Planning & Environment Committee - May 2024
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:44:18
Synopsis: Bunnings height cut to comply, Peregian design softened and basement clarified, Landfill works resequenced to reduce stormwater risk, Rene St minor change approved, Unanimous approvals.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Frank Wilkie Tom Wegener Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie chaired after unanimous appointment of Amelia Lorentson as Committee Chair and approval for her remote attendance under s254K; Acting Chair appointed due to remote attendance (00:55–03:34) (Attendance; Item 1.1). Samuel outlined minor internal reconfiguration at 214 David Low Way, Peregian Beach, retaining five tenancies and GFA; aesthetic amendments conditioned to align with local plan subtropical character (04:23–06:39) (Item 5.1). Brian Stockwell backed staff’s design stance, rejecting harder masonry palette; outcome improves timber/solar shading and streetscape (15:54–16:23) (Item 5.1). Basement storage added at Peregian is not counted as GFA; no basement parking, negligible construction impact, and building code/waterproofing handled at building approval stage (08:36–15:40) (Item 5.1). Minor timing changes approved for Noosa Landfill (Doonan) to allow vegetation clearing and detention basin works earlier while maintaining covenants and updated stormwater management obligations (17:49–21:11) (Item 5.2). Brian Stockwell justified resequencing to reduce environmental risk and expedite stormwater controls; assessment separated from applicant identity per Planning Act (21:17–22:04) (Item 5.2). Motorcycle/Scooter Sales & Repair at 16 Rene St: minor change approved to consolidate sheds, modest GFA increase offset by added parking, on-site service vehicle access protected by minimum awning height; no change to use (24:32–29:09) (Item 5.3). Representations on Bunnings Trade Supplies (178 Eumundi Noosa Rd) mostly accepted: conditions amended on landscaping, eaves, acid sulfate soils consolidation; bond retained; building height reduced to comply with 10 m above natural ground level (29:55–33:08) (Item 5.4). Patrick Murphy confirmed excavation and design changes lower apparent bulk; landscaping area and bioretention to soften frontage; full screening unrealistic in industrial context (33:08–40:11) (Item 5.4). Amelia Lorentson noted cooperative post-decision dialogue; officer held line on height leading to mediated outcome without court appeal (40:51–42:51) (Item 5.4). Brian Stockwell accepted small relaxation so new building is no higher than the adjacent, balancing operation and streetscape (43:12–43:47) (Item 5.4). All four planning items carried unanimously (various) (Items 5.1–5.4). Contentious / Transparency Matters Council acted as both applicant and assessment manager for the landfill change; processed internally this time due to unchanged layout, while original application used an external assessor (19:35–20:32) (Item 5.2). Dual-role risk mitigated by councillors affirming statutory duty to assess on planning merits regardless of applicant identity (21:17–22:04) (Item 5.2). Bunnings matter initially faced pushback on height; applicant suspended appeal period to make representations, enabling a negotiated solution (41:34–42:32) (Item 5.4). Community impact flagged over clearing of vegetated Bunnings site; officers rely on frontage setback, eaves, and landscaping/bio-basin to soften views (33:08–34:01) (Item 5.4). Visuals in the Peregian report caused confusion; officers clarified “approved vs proposed” elevations to evidence increased hard surfaces that were then corrected via conditions (06:41–08:07) (Item 5.1). Legal / Risk All planning reports noted compliance with s63(5) Planning Act 2016; chairing and remote attendance decisions referenced s254K and s267(2) Local Government Regulation 2012 (00:55–01:29) (Items 5.1–5.4; Item 1.1). Basement at Peregian: not a “storey,” excluded from GFA; risks addressed via construction methodology, waterproofing to code, acid sulfate soil triggers, and dilapidation reports to protect adjoining properties/public land (09:18–14:12) (Item 5.1). Landfill resequencing changes timing only; covenants and updated stormwater management plan remain enforceable pre-use/works, reducing immediate operational safety and environmental risks (17:49–21:11) (Item 5.2). Bunnings height now ≤10 m above natural ground level despite 10.94 m above finished level due to excavation; condition aligns with Noosa Plan height controls and contextual bulk calibration (34:10–34:45; 29:55–33:08) (Item 5.4). Acid sulfate soil conditions consolidated to remove duplication; performance bonds for landscaping retained to secure compliance (29:55–33:08) (Item 5.4). Environmental Concerns Peregian design changes mandate timber cladding, shading, and reduced glazing/masonry to achieve subtropical, less “hard” facades per local plan outcomes (05:57–06:39; 15:54–16:23) (Item 5.1). Landfill sequencing prioritizes detention basin and clearing to address on-site safety/operational issues and control stormwater earlier (17:49–22:04) (Item 5.2). Bunnings frontage to incorporate bio-retention and landscaping; species/density to be resolved at operational works to maximize screening while acknowledging