Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, 10 October 2023
Date: Tuesday, 10 October 2023 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:40:32
Synopsis: Planning: Bunnings Trade height, signage, vegetation to General Committee, Appeals: Council defending three court matters, ZEN: 3-yr coordinator funding w/ conflict clauses, Delegations noted.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Tom Wegener Karen Finzel Clare Stewart Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Council approved remote attendance for Karen Finzel under s254K Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld); unanimous (00:35) (Attendance). Planning item 5.2 (Bunnings Trade, 178 Eumundi Noosa Rd) was referred to General Committee for further consideration; focus: height exceedance, streetscape, signage, vegetation (19:37) (Item 5.2). Planning item 5.1 (Zero Emissions Noosa Inc. grant) referred to General Committee due to significance; draft 3‑year partnership agreement to fund a coordinator, subject to annual budgets (28:18) (Item 5.1). Planning Appeals : Council noted reports and resolved to defend three Planning & Environment Court appeals—Picture Point lot reconfiguration (D130/2023), Cooroy relocatable home park (D153/2023), Sunshine Beach dwelling (D133/2023); all unanimous (30:14–34:18) (Items 5.3–5.5). Delegated decisions : Council noted August 2023 outcomes—97 approvals under delegation; one refusal by Council (Cooroy relocatable home park) (35:57) (Item 6.1). Chair confirmed meeting closure at 10:11, with return of Clare Stewart recorded post COI item (39:26) (Closure). Operational detail : Officers confirmed prior court-approved signage regime on the Bunnings site; any new signage likely constrained unless subdivision finalised or court order varied (08:35) (Item 5.2). Traffic : External review found no adverse impacts for Bunnings Trade; trade peak expected earlier than retail peak (18:04) (Item 5.2). Design negotiation : Officers secured minor articulation/pitched roof; height still 12 m vs 10 m code due to pallet racking and site fall; building set back behind Vision Court (06:28–16:08) (Item 5.2). Vegetation : Request for a plan locating all frontage trees on lot and road reserve to inform screening; to be provided for General Committee (16:41–17:58) (Item 5.2). ZEN scope : Coordinator to strengthen grants, education, and stationary energy initiatives; alignment with Council’s net-zero objectives and prior community battery success (24:42–27:21) (Item 5.1). Agreement flexibility : Annual budget gate, capacity to tweak terms (e.g., conflict disclosure) and role emphasis (coordination vs admin) (25:27; 27:21) (Item 5.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Brian Stockwell questioned approving a 12 m industrial aesthetic and corporate colour palette inconsistent with Noosa signage objectives (08:58–12:16) (Item 5.2). Signage “creep” risk identified: existing court approval already “significantly oversized” relative to current Local Law intent; officers to constrain any new signs (08:58–11:22) (Item 5.2). ZEN agreement transparency : Amelia Lorentson sought explicit conflict-of-interest disclosure clauses; officers agreed to refine (26:50–27:21) (Item 5.1). Process discipline : Multiple significant items elevated to General Committee to ensure fuller scrutiny (19:37; 28:18) (Items 5.1–5.2). Data clarity : Delegations report enhanced with breakdown table to improve public understanding of approvals vs refusals (35:57–37:00) (Item 6.1). Vegetation transparency : On-site tree survey requested to validate screening and landscaping claims before decision (16:41–17:58) (Item 5.2). Legal / Risk Defending appeals : Council to defend three P&E Court matters—lot split at Picture Point (neighbourhood character), Cooroy relocatable home park (site constraints/character), Sunshine Beach dwelling (height, site cover, setbacks, overlooking) (30:14–34:18) (Items 5.3–5.5). Litigation exposure : Costs and prospects not yet estimable; case management to refine expert needs and duration (31:09) (Items 5.3–5.5). Signage compliance risk : Any additional Bunnings signage may require varying existing court order or completing subdivision to fall under current Local Law; non-compliance risk flagged (08:35–11:22) (Item 5.2). Scheme performance outcomes : Height exceedance (12 m vs 10 m) justified on performance grounds (industrial function/site topography); vulnerability to appeal mitigated by setbacks and screening conditions (06:28–13:26) (Item 5.2). Contract governance : ZEN agreement is 3-year but budget-contingent; amendments permitted to add COI clauses, reducing probity risk (25:27; 27:21) (Item 5.1). Sunshine Beach Appeal D133/2023 : 60 Seaview Terrace dwelling refused for excessive height/site cover/setbacks and rooftop terrace overlooking; Council to defend (33:16–34:18) (Item 5.5). Retail minor works : Delegated approval for extension to Sunshine Beach butcher shop tenancy confirmed as discussed previously (38:27–39:04) (Item 6.1). Material Change of Use / Planning Scheme Interface Noosaville Bunnings Trade : New trade-focused offer distinct from Bunnings Warehouse; dual-level with undercroft parking; compliance except height; conditions to address colour palette and landscaping foreshadowed (01:40–15:52) (Item 5.2). Sign law shift : Historic court-approved signage pre-dates current Local Law; Council