with that zoning intent and is contrary to the surrounding local plans. The proposal will sterilise. Sterilise land and so it will not be able to be used for housing and we consider the site should be retained for housing. The proposal is out of scale with of the surrounding area which is generally small houses to the north and even the hospital has a smaller development scale than this proposal. There is insufficient carpool car parking provided on site for both uses but also the development will have an impact on the amenity visually but also in terms of the operations, noise, loading etc. The Noosa Plan specifically talks about co-location of these type of facilities on the hospital site. There are also other sites available within the Shire that are zoned for this type of use. So basically staff do not support proposal. Any questions? Unidentified Speaker 56:30.739
Your last round of refusal talks about there is no need. I presume what we're talking planning need. Brian Stockwell 56:41.922
Yes. And therefore can you give, I think it's good to get an understanding what the difference between a commercial need, a gross need versus a planning need. Can we, and in your answer do you think it would be helpful to actually insert the word planning in front of the word need in terms of making it clear? Nadine 57:03.156
Yes, that's fine. I think I had to start with your question, Brian. So the applicant has indicated, well their own submission which is actually detailed in the report, they've indicated to us that they of their reasons for moving to the other site, to this site, is to basically security of tenure. So there is currently a hospital operating in the Shire caters for a range of activities and it's appropriately zoned. So in terms of planning need, we have an existing facility, we have a site that's identified and that and other available in the Shire that can cater for that and the demand from the community we don't really need this additional facility to be provided in this location. Unidentified Speaker 58:01.498
Because we've approved a couple of other day surgeries recently, quite large ones. Unidentified Speaker 58:05.618
Well, we've approved yes. And there's vacant space up the road that is we've recently, well Council has recently approved the one at pacific, so that's got oncology. There's also been an extension to the one at Goodchap Street for another oncology section. There's also on Hofmann Drive next to the self-storage place that was approved again for two-storey, that's sort of day surgery. And medical centre as well. So there are several sites and even with the balance of the Civic, there's also area available for further day surgery or medical facilities available. Brian Stockwell 58:46.245
And there's seven adjoining residential properties? Yes. Which we see valid objections. Nadine 58:53.225
Yes, that's correct, yes. Brian Stockwell 59:00.640
Any I'm happy to move it. The addition in, if you can scroll down please, Linda. Unidentified Speaker 59:07.000
Item seven, ground Unidentified Speaker 59:09.900
Yeah, there is no planning need. Nadine 59:13.880
Yeah, that's a good point. Karen Finzel 59:20.200
yeah, happy to second. Unidentified Speaker 59:41.060
there's yeah two issues we've got here Brian Stockwell 59:48.280
One is we've got a hospital that's under a public partnership which they have a long-term lease over then logical to develop. Way you'd the only way to override that zoning would be if there was overriding community need. If we didn't have any other day surgery, oncology availability. It may be something to say well this is an urgent need, we've got an ageing population. But the applicant, I believe, hasn't demonstrated that there is overriding community need that justifies their conflict with the zoning scheme. Yeah, and I would have to reiterate that I think you know the proof is in the pudding for the housing crisis I agree with the additional wording of the planning scheme Karen Finzel 01:00:51.633
I think we have supported evidence to say at the moment we need to look after available land for housing and given that's the crisis and I support the recommendation of the staff. Nadine 01:01:08.393
Questions, I guess, just a question, just some clarity on Amelia Lorentson 01:01:13.893
The joining properties, how many houses can they provide? On the existing zone, I think when I went through the information requests, think they, the applicant epoch of deployment 6. That's correct. As a conventional sub-division, 600 square metres, yes, you can approximately get six houses. That's right. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 01:01:37.796
You might be able to get six secondary dwellings as Nadine 01:01:40.256
Well. That's correct. So there's other options for any accommodation. Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 01:01:56.438
Secretary general. The president Unidentified Speaker 01:01:58.758
Thank you. Secretary general. Report. Unidentified Speaker 01:02:05.156
Yeah, nearly got a one. I did both in one of the days. Tom Wegener 01:02:09.716