industrial context (37:07–40:11) (Item 5.4). Motorcycle site preserves stormwater easement and buffer; no increased stormwater risk identified with consolidated building (26:27–27:36) (Item 5.3). Planning Scheme, Built Form, and Access Peregian basement complies with scheme provisions on basements (subgrade extent, access width, setbacks), with storage excluded from “use area” calculations (14:30–15:26) (Item 5.1). No net car parking increase triggered at Peregian; infrastructure agreement in lieu of parking remains valid as GFA decreased by 25 m² (13:57–14:27) (Item 5.1). Rene St change increases GFA but adds parking; condition forces on-site service vehicle access by setting awning height rather than allowing road-reserve parking (24:32–26:20) (Item 5.3). Bunnings landscaping recalculated excluding driveway widths; street trees clarified; colours compliant; underground and on-grade circulation assessed to minimum standards with wide ramps and rear awning facilitating trailers (33:08–38:03) (Item 5.4). Design calibration principle affirmed: new Bunnings bulk should not exceed adjacent building height, preserving streetscape scale (43:12–43:47) (Item 5.4).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 7 May 2024 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 MAY 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson, Chair (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Tom Wegener NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Nil EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings APOLOGIES Nil. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Cr Lorentson be approved to attend the Meeting dated 7 May 2024 via Microsoft Teams, in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation. Carried unanimously. 1.1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Cr Lorentson be appointed as Chairperson of the Planning and Environment Committee in accordance with section 267(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012. Carried unanimously. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Cr Wilkie be appointed as Acting Chairperson of this meeting due to Cr Lorentson attending via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 MAY 2024 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 6 February 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. MCU22/0154.01 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, SHOPS AND OFFICES AT 214 DAVID LOW WAY, PEREGIAN BEACH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 May 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0154.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for Food and Drink Outlet, Shops & Offices situated at 214 David Low Way Peregian Beach and: A. Agree to amend Condition 2, as outlined in Attachment 1. B. Note this report is prepared in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 MAY 2024 5.2. 132005.638.03 - OTHER CHANGE TO AN EXISTING APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – EXPANSION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE (WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING FACILITY) & ONGOING CLEARING PURPOSES AT 561 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, DOONAN Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 May 2024 regarding Application No. 132005.638.03 for Representations to the Other Change approval to an existing development permit for Material Change of Use – Waste Disposal & Recycling Facility and Ongoing Clearing Purposes, situated at Noosa Landfill at 561 Eumundi Noosa Rd Doonan Qld 4562 and: A. Agree to amend conditions 40 and 43, as outlined in Attachment 1; and B. Note this report is prepared in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.3. MCU21/0104.01 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES (UNDEFINED USE – MOTORCYCLE / SCOOTER SALES & REPAIR) – 16 RENE ST, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 May 2024 regarding Application No. MCU21/0104.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Material Change of Use of Premises (Undefined Use – Motorcycle/Scooter Sales & Repair) situated at 16 Rene St, Noosaville and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend conditions 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.4. MCU22/0051 REPRESENTATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HARDWARE & TRADE SUPPLIES AT 178 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 MAY 2024 That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 May 2024 regarding representations made in relation to Development Approval MCU22/0051 for Hardware and Trade Supplies situated at 178 Eumundi Noosa Rd Noosaville and: A. Agree to amend conditions 3, 7, 13,15, 20 and 21 as outlined in Attachment 1; B. Delete conditions 39 & 40; C. Refuse the representations made to conditions 5 for the following reasons: Condition 5 The condition is a reasonable requirement given the application was made over 178 Eumundi Noosa Road which includes the existing Bunnings Warehouse. The retention of a significant hardware component and trade sales area within the Bunnings Warehouse is an important consideration in the assessment of the proposed trade supplies store and the original Bunnings Warehouse. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.17am.
