Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - February 2024
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:26:31
Synopsis: Netanya changes sent to Committee with 2m setback and refined parking, RAL23/0015 backed despite access non-compliance with bushfire envelopes, Transparency and conflicts of interest handled.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Tom Wegener Karen Finzel Clare Stewart Brian Stockwell Non-Committee Councillors Amelia Lorentson Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Tom Wegener: RAL23/0015 (11 Billabong Way, Tewantin) to split 1 lot into 2 with access easement was referred to General Committee due to significance (Item 5.1) (03:54). Georgina Schramm: Recommended approval with conditions despite non-compliance with Reconfiguring a Lot Code PO4 re “no additional lots with access off Griffith Ave,” citing lot size anomaly (7,000m² into 5,000m² and 2,000m²; area minimum 600m²) and minimal streetscape change (01:10) (Item 5.1). Georgina Schramm: Bushfire hazard addressed via conditioned building envelopes ensuring separation from hazardous vegetation along the eastern boundary and adjoining park (01:10) (Item 5.1). Tom Wegener: Netanya, 71 Hastings St—minor change across seven approvals: roof-form changes to SE corner, retrospective pergola roofs; raised aesthetic concerns about heavy concrete columns and bulk versus existing lighter form (08:02–10:40) (Item 5.2). Patrick Murphy: One existing car space unusable due to a pole; to be offset via an infrastructure agreement contribution; condition refined so new, not existing, car parks must meet current Australian Standards (05:49) (Item 5.2). Officers: Awnings proposed along Park Rd intrude into setback, undermining “meaningful landscaping” incl. street trees; a condition will require amended plans to deliver a 2m setback (05:49, 11:52–13:10) (Item 5.2). Amelia Lorentson: Queried whether amended plans return to Council; officers said typically assessed by officers but can be circulated for councillor advice upon request (14:33–15:40) (Item 5.2). Tom Wegener: Sought to link beachside maintenance/encroachment history to current application; CEO clarified beachside issues are separate to the application before the committee (16:26–16:31) (Item 5.2). Officers: Confirmed historic footpath dining permits/lease on Hastings St frontage; 2020 compliance review led to removals of off-site structures and amended Sales Restaurant agreement and fees (18:22–20:09) (Item 5.2). Brian Stockwell: Sought “Noosa-appropriate” design wording to avoid bulky/urban appearance; officers open to strengthening condition language (22:00–22:35) (Item 5.2). Council: Netanya item referred to General Committee for further consideration (Item 5.2) (22:35). Committee: Noted December 2023 delegated decisions report (Item 6.1) (26:07). Tom Wegener: Queried Munna Crescent car park/boat ramp works; officer advised the cited application is dredging; further details to be provided (25:16) (Item 6.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Tom Wegener: Expressed concern about private use of public land via expanded awnings potentially pushing trading into public realm; officers’ 2m setback condition aims to protect landscaping/streetscape capacity (10:40–11:52) (Item 5.2). Clare Stewart: Rebutted attempts to fold beachside maintenance into Netanya application scope to keep deliberations on the agenda item (17:43–18:07) (Item 5.2). Officers: Clarified council, not Netanya, is responsible for beachside maintenance at the location raised; historic outdoor dining encroachments are regulated by permits and fees (20:21–20:36, 18:22–20:09) (Item 5.2). Process: Amended-plan assessment ordinarily handled by officers; option to circulate to councillors noted, addressing transparency concerns (15:01–15:40) (Item 5.2). Committee: Elevating both key items to General Committee increases scrutiny and allows refined conditions/oversight (Items 5.1, 5.2). Legal / Risk Item 5.1: Approval recommendation despite PO4 non-compliance hinges on performance-based planning under the Planning Act, with justification on character/lot size and conditioned bushfire mitigation envelopes (01:10). Item 5.1: Bushfire risk managed via separation from hazardous vegetation; conditions critical to defensibility if appealed on natural hazards grounds. Item 5.2: Setback non-compliance addressed by condition requiring 2m setback to achieve scheme landscaping outcomes; reduces risk of challenge on public realm/landscape policy inconsistency (11:52–13:10). Item 5.2: Car parking compliance risk mitigated by limiting AS2890 compliance to new parks and monetising one lost bay via infrastructure agreement, aligning with lawful conditioning principles (05:49). Delegations (6.1): Proper management of outdoor dining encroachments via permits/fees since 2020 review reduces unlawful-use risk (18:42–20:09). Conflicts