emphasis on curbing building-as-sign outcomes, aligning with Noosa character (08:58–11:18) (Item 5.2). Delegated assessments : Range from MCUs to operational works; example queries on riparian setbacks indicate code-based flexibility applied case-by-case (37:22–38:23) (Item 6.1). Environmental & Climate Initiatives ZEN partnership : Funding targets a coordinator to accelerate emissions reduction projects, grants, and community education; leverages ZEN’s DGR status and science-based approach (24:42–27:21) (Item 5.1). Outcomes focus : Annual operational plan and reporting to evidence ROI and target alignment; modeled on updated NBRF framework (27:21) (Item 5.1). Community Transparency & Governance Live COI management : Clare Stewart declared a declarable COI re OPW23/0077 linked to a close friend; left and later returned; vote proceeded without her (35:12) (Item 6.1). Meeting management : Chair rearranged agenda to accommodate presenter availability and elevate significant items, maintaining procedural clarity (00:47; 20:29; 28:18) (Items 5.1–5.2). Conflicts of Interest Clare Stewart : Declarable COI for OPW23/0077 due to close personal friendship with Jane Margaret Blake; exited for item; compliance with Chapter 5B LGA 2009 (35:12) (Item 6.1). ZEN agreement : Proposal to embed explicit conflict disclosure obligations for funded partner to enhance probity (26:50–27:21) (Item 5.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 10 October 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 10 OCTOBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Tom Wegener (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Clare Stewart Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson EXECUTIVE Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Cr Finzel is approved to attend the Meeting dated 10/10/2023 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. ZERO EMISSIONS NOOSA (ZEN) INC. GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 OCTOBER 2023 5.2. MCU22/0051 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE HARDWARE & TRADE SUPPLIES AT 178 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.2 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Carried unanimously. 5.3. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D130 OF 2023 – APPLICATION TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 INTO 2 LOTS) AT 39-41 PICTURE POINT CRESCENT, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D130 of 2023 and agree to defend the appeal. Carried unanimously. 5.4. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D153 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – RELOCATABLE HOME PARK (COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 32 DWELLINGS) AT 55 AND 70 CARPENTERS RD COOROY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D153 of 2023 and agree to defend the appeal. Carried unanimously. 5.5. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D133 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR BUILDING WORKS FOR A DWELLING HOUSE AT 60 SEAVIEW TCE, SUNSHINE BEACH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 OCTOBER 2023 That Council note the report by the Acting Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D133 of 2023 and agree to defend the appeal. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY AUGUST 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stewart provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to No. 28 OPW23/0077 in the list of applications in the report, as I have a close personal friendship with Jane Margaret Blake. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Stewart left the meeting room. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Manager, Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. Cr Stewart returned to the meeting. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10:11 AM
Meeting Transcript
Tom Wegener 00:00.521
Everybody, welcome to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting. Tuesday, October 10th, 2023. I declare the meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi People and I pay my respects to their past, to the elders past, present, and emerging. And I note that we have councillor Stockwell and Mayor Stewart in the room and we have Councillor Finzel attending by zoom. Should we right now have the motion to accept that we can have, we can allow? Brian Stockwell 00:35.391
Yes, so I'm happy to move the standard motion that says we're happy for Councillor Finzel to attend virtually. I'll second it. Tom Wegener 00:45.374
I'd like to speak to that? No. Any questions? No. All in favour? It's been unanimous. I'll also like to note that Councillor Lorentson is in the room and we will be moving to we're gonna put item number one Zero Emissions Noosa back until any and we'll go start with 5.2 application for Material Change of Use hardware in trade supplies at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. Okay, we have Nadine. Nadine, Patrick, and Richard speaking. Nadine, would you walk us through this? Nadine Gordon 01:41.120