Meeting Transcript
Larry Sengstock 00:01.000
I'm going to start the chair because we need to elect a new chair but before I start I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. In terms of attendance, this is a this is a new a new meeting so we have Councillor Tom Wegener, Councillor Brian Stockwell, Mayor Frank Wilkie and we have Councillor Amelia Councillor Amelia Lorentson online who's still incapacitated with a broken or broken bones I believe in her foot. So welcome everybody. We do need to Yes I'm sorry yes we need to allow Amelia to attend Microsoft Teams. I'll move it. Frank Wilkie 00:55.570
The motion is that Councillor Lorentson be approved to attend the meeting dated 7 May 2024 via Microsoft Teams in accordance with Section 254K of the Local Government Regulation. Larry Sengstock 01:07.942
All in favour? Thank you. That's carried. So now in terms of attendance and apologies gone through that first meeting of this term of council we need to appoint a chair for this committee, for this group. Frank Wilkie 01:29.533
I move that Councillor Lorentson be appointed as chairperson of the planning and environment committee in accordance with section 267 and brackets 2 of the local government regulation of 2012. Larry Sengstock 01:40.153
Thank you. Can I get a seconder? Frank Wilkie 01:45.220
Do you want to speak to it? No, I think Councillor Lorentson is more than capable of chairing the meeting and it's good experience for all councillors to have an opportunity to chair meetings is how skills are developed. Larry Sengstock 02:00.900
Councillor Amelia, can I ask, did you accept being a nominee? Amelia Lorentson 02:05.540
I do accept and just looking at the bird's eye view of the meeting at the moment, I think it's also just lovely balance to have a grubbers amongst this lovely rose garden. Fair enough. Larry Sengstock 02:24.595
We are a table of males at the moment sitting around the table. look forward to having you back in the room with us, Amelia, as well. Amelia Lorentson 02:33.717
I'm missing the contact, but working very focused and very hard online. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 02:39.717
Very good. So if I put that to the vote, all in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. So Amelia will chair this meeting. Now, Amelia, you take, we need to, because you're online, we need to appoint an acting chair for this meeting, just for this meeting until you're back, if that's okay. Can I Can I have a nomination for that? Richard MacGillivray 03:08.027
I nominate the Mayor. Okay. Larry Sengstock 03:12.127
I'll take a second. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. I'll put that to the vote. Sorry, Frank, if you're prepared to accept that. Yes. Frank Wilkie 03:34.526
You Mr. CEO, thank you councillors. The first item we have on our agenda is an application for a minor change to the minutes from the previous PME committee. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded. I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson, all in favour? That's carried. The first item before us is the application for a minor change to a development approval for food and drink outlets, shops and offices at 214 David Low Way, Peregian Beach. We have... have Richard MacGillivray, Patrick here, and also Samuel. Samuel, this is your report. Would you like to speak to it, please? Yep. Samuel 04:23.475
So, the original application was approved by Council in February last year at its honourary meeting. So, the approved development was for alterations to the existing building just in Prudence Springs within the established commercial part, just fronting David Low Way and backing onto the village ground. The application included two retails of food and drink premises on the ground floor, with an additional story which was proposed to have food and drink premises and an office on the first floor, so this change application maintains exactly the same thing with minor internal reconfiguration, which also includes a basement level for storage purposes. There's no change to any of the approved use. The original application was subject. was subject to an infrastructure agreement in lieu of car parking. The new proposal doesn't increase the GFA and as such the infrastructure agreement remains valid. The change application contains the approved five tenancies. The use of the tenancies and the basement doesn't constitute a cross-floor area, so that maintains the car parking. The only, I suppose, issue only, I suppose, issue we raised was the fact that they introduced external building materials, which was a bit hard and did not comply with the local plan area, with the outcomes for the local plan area. However, we've been able to work with the applicant up until conditioned plan amendments just for minor changes, including reducing the masonry and improving the facade treatment so that it complies with the outcomes for the local plan area. Frank Wilkie 05:57.366
So the changes involve some aesthetic improvements to do with use of wooden louvers. What else? Samuel 06:06.666
