Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - November 2023
Date: Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:27:17
Synopsis: RACV eco-cabins flagged for refusal over koala habitat and conflicts, State-local tensions, Roadside cafe refused, Short-term accommodation intensification refused, Enforcement continued, Noosa Springs deferred for COIs.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Clare Stewart Karen Finzel Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Shaun Walsh Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Clare Stewart: Chaired in absence of Cr Wegener; Council approved remote attendance for Karen Finzel under s254K LGR 2012 (00:51–02:00) (Item 1). Clare Stewart: Referred RACV Resort eco-cabins MCU22/0118 to General Committee due to significance; staff recommendation flagged for refusal for conflict with urban boundary and environmental zone (03:16–10:02) (Item 5.1). SARA Norley: Noted RACV proposal removes 71–82 native trees including ~27 koala food trees; entire site koala habitat; development extends into Environmental Management & Conservation Zone contrary to Noosa Plan 2020 (03:59–05:58) (Item 5.1). Patrick Murphy: Advised State (SARA) issued approval with site-wide covenant and signage; Council lacks detail on construction/ongoing management to protect covenant areas (06:13–07:01) (Item 5.1). Clare Stewart: Referred roadside stall/cafe change (201 Mary River Rd) to General due to significance; officers recommend refuse cafe, maintain roadside stall building only (10:40–19:37) (Item 5.2). SARA Norley: Explained cafe operated outside permit, generated amenity and safety complaints; parking overflow damages road reserve; lawful to park but reserve too narrow to formalise parking (10:58–16:36) (Item 5.2). Patrick Murphy: Proposal inconsistent with Rural Zone and SEQ Regional Plan urban footprint; no overriding community benefit; precedent risk for urban uses in rural areas (16:41–17:37) (Item 5.2). Council: Refused minor change for STA at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd; application deemed substantially different development (increase to 6 bedrooms/16 persons) with noise/parking impacts (20:07–22:13) (Item 5.3). Council: Referred Noosa Springs hotel/resort MCU21/0110 to General due to no quorum from proposed COIs (22:41–22:57) (Item 5.4). Council: Resolved to continue P&E Court enforcement against owners at 1/5 and 3/5 Attunga Heights over unlawful GFA/enclosures and works on common property (23:47–26:34) (Items 5.5–5.6). Council: Noted delegated decisions for September 2023 (26:53) (Item 6.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Brian Stockwell: Queried inter-departmental divergence within State (Environment vs Tourism) underpinning SARA approval for RACV; officers to seek clarity though advice may be withheld (06:00–09:49) (Item 5.1). Officers: Noted SARA imposed no vegetation offset for RACV despite koala-tree removals; Council to request rationale and offset considerations (07:01–08:33) (Item 5.1). Clare Stewart: Applicant deputations on RACV and Noosa Springs were withdrawn, limiting public on-record submissions (minutes list; transcript notes) (Section 4.1–4.2). Officers: Roadside cafe generated multiple complaints; on-street parking lawful yet damaging road reserve, creating amenity/safety tensions for neighbours (10:58–19:17) (Item 5.2). Clare Stewart: Managed COI-driven no-quorum by immediate referral of Noosa Springs item, avoiding debate without full panel (22:41–22:57) (Item 5.4). Legal / Risk Council Position: RACV refusal grounded in Noosa Plan 2020: development outside urban boundary in Environmental Management & Conservation Zone; whole site koala habitat; risk of inconsistent precedent if approved (03:59–05:58) (Item 5.1). State vs Local: SARA’s covenant/signage conditions may not mitigate habitat loss; absence of offsets raises vulnerability to challenge; Council to seek SARA’s decision basis (06:13–08:33) (Item 5.1). DA Rules/Planning Act: STA “minor change” refusal relies on DA Rules substantial difference test; minutes cite conflicts with Rural Zone Code and Visitor Accommodation Code; s63(5) Planning Act notice recorded (20:07–22:13) (Item 5.3). SEQ Regional Plan: Roadside cafe refusal aligns with consolidating urban activities in centres/urban footprint; parking non-compliance and amenity impacts bolster defensibility on appeal (10:58–17:37) (Item 5.2). P&E Court: Attunga Heights appeals: Council continuing enforcement for unlawful works including GFA increases and encroachments on common property; owners lacked body corporate owner’s consent for remedy applications, narrowing resolution pathways (23:47–25:59) (Items 5.5–5.6). Environmental Concerns (Koalas / Vegetation) Will Lowe: SARA to hold conservation covenant over entire RACV site outside building/boardwalk footprints; includes koala-safety signage obligations (06:35–06:47) (Item 5.1). Officers: Construction/environmental management methodology for RACV unclear; risk of covenant breaches during works and operations without robust