Yeah, good morning, everyone. This is an application, NC22/0051, for Material Change of Use for. And trade supplies at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. It's a proposed extension on the existing Bunnings site. If you're familiar with the existing Bunnings site, there is a rectangular parcel of land on the northern edge, which is currently vegetated, and the applicant proposes to construct a hardware and trade supply store on this portion of the site. The total floor area of over 1,000 square metres is proposed, over two levels, with car parking on the ground floor and the upper floor with the trade supplies. They are, this is, the applicant has indicated this is to be primarily timber and trade supplies to service professional builders and tradespeople. They've indicated that it's a different target market than the existing Bunnings Warehouse. This is actually called Bunnings Trade. The existing Bunnings green building is called Bunnings Warehouse. So it's actually tailored to suit the trade side of things. There is duplication in this area, so the trade people can buy, again, in bulk, I suppose, screws and nails and things like that, minimising the need to go over to the existing Bunnings. It also has a different external appearance and branding as such. It has a different colour scheme. There is a single elevator proposed within the building, therefore it's not as retail friendly getting from the down to the upper level. Again, maybe providing sort of access for people with trailers. It also has a different website to the existing Bunnings Warehouse. They've given us a breakdown of Bunnings, the website has a whole range, the existing Bunnings Warehouse has a whole range of items from tools, garden, kitchen, bathroom, plumbing, paint, flooring, cleaning, lighting, electrical, indoor living. Whereas Bunnings Trade they've indicated focuses on the construction industry. So there's commercial standard power tools and equipment installation, timber and the like. So they've also further indicated that their product lines have a different quality than some of the power tools and power lines you get over on the existing one. The applicant has also indicated they are maintaining the existing trade supplies in the existing Bunnings Warehouse, which is mainly that timber trade area on the northern section of the building. We've had a look at the original court approval as well. So the existing Bunnings Warehouse was approved as a retail business type 4 showroom, a retail business type 6 hardware and a retail business type 7 garden and lifestyle centre. So there's a whole range of uses approved for that existing Bunnings. There is no specific condition in there about percentage of different items they can sell, but there is definitely a plan which shows the trade timber in that northern portion of the site. And as I've said, the applicant isn't happy to us. They don't intend to remove the, one of the other, so the building generally complies with the planning scheme requirements, but it doesn't comply in terms of the scheme, in terms of the existing, in uh in terms of the scheme's requirements for attending a high limit proposed proposes a building of 12 metres in height. We've questioned the applicant during the process about why they needed to go that high. They've indicated that the upper level is about metres at its lowest point and that's needed for racking and stacking of their pallets and the sale of their products. There is also a, when you look at this site, it is actually lower from the Vision Court buildings on the northern side of the building on the northern side of the site. And even the existing Bunnings driveway is higher. There's been substantial fill. So this is actually low and it actually has a significant cross hall from the rear to the sort of, from the northeastern corner down to the southwestern corner. There's at least a 6 metre fall across the site and it gets quite low at the front. So it is actually lower than the surrounding sites. In the report on one of the pages there is a copy of a plan on one of the pages, sorry. After. Figure six, is that what we're looking for? Yes, figure six. The one above it, there are the two elevations there. So one is. Elevations a one, two and four. Page 34. Yeah. Page 34, figure six, there are the two elevations there. The top one shows the applicant's impression of the Vision Court buildings, this proposed building. So Gateway Drive. It's above where it says. That's the middle building, extended proposed development. And then there's the existing development of Bunnings. So we've considered the performance outcomes, the proposals in terms of its impact on the streetscape. And in this instance, in light of the proposal, there's the surrounding development, the setback which is actually behind those existing Vision Court, we've supported that increase in height. So basically the planning report recommends approval of. This application subject to conditions. It was also mentioned about signage. Councillor Stockwell mentioned signage. We've also pulled out the old signage approval. There is a separate court approval for the signage which is quite specific for the Bunnings. There are pylon signs and fascia signs. Sorry. Fascia signs. Wall signs. There are wall signs and pylon signs and it's quite specific. So. The applicant is aware that to change they've probably maxed out, sorry, their existing signage. So they're. Brian Stockwell 08:06.658
They're like about 10 times more than what we'd normally give you. Nadine Gordon 08:09.272