of Interest Brian Stockwell: Declared prescribed conflict (Chapter 5B, Local Government Act 2009) due to paid engagement with Suncoast Building Approvals, an applicant in items 14–16 of Dec 2023 delegations; exited before debate/vote (23:49–24:38) (Item 6.1). Committee: Vote proceeded unanimously noting Cr Stockwell’s absence, satisfying statutory COI handling (Item 6.1) (26:07). Planning Scheme, Setbacks & Design Quality Design control: Officers affirmed council discretion on aesthetics guided by scheme’s subtropical design outcomes; councillors may move design-modifying conditions (08:42) (Item 5.2). Setbacks/landscape: The 2m Park Rd setback condition preserves street tree opportunities and softens bulk to maintain Noosa character (11:52–13:10) (Item 5.2). Character consistency: RAL23/0015 argued as consistent due to large lot sizes and minimal streetscape change despite access PO4 issue (01:10) (Item 5.1). “Noosify” intent: Councillors flagged guarding against heavy/urban forms; officers to consider enhanced wording to secure local character in revised plans (22:00–22:35) (Item 5.2). Environmental Concerns Bushfire: Building envelopes conditioned to ensure adequate separation from hazardous vegetation to the east and adjoining park at Billabong Way (01:10) (Item 5.1). Urban greenery: Netanya awnings scaled back to protect space for street trees and meaningful landscaping per scheme, improving shade and microclimate (11:52–13:10) (Item 5.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 6 February 2024 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 6 FEBRUARY 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Tom Wegener (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Clare Stewart Cr Brian Stockwell NON-COMMITTEE COUNCILLORS Cr Amelia Lorentson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 5 December 2023 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 FEBRUARY 2024 5.1. RAL23/0015 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 LOT INTO 2 LOTS & ACCESS EASEMENT) AT 11 BILLABONG WAY, TEWANTIN Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener 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. 5.2. 51901.3614.03, 51901.3786.04, 51992.479.03, 51994.1048.03, 51994.1249.03, MCU13/0081.03 – MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR 47 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, ENTERTAINMENT & DINING - TYPE 1 FOOD & BEVERAGE AND RETAIL BUSINESS - TYPE 1 LOCAL AND TYPE 2 SHOP & SALON AT ‘NETANYA’ - 71 HASTINGS STREET NOOSA HEADS DESCRIBED AS LOT 0 ON BUP101500 The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Wegener – refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes - photos Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.2 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY DECEMBER 2023 In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell declare I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as follows: Suncoast Building Approvals are identified as the applicant in number 14 for Development Application EXE23/0039,15 for Development Applications EXE23/0040 and 16 for Development Applications and EXE23/0040. I contracted Suncoast Building Approvals to undertake Building Certification for my proposed residence in Boreen Point on the 29 November 2021. This process is currently underway. The total fees associated with the completion of the certification and inspection regime is $5,904 which includes Noosa Council Plumbing and Drainage fees. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 FEBRUARY 2024 Cr Stockwell left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Clare Stewart Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 February 2024 regarding planning applications that have been decided by delegated authority. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 09:57 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Tom Wegener 00:00.000
I declare the meeting open, 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 elders past, present, and emerging. We have no presentations. Deputations. We may have a motion. Mover for. Actually, no. note that all committee members are in attendance. Thank you, Mr Chair. Mayor, and we have Amelia Lorentson in the gallery? Can I have a mover and a seconder for the confirmation to the meeting, the planning and environment meetings from January? Okay. You got that clear? All in favour? It's unanimous. Okay, we're off to the first. Report for consideration. We have, it is RAL23/0015 development application to reconfigure a lot, one into two lots and access easement at 11 Billabong Way, Tewantin. We have Georgina Schramm. To talk us through it. Georgina Schramm 01:10.701