plans (06:47–07:01) (Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell: Sought verification whether State “no-net-loss” logic or re-vegetation claims justified no offset; outcome may influence Council’s advocacy (07:01–08:33) (Item 5.1). Short Term Accommodation / STA Officers: Tinbeerwah STA expansion to 16 persons/6 bedrooms found incompatible with rural amenity; intensifies noise/traffic, not “small scale” per Rural Zone Code (20:07–21:36) (Item 5.3). Council: Unanimous refusal strengthens enforcement posture on STA intensity creep in rural areas and supports consistent application of Visitor Accommodation Code (21:36–22:13) (Item 5.3). Planning Scheme / Zoning Consistency Officers: Both RACV and Mary River Rd proposals conflict with Noosa Plan 2020’s urban boundary and zone intents; SEQ Regional Plan used as reinforcing instrument for refusal (03:59–05:58; 10:58–17:37) (Items 5.1–5.2). Council: Maintained allowance for genuine rural roadside stalls (limited local produce) while rejecting urban-type food and drink outlet in rural zone (16:41–17:37) (Item 5.2). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson: Left room for Items 5.1 and 5.3 per minutes; returned after each (03:22; 19:59) (Items 5.1, 5.3). Clare Stewart: Declared that she was “out of the room” for Noosa Springs item; proposed COIs meant no quorum; matter referred without debate (22:41–22:57) (Item 5.4). Community Amenity & Traffic/Parking Officers: Mary River Rd cafe caused parking overflow on narrow verge; while lawful outside built-up area, damage and neighbour impacts substantiate refusal (10:58–19:17) (Item 5.2). Officers: Tinbeerwah STA intensification risks up to 16 vehicles, exacerbating rural traffic/noise; rejection protects local amenity (20:07–21:36) (Item 5.3).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 7 November 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 7 NOVEMBER 2023 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Clare Stewart (Acting Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation, Cr Finzel is approved to attend the Meeting dated 7 November 2023 via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Cr Stewart be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting due to Cr Wegener's absence. Carried unanimously. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES DATED 12 SEPTEMBER 2023 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meetings held on 12 September 2023 and 10 October 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 2.2. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES DATED 10 OCTOBER 2023 Refer previous resolution. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 2023 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. DARREN MCCLENAGHAN - RACV RESORT, SHANE ADAMDSON & JUSTIN WATSON TOPIC - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MCU22/0118 FOR 15 ECO-CABINS Withdrawn by the Applicant. 4.2. KIM PETROVIC TOPIC - PROPOSED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT NOOSA SPRINGS MCU 21/0110 Withdrawn by the Applicant. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. MCU22/0118 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 94 & 142 NOOSA DR, NOOSA HEADS Cr Lorentson left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. Cr Lorentson returned to the meeting. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 2023 5.2. MCU21/0194.01 – APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A ROADSIDE STALL TO INCLUDE A FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT 201 MARY RIVER RD, COOROY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.2 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.3. MCU22/0209.01 - MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 515 COOROY NOOSA ROAD, TINBEERWAH Cr Lorentson left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Application No. MCU22/0209.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use – Short-Term Accommodation situated at 515 Cooroy Noosa Rd, Tinbeerwah and: A. Refuse the minor change application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change does not constitute a minor change to the development approval as the increase in the number of people on site constitutes ‘substantially different development’, as the change will increase the severity of known impacts, including noise and carparking. 2. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Overall Outcomes (2)(i) and (j) and PO4 of the Rural Zone Code as accommodating 16 people and up to 16 vehicles on site is not considered ‘small scale’ in the context of the subject site, locality and surrounding development and will likely impact on the rural amenity and character of the area. 3. The proposed development is inconsistent with Overall Outcome (2)(f) and PO25 of the Visitor Accommodation Code as the use of the premises to accommodate 16 persons will unreasonably impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding area due to the likely increase in noise to adjoining properties and the scale of the use being incompatible with the character and uses within the surrounding area. