Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 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 00:04.440
Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Planning and 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 the past elders, the past, present, and emerging, and also have and emerging. We also have councillors Lorentson and Wilkie attending as well, but did, did Frank leave? He's right there. He's right there. Okay. Karen Finzel 00:34.266
And welcome to the gallery. Tom. Tom Wegener 00:41.146
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 later on. We did it in the past. Yes. May I have a mover and a seconder for the confirmations of the minutes the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held in August? 7. Karen Finzel 01:02.188
Happy to second. Thank you. All in favour? Tom Wegener 01:05.288
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. you. You're welcome to give us an overview. David Gorman 01:28.420
Yeah great, thanks for everyone attending today. So today we're seeking environmental services seeking final endorsement on the flying fox statement of management in turn. purpose of the statement of management and is to articulate Noosa Shire Council's approach to flying fox management. Now that's across council land, private land and also state owned land. The purpose of the statement of management intent too is just to provide that guidance to all the different stakeholders across the Noosa Shire on how Noosa Council plans to manage flying 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 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 active roosts that we have at the moment, around 8 demonstrate some level of community conflict. It may be low or it may be high. It just depends on the site and the numbers of the flying foxes relative to residential properties and other 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 Shire all year round. We also have a third species of flying fox called the little red flying fox. Now these do 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 roost just because of the numbers that we can see. It's not uncommon to see anywhere from 50 to 400,000. We've had over the last couple of years, we've had some major influxes of Little Reds back in 2015. and 2016 at Wallace Park Noosaville. The most 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 foxes they 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 state government delegated flying fox management responsibilities to local councils in 2021 so state government devolved that count that responsibility councils to manage flying foxes within urban flying fox management areas which basically cover all of the urbanized areas across local governments within Queensland. As part of that transition the State government also established a grants program so that kicked off in 2021 it was a three-year grants program which offered around 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 developing site specific risk management plans so the the SOMI the statement of management intent is the overall arching council policy approach for client boxes but that's at a So everything under that we're looking at site specific risk management plans that we need to develop for high conflict risks. I should note too that the grants program is a little bit limited in fact that it only offers a 50/50 split for funding of local governments with a population above 50,000 so is the Noosa Shire Council situation so any any projects that we elect to chase under that grants program it's a 50/50 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 we are here to discuss today. we've also generated four site-specific flying fox roost management plans so we have one now for Wallace Park, Noosa Ville. We have one for Waratah Reserve, Tewantin. We have one for a roost 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. Since that was endorsed we've undertaken 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 media etc. We've also targeted the roofs where we were developing our site-specific management plans for so we're inviting those residents to not feedback on the site-specific risk management plans but at the same time have a read of the SOMI, understand okay you know read that document first, how it sits and presents that overall framework and guidance for stakeholders and that 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 you'll say Noosa option and then we went to the site specific So, in detail, I've provided the results within the Council report, so I won't go through every page of that report, but the main outcomes that we're here to discuss today is main feedback that we got from the consultation progress program through the Your Say Noosa surveys and the application of site-specific routes 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 SOMI, we basically classified routes as low, medium or high conflict. And from there, that would trigger Council's approach and moving down the management actions. So management can include things like monitoring of routes. It can include things of application of Noosa Council's Flying Fox subsidy program for residents. It can move into the generation of site specific routes management plans. And then from there, we and then from there we can go on to potentially works buffer work so trimming of vegetation etc just a little bit of an overview there but the issue with having conflict as our main guide for council to transition through these management approaches is that conflict is very obviously so conflict can be different for people living next to 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 idea of having that conflict there it's very difficult to attribute an accurate level of conflict for 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-day life so we didn't view that as a suitable 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 roost that's exhibiting some level of conflict, Council will 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 a few things. So firstly, it promotes equity between stakeholders, so Council's applying the same approach across all of our flying boxes. It also sorry yes as I said but basically having that stage approach it 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 that doesn't prevent Council from recognising that at a that at a particular roost, potentially overnight, we've had a huge influx of flying foxes. We may have a very high level of conflict. The SOMI doesn't prevent Council from jumping through those stage management approaches to find the appropriate mitigation. So that was the major outcome of the 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 trigger? Replacing it with a staged approach regardless of the situation and the risk dynamics. Karen Finzel 11:25.191