Good morning. So the application we've got in front of us is a one into two lot subdivision with access easement of the, over the existing established driveway. The two key items of topic with this application as contained within the report includes the non-compliance with performance outcome four of the reconfiguring a lot code, as well as the bushfire hazard identified over the so as you can probably recall a couple months ago we had a similar application within the estate for a one to two lot subdivision alongside a drive that was recommended for refusal. I just thought it might be worthwhile touching on a couple of the key variations between the two applications. So with the Saturday application that was refused it was refused on the grounds that it wasn't consistent with the predominant character of the area as well as the bushfire risk present on the lot. Whereas the application that we have today is it's an anomaly in the area it's 7,000 square metres it's a one into two lot subdivision with one of the lots I believe is 5,000 square metres the second one 2 so we're well and truly larger than the minimum lot size of 600 square this area. In terms of the non-compliance with the performance outcome for the reconfiguring a lot code the outcome refers to no additional lots being created with access off Griffith Avenue. This instance because the intent behind that requirement is that the subdivision is to remain in character within this area after consideration of this application because the lot size the impacts and the changes of the application from the street side are going to be very marginal we're maintaining the existing access there will be a new fence line assumed fence line to existing dwellings that are remaining to the best of our knowledge as well in terms of how they have addressed bushfire hazard they've been able to demonstrate through conditioning to building envelopes to capture and deal with any future development on the site and those envelopes I suppose justifying can demonstrate that they have adequate separation from the hazardous vegetation with it along the rear eastern of the what is that our along the eastern boundary as well as the park that adjoins the property so I suppose for these reasons as in addition to what is contained in the report the application has been recommended for approval subject to conditions thank you. Tom Wegener 03:55.523
Okay anybody have questions Brian Amelia well let's see well joe's asked us to be moved to the General Committee meeting do I have a mover I'll it. Okay. Thank you very much, Judi. Next we have 5.2 which is named 51901.3614.03 space 51901.3786.04 comma 51992 dot four seven nine dot oh three comma five one nine four dot one oh four eight two four I have dyslexia, so this is actually torture. MCO 13 slash 008 one dot three. Minor change to development approvals for 47 multiple dwelling. Entertained. Entertainment and dining type one food and beverage and retail business. Type one local and type two shop and salon at Netanya 71 Hastings Street. Noosa Heads described as lot zero on B. BUP 10 1 5 0 and we have Patrick here to walk us through the application Patrick Murphy 05:48.964
Okay so the application relates to property at 71 Hastings Street which is the site of the Netanya resort there's seven approvals on the site which are being changed through this application you may recall a couple of years ago a few years ago now we did another minor change to those same approvals. Which sort of revitalized the site at that time it left out the southeastern corner the tenancies within of the lot that's primarily the nature of the subject application seeking to change the reform and invigorate those buildings there's also some retrospective approvals sought for some pergola roofs the original application provided car parking layout plan and one of the car spaces actually has pole in it and it cannot be used as a car space so it's proposed to enter into an infrastructure agreement for contributions for that car space which has been accepted there's also another condition about car parking complying with Australian standards but there's an issue in terms of existing car parks not necessarily meeting those standards but meeting the standards at the time so we're proposing to change that condition so that all new car parks achieve the Australian standard. That's accepted and one of the primary matters of concern with the application has been the intrusion into the setback on the Park Road frontage associated with the awnings of the roofs and how they impact upon the capacity to provide landscaping in that area to provide meaningful landscaping as required by the scheme the awnings prevent the to capacity provide street trees and again meaningful landscaping that's expected in that location so it's recommended that a condition be included requiring amended plans for that setback to be two metres and I should say it's be approved Tom Wegener 08:03.081