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 2023 5.4. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.4 be referred to the General Committee as there is no quorum due to proposed conflict of interest declarations. Carried unanimously. Cr Lorentson returned to the meeting. 5.5. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D154 OF 2023 - ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED TO 1/5 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA HEADS. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D154 of 2023 and agree to continue enforcement against Eugeniy Raiter and Catherine Dentsas to address the current breaches of The Noosa Plan. Carried unanimously. 5.6. PLANNING ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO D155 OF 2023 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED TO 3/5 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Clare Stewart That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No. D155 of 2023 and agree to continue enforcement against Angela Dentsas and Vasilios Dentsas to address the current breaches of The Noosa Plan. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 NOVEMBER 2023 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 2023 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Manager, Development Assessment to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 November 2023 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 9.59am.
Meeting Transcript
Clare Stewart 00:00.000
Environment Committee meeting. I note there's a number of you in the gallery this morning so welcome to all of you. I also acknowledge our traditional owners and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. We have an apology from Councillor Tom Wegener who is currently overseas. Councillor Stockwell and myself are in attendance and we have Councillor Finzel who's online so I will move the Councillor and we have to pass pass a a resolution to ensure she's allowed to attend via Teams so I move that Councillor Finzel attend this meeting by Teams I need to be the chair oh I beg your pardon I'm not normally the chair of this meeting so I've just taken over as the chair I'm the last man standing. Okay. Sorry, Larry. Larry Sengstock 00:41.193
So, yeah, CEO, because Councillor Wegener is not here today, is an apology. I'll start the meeting off, but we do initially have to elect a chair for... Brian Stockwell 00:51.290
Think we'll have to do Councillor Finzel first, otherwise we won't have a call. Absolutely. Yep. Okay. Right. Larry Sengstock 01:00.870
So we need to vote to ensure that we allow... Karen Finzel, Councillor Karen Finzel, to be available online, which we can see her, she can see us. Karen, can you see us? Karen Finzel 01:15.078
Yes. Good morning and thank you to the chair. Larry Sengstock 01:18.838
Okay. Can I have a mover for that, please? I'll move it. Okay. So, that's fine. So, Karen, you're on line. All in favour, sorry, yep. There's only two of you, so I think it was all in favour. Okay. So, now I just need to, as the CEO, because we don't have a normal chair, Councillor Wegener, we need to elect a chair for this meeting. meeting. Can I have a... Can I have a... I think Brian Stockwell 01:47.671
Councillor Stewart's sitting in the seat. Okay. Okay. Karen Finzel 01:50.831
So you're moving it? Larry Sengstock 01:52.431
I'm moving it for Councillor Stewart. And second? I'm having it. Second, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Karen Finzel 01:58.791
Do I have it? Yes. Larry Sengstock 02:00.191
Yes. Yep. All good. Thank you, Clare Stewart 02:03.251
Larry. Over to you. You're welcome, everyone. So confirmation of confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover please for the Planning and Environment Committee minutes dated the 12th of September 2023 and the Planning and Environment Committee minutes dated 10th of October 2023? I think we need to do those two separate motions. Can we do them together? Brian Stockwell 02:21.064
Yeah, we can. Clare Stewart 02:22.424
Councillor Stockwell? I'll second it. Okay, Councillor Finzel? Second? All in favour? Yes. Thank Carried unanimously. Thank you, Kath. We have no presentations and I believe the deputations have been withdrawn. So reports for consideration of this committee meeting. We have a number that have been asked to be referred to general. 5.1 has in fact asked to be put forward to general, but we will call up we will call up our staff in case there are any questions. And this is the development application for material change of use, short term accommodation at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. This is great. So I'm actually out on this. No, this is RACV. Oh, sorry. RACV. Thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Thanks, Richard. Larry Sengstock 03:16.602
Do we have any other conflicts of interest No conflicts. Clare Stewart 03:22.858
No, Councillor Lorentson is leaving the meeting room. Thanks, guys. Patrick Murphy 03:32.878