Probably the only thing I'll just add there is in terms of having specific numbers of fly and fox triggers, that wasn't included in the SOMI. Because that will be then reflected in a site-specific roost management plan because obviously you can have very small roosts that cause high conflict or you can have very large roosts that cause high conflict if that makes sense. So it's hard to put an arbitrary number on it. David Gorman 11:46.289
The conflict trigger level so that's why we haven't done it in this case and that that's the importance as I 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 approaches flying foxes across the Shire. When we get into actually looking at management options for specific routes we need to have those site-based management plans which identify things like Camille mentioned in terms of actual proximity flying foxes roosting to private property, numbers as triggers, etc. Not possible within the SOMI. We just have that stage management approach throughout there which may trigger the development of a site-based flying fox roost management plan. plan if required. So future application of the 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 communication side 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 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 the from the community about hey what 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, this is what council will not do based on state and Commonwealth legislation. Now I also see the document as being an 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 miscommunication to occur whether it be know natural area staff members that may not have a complete understanding of flying fox management legislation. It removes that that potential for miscommunication to 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 things 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 information is now available on our website and people are directed from the same into the website if they choose to have a look. Obviously we invite all the commitments under the SOMI as it stands now, as I mentioned earlier we do have four roost management plans current across the Noosa Shire, so our commitments under the SOMI would be the continued implementation of those roost management plans obviously. And also to 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, our staff members and councils and executive team. We're noting within the 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 that program did not really satisfy the needs of some residents. Some residents 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 is actually one of three councils across the southeast Queensland has a flying fox subsidy program it's not standard it's 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 also haven't quite got to the stage of communications with the broader community so flying fox management is all about building that education across the community the understanding flying foxes where they fit into you know our urban environment our natural environment and ultimately building a little bit more tolerance amongst the community to live with flying foxes at times where where there are no other options so that communications program is something council hasn't implemented as yet there are other across the region that to do that extremely well and they have actually seen really positive outcomes for the residents and flying foxes and the environment as a whole so that's something council would really like to look at doing 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 to action future requirements under the SOMI in the pipeline we do have a flying fox roost management plan for Pinaroo Park that we'd like to get delivered to the community and also and also to 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 have the roost management plans underneath. Between that, it would be great to have a regional flying box management plan. So that can go into specifics about how council manages roost across the Shire as a whole. It can what triggers we may have between roosts if we get influxes. It will also generate a 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 new jerk reactions that can occur 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 have no justification or guidance on how we're going to deal with a future influx, which I think is extremely important. 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 a statement of management intent, so as I said, the aim of the statement of management intent is to provide that legislative guidance to all stakeholders including council staff and councillors on how we manage flying foxes across the Noosa Shire. 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 the 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 too 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 state has just offered an additional $2 million 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 I mentioned before a management plan for Pinaroo Park and a regional flying fox management plan. also that communications program that we'd like 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. I don't think so. Okay, Tom Wegener 20:52.017
That was a thorough discussion. Thank you very much. That's alright. The flying foxes are something where you think your life is hard and flying foxes come and roost next door and then your life gets a whole lot harder. I'm glad that you put so much incredible effort into this. Any questions? Brian Stockwell 21:16.223