So the changes we've included as part of the plan amendment was to include some sun protection to the facade. It's also, so the western screen previously included some wooden louvers which they've taken out. architectural treatments on the upper level and the lower awnings we've recommended they change that to include some wooden cladding. And then the building facades were not, glaze must be provided with sun shading and it varies onto material just to reduce that. masonry feel and improve the timber cladding feeling. Frank Wilkie 06:39.783
Questions councillors? Brian Stockwell 06:41.183
Yeah I've got one just for clarification in figures 9 and 10 which is on our page 6 and 7 we have comparisons the approved elevations and the proposed changes the only problem is it doesn't say which is which so can you just outline on that if we can have it up Kathy those diagrams just so I can yeah can you I'm guessing I know which one but I just want to be sure and then perhaps talk to that design elements you're looking at attachment that's in That's in 9 and 10. Patrick Murphy 07:17.445
The bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. So the bottom of page 6 is the approved plan and the proposed plan is to the top So you'll see that the timber treatment has been removed. There's a lot more hard surfaces, a lot more masonry proposed. Brian Stockwell 07:52.424
So the timber treatment you're talking about up top, that's at the top level to the right? It's not immediately evident what's timber and what's not between the two diagrams? Patrick Murphy 08:03.844
It is to the top right, there's timber treatment. Brian Stockwell 08:07.976
Yeah, that's what I saw in there. And for the Western Elevation, same thing, the left-hand side is the approved and the right-hand side is the proposed, which is, that one's probably a more stark contrast of the design, isn't it? That's correct. Correct. I'd hate to be sitting there in the Western Sun on that proposed design. Very hot. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 08:33.460
Thank you. Mary, did you have a question? Amelia Lorentson 08:36.120
I It's in relation to the inclusion of the basement level storage area. Sam and Patrick, if you can just clarify, does that- is there going to be an addition of a basement parking? Patrick Murphy 08:54.135
No, it's not basement parking. It's only accessed internally and it is a small area that's to be used for the storage of equipment. Amelia Lorentson 09:05.055
Fantastic, thank So in terms of construction impact, it's negligible? Patrick Murphy 09:11.741
It would be limited, that's right. It's away from the boundaries. Amelia Lorentson 09:16.161
Thank you very much. Richard MacGillivray 09:18.541
I'd like to continue where Amelia's gone. We say you can't go up, but is there any regulation about going down? for everybody saying, oh, you know, geez, I could add more GFA by going down, and it doesn't? and is this going Patrick Murphy 09:37.686
There is no limit on basements. They're not considered to be a story. In this case, it's storage area, so we wouldn't be including an in-use area. If they wanted to put an underground bar or the like, then we would look at that from a car parking point of view. They wouldn't get a free tip or something like that. And interestingly enough, we have an application in another township at the moment which we're assessing which includes a subterranean bar. Richard MacGillivray 10:10.277
That's an opening that I didn't see coming anyway. There are elements with any excavation and obviously there's things like acid sulphate soils can get triggered as well and obviously it can be very expensive as well to construct sheet piling and digging out an excavation for basements and the like so and often it can be cost prohibitive for people to to dig you know too deep into the earth to you know establish they dig down and it fills up with water. Are we looking at any liability issues? You're saying, well, council approved it. Look what's happened. Now, council, now you have to fix it. They have to ensure that the construction methodology imposed prevents water. Increase into the facility as well. So that's where a lot of the cost comes into it is when you go under the, under the ground, particularly where there's a high water table, they need to ensure that it's got the appropriate bunding in there so that water can't seep into the structure. So it is a responsibility the applicant will condition to ensure that it meets code and obviously the building approval which is a separate process to what council issues will deal with the mechanics of how that is approved to meet building codes to ensure that codes to ensure that it's waterproofed appropriately and then of course it's all sand there and I'm always worried about when you start digging around in the sand and putting construction around sand, the earth starts shaking while sand turns into a liquid form with enough shaking so I'm just wondering you know again they would have to be a lot you know that the next property starts sinking or something. Correct, it's normal procedure. It's normal procedure for dilapidation reports to be undertaken so that is where they'll need to do it you know a current site evaluation before any works are undertaken to ensure that there's no movement and in these days construction methodologies are very significant I guess in terms of terms of putting sheet piling in so that there isn't any impact to adjoining premises as part of that, so they take photos, user photos and investigations usually before any works are done to ensure that there's no movement on adjoining premises at all, including public land as well as private land. Frank Wilkie 12:31.680