Any questions there I've got done a it I've done it a series of questions okay any questions no thank you um first of all you know that the way it looks you it's know probably not our remit to judge on but it looks very very different, it has a very different feel to it than what's and so I've we what if some of the councils didn't like the way it looked, do we have any input on the aesthetics? Patrick Murphy 08:42.669
Well you certainly do, council's making the decision on the application and there are provisions in the scheme around the design outcomes that are sought throughout the Shire. In this regard I mean that it is an existing building that's being revitalized so there's limited scope I dare say in terms of what can be achieved but notwithstanding the proposal does provide extensive awning and you know and outdoor areas and vegetation throughout the site that we would consider that is consistent with a subtropical lifestyle design elements so if you're disagreeable with that you sure you could put a motion to seek a change to that Tom Wegener 09:28.790
Because have that there the columns in the front are very heavy set and in concrete where presently it's a very light and of course it is dated you know there's no argument that it shouldn't be changed because it is well and truly past it's used by take but I have the um, can a we go to that report on page the figure six please yes yeah that's not on the report it's page 33 know if you also come page before that it's a much bigger like that this like the stepping out like that there we go. Do you want a picture? Yeah, that's like it just it seems very heavy in concrete versus what it is now and I have a photo of what it's like now and there's also a photo on page 35 of what it looks like now and it just it's much a bigger more permanent structure here course it matches what Netanya is looks like so it's kind of that the same architecture flow but with I agree with them with Patrick and staff that huge awning right here there's no flower area here but as of right now there's a very nice raised garden bed right through there so it it's very heavy and then of course I worry about when they have a huge awning like that is will the business make way out onto the sidewalk will it all of a sudden start coming public property and that is obviously know that to be in my bonnet is private use of public property Patrick Murphy 11:52.083
So that's the elevation which we say the awnings project too close to street frontage and are requiring them to be brought back to two metres so they in if it were to be approved in line with the recommendation of the officer then Richard MacGillivray 12:08.685
That would be limited. Further and would require a redesign there Councillor Tom to shift that back so that might result in those columns potentially being reduced in size and scale because they'll have to be set back a further two metres so they may need to revisit that roof form design given they'll need to set that back further which also prevents being able to get any street trees any anywhere. Real substantial growth in there that might provide some shading and some softening as well yeah yeah worry about that Tom Wegener 12:40.901
That outdoor garden bed there is really attractive and I think that it gives a nice amenity that is there presently and if you think a couple of pages past you can see it I'm sure that you've still look at it in the report as SPEAKER_07 12:54.843
Well so can I ask a question then just is it the flat owning awning with the say metre wide pillar is that where you're worried about the encroachment or is it the one at the rear? Richard MacGillivray 13:10.050
It's actually Figure 4 and five are the good ones to have a look at Councillors that show where those encroachments are and yeah you'll see we've done an estimated line of where the two metres which is consistent with the existing Bill form and obviously we're requiring those further encroachments to be actually pulled back in line two metre setback so it's essentially the corners of each of those reforms that do protrude into that two metre space Unknown 13:49.320
That guy sits still. I want him to sit. SPEAKER_07 13:57.781
So is the new building still truncated on that corner? Looks like it's truncated. Oh, that might be the awning at the moment that's truncated. Yeah. Sorry. Tom Wegener 14:14.018
Yeah, so it's Figure 4 is exactly. There's the way it is now and the encroachments. Richard MacGillivray 14:22.857
Yep, and then figure five just sort of shows the truncation there of actual tenancy layout there. Amelia Lorentson 14:34.197
So just in terms of clarity through can I ask a question to the Chair? There is a condition that's been imposed to require plans to be amended to provide a two metre setback to Park Road. Will Council get an opportunity to have a look at those amended plans? I think is where all this conversation is sort of leading. How does that work? Richard MacGillivray 15:00.681