So we've got SARA Norley, who's our senior planner. We've also got Will Lowe, who's our environment officer today. Clare Stewart 03:38.467
All right so we've had a material change of use lodged for this one for an extension to the existing RACV Resort so the applicant seeking approval for short-term accommodation at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive so they're proposing eight new buildings comprising 15 separate units that's you know self All Tara Norley 03:59.668
Self-contained dwelling units, all of them will be elevated above ground level and they're all connected by an elevated boardwalk. The proposal also includes 18 additional car parks and removal of 71 and up to 82 native trees on the site. Of those, 27 koala trees, up to 33 potentially have been removed. The The access will remain from Noosa Drive as is. They are proposing to amalgamate the lots as part of this development. So the existing access easements would no longer be required. The sites actually actually over two lots. Both of them are split development. So, sorry, split zoning. So the predominant development is over lot three with the site being predominantly short-term, sorry, tourist accommodation zone and management and conservation. So the proposal does include development in the environmental management and conservation zone, which is outside of council's urban boundary in the strategic framework in Noosa Plan 2020. So we are recommending refusal for this one. There is significant ecological impacts on the site. There is the whole site's mapped as koala habitat. proposal has been designed to try and lessen the impacts as much as possible in terms of what they are actually proposing. However, we don't think that that outweighs the impacts of the development. Essentially building outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management. conservation zone is contrary to the requirements of the planning scheme. Any questions on that one? Outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management and conservation, short term accommodation in that zone is inconsistent. Clare Stewart 05:58.260
Just a question. Brian Stockwell 06:00.600
I understand our grounds. the State government, the SARA response with respect to koalas, you outline their perspective? Tara Norley 06:13.268
So they've approved the development but they have put a covenant around the entire site outside of the building footprint so essentially the entire development site would be covenanted, excluding the building footprint and the boardwalk. So I don't know if you had any more to add to that Will, but it's fine. Will Lowe 06:35.455
Yeah, the State Government also conditioned the requirement for some signage north and south of the development. Patrick Murphy 06:43.255
And you've asked for a construction management plan to reflect how that would be implemented? Tara Norley 06:47.575
Yes, so they've given us a basic understanding but not the full detail of how the actual development will be constructed and then maintained in perpetuity without disrupting that covenant area. Patrick Murphy 07:01.554
Notwithstanding the impact in the footprint, where there's 77 trees to be removed and the number of those that are koala trees. What's that number? 27? 27. We considered that to be. I'm just trying to understand why they approved it. I agree with your arguments. Was there an offset requirement or is it because of the level of mapping there's no offset required or where it is within the urban footprint? Does SARA have an offset requirement? Tara Norley 07:32.617
I don't believe it required one, no. Patrick Murphy 07:38.017
Which is different to that Noosa Springs proposal where when they were proposing to remove the koala habitat trees though which is seeking a financial offset and that was also outside the urban boundary, that area. Your team could make further enquiries with SARA in relation to that query of why it has to be, why it has to be, why it has to be, why it has to be, why it has to be, what their consideration was. One could assume that the signage proposed, and I understand there will be an illuminated signage installed to make drivers aware of koalas in that area. area may have offset the need for vegetation offsets. There's a portion of the site that they were looking at re-vegetating, so maybe they thought there was no net loss. Clare Stewart 08:33.759
Councillor Finzel, do you have any questions? Karen Finzel 08:38.279
Yes, just through the chair. Thank you, Ben. You say SARA's approved with the covenant. Who writes the covenant then? Is that up to SARA or who develops the covenant and compliance to that? Will Lowe 08:55.519
Essentially SARA would become the owner of that covenant with the developer, so that would be SARA's responsibility to ensure that compliance was met at all times with those covenant terms. Clare Stewart 09:13.335
Anything further for Councillor Finzel? Brian Stockwell 09:18.760