Any further questions? Amelia Lorentson 12:34.300
Sorry, in terms of GFA, the proposal says that there is a flight increase of, I think, eight of the approved GFA, Patrick. Can you explain, that's considered negligible, but I think there's some detail in the report that says, that makes the, works on The works on the formula, you take the 50 square metres from the basement, you take, excuse me, you take that off the title and it still forms within the compliant GFA of 378 square metres. Can you explain that ration information? Samuel 13:21.847
On there, what report are you referring to, in terms of the increase to the grass floor area? Amelia Lorentson 13:27.587
In terms of the basement area, so the basement area is 50 square metres. I've understood, and maybe I just read it in the tracking documents, but that 50 square metres does then push the GFA up slightly. But it's considered minor. And have I misread that, or is that correct? Samuel 13:57.996
So the planning scheme definition of a gross floor area does not include basement, as a basement is not a storey. the whole 50 square metres is completely excludable as part of GFA, as it doesn't constitute a storey. Patrick Murphy 14:12.729
And the changes internally have also changed the GFA? the GFA such that it's brought it down 25 square metres from what was originally approved. Amelia Lorentson 14:27.882
Thank you for clarifying, thanks. Richard MacGillivray 14:30.982
Does our planning scheme discuss basements? I don't think I've submitted that. Patrick Murphy 14:37.722
There are provisions about what constitutes a basement. In terms of it not protruding more than a metre out of the ground. It also talks about how the opening to access the basement can be no more than six metres wide and access. There's also provisions in the scheme around setbacks for basements to comply with setbacks associated with the zone but in this zone for the lower There's no setback requirements. Noting that this basement is well set back from the boundaries as well. Frank Wilkie 15:18.877
So it's only if the storage area starts to be used for some other commercial purpose that will affect GFA and compartment requirements? Patrick Murphy 15:26.297
If it was in part of the use area, it would. So these elements of storage and kitchen areas are excluded from gross for area of use area for a food and drink outlet? Frank Wilkie 15:40.778
Any other further questions councillors? care to move the recommendation? Move Councillor Stockwell. May I have a seconder please? Councillor Wegener. Any discussion? Brian Stockwell 15:54.027
Yeah I will. I support the staff recommendation and I particularly support their advocacy that the type of design we want in Peregian is the subtropical, more varied landscape, more use of natural materials. I think the proposed changes were definitely a step backward to a point which wouldn't be an asset to the village and I think it's important that we actually hold up with the principles of good design. Frank Wilkie 16:23.245
Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else wish to speak to Richard MacGillivray 16:27.545
The... Yeah, congratulations, Sam, for your first report to Council. And Brian's exactly right. We do have to uphold these principles of making it look... We do not want it to look as stark as other places want it to be. That's not the look we want. the look we want. And that's not what the residents want either. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:51.834
Mayor, I can't see if you've got your hand up. Do you wish to speak? Amelia Lorentson 16:56.634
No, I don't. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:58.454
Thank you. All right. I'll put the motion to vote. All those in favour? If we're not responding quickly, Amelia, that's because there's a slight delay in transmission with your broadcast. Okay, so that's carried unanimously. Namaste. This is another change to an existing approval for a material change of use. That being expansion of a special purpose waste disposal and recycling facility and ongoing clearing purposes. at 561 Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan, which is the resource recovery centre. And we have Samuel again presenting the report. Can you give us an overview? Samuel 17:47.277
So yeah, thank you. Frank Wilkie 17:47.559
Thank you Samuel. Samuel 17:49.717