For the last X number of years we have really been spending all our flying fox fauna 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 a little red for example seems to come in just for the Corymbia intermedia, the bloodwoods. we start looking at trying to attract them away from the urban areas by places like Ringtail, Ural and other large plans we have start to establish those alternative roosting sites away from urban Are there other long term strategies we should be thinking about which isn't purely reacting to the urban wildlife conflict. David Gorman 22:09.252
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 too 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, about identifying, you know, mapping flying fox habitat across the South East Queensland region, actually collectively mapping all of our roosts across South East Queensland, tracking the 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, so there is some research being done in that area and Noosa Council's, yeah, actively involved in that, which is, which is nice. SPEAKER_03 23:01.582
I can also add, when I go presentations to the community members, we did look at a couple of cases of 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 botanical gardens in Melbourne and Sydney, and they'd spent quite some millions of dollars creating habitat and flying foxes eventually predominantly moved away from botanical gardens, but moved somewhere else. so they created this palace for them, which is basically a vacant palace. So when we do that, we'll undertake some work to find out whether that investment is likely to achieve success. Some of the information we've got for similar programs, yeah, it's hedging bets as to whether that'll work, particularly when you consider the cost of... you know, the cost of planting specific species does tend to run up fairly high when you look at the broader terms of elder attractants Brian Stockwell 24:02.704
So... Does the current project analyse all the sites from multiple different criteria to see are the criteria to see whether we can see whether there is some method in their madness or whether it's just random? David Gorman 24:15.047
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 roost across the Shire, not across the Shire, across southeast 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 internally 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 it's about identifying those potential futures and yeah if you get what I mean sort of tying it all in nicely. Yeah there may be something in there that we can just research find out like I remember one time think it was a dry hot spring and the ones from around the library started moving over to Goat Island you know where it was cooler, surrounded by water. So it's temperature you know are they finding cool hollows SPEAKER_03 25:25.119
Which 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 25:35.759
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. Tom Wegener 25:51.117
With the difficulties in the flying fox program, just one of them is that when you're going to go out there and trim the trees and so forth and take you know go to the steps you have to do it at night because the flying foxes aren't there at night so you can't disturb them during the day so that just that just adds you know another level of the complexity of how you know of the plan and how to deal with that. David Gorman 26:12.892
That yeah um it's in those sort of emergency work situations which we had at the Waratah reserve earlier this year with the red flying foxes we are it said flying foxes are protected under the under state and commonwealth legislation so councils um to operate under codes of practice in terms of managing flying fox roosts and that does require in some situations council to have arborists out there at night time working under lights to do emergency trimming work so obviously we try to avoid you know those you know those sort of works because of obviously their health and safety concerns for our contractors and staff and whatnot it's it's a big process Brian Stockwell 26:52.870
Is this going to get to the end, Gene? No. Amelia Lorentson 27:00.305
I think all the councillors we've 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 I was starting 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 dispersions. dispersal management across all of Australia. And their conclusions, and maybe this should be as part of the education to our residents. Tom Wegener 27:50.854
Is this a question? It is a question. So dispersals are high risk, high cost activities with low success rates. And in the majority of cases, flying foxes will either not move either not move or move 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 28:32.771
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, flying-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, about the success rates, what the issues are, you know, the unlikelihood of them working and what's actually reported. 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 presented it very well as well you know but we yeah we definitely saw that shift in attitude within 20 minutes of the community meeting and they said we are doing that at the roost level but we need to do that across the Shire because I said flying foxes can show up anywhere at any time and we don't have that that information out there with the community at this point so yeah. Larry Sengstock 29:39.087
Dave isn't there a good example of that down at Coolum in recent years where the Sunshine Coast Council dispersed a roost and it split the actually split the roost and caused problems in two locations rather than one. David Gorman 29:52.287
That's exactly right was the last dispersal I believe the Sunshine Coast attempted quite a number of years ago and you know the other thing to consider too is that you 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 there'll be a problem There'll be a problem at another person's residence 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 ability at this point in the science to show us Tom Wegener 30:40.962