I haven't looked. I must say, I haven't looked in to see whether the existing signage is compliant with this court approval. Therefore, if they want to put any additional signage, they them one is would. There are two options for them. One is to self-divide the site off and then it would have to comply with our bylaw, our local law, sorry, or they'd have to go back and change this existing court order and vary that, make an application back to us to vary this approval. Patrick Murphy 08:35.806
And there is an existing subdivision that's been approved for the site, so it's a matter of then going through that plain civil process to that approved subdivision. Brian Stockwell 08:44.816
Org community on that same theme because we're assessing this development against standards that exist now as they did when the last one went through. It's part of one side as currently sits. We appear to be. And to give you background, when we reviewed the sign laws, one of the things we tried to stop was businesses using their whole of the building as a sign by using corporate logos and colours, which appears to be what is a continuation of here. And so the. Court approved is because of the no doubt the reason we changed from the planning scheme using the sign laws because it was a performance criteria rather than what we actually to achieve. It is significantly oversized, et cetera, in my opinion. So to me, I wonder why we're going down a path of approving an aesthetic that is over-height, and is inconsistent in terms of colours, to allow a business to once again do what signing policy, signing law tries to avoid. Nadine Gordon 09:52.537
The applicant of the plans indicate that the signage proposed as part of this application on this building. But the colour scheme is part of the signage? The colour scheme, yes, that is. So it's a white and a green. Brian Stockwell 10:05.415
We could condition it that it's to be no corporate colours are much necessarily no corporate colours up to be used. Well it's not so bad as some of the corporate colours would be. As colours with the yellow and pink and stuff, but I've noticed that the acceptable outcome says no white. Outcome says yes, we can condition that. And so we're sort of going, and I can see the logic in the high, but we hype, be to be not necessarily to get the best outcome. That's my gut feeling, is that the best outcome from this side is to make the whole of the frontage of this lot look like we would like to see businesses in Noosa, and that's not making very large standout signage that is, you know, you don't need two metre sign saying when you're open, you know? They're not proposing. No, no, but that's existing. Yeah, they've got an open a 7/8.7am, huge sign. Yeah, like part of what we have to do, in my opinion, we're assessing the site. And as you say, one of the levers will be okay, well, your site's got more than what you currently can have. So you can't have any signs on your trade centre. But I just wonder whether there's something we can do as part of this development application to really try and get them to lift the game in terms of the aesthetic to the street. Nadine Gordon 11:18.635
So you're talking about the existing? Brian Stockwell 11:20.596
I'm talking about the development site. Nadine Gordon 11:22.936
The development site. As I said, they've indicated that the signage for this new building is not part of it. We can easily condition, change the colour. When we were looking at this to make it trade related, we were trying to really try and make sure it was differentiated to the existing Bunnings. So most of their existing trades are actually, trading their trade sites are actually, they're all this white and cream colour that's Brian Stockwell 11:52.196
Their colour. Yeah, I know. It is a, commercial enterprises will want the corporate colours that are spread over their buildings. Noosa we don't. We want what our scheme says which is muted tones. I think and I think they can do better. Are you seeking better in terms of colour scheme or in terms of building design? Well, it's hard that like, it is an industrial building. You've mentioned that you're looking at some articulation in the front by awnings and things like that. It's hard, like that figure six you had, the top has. Nadine Gordon 12:33.827
The top, one is the old, was an old plan. Brian Stockwell 12:38.189
Okay, and the bottom one is where you've negotiated a bit of change. So that was what Nadine Gordon 12:42.277
They initially applied, but that was the only one that had the three buildings in the elevation. Whereas, and then, sorry, yes, I should have explained, and the biggest, six is the final plan, the strict elevation. Brian Stockwell 13:01.251
And looking at the 12 metres. Yes. It would appear that, to be compliant, they'd be coming somewhere through the middle of the windows there to get the 10 metres. Yes. So it's a substantial. Yes, it is a substantial. Relaxation, and I can see why it's justified. But for that relaxation, I thought we could have pushed a bit harder on aesthetic. Nadine Gordon 13:26.560
If you go and have a look at. Go back a couple. I think 34, is that 12 pages? It should be. I don't think we have pages of our system anyway. It should be figure three. Let me go. Actually, Figure 4. Yeah, and the one before that one. Yeah, the one before. There's the typical long section. Yes. Longitudinal section. And you can see the undercroft, you can see the slope of the site. Brian Stockwell 14:04.598