One more. If you are talking to SARA, they're responsible for balancing or coordinating response from all departments. It might be interesting to see whether there was differences in opinion between, say, the Department of Environment and Science and the Department of Tourism, whatever that's called. It might be interesting to understand whether they were actually trying to weigh up different state interests. Patrick Murphy 09:49.660
They may or may not share that advice with us, but we can ask the questions, noting the different internal focuses of those different State Departments who appreciate the question. Clare Stewart 10:02.220
Anything else, Councillor? All right. Well, this has been referred anyway to General, so no doubt we'll have a little debate on Monday. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Patrick. Thank you. Do you have to move it? Yes. I'll move it, but most general. Second. The significance of the matter. Councillor Stockwell has seconded. And all in favour? Yes. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. You know this. Thanks, Cath. Okay. Item five. Do you want to get another one? Larry Sengstock 10:37.517
Thanks, man. Madam. Clare Stewart 10:40.437
Thanks, Shaun. Thanks, Shaun. Item 5.2 has also been asked to be referred to general, but we've got staff here to answer the questions anyway. Application for another change to a development approval for a roadside stall to include a food and drink outlet at 201 Mary River Thank You Patrick. Tara Norley 10:58.066
So the applicant was issued a commercial low-use permit for trading for the original bus stop proposal in June 2021. Once they Once they started trading they did start operating from outside the site, the subject site at Mary River Road, which was not in accordance with the actual permit approval which allowed for trade in the Cooroy industrial area. So council received a complaint regarding the operation of a cafe on the subject site. So an MCU was lodged following compliance action regarding that complaint in November 2021. The application went to council in April 2022 with the officer recommending refusal for the roadside stall. Under the recommendation it was considered that the roadside stall was actually a food and drink outlet so that the use that they were proposing was not in accordance with how the use was operating. Council roadside stall at that ordinary meeting. On the decision notice that was issued there was a notation regarding the current cafe that was operating on the site recommending that an application be lodged. lodged within six months if they would wish to continue the use. The notation also required that the use not create any impacts so council did receive a number of complaints in the past six months regarding the cafe that's been operating There was also an issue just regarding amenity for neighbouring rural properties. So the current is looking to include a food and drink outlet as well as the current approved roadside store. They're looking to expand the range of goods permitted to be sold on the site to include coffee, bread and milk products including drinks and ice cream and that's that's in addition to the already approved honey, eggs, fruit and vegetable and juices. They're also looking to have on-site dining for up to 12 people, so the proposal plans do show some seating area totalling 50 square metres. Their applicant is also seeking a retrospective approval, so a small building has been constructed on site for use for the roadside store component. That's a 26 that's a 26 square metre building and approval for the bus which is 24 square metres for the building front component. The total use requires five car parks on site. The applicants proposed eight. One of those car parks actually doesn't work so essentially we're looking at seven on-site car parks. The request includes changes to some of the conditions and deleting some of the conditions. So those conditions predominantly relate to the operation of the food and drink outlet as opposed to the roadside stall. So the report does recommend refusal. The development is considered an urban activity. The planning scheme looks to consolidate those activities into our centre zones and does not encourage those sorts of uses in our rural areas. So in terms of in terms of the development, it's about two and a half kilometres from the Cooroy town centre. It's inconsistent, it's outside of the urban boundary, the Cooroy urban boundary, so in terms of the planning scheme, it's an inconsistent use in the rural zone. the South East Queensland regional plan, it's also outside of the urban footprint, so the SEQ regional plan looks to consolidate those business activities as well as the planning scheme, so essentially it's not consistent with both Noosa and the SEQ regional plan. From Council's perspective, from Office's perspective, one of the major concerns is the car parking, so the way the cafe is operating at the moment, the car parking that's proposed on site isn't sufficient to meet the demand that's currently being seen on that So council's infrastructure team has had a look at parking in the road reserve, it's not wide enough to have a