We have a 6.1 planning application decided by delegated authority for July of 2023. Great. Anyway, Patrick Murphy. I've got a conflict. Karen Finzel 01:02:25.374
Yes, yeah. I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as on 5th of March, 2020, Mr. Peter Butt, who was an. No, that's not right. Oh. Are you calling him an okay. Listed the delegated report applicant number one, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe that a reasonable person could have a perception of bias, because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Butt, and I believe I can consider this matter. Impartially and in the public interest. Therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the on whether I can remain and participate in Frank Wilkie 01:03:24.860
Just a question, wouldn't it be that I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because these decisions made on the delegated authority have already been made. Unidentified Speaker 01:03:37.940
Not whether or not it's a post-personal relationship. Unidentified Speaker 01:03:48.661
A pivotal issue. Unidentified Speaker 01:03:54.813
Yeah, thank you. Under delegated authority. Unidentified Speaker 01:03:54.813
Yeah, thank you, that's good. Unidentified Speaker 01:04:01.640
And 19 and 1. Yeah, the report is for Unidentified Speaker 01:04:11.020
And Councillors, I do say that because if this was a live application, which we had to make a decision upon, then you'd not be in the room. Yeah. Unidentified Speaker 01:04:21.500
Thank you. Unidentified Speaker 01:04:24.120
Wedding. Unidentified Speaker 01:04:35.560
Do you want to change the other wording as Unidentified Speaker 01:04:39.220
Well? Yes, you can't delete it. Yeah, that Council will vote on this matter because you just cut the decision has already been made because under delegated authority and the report is the notion only. Unidentified Speaker 01:04:55.340
Yeah, thank you. Karen Finzel 01:05:09.922
Take it to the vote. Tom Wegener 01:05:11.613
Going to talk about a couple of things I was going yeah. Are we voting? Well, you're the chairman. I'm not the chairman. I just want to make sure that we're not voting out of turn here. Because we can't vote for the reason. Yeah. We're in a little whole glory right now. Yet. I read it out because the stenographers kept you out. I'm busy this morning. All in favour? Councillor Stockwell and Wegener? If I had to accept either, huh? Yeah. Amelia. Thank you. Yeah, we're back into questions. Any concerning the development of the report? Made by delegated authority? Brian Stockwell 01:06:09.785
I don't have any questions. Was there any Friday afternoon inspection of application number three, atelier tell you wonder weinbach? Unidentified Speaker 01:06:19.849
It was Tom Wegener 01:06:25.929
It's much controversial here. I don't see any short-term accommodation in that location. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:34.887
Oh, I can probably look this up, but there was a vehicle crossover proposals, quite a few, in the report. Can you explain what? Patrick Murphy 01:06:44.106
Yeah, so the report includes all the applications that were decided under delegation, so you'll of types of applications, from Material Change of Use, development permit for building works, some exemption certificates, and there'll be operational works approvals included in there. So when there's an applicant, when someone seeks to develop a driveway that's considered to be non-standard, doesn't comply with the, you know engineers standard engineering drawings, or potentially the second driveway, it needs an approval. So, and it could also be associated with subset of a Material Change of Use application where there is approval needed for car parking and access and the like. So it could come through that way as well. Unidentified Speaker 01:07:25.084
Thank you. Tom Wegener 01:07:25.864
Question number five. An alteration in addition to dwelling house, roof, Terrace and setback. Oh, it's not a roof Terrace, common it's So is that being put onto a house, or is that an alteration to what's already there? Patrick Murphy 01:07:45.905
I might have to come back to you, Councillor, and give you the exact details, but I would say looking at that it's likely that it did involve, it would either be the modification of an existing roof Terrace or the development of a new roof Terrace. Tom Wegener 01:07:59.214
We've had long discussions, haven't we? Yeah. Terraces. Unidentified Speaker 01:08:03.334
And certainly there's something that takes serious consideration from the officers to ensure the visual impact on the surrounding area, but also the addressed as Unidentified Speaker 01:08:12.470
Well. Karen Finzel 01:08:12.850
Yeah, that's good. Do you want further information on that one, about the overlooking? Tom Wegener 01:08:18.890
No, we won't. Have you heard from another? Yeah. Yeah. So, I'll be the second. Other questions? I don't need to speak to it. All in favour? Unanimous? Thank you. Very much, everybody. Thank you, Patrick. I will call this morning's environment meeting to a close at 2:44. Thank you, everybody, for joining today. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