Yes. And the frontage, the height. Yes, I can understand the reason for it, but it's also the highest elevation. Is plainest. Yes. It's the most stark and it is a lot closer to the road, even though it's more setback and more than the minimum six, it's a lot closer to the road than the existing building, which. Nadine Gordon 14:26.785
The existing Bunnings is setback, yes, substantially, totally agree, yeah. Brian Stockwell 14:30.139
Yeah. That's my thinking, anyway. Has anyone requested this one guy to general? Unidentified Speaker 14:38.383
Josh requested Xander. Got it. Brian Stockwell 14:43.090
Other ask questions if they have any Tom Wegener 14:48.150
So from the street it will be pretty simple it'll be substantial from the street size you were looking at the first story which is the car park and then it's been above that two stories about that's that correct yes Nadine Gordon 15:02.279
We get we track yeah I did so yeah so they'll be the car parking level and one of them one yes one of them sorry get one of us it's only two stories Tom Wegener 15:14.346
So that I told me to starts at the car at the Nadine Gordon 15:18.753
Ground floor, yes. So I think the internal dimensions of the warehouse about six for the upper level it's about six on the upper level and then it does go up um they'll put a pitch roof on they don't have to put a pitch roof on but it's part of our trying to get it to make it a little bit more attractive they did put a pitch roof on it's only three degree but they did put the pitch roof on. Is there any reason not to approve this. Well I suppose it's the height. The non-compliance with the height. As I said we have discussed it with them at length yeah it was brought up in the information request and again it was really impact of the adjoining industrial building. Patrick Murphy 16:08.831
So when you look at it from the street the building to the left it's got like a quite a large retaining wall that is on the street page. It might be two, and a metres, half feet maybe in height visibility, you know, yeah. Above that and what faces that street is roller doors. So aesthetically it's quite ugly. I think this building is certainly an improvement on what is presented on the property and there's also an opportunity to provide some landscaping front of this building yet. Brian Stockwell 16:40.103
If we look at figure seven, can we bring up figure seven? Yes. Can we bring up figure seven? Because there's obviously a good opportunity to screen it. Is there any intent to retain any of the existing vegetation? Is that vegetation all on their it's property or is it on some on the road reserve? Nadine Gordon 17:06.283
Is on the road reserve but then you've you put got the footpath, the required footpath into your driveways. Footpath and you can see the driveway. Brian Stockwell 17:13.621
Have they got a plan that shows where the centre of each tree is? To move it to general and I'd ask for that information to be provided at general. No, I'll leave it to general. If I could just have, either before or at the meeting, a plan that actually marks where all the vegetation is compared to. Are we across the frontage? Both on their property and on the footpath. Did you want further report or. No, just for further information. Tom Wegener 17:59.155
Before we move that, we should ask Councillor Lorentson, do you have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 18:14.340
Is highly applicant and no issues there in terms of potential traffic flows given the location in an industrial precinct. Nadine Gordon 18:26.690
Now I'm out of topic to consult with the parents. Traffic consultant also reviewed that traffic report. He initially was concerned about the cross coming through and crossing. And in terms of their assessment, no, it all works. It does work. But even coming out in terms of the peak times, they're anticipating that the trades will have an earlier peak than the Bunnings Warehouse peak. So they should be out of there before it really, I suppose, hits up down at the Bunnings Warehouse site. So yeah, it is, first of all, they've indicated, our consultant has indicated that it will have functions. Tom Wegener 19:09.414
Thank you. And Councillor Finzel. Sorry, I didn't see you. Any questions? Karen Finzel 19:15.258
Yes. Thank you, Mr Chair. Through the Chair, I just have a question with regarding the height. If they were to remove the pitch, does that- how significant is the height reduction? Nadine Gordon 19:28.645
It's not significant, Karen. Maybe half a metre. Karen Finzel 19:32.285
Okay, thank you. Tom Wegener 19:37.385
Well, anything else? Councillor Stockwell has moved. I'll second. Move this to the general? All in favour? Brian Stockwell 19:53.531
Injectives is weight. If there's a large body of work to locate those trees, the easiest thing would be for me to go and walk it. So, just let me know if there's nothing on file and I'll go and measure them up. Nadine Gordon 20:03.251
I don't remember seeing anything. So, you still want me to. Brian Stockwell 20:07.852
Well, if you've got the information, but if not, I'll. Tom Wegener 20:14.540
I'll do a foot in campus traffic now. Okay, Nadine, CEO general. Thank you very much. Thank you, Patrick. Actually, I won't CEO general. I will not be CEO general. So let's go to 5.1, Zero Emissions Noosa, ZEN Inc., grant funding agreement. And we have the great Danny Nolan. Annie Nolan 20:44.948