So just as a background, in February earlier this year Council approved an application to allow some vegetation clearing within our recycling facility. The original application sought to reconfigure the existing resource recovery area as a result of safety and operational issues at the landfill. So as part of the application application, we've included two conditions of consent. Condition 40 and 43 that required vegetation protection covenants be registered with the Titles Office before any works, including clearing or carrying. And then also Condition 43 required an updated stormwater management plan be provided, which includes the resource recovery area before any works commence. So the representation seeks approval to amend the timing on when the clearing can occur and when the updated stormwater management plan be provided. So Condition 40 originally required the carbonate be registered with the title office before the clearing commences. The request that we revise the condition to revise it read before the use commences. And then the stormwater condition required the updated stormwater management plan be provided before the construction of the part of the resource recovery area. They just seek to marginally change the condition so the clearing can occur. clearing can occur at the same time and that way the safety and operational issues can be addressed immediately we've recommended the application be approved because it doesn't release the applicants from the obligation to provide the covenants or protect the vegetation clearing or the stormwater management plan. Amelia Lorentson 19:35.840
Given that Council is both the applicant and the assessor, is the report that we're reviewing, has it been prepared internally or by an independent consultant? Patrick Murphy 19:50.640
This report was prepared internally. The original application was a assessment undertaken by an external consultant. The reason why we didn't take that path this time is there's no change to the layout that's proposed. There's no change to any of the area vegetation that's to be removed or anything like that. It's just the timing for certain activities to occur. So the intent and the form of the original application is maintained. is maintained. We're just making some slight changes to timing for, again, when the vegetation removal can occur and when the stormwater management plan needs to be provided. Amelia Lorentson 20:32.189
And that change includes that... all the conditions of the approval are required before commencing, not after commencing. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 20:49.311
It's just for these two conditions, the timing associated with these two conditions. So all other conditions remain as previously placed on the approval. These conditions are essentially the same. It's just, as I said, a slight tweak to the timing of when it's required. Thank you. I'm happy to move it. Frank Wilkie 21:11.171
Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded, Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell is to speak. Brian Stockwell 21:17.329
As Councillor Lorentson mentioned, we're both the, in this application, both the applicant and the assessment manager. Under the Act, we can't consider the interests of the applicant or the nature of the applicant. We only consider the assessment. What we're doing here is we're re-sequencing conditions to allow for the speedier addressing of potential environmental harm if this project doesn't proceed. So, to me, there is obvious justification in making the development sequence more logical to ensure that the level of risk associated with providing a detention basin stormwater treatment system brought on as soon as possible. Frank Wilkie 22:04.818
Any other people who would like to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell. Richard MacGillivray 22:12.958
So, obviously, the SWOP, the Stormwater Waste Management Plan, that's in the process of being written right now. We've got to get going because it's an enormous project, isn't it? I mean, it's colossal in size. Patrick Murphy 22:26.269
Yes, it's a significant change. times Richard MacGillivray 22:30.660
Obviously, the report is very light on details of what the SWMP says, but of course it has to be light on details because it's in the process of being written. That's correct. And remembering that already have a stormwater management plan for the site. What the condition does require is an update to that to reflect the new works within that small locality of the particular site where the clearing and the detention basin. detention basin will be installed, yes. Amelia Lorentson 23:00.499
Out of curiosity, when is construction planned? Richard MacGillivray 23:08.019
Councillor Amelia, that's a decision the applicant around timing, so they've obviously got to get all of their approvals in place, and that includes some requirements with the State government as well, but at this stage they haven't confirmed the exact timing for commencement. Frank Wilkie 23:31.680
Okay. Any other questions or comments? Richard MacGillivray 23:38.300