formalised car park provided in that area, so there would be issues with continued parking on that road reserve the way the way that it's currently operating it is causing damage to the road reserve at the moment so local laws have confirmed that the parking is lawful because it is outside of an urban built-up area so people are lawfully able to park in that area but formalized could not be provided due to the width of the reserve at the moment so essentially at the moment the way that the cafe is operating it is causing impacts on adjoining properties in terms of amenity and safety concerns as already outlined terms of the use itself it's it's not so much as a tourism focus which the planning scheme does allow for limited uses in those areas that do sort of promote tourism this is more of a passing trade type use with limited There's no overriding community benefit to approve this use in this location and there is a concern regarding setting a precedent of approving an urban activity outside of the urban boundary in the rural area and maybe just a point of clarity the the recommendation seeks to review and refuse the food and drink component but supports the amendment to the building for the roadside stall so it's an approval in part. Clare Stewart 16:36.785
So it says that Patrick said recommend it for refusal for food and drink. Patrick Murphy 16:41.645
That's correct. So that would be the bus would effectively stop. That's correct the recommendation is that the use The use ceased within three months. So yes, the original approval had like a pergola type structure for the roadside store. What has been constructed on site is a 26 square metre building. We're supportive of that building which is consistent with the allowable area for GFA under the planning scheme and for that to be the location where the roadside store operates from. Clare Stewart 17:14.879
So approval for the roadside store but refusal for the bus stop, so no coffees? Patrick Murphy 17:20.599
No coffees, no cafe element to it and also not supporting the change to the array of goods that can be sold. be sold on site because those that are proposed to be now included are those associated with the food and drink out there in the cafe and they're not. Clare Stewart 17:37.899
So roadside store looking at what would, so the honey, eggs, fresh eggs. Brian Stockwell 17:54.960
So just a question on that one. So the roadside store tends just normally to be about what's produced on site. Does the existing approval allow him to be an outlet for honey etc that's produced off site within the local area? Yeah so the code allows some limited locally produced food to be sold through the roadside store. Clare Stewart 18:26.018
Anything further? Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 18:29.358
Yes, thank you. Just for clarification, the plan supports the approval of the construction. Just to confirm, with that construction are we having seven onsite formalised car parks? Tara Norley 18:46.238
The seven required if we were to refuse the food and drink component. So the original approval already conditions onsite car parking for the roadside stall elements, so the additional car parks that are required for the food and drink component wouldn't be required. Karen Finzel 19:02.278
So just to clarify, with the construction supported at the moment, how many formal car parks will go with that? Tara Norley 19:11.387
I would have to check what the original approval condition, I believe it may have been three or four. Karen Finzel 19:17.487
Okay, well I appreciate that because I think that plays into the amenity and the safety concerns that are being raised. I'd like to have an answer to that question, thank you. Brian Stockwell 19:33.220
Happy to move that it be referred to the General Committee because of the significance of the matter. Clare Stewart 19:37.300
I'll second that. All in favour? Yes. Yes, thank you. Thanks Cathy and Animas. Thank you everyone. Item 5.3, a minor change for development payment for a material change of use for short-term accommodation at 515 Cooroy, Noosa Road, Tinbeerwah. So this one did come to General... Larry Sengstock 19:59.253
Sorry, there's no COI Clare Stewart 20:01.587
No, not this one. No, Amelia has left the room. Tara Norley 20:07.447
Okay, so this one did come to the General Committee meeting last month, but was requested to be deferred. The applicant's proposing, so an application was lodged in April, sorry, was approved in April 2023 for short this property, limiting the bedrooms to five bedrooms and eight people on site. The original applicant application requested 10 people on site, but through the assessment process, it was reduced to eight and conditioned at eight. The applicant has lodged a change to this approval requesting to increase the number of bedrooms to six and The report recommends refusal it's considered that the application is in fact not a minor change so the DA rules do have information around what kind substantially different development. We believe this actually does not meet the minor change requirement as it is substantially different in terms of the impacts that the known impacts are likely to increase in terms of amenity impacts and noise. So we believe this should have actually been lodged as another change. Additionally, the scale of the development is not compatible with the rural environment that it's located in. So in terms of the context of the site, we believe that having 16 people and potentially up to 16 vehicles on the site is not compatible with rural amenity. Clare Stewart 21:36.215