To my lightness, let's do my hands. Do you have the electric? Brian Stockwell 20:53.038
No, she'd be here earlier. I wish I could have just plugged it in and charged it from home. Annie Nolan 21:02.059
Right. So, thank you Councillors, before you this morning is the report about the funding for the partnership with Zero Emissions Noosa, referred to as ZEN. And it's basically a request that you authorise to actually enter into the partnership and make new changes, and just wanted to note also that there was a funding approved in the 23-24 budget for this, in fact, funding yeah, funding rounds. Allowance to actually really put on board a coordinator so that they can really work through their projects and really focus on what they do best, which is really to help Noosa get to net zero emissions. I think you're all very well aware of the incredible work that zenith does over a wide variety of projects for this community to help reduce its emissions, help reduce its electricity consumption. And that in fact helps reduce costs to residents as well. So their work is very, very professional. They do it on very much a science-based process of actually determining their projects. And they also have been very diligent in one being their deductible gift status as well. And they also look for funding in other meetings other than Council funding as well. So what this funding will enable them to do is to actually put on a coordinator that will assist them in all the work that's done the scenes, particularly in grant funding, in actually allocating and administering all the projects that they do right across the plethora of things that they do, particularly around stationary energy, which is spatial immunity, around electricity consumption reductions. And as you know, ZEN Inc. Has been very, very pivotal in helping Council to get the grant funding for the community battery as well. They provide a lot of education through their website, through their museum. Newsletters. They're very, very focused in getting their message out via Noosa Today. And by having this funding for a coordinator, this will really help them to promote that even wider and even broader. So that's pretty much what you've got in front of you and the draft agreement that has been drafted, which actually goes through the requirements of ZEN Inc. In terms of their administration requirements, in terms of their reporting requirements. They are required to put together an annual operational plan, which they do anyway and that actually outlines all the projects, the reasoning behind those projects, and the return on investment for those projects as well. So that's what the report is about. Tom Wegener 24:08.089
My first gestalt is I'm so happy that they're going to hire somebody because that person that takes that job will have such a qualification, such a broad amount of learning in this new field that's emerging. And so hopefully they'll stick around and help us further. But just having that sort of education and in that position creates the knowledge in somebody that will be enormously beneficial on an ongoing basis for a long time. So that's just another aspect of how important this funding is. Any questions? Brian Stockwell 24:42.819
You mentioned the word coordinator a few times which I think is the core of what makes groups like this go to the next level and I'm just checking through the that's actual wording of the agreement how that's reflected, because you also mentioned administration and the time we were looking at this in the budget we said is it better to have a this person focused on a little bit of administration a little bit of coordination or is it better to actually focus it more on the coordination of programs is that was that negotiated? Through or is there scope within the agreement that each year if we happen to get for example a single coordinator or a single admin person working across a number of community groups that this agreement can be flexible enough to cater for that? Annie Nolan 25:27.992
Yeah, absolutely. It is a three to budget requirements every year and of course that's always open to negotiations as well. Tom Wegener 25:41.305
Would this be an employee or a contractor do you feel? Is that or is that important is that will that would be for them to determine what their most appropriate employment arrangements are. Councillor Finzel, do you have any questions? Karen Finzel 26:00.678
At this stage Mr Chair, I don't have any questions. The report is very comprehensive. It lists the requirements of the agreement. I think it's pretty much covered. I guess I could just take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that ZEN does and the great contribution. We really value what they bring to the Shire and they work closely with Council to meet targets and deliver outcomes so yeah we're just grateful that ZEN Inc. Has put forward this application and they're prepared to look at an agreement with us to continue working for us into the future. Brian Stockwell 26:43.992
Was requested to go to general to by Councillor, Tom Wegener 26:46.199
Councillor Lorentson please. Amelia Lorentson 26:50.814
Hi Annie, I don't know whether this is something that should be. In the agreement, but a conflict of interest course where there's a requirement of firm disclosure if there's any action perceived or potential conflict of interest. So I note that 12.3 references relationships, I suppose. Are part of this, but it doesn't actually articulate conflict of interest, so just something that I'll throw to you for consideration, Amelia. Annie Nolan 27:22.307