Councillor how to Finzel has a question. Karen Finzel 30:42.902
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 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 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 see we offer some program where people can get support but I'm looking more like their mental health and well-being. David Gorman 31:46.635
Yeah it's a tricky one so 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 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 health impacts that we see from Flying Fox Roost. Secondly, I should note that Queensland Health, the Maroochydore office, I forget, sorry, Queensland Health Maroochydore office, yeah. in terms of offering that support. So we actually had Queensland Health representatives at, um, the community meeting that we held, um, for the Waratah Reserve residents, um, back when we had the influx. So we actually had Queensland Health, uh, representatives come down there. They supplied a doctor, um, who talked to the health risks around flying foxes and provided that, that mental health advice. that mental health advice as well. So the support is there, but it's very challenging, I guess, for people to live in those situations in some cases. It's a little bit tricky, as I said, Queensland Health is, I guess, the governing agency for health. It's not council, but we need to strike that balance. And again, it's very dependent on the dependent on the rooster dynamics. With Warrantah Reserve, we were working very closely with the High Viscous Retirement Village staff there to address some of those concerns that they had for residents within the retirement village there as well. Karen Finzel 33:35.555
Yeah it's something we probably could look at that as part of that regional flying fox plan and the management of that. I know Sunny Coast are grappling with it as well and sort of where does our responsibility end and you know our duty of care to the community. So during influx obviously we 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 yeah. David Gorman 34:04.065
Everyone's impacted differently too so from the outside yeah you know we may you know I might have the opinion oh it's probably not really that big of an impact for that property but I don't know the situation in that that household there could be an elderly resident resident who's quite vulnerable. think that comes down to that consultation too, working with all the residents closely when we have those influxes to identify what the impacts are and when we develop those. specific risk management plans we obviously take that into consideration so during the consultation process we identify what the impacts 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 health care facility or whatever it might be it all plays into when we generate those commands No, no, no, Sorry, lastest point. Karen Finzel 35:03.981
That's why we escalated the trimming so quickly at Waratah given the impacts on the retirement village residents there and the stress it was causing those residents. We made the decision that we needed to do something and that was what we could do 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 if it was in a different situation, we wouldn't have gone to that level of works. would have spent about a hundred thousand bucks on that one sale over the last six months. Thank you. Tom Wegener 35:42.368
I don't see a reason to put this in general. general, so would anybody like to? Happy to move it. Karen Finzel 35:49.143
Happy to second. Okay, all in favour? Tom Wegener 35:54.443
Unanimous? Thank you very much. Thank you. That was, that is, it is a very, very-- very difficult situation of life options, and we all congratulate you, but I congratulate you especially on the strategy here, the management stages, and it's very easy to understand for people that-- It's really difficult. Yeah. Thank you very much, and pass it on to Camille and Ben as well. They've been quite involved in the process. I appreciate it. Please go. Thank you. Yeah, Thank you. Okay, thanks. Have a good day. Karen Finzel 36:25.713
You too. Bye. Tom Wegener 36:29.644
Okay, we're on to 5.2 application for reconfiguring a lot. One of the two lots at 28 Satinay Drive, Tewantin. Yes, Patrick. You. And Regina, she said, "Hey, what was that today? " She said, "Regina, are you going to walk us through these things today? " 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 recommendation. So this just relates to point 2a. So just in red, you'll see that we've made reference just to council land as well as council reserve. 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 that there is to be 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 Park Lands. So subdivision of this lot would essentially change the density of the development that Noosa Park Lands 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 bordered 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. required by the State planning policy. So we don't have an adequate area essentially to accommodate dwelling on the site should it be supported and further developed. So essentially I suppose in summary approval of of the subdivision here would result in intensification of an area, increasing the number of persons and property at risk, and then it's also, I'm sorry, the lot size is not characteristic in the area, so the two main elements of concern are bushfire and the lot size. Larry Sengstock 39:18.380
Questions for Georgina? Tom Wegener 39:20.800
Let's just stop there. Question? Brian Stockwell 39:26.440
Georgina, when you went outside, did you estimate the height of the vegetation behind the block? Georgina 39:31.380
I did go outside with our environment officer as well. I believe that quite it quite approximately would be around the 20 metres I believe. Brian Stockwell 39:41.531
