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. We have no deputations. We may have... May I have a mover for... Actually, no. I note that all committee members are in attendance. Thank you, Mr Chair. Mayor, and we have Amelia Lorentson in the gallery. Lorentson in the gallery. Can I have a mover and seconder for the confirmation to the meeting, 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 report for consideration, we have, it is RAL23/0015, development application to reconfigure a lot, one lot into two lots and access easement at $11 11 Billabong Way, Tewantin. We have Georgina Schramm to talk us through it, give us a brief overview. Georgina Schramm 01:10.119
Beautiful. 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 existing established driveway. So 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 lot. 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 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 at 7,000 square metres it's a one into two lot subdivision with lots I believe is 5,000 square metres the second one 2,000 square metres so we're well and truly larger than the minimum lot size of 600 square metres within 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. In this instance In 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 sides, 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 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 have been able to demonstrate and we have enforced through conditioning to building envelope. capture and deal with any future development on the site. And those envelopes I suppose justify and can demonstrate that they have adequate separation from the hazardous vegetation along the What is that? Our eastern, 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. Tom Wegener 03:54.768
Thank you. Does anybody have questions? Brian? Amelia? Well, let's see. Will Joe's ask this to be moved to the general meeting? Do I have a mover? I'll come with it. Brian will second it. I'll second. Okay. All in favour? Okay, thank you very much Georgina. Next we have 5.2 which is named 51901.3614.03. Space 51901.3786.04, 51992.47.479.03, 51994.1048.03, 51994.1249.03. I have dyslexia is actually torture. MCU13/0081.03, minor change to development approvals for 47 multiple dwellings entertainment and dining type 1 food and beverage and retail business type 1 local and type 2 shop and salon at Netanya 71 Hastings Street Noosa Heads described as lot zero on 0 on BUP101500. And we have Patrick here to walk us through the application. Patrick Murphy 05:49.333
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. 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 revitalised the site. At that time it left out the southeastern corner, the tenancies within the southeastern corner of the lot. That's primarily the nature of the subject application, seeking to change the roof form and invigorate those buildings. There's also some retrospective approvals sought for some pergola roofs. The original application provided a car parking layout plan, and one of the car spaces actually has a 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, 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 standards, so that's been 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. awnings prevent the capacity to 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 recommended that that should be approved. Tom Wegener 08:02.580
Okay, any questions, Brian, Clare? I've got a series of questions. First of all, you know, the way it looks, and it's probably not our remit to, you know, judge on the way it looks, but it looks very, very different. It has a very different feel to it than what's presently there now. so, if some of the Councillors didn't like the way it looked, do we have any input on the aesthetics? Patrick Murphy 08:42.768
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, it is an existing building that's being revitalised, so there's limited scope, I dare say, in terms of what can be achieved, but notwithstanding, the proposal does provide extensive awnings and outdoor areas and vegetation throughout the site that we would consider that is consistent with a subtropical with a sub-tropical lifestyle, design elements, so if you're disagreeable with that, I'm sure you could put a motion to seek a change to that. Tom Wegener 09:30.588
The columns in the front are a very heavy set in concrete where presently it's a very light, and of course dated, you know, there's no argument that it shouldn't be changed because it is well and truly passed, it's used by faith, but I have the... can we go to the report on page... no, figure six, please? Yes. That's on the report, it's page 33. I'm going to feel so concaved that before it's... it's a much bigger, like this, like this, stepping out like that. Karen Finzel 10:25.080
33, Did you say, of the agenda? Yes. Patrick Murphy 10:37.600
Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you, Cathy. Tom Wegener 10:40.880