Yes, thank you for that. In those recommendations it does actually say that it can actually take some of those things to actually make those changes, and it would actually be something quite we're just trying to find a projector in so before the execution of that we can actually make those changes to make that much more stronger. Amelia Lorentson 27:40.504
And two seconds. In terms of what we bring in again, how is this different or is it similar to the partnership that we've got with the Noosa Shire Council meeting? Are the requirements more stringent, less stringent, or about the same? Annie Nolan 27:56.805
It's very similar to the NBRF. We looked at that as a model and updated that a bit because that's a few years old now and made it much more relevant to the partnership that we actually have with Zero Emissions Noosa. So it has actually been. Tom Wegener 28:18.365
Um got well, we've been asked to move it, so. Do you have the significance of the issue? Yes, I'll move it. I'll second it. Go to the General Committee. Okay. I'd like to. Karen Finzel 28:26.975
I'm happy to second that. Tom Wegener 28:28.841
Okay, before we vote, I just would like to speak to the motion. And once again, the gift of zero to I think, of emissions news Noosa to the Noosa community and even to the world community is substantial in how incredibly successful they've been and so influential. And the professionalism that they have is worth something to study, know, I would suspect that all organisations who want to change the world, ZEN Inc.. Would be a very good one to study right from the get-go to see how they did it, how their methods are, what they did, because it is phenomenal. And of course you have Anne Kennedy and Vivien Griffin, two monoliths. Griffin are in our community. So thank you for the incredible work, Annie. And anybody else like to speak to the motion? Okay, put it to the vote. All in favour? Yes. Karen, we can see Karen. Yes. Yep, there we go. Thanks, Annie. Thank you. We have three reports that are confidential. The appeals. Okay, so we, they're not. I mean, if we wish to discuss them, I think they are. Thank you. Okay, Patrick. At the table 5.3, Planning & Environment Court appeal D130 of 2023, application to reconfigure a lot into, one into two lots at 39 to 41 Picture Point Crescent, Noosa Heads. Patrick Murphy 30:13.889
No, we've all just made the decision run. Refuse application um where it was considered that it would you know the lot format that wasn't consistent with the character of the area or the intended um development that uh we the scheme seeks the site um recently this has been a building uh as further report it's recommended that it's um Tom Wegener 30:39.461
I'm happy to move that way I'll second it Council, rufria, what's the first? Councillor Finzel, would you like to speak to the uh the report of the motion Karen Finzel 30:56.676
Um I don't have anything to say regarding the appeal um I'm just wondering the reporters also noted that there's um I can't tell us really advice one way or the other how this will go I'm just um yeah just wondering about estimated costs what this is going to cost us to go to court um yeah do we have any ideas we don't Patrick Murphy 31:27.138
Have prospects at this stage it's quite premature period for that to occur um and then in terms of court costs it's also difficult to assess at this point without knowing what's going to I suppose how this will play out and the kind of experts that are involved in the amount of time that would be required for it to be heard in court and we'll have our regular um case management booking group to discuss and update around prospects and various issues as that progresses okay thank you Councillor Lorentson um cost of debating that was my question so Amelia Lorentson 31:56.880
Thank you okay Tom Wegener 32:04.800
Okay so we've the recommendations when been moved um that's how you did it yeah so all in favour unanimous yes thank you we have report 5.4 Planning & Environment Court appeal d153 of 2023 application for Material Change of Use relocatable home park community and affordable housing 32 dwellings at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road, Cooroy. Patrick and Richard, again, would you us through it Patrick Murphy 32:41.211
Again a recent decision by Council to refuse the application for the relocatable home park again on a range of issues around the character of the area whilst it's not being did in college. The know the merits of the potential use but the particular location of the site some of the constraints on the site was considered that this was not suitable again we consider that it's in order for Council to defend the appeal again quite early in the process to be able to determine the costs and the amount of time that would be required for this to be called Tom Wegener 33:16.522
Thank you Patrick, any questions and Councillor Finzel any questions? Karen Finzel 33:20.868
No Mr Chair, no questions Tom Wegener 33:24.514
Happy to move as recommended. I'll second. Okay I'll keep a five before we vote, Councillor Lorentson any questions? Okay, it's so moved, all in favour? Councillor Finzel? Finzel. Karen Finzel 33:37.620