At least 20 metres for some of those mature trees. Just in terms of the fire risk it's substantial you know like the I'm just looking at the RE that a map 12-5-6 which is grey and black and it also has some black part Black part that can get up to 30-40 metres and generally for fire protection you want to be more than one and a half metres of height of the tree away for your building where if we touch by this there's probably no way that they sophisticated in our fire planning but in the old days these sort of forests we used to have one ten scale for fire risk and these sort of fire these sort of forests were ten and that's because they don't often burn but when they burn they burn very very hot so they're actually some of the studies show that they have some some of the highest carbon ladings any forest in the world and it's dry October under story you get these really hot fires that go through so it is purely from that perspective is purely from that perspective it would be an unwise move to increase the opportunity for dwellings quite close to the backbound room as the report says. It would rely on both Council and QPWS having response. We generally do not agree to it. Karen Finzel 41:12.703
I'm happy to move the motion. Brian Stockwell 41:14.743
I'll second it. And I've said all I need to say? Yeah, yeah. I think, yeah, with this one... In Noosa Park, we need to balance this 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 to look at that particular clause within the planning scheme. But creating a lot that can't meet the same standards for fire just rules it out as a question. Tom Wegener 41:51.640
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, round of 5.3. Application for other changes. Development approval. 1, 2, 6, 3, 7, C, A. Integrated permaculture design, organic orchard and golf course complex. 18 walls to include group farmstay accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at 59 Kabi Road to Cootharaba. And we have Nadine here to walk us through this. Amelia Lorentson 42:36.877
Thank you. Tom Wegener 42:38.657
I have a potential conflict of interest in this kind of action, so we'd like to change the chair. Larry Sengstock 42:46.177
Do we have it? If you could read it out, Tom. Tom Wegener 42:51.057
In accordance with chapter 15. Sorry, Linda, that screen is not changing. Sorry. Linda, that screen is not changing. Amelia Lorentson 42:58.510
No, it's not. Sorry. Tom Wegener 43:00.810
In accordance with chapter 58B, the Local Government Act 2009, Councillor Wegener, he's another he, provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. have a declarable conflict of interest. The author of the permaculture report, Tom Kendall, is a friend of mine, and I am also the president of Permaculture Noosa. I believe I can make a judgment in a public interest. I have a way to change the chariot. Can I have a declarable I believe I can make a judgment in a public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision at the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Larry Sengstock 43:49.300
So, let's see, I'll take charge from here. We can appoint a new chair. Brian Stockwell 43:58.320
Councillor Finzel, would you like to be the chair? Karen Finzel 44:04.820
Yes, I'm happy to take the chair. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Larry Sengstock 44:10.580
Yes, I'm happy to deal with the matter. Karen Finzel 44:15.060
Okay, so we'll deal with the matter before us with the conflict. Now, do we, do you have any questions? Yeah, I suppose, is there any potential ongoing involvement of Permaculture Noosa in this development, in this site, to use commences? I would say no. No. you know if 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 Pembroke Constitutional and he's a member of Pembroke Constitutional? Tom Wegener 45:10.302
I would suspect it wouldn't fall under the Act because it's meeting, it's not social, it's usually permaculture centred activities that would come into contact with each other. Brian Stockwell 45:22.842
And then the last question, do you know whether there's any ongoing benefit attributing to Mr Kendall's failure to the government? Tom Wegener 45:31.495
I don't know for a fact if there would be or not but I suspect there would be because it's a very small world out there of experts. Karen Finzel 45:39.836
I have a question, given the report talks about distribution of food from the site as part of the rationale as to why you know they want to proceed forward here. have concerns around that relationship and 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 a person of influence in that space? Tom Wegener 46:17.129
Oh, I really have nothing to nothing to do with what they're doing with the food or it's just very separate. I really have nothing to do with it. I have an interest in permaculture in general, but how they deal with the food on their property is well and truly outside of my scope. of influence or benefit or it's just a matter of the way that there's gonna be a growing food, I suspect. And then the principles, we share principles and an ideology, but that's about it. Brian Stockwell 46:55.717
Going to try something. I'm going to say, I'm going to move that Councillor Wegener remain in the room. not vote on this matter. And I think the substantive decision 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 matter is likely to be referred 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. Larry Sengstock 47:54.752
Given that we're looking to probably defer this to the general, then that may be a position we take, that we lay this And we take a decision immediately to refer it to the general. Brian Stockwell 48:15.064
We could do that. I just know there may be people in the Cabinet who came particularly for the discussion on this item, that's what I was... Larry Sengstock 48:23.564
Right, yeah. I might, yeah. I just think given your public link, and it's very 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, you know, that protects you as well further down the track to make sure that, you know, there's no... you know there's no 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 we can do that this is a little bit odd I just have to think with our standing orders we can a procedural matter occur at any time. I'm just thinking whether we we have to actually make the decision on the conference at all. We didn't last time. Now it's been delegated. Amelia Lorentson 49:31.738