Usually if we support the motion, recommendation as it is, it wouldn't necessarily come back to Council, but can request that item be circulated for advice from Councillors. But usually the method would be that officers would undertake a design assessment of that revised to meet the compliance. Yeah, so potentially wouldn't be brought back to full Council, it would be a decision that officers would make based on the revised design and meeting the setback requirements. Tom Wegener 15:38.948
Without seeing that the applicant is the body corporate of Netanya, which is the entire structure of the big block of land, I've sent some photos to Cathy to bring up, and I have some questions about Netanya, the body corporate, and sort of the use pushing into public land, so I have a question about the other side, the beach side, and where the actual property line is. Because I sent some photos out to the Councillors. This Larry Sengstock 16:16.179
Is not relevant to the current it's application? Yes, that's the problem. We can't necessarily discuss it here. A to me, that's a separate item. If you want to bring that to the table, that's a separate thing. Tom Wegener 16:38.249
Okay. Can I ask the question? Um, it, what I remember about Netanya, when we, and I very forcefully argued to, um, for the, um, the application, you know, to the application. And one of the things that they said was, well, the body corporate takes care of the public property out in front of Netanya. And so that was kind of a quid pro quo, like, yeah, then we'll look after that. And they're not doing that now. Um the front the public land that they sort of said, yeah, We'll mow it, make sure it looks nice, is atrocious. And so they failed their promise, so to speak. And whether that goes into it has any application to this. But it seems as though they're asking for further encroachment on the public property. And it seems to me as though all of a sudden their attitude towards encroachment into public property comes into question. That's why I bring this up. Although it has to do with the larger body corpora, but does it have this particular application? I'm not sure where not sure the balance are. SPEAKER_03 17:43.504
I don't think it has anything to do with this application. Larry Sengstock 17:46.064
The only thing I could throw you to would be that your concern is that you've given them allowances to look after the public property in front of the building, their lot. They're not doing that as well as they possibly could, what's the position if we give them the same opportunity at the back on Hastings Street? SPEAKER_03 18:07.421
So Tom, where are you referring to? Because that there's always mum. Are you doing it on the boardwalk? So that's always in great condition whenever we walk past. Tom Wegener 18:16.935
Can you bring it up Cathy, the photos again? Sorry. Just to answer the question. Richard MacGillivray 18:22.875
And it's important to highlight there is a lease permit for the structures that do encroach and that's been in place for a substantial period of time and I understand was followed up as part of a recent issue was raised with Council I think in 2020. Patrick Murphy 18:41.830
In October 2020 when this was minor change was decided there was a couple of elements that was asked to be looked at and one was near that lawn area associated with the hotel where there's a barbecue and some structures that were off the site that was addressed and those structures were removed and there some landscaping landscape provided within the site. There is some landscaping that might have been perceived to be part of Netanya's side that's actually off the land and is in Council. So they address what is occurring on their land and removed any structures that they were using from Council land. There was also another element around Sails Restaurant and that it be investigated. Through CEO to ensure that the extent of area that they're using was lawful and in the resolution of that request the property department got sales to provide a survey area to determine was being used outside and have subsequently amended their agreement with sales in terms of outdoor dining and charge the fee appropriately. Is that public information? Can get a copy of that? Well my understanding at the time there might have been some communication with our property department with you around that we can speak to them and to together get them to forward that Richard MacGillivray 20:08.804
Information. Happy to provide a briefing to Councillors on that particular footpath dining permit if that would assist. SPEAKER_03 20:14.544
So coming back to what's in front of us at the agenda, where is that Tom? Oh, that's in front of Netanya. Tom Wegener 20:21.054
On the beach side? I've never seen it look like I've well that's this morning. Yeah. And it looked like that. SPEAKER_03 20:28.374