And it just, it seems very heavy in concrete versus what 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 much bigger, more permanent structure here. Of course, it matches what Netanya looks like, so it's kind of the same architecture flow. But I agree with Patrick and staff that 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. area here, but So it's very heavy. And then, of course, I worry about when they have a huge awning like that is, will the business make its way out onto the sidewalk? Will it all of a sudden start coming out onto the public property? and that obviously, you know, to be in my bonnet is private use of public property. Patrick Murphy 11:52.791
So that's the elevation which we say the awnings project too close to the street frontage and are requiring them to be brought back to two metres. So they, if it were to be approved in line with the recommendation of the officer, then that would be limited. Richard MacGillivray 12:31.686
Also prevents being able to get any street trees, any real substantial growth in there that might provide some shading and some softening as well. Yeah, I worry about that. Tom Wegener 12:40.986
That outdoor garden bed there is really attractive and I think that it gives a nice amenity that is there presently. A couple of pages past you can see it, but I'm sure you can still look at it in the report as Brian Stockwell 12:54.382
Well. Can I ask a question then? Is it the flat awning with the metre wide pillar, is that where you're worried about the encroachment or is it the one at the rear? Richard MacGillivray 13:10.062
It's actually figure four and five are the good ones to have a look at, Councillors, that show. where those encroachments are and you'll see we've done an estimated line of where the two metres which is consistent with the existing built form and obviously we're requiring those further encroachments to be actually pulled back and lined consistent with the existing two metre setback so it's essentially the corners of each of those roof forms that do protrude into that two metre. Brian Stockwell 13:49.835
Guy says, too, I want to use it. So is the new building still truncated on that corner? It looks like it's truncated. Oh, that might be the awning at the moment that's truncated. Tom Wegener 14:14.020
Yeah, so it's figure four is exactly, there's the way it is now and the encroachments. Richard MacGillivray 14:25.160
Yep, and then figure five just sort of shows the truncation there of the actual tenancy layout there. Amelia Lorentson 14:33.320
So just in terms of clarity the chair, can I ask a question to Richard? 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 Will Council get an opportunity to have a look at those amended plans? I think is where all this conversation is sort of leading. Karen Finzel 14:57.783
How does that work? Richard MacGillivray 15:01.203
Usually if we support the motion, recommendation as it is. wouldn't necessarily come back to council, but council 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 pulled, brought back to full council. It would be a decision that officers would make based on the revised design on. design and meeting the setback requirements. Tom Wegener 15:40.349
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 Kathy to bring up. And I have some questions about Netanya, the body corporate, and sort of the use of the pushing into public land. So I have a question about the other side, the beach side, and property line is. Because I sent some photos out to the councillors. it's not relevant to the current application? Larry Sengstock 16:26.042
Yes, that's a different issue. We can't necessarily discuss it here. Tom Wegener 16:31.842
To me, that's a separate item. If you want to bring that to the table, that's a separate thing. Okay. Can I ask the question? What I remember about Netanya, when we, and I very forcefully argued for the application, you know, to approve 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 so that was kind of a quid pro quo, like, "Yeah, we'll look after that." And they're not doing that now. The front, the public land, they sort of said, "Yeah, we'll look after that. We'll mow it, make sure it looks nice." atrocious. And so they failed their promise, so to speak. And whether that goes into this, if it has any application to this, but it seems as though they're asking for a further encroachment on the public property. 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 a larger body corporate, but does it have to do with this particular application? I'm not sure. I'm not sure where the balance are. Clare Stewart 17:43.490
I don't think it has anything to do with this application. Larry Sengstock 17:46.050
The only thing I could throw you to would be that your concern concern is that you've given them allowances to look after the public property in front of the building, in front of their lot, your concern is if 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? Clare Stewart 18:07.477
So Tom, where are you referring to? Because there's always mung. Are you doing it along the boardwalk? So that's always in great condition whenever we walk past and-- Yeah, along the boardwalk. Tom Wegener 18:17.008
Can you bring it up, Cathy, the photos again? Sorry. Just to answer the question. Richard MacGillivray 18:22.848
And it's important to highlight there is a lease arrangement where there's a footpath dining 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 research. of a recent issue was raised with council I think in 2020. Patrick Murphy 18:42.146