Yes. Tom Wegener 33:39.323
Okay, thank you very much. We're off to 5. Planning & Environment Court appeal D133 of 2023, application for building works for a dwelling house at 60 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Again, Patrick. Patrick Murphy 33:55.652
So this was, as you say, for a dwelling at 60 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. That was refused due to our concerns with the building's height, site cover, setbacks and overlooking associated with the rooftop Terrace. Again, that was not considered in order to look in the report. Tom Wegener 34:13.582
Thank you, Andy. Questions? Councillor Finzel, any questions? Karen Finzel 34:19.707
No questions from me at this stage. Thank you, Mr Chair. Tom Wegener 34:27.522
Lorentson? There's a recommendation. I'll second. By the Mayor. Okay, I guess we're ready? Yeah. Okay, reach the vote. All in favour? Yes. It's unanimous. Okay, we have 6.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority August 2023 and we have before we ask yes Patrick we go through the conflicts of interest. Clare Stewart 35:12.321
Okay. Thank you Councillor Wegener. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to number 28 OPW23/0077 in the list of applications in the report as I have a close personal friendship with Jane Margaret Blake. As a result of my conflict of interest I'll now leave the meeting room. Tom Wegener 35:41.661
Okay any other conflicts of interest? Karen Finzel 35:45.405
No Mr Chair. Tom Wegener 35:48.968
Okay Patrick can we walk through each and every one of them. Patrick Murphy 35:58.238
As you're aware this is the monthly report which provides a summation of those decisions that were made okay under delegation by officers. What we've done in the report is just added in the table this month which will continue to be going forward just to give a little bit of perspective as to the types of applications that have been decided and we've also broken it down into those that have been determined under delegation and those that were determined by Council and what this shows is that of the applications that were decided in August 97 of those were approved all of those being under delegation and there was one application that was refused which was a matter that was refused by Council which from memory was the application for the Relocatable Home Park at 557 Carpenters Road. And again the report shows the broad spectrum of applications that offices of SES, the office has assessed ranging from change applications which china to appalachians and shiosha. Change abuse applications, issuing exemptions, certificates and operational works. Tom Wegener 37:01.887
Thank you, I love the new improvement here, the chart, it's fantastic. Any questions? Councillor Finzel? There Karen Finzel 37:17.681
There is no questions from me Mr Chair, thank you. Brian Stockwell 37:21.159
I have one out of interest, I'll just grab it back up. One of the delegated authorities was about a secondary dwelling within a riparian corridor and in those sort that's of cases you don't have to know that specific one, do we tend to be a little bit flexible in that like I'm presumably coming up against the hundred metre buffer and there's a small encroachment and we tend to approve those, is that? Patrick Murphy 37:43.900
It yeah good got sites where the entire site is covered by a riparian buffer and that could be associated with change in mapping with the new scheme and then what you'll find is that they're probably a cluster of buildings within that riparian buffer ideally is you know far situated as far as possible away from then that the second revealing would be in close proximity of those existing buildings on the site. Tom Wegener 38:11.513
Have a question for number 13. The building works accessible against planning scheme code for 134 Farrells Road, Farrells Road, Cooroy. That's not the new site there, the woolley site, is it? No. That's just a private. That's correct. Okay, good. Any other questions? Councillor Lorentson, any questions? Brian Stockwell 38:35.949
But I'm crying instead of you. Brian is still. Oh, no, it's okay. The applicant's tight in enterprises, so I've got to come to. Tom Wegener 38:42.431
Okay. And then the extension to the Sunshine shops, number 25. Did we talk about that. This is the old butcher shop, isn't it? Patrick Murphy 38:55.605
That's right. It was an extension to the butcher shop. It was going into the runway, essentially. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Tom Wegener 39:05.306
I feel like should we put it oh actually we need to move it first. Brian Stockwell 39:10.358
I think just to have. Councillor Finzel should move it. Karen Finzel 39:13.972
I'm happy to move the recommendation. Tom Wegener 39:17.370
I'll second it. Anybody to speak to the motion? All in favour? No, thank you. Yes, in favour. Brian Stockwell 39:27.865
Well, that's it. Thank you very much. Tom Wegener 39:33.881
It? She'd be back in when she closes it? Should I be back in? Okay, yeah. There's no, confidential motions. There's no, um, what else did we mention? So we'll close the meeting when the Mayor comes back into the room. You. We note that Mayor Stewart has re-entered the room. We'd like to close the meeting at 10:14, 10:11, 10 o'clock fast, 10:11. Thank you very much all for coming today. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