Is that our responsibility? Is that Council responsibility? Or is that what falls? Richard MacGillivray 20:32.890
That would be within Council it's Tom. Yeah. Okay, well, that's, let's go. Tom Wegener 20:37.735
That's, you know, if it's Council property, and I'm a stickler for this kind of stuff, because if they were, if they'd offered to look after it, and that's what I distinctly remember from the last discussions, and I said, great, if Natalia generally does that, does do a really good job out the front there, and I'm there almost every day. But when it does start looking like this all the way through the Christmas holiday. But that, Tom, that's if my it's our responsibility. SPEAKER_07 21:05.341
Experience didn't go by that was probably made four days ago. Larry Sengstock 21:15.774
Yes, of course, yeah. But I'm more than happy to take that away Councillor and look at that, was there last night. The ben's there too, Larry. I didn't see that. Why are you but um, yes. So, I'm on and come back to you. Patrick Murphy 21:33.756
And if you want to defer this until general, we can come back with some more discussion around that. And maybe just to clarify, in terms of encroachment, the building's not going off their land. What they're proposing to do is go beyond the allowable setbacks within their site and go to within 120 mil of their boundary. They're not proposing through this application to go off their land, what we're seeking is that they pull their buildings back to comply with setback requirements. Brian Stockwell 22:03.388
Yeah, I looked at that figure six as well and thought it's a little bit the same as Council witness could we have a look at what might be some slightly enhanced wording to put in any potential condition to actually make it a little bit more noosified? We can look at that. We always struggle not to make things look like they're in Melbourne. And that one was a little bit bolder. It's not huge, lots of roof, but just big in prison. Imprisonment yeah yeah may be just something for them, their designers to have a think about and say, have we really thought about what the look and feel of the Hastings Street about, look at the design guidelines, etc. Tom Wegener 22:47.055
I recommend everybody walk down there and walk the premises because, you know, it's a very, very important part of Noosa, that corner there. You know, so many people enjoy it. Not just tourist residents. I'm out there a lot. My week, my best part of my week is going to Massimo's and getting an ice cream. It's really good. So that's all. I take this very seriously. So I'd like to move this to the General Committee meeting for further consideration. Unanimous. Okay, thank you very much, Patrick. Thank you, Richard. Thank you, guys. We have 6.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority December 2023. Thank Patrick. Brian Stockwell 23:49.273
Councillor Wegener. I wish to declare I've described confidence in this matter as follows. Suncoast Building Approvals are identified in number 14, 15 and 16, please. Cathy? Yeah, I've got that written. Oh, okay, the long sorry. All those items as outlined there. I contracted the Suncoast Building Approvals to undertake building certification for my proposed residence in Boreen Point on the 29th of November 2021. This process is currently underway. The total fees associated with the completion of the certification inspection regime is $5,904, which includes Noosa Council plumbing and drainage. As a result of my conflict, I'll now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Okay, Tom Wegener 24:39.259
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any other questions concerning the delegated authorities? There's one applicant here, Noosa Council. What a problem this is. On number 20, just kidding, it's a combined application we're maturing doing to be use used for operational works code at what's happening with them at Monte Crescent with the car park in baudrillard where Noosa Council is the applicant? Patrick Murphy 25:14.540
Apple county. Well this application is actually for dredging. Oh yeah so if I might have to come back to you Tom with the details but it was yeah so I believe there was a previous application that was approved but they got their volumes incorrect and changed the nature of the application to threshold where it actually required an environmentally it became an environmentally relevant activity and that's why they had to come back because of the volume of material that was being dredged. But in terms of where the material was going I'd have to give you further clarification if required. Tom Wegener 25:51.904
No problem. Any other questions? Would somebody like to move? I'll all in favour? Noting that Councillor Stockwell didn't vote. That brings us to the end of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting. We will end at 9:59. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