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 so so those those structures were removed and there was some landscaping provided within the site. There is some landscaping that might have been perceived to be part of Netanya's site that's actually off the land and is in council land 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 sales restaurant and that it'd be investigated through the CEO to ensure that the 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 the extent of area that was being used outside and have subsequently amended their agreement. their agreement with sales in terms of outdoor dining and charged the fee appropriately. Is that public information? Can I 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 get them to forward that information. Richard MacGillivray 20:09.418
Happy to provide a briefing to Councillors on that particular footpath dining permit. Clare Stewart 20:14.245
So coming back to what's in front of us at the agenda, where is that Tom? That's in front of Netanya. Tom Wegener 20:21.025
On the beachside? On the beachside. Clare Stewart 20:24.065
I've never seen it look like that. Tom Wegener 20:25.625
Well that's this morning. And it looked like that. Is that our responsibility? Is that council responsibility? Or is that what falls? Richard MacGillivray 20:32.836
It's council responsibility. That would be within council responsibility. It's council, Tom. Yeah. SPEAKER_03 20:36.496
Okay, well that's definitely a question. Tom Wegener 20:38.756
You know, it's council property. and I'm a stickler for this kind of stuff, because if they were, if they had offered it to look after, 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. Clare Stewart 21:00.967
But that, Tom, that's our responsibility. Okay, well it's our responsibility. Brian Stockwell 21:04.542
My experience didn't go by, that was probably made four days ago. That's right. And we are struggling. Yeah, I know that we're struggling. We're struggling to keep up with the problems at the moment. But I'm more than happy to take that away, Councillor, and look at that. That was there last night. And the Ben's there too, Larry. I didn't see that. Why are you there? The Ben's. Yes. So... So I'm happy to take that on and come back to you. And if you want to defer this until general, we can come back with a small discussion. Patrick Murphy 21:38.921
And maybe just to clarify, in terms of encroachment, they're not, 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. application to go off their land. They're not proposing... What we're seeking is that they pull their buildings back to comply with setback. Brian Stockwell 22:00.131
Yes, Brian. Yeah, I looked at that figure six as well and thought... It's a little bit the same as Councillor Wegener. 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 always struggle not to make things look like they're in Melbourne. We can look at that. And that one was a little bit, I saw that, it's not huge, like the roof, lots of roof, but just a little bit big in person. Yeah. Tom Wegener 22:35.066
It just might be just something that for them, they're designed to have a think about and say, have we really thought about what I recommend everybody walk down there and walk the premises because you know it's it's a very very important part of Noosa that corner there and you know so many people enjoy it and not just tourist residents I'm out there lot. My week, my best part of my week is going to Masamo's and getting an ice cream. It's really good. So that's so I could take this very seriously. So I'd like to move this to the general meeting for further discussion. Okay, thank you very much Patrick, thank you Richard. Thank you guys. Delegations, yeah. We have 6.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority December 2023. Patrick. Brian Stockwell 23:49.925
Wegener, I wish to declare I've described confidence in this matter as follows. I Suncoast Building Approvals are identified in number 14, 15 and 16 please. Cathy? Yeah, I've got that written in. Oh okay, the long form, sorry. All those, items 14, 15 and 16. 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. Tom Wegener 24:38.700
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any other questions? Delegated authorities. There's one applicant here, Noosa Council. What a problem number 20. Just kidding. It's a combined application maturing to be used for operational works code at Munna Crescent. What's happening at Munna Crescent with the car park and boat react? the Noosa Council is the applicant. Patrick Murphy 25:16.283
Well this application is actually for 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. I'd have to give you further clarification if required. Tom Wegener 25:51.981
No, no problem. Any other questions? Would somebody like to move? Karen Finzel 26:01.221
I'll do a second. Tom Wegener 26:07.500
Okay, all in favour? It's nice to know they're noting that Councillor Stockwell didn't vote. That brings us to the end of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. We will end up... Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