Councillor Stockwell or Finzel, any questions? Thank you. Karen Finzel 21:40.702
No, thank you. I think it's pretty clear. Thank you for the report. Clare Stewart 21:46.982
I'm happy to move the staff recommendation on this one. I'll second it. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. I won't talk to her. Councillor Finzel. Sorry, are we taking the vote? Yeah, we're taking the vote to support our recommendation. Larry Sengstock 22:03.999
Discussion first. To support the recommendation. Clare Stewart 22:07.537
There were no questions. You had any questions for this one, Councillor? Karen Finzel 22:11.117
No questions, so thank you. Clare Stewart 22:13.256
Alright, I'm happy to move second. All in favour? Yes. Carried, thank you. very much. 5.4, thank you very much. I'm out of the room for this one. before we do we do we just wish to refer because there won't be a forum I think we've got we've got two two conflicts of interest so it wouldn't have a quorum so I think if we just immediately defer it that makes sense. Karen Finzel 22:41.771
There's a question just to change. You need to move and second that. There can be no questions if you have got a... Yes, I have. Brian Stockwell 22:47.451
Just regard the process. Karen Finzel 22:49.273
Have a question regarding the process. Should we be declaring our complaints now? Clare Stewart 22:57.053
Well if we do, then we leave the room and there's only Councillor Stockwell here. I believe it's okay to do what is proposed which I'll move it that the Planning Environment Committee agenda item 5.1 refers to the General Committee as there's no quorum due to the conflicts of interest and because we're not debating the matter at hand there is no conflict with that resolution. That's it. I'll second that. All in favour? Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you Kath. That has been referred. Item 5.5 Planning and Environment Court Appeal number D154 of 2023. Enforcement notice issued 1/5 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads. Patrick Murphy 23:47.214
So the report details a matter that's now been appealed to the Planning and Environment Court. The circumstances surrounding it are that there's, and I might talk to both items if I can, 5.5 and 5.6 because they're interrelated. The site, site at 5 Attunga Heights contains three dwelling units and two of them are owned, well they were historically owned by sort of one family and over time Whom the enforcement notice has been issued and they relate the works relate to the enclosure of ground floor areas of approximately 10 square metres the enclosure of a room area with a door extending it you know to an existing first floor balcony and extension of that balcony and a pergola in the front courtyard which extends to the front boundary which is a common property and with the other unit enclosing you know increasing GFA areas. So when we became aware of this there was contact made with the property owners and one of the options for to remediate the works through getting a town planning approval, a change to their existing town planning approval, they weren't able to attain owner's consent so the application could not proceed. Subsequent show cause notice was issued seeking advice as to how they would resolve the matter. There was an unfavourable response received to that show cause notice and subsequent to that an enforcement notice was issued requiring them to rectify the work and those enforcement notices have both been appealed. Brian Stockwell 25:59.758
I'm happy to move the staff recommendation on the first one. Clare Stewart 26:03.218
I'll second it. you want to ask any questions or talk to this? Karen Finzel 26:17.910
Thank you. Clare Stewart 26:18.896
I'll put your vote all in favour. Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Canna. Same for the second one. 5.6. Yep, 5.6. I'll move it. Yep, I'll second it. We're up to 5.6, Councillor Finzel. Any questions? Karen Finzel 26:34.620
No questions to the staff, Thank you, we'll put it it to to a a vote, all in favour? Yes. Carried unanimously, thank you. Okay, so reports, planning applications are started by delegated authority, September 2023. No conflicts on this one, anyone? No conflicts? No conflicts. Clare Stewart 26:53.720
I have no conflicts. Any conflicts Councillor Stockwell? No. Okay, I'll move it. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Yes. Thank you. That brings us to the end of our meeting. Thank you everyone. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