A couple of meetings ago we did the same thing where we had that many conference that you moved it to the forum meeting. Larry Sengstock 49:39.138
Yeah, okay. We'll go that way. I think so. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Unfortunately we're not going to have any discussion here today but I think that's the position. Yeah, I think it's the, yeah. think when we're dealing with conflicts, in my opinion, I think we've got to just make sure that we've, we're protecting everybody in the space. This is a matter that requires discussion with the whole council. Amelia Lorentson 50:06.149
Through the Chair, recollection is when we're in a situation like this, the person with a declarable conflict of interest to exercise abundance of caution will leave the room. However, at the general meeting, 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. matter today. So declare, walk out, and then redeclare at general for whole of council to make their mind up. That's my recollection of how it would be addressed in this Amen. We could do that. Larry Sengstock 50:47.760
We could have that. That would allow conversation 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. Karen Finzel 51:01.228
Yeah. I think we'll refer it to general. Larry Sengstock 51:04.208
Okay. Brian Stockwell 51:05.008
So I think it's been moved and seconded, hasn't it? Karen Finzel 51:08.948
Which one are we referring to? Your one. Mine hasn't been seconded seconded yet. I think I seconded it, didn't I? Did you second it? Amelia Lorentson 51:15.664
We've only wanted to chair. You've moved this motion where you are. Yeah, now that hasn't been seconded. That wasn't seconded. So it passes for want of a seconder. Brian Stockwell 51:23.524
Yeah. Karen Finzel 51:30.100
So we can just give the significance of the matter to the general, if that wasn't even seconded. Larry Sengstock 51:36.060
Can I ask why there's no seconder for the appointment of a chair? Brian Stockwell 51:44.400
Oh, I second myself. And then Councillor Finzel moved it, the matter be... Yeah. Karen Finzel 51:54.740
Given the significance of the matter, that we move it to the general meeting. Larry Sengstock 52:07.600
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. Karen Finzel 52:36.180
So for those at home we are just waiting for the staff to, oh okay, thank you, it's just us. So Karen you move that one and second Brian. You want to second that? Okay, all in favour? Brian Stockwell 52:54.000
Due to the significance. Karen Finzel 52:55.360
Yeah due to the significance of the matter. 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? you that's unanimous. And we welcome Councillor Wegener back to the chair. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 53:55.796
So, yeah, I think that's the first way we're going to do that. Yeah, I think. Yeah. And we've got, you know, we've got a code of conduct towards Tom to make sure that he's, you know, we're going to look after your mate, so. Yep, I think that covers that. Yeah. Tom Wegener 54:15.253
Are we ready? Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're up to 5.4, application for a hospital and healthcare service surgery. And associated facilities at 47 Goodchap Street, Tewantin. And we have Nadine back in the walk-in service. Thank you very much, Nadine. Amelia Lorentson 54:35.690
Good morning, everyone. So this is a development application for a material change of use, as Tom said, for a hospital and healthcare service at Goodchap Street. So it's the site right next door to the northwest of the existing hospital. The site is owned by Ramsey Health. The site's owned Good morning. The proposal is for two buildings on the site. The front building is for a healthcare centre of about 453 square metres. The second building is 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 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 land 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 the character 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 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. 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 this proposal. Brian Stockwell 56:32.080
Your last grounder accuser talks about there is no need. I presume what we're talking about there is planing need and therefore can you give, I think it's good to get an understanding of what the difference is between... a commercial need, a gross need versus a planning need 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? Amelia Lorentson 57:03.046
Yes, that's fine. Um, I think I had I think I had to start with your question Brian. So the applicant is in well in their own submission which is actually detailed in the report they've indicated to us that they don't own the current hospital site so one of their reasons for moving to reasons for moving to this site is to basically security of tenure. So there is currently a hospital operating in the Shire that caters for a range of activities and it's appropriately designed so in terms of planning need we have an existing facility, we have a site that's identified and other sites available in the Shire that available in the Shire that can cater for that need and the demand from the community. We don't really need this additional facility to be provided in this location. Brian Stockwell 58:01.501
Because we've approved a couple of other day surgeries recently, quite large ones. Well, quite large ones we've approved, yes. And there's vacant space up the road that is also zoned. So 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 a two-story 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. And there's seven adjoining residential properties? Yes. Which we see valid objections. Amelia Lorentson 58:53.320
Yes that's correct, yes. Brian Stockwell 59:00.760
Another question? I'm happy to move it. Yes. The addition in, if you can scroll down please, Linda. Amelia Lorentson 59:07.020
Item seven, ground seven. Brian Stockwell 59:09.920
Yeah, there is no planning need. I guess we move to the second then? Karen Finzel 59:29.780
Yeah, happy to second. Brian Stockwell 59:31.360
If I do so, it's a... Tom Wegener 59:37.748
Go ahead Brian, but I've actually forgot to ask Laura a particular question. They can ask questions if you want. There's two issues we've got here. One is hospital that's under a public partnership which they have a long-term lease over, then they've got a block of land beside that they don't see as logical to develop. On the other hand, we've got a housing crisis. We've got quite a large-scale residential block that could be developed for a multiple... I would have thought in various configurations. And most importantly, the only way you'd override that zoning would be if there was overriding community need. If we didn't have any other day surgery, didn't have any other 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 that overriding community need that justifies... Karen Finzel 01:00:39.433
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. I think, yeah, we have supported evidence to say at the moment we need to look after available land for housing, given that's the crisis, and I support the recommendation of the staff. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:07.324
Any questions, I guess, staff? Just a question, just some clarity on the joining properties, how many houses can they On the existing zone, I think when I went through the information requests, I think they, the applicant said six. That's correct. Is that correct? As a conventional subdivision, 600 square metres, yes. You can approximately get six houses. Six houses. That's right. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:01:37.979
You might be able to get six secondary dwellings as well. That's correct. So there's other options for any accommodation. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:02:26.760
I councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5th of March 2020 Mr. Peter Butt who was in that no that's not right Oh you're calling him an applicant okay listed the delegated report applicant number one donated one thousand six hundred and sixty six dollars and sixty six cents to my 2020 election campaign where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as future Noosa which is no 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 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 Larry Sengstock 01:03:24.720
Just a question, wouldn't it be, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because these decisions made under delegated authority have already been made, not whether or not it's a post-personal relationship? Yes. Thank you. Karen Finzel 01:03:55.453
Thank you, that's good. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:01.560
And the report is for Nightingale. Yeah, the report is for Nightingale. Larry Sengstock 01:04:11.160
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, yeah. Karen Finzel 01:04:21.860
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:36.060
Do you want to change the other wording as well? Yes. Most of the time, because... just cut and paste from above? Yeah. Because the decision has already been made and the delegated authority and the report is the same. Yeah. Karen Finzel 01:04:56.120
Thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:05:08.195
I'm voting. Okay. I'm voting. Tom Wegener 01:05:10.335
Can I get to the vote? Are we voting? Well, you're the chairman. I'm not the chairman. We're not voting out of turn here. We can't vote out of turn. Yeah. We don't know what we're voting on yet. Brian Stockwell 01:05:26.935
I read it there. The stenographers kept you out. I'm busy this morning. Tom Wegener 01:05:35.395
All in favour? Councillor Stockwell and Wegener? If I had to accept either, huh? Karen Finzel 01:05:42.415
Yeah. Elinda. Tom Wegener 01:05:51.327
Thank you. Yeah, we're back into questions. Any questions concerning the development of the report? Any applications that have been made by delegated authority? Brian Stockwell 01:06:09.900
I don't have any questions. Was there any Friday afternoon inspection of application number three, Atelier Weinbach? It was, no. Tom Wegener 01:06:25.780
It doesn't seem to be much controversial. Yeah, I don't see any short-term accompanies in that case. Oh, sorry. Amelia, get your hand up. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:35.063
Oh, I can probably look this up, but there was vehicle crossover proposals, quite a few, in the report. Can you explain what that was? SPEAKER_03 01:06:44.343
Yeah, so the report includes all the applications that all the applications that were decided under delegation, so you'll have a cross-section of types of applications for material change of use, development permit for building works, some exemption certificates, and there'll be operational works approvals included in there, so when someone seeks to develop a driveway that's considered to be non-standard, doesn't comply with Tom Wegener 01:07:26.867
Five, an alteration in addition to dwelling house, roof, terrace and setback. Oh, it's not a roof terrace, it's not a roof common terrace, it's a roof terrace. So is that a roof terrace being put onto a house? Or is that an alteration to what's already there? Patrick Murphy 01:07:45.847
I might 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 01:07:59.155
We've had long discussions about roof terraces. And certainly there's something that takes serious consideration from the officers to ensure the visual impact on the surrounding area but also the overlooking is addressed as well. Karen Finzel 01:08:12.875
Yeah that's Do you want further information on that one? About the overlooking? Tom Wegener 01:08:19.089
No, we've got heavy loads coming up. So I'll move the recommendation. Karen Finzel 01:08:28.169
I'll be the second. Tom Wegener 01:08:32.614
I don't need to speak to it. Karen Finzel 01:08:35.214
All in favour? Tom Wegener 01:08:37.394
Unanimous? Karen Finzel 01:08:38.334
Thank you. very much everybody. Thank you Patrick. I'll call the team environment meeting to a close at 2:44. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody for joining. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