Well I hope there's a drought coming up you know to some extent so you guys can get all this done without without constant rain, especially in the last few years. That would be appreciated I still want a management plan to come back to council for other No, no it won't. That will be assessed by staff. Correct, just an update to it. Only I thought Councillor Wegener was going to suggest we put it in condition that it should stop raining. Frank Wilkie 24:04.024
I'm not sure we care. I'll put the motion to the vote. All in favour? unanimous. Thank you. Item 3, which is application for, thank you Samuel, application for a minor change to a development approval for a material change of use of premises, undefined use of Amelia Lorentson 24:32.322
So this application originally came to Council in December 2021. It came to Council because it was defined it was defined as an undefined use under Noosa Plan 2020 so the cycle shop has been operating in that location since around 2013. There was a little bit of history in terms of an application that was lodged and through that process it was determined that there was actually no approval in place for that existing use so they ended up lodging a fresh application for the both the sales component and the servicing and repairs component so it came to Council for the fact council for the fact that it was undefined under Noosa Plan 2020. The applicant has since sold the property to a new owner and they've lodged a minor change to that existing approval to change the built form elements of the use of the approval only. So no change to the actual uses carried out. They are slightly increasing the GFA of both the repairs. The repairs component and the sales component so they've increased the car parking on site to compensate for that additional use area and consolidated the buildings into one structure. They've proposed an awning over the driveway as well. They were requesting to amend the condition for on-site service vehicle. service vehicle parking to actually locate that in the road reserve. We're not supportive of that component, so we have included a condition that the awning be a certain minimum height so that service vehicles can get on site. Any questions? Frank Wilkie 26:06.834
So they're joining two ships together, is that it? Amelia Lorentson 26:08.894
Essentially, yeah, so they had an approval. Figures five and six, I believe, show the original approval and the current, so they did have it towards the back of the site, they've just moved of the site. They've just moved it up to join the existing shed. Frank Wilkie 26:20.392
Providing more car parking on site? Correct. Questions? Richard MacGillivray 26:27.392
There's already a repair site on the facility? Yes. So there's not any need to really change the stormwater conditions for Because it's already there and it's already compliant? Yes. And then the other side, so the awning on one side of the property, it's not clear what's on the other side of that building. It seems to be there's an alleyway or something there? There's an easement. So they're not able to construct any buildings in that easement. So they do have a concrete Concrete pad for their bins that are going to be located on that side so they can bring them out the front from the side of the building. Okay, yeah, it doesn't mention what that piece is. Figure five, councillor, is a good one that just illustrates where the easement lies. this is there's a stormwater main that runs through that area which means that yeah we don't want to see development over that so we can get in there and maintain it if need be. Also provides a buffer separation to the adjoining premises next door as well. Frank Wilkie 27:36.660
Any further questions? Amelia, any questions? Amelia Lorentson 27:43.040
No, all good. Just in terms of just cost, Richard I don't know whether you can provide it or not. Operational works approval. For a small business what's the cost of putting in application for operational works? Richard MacGillivray 28:00.453
Just for my information. Usually around, I'd be shooting at numbers at the moment, $2,000 to $3,000 a year Councillor Lorentson I'd say is sort of the standard minimum fee. Patrick Murphy 28:13.517
For operational works obviously that increases due to the larger scale earthworks undertaken but generally around the two to three thousand dollars for an assessment and there could be multiple applications that need to be made so they need to assess proponent each component and what that relative fee was so it can increase if you're doing driveways and earthworks and landscaping when you're needing assessment in different areas the fee will reflect that as well and and also noting councillor that the the applicant has the opportunity to combine the the MC The MCU and the operational works into one application if they choose to do so for efficiency perspective as well. Often though, some applicants and their consultants may choose to separate out those particular applications. So it becomes a bit of a commercial decision for someone to make around timing and cost and the like. Frank Wilkie 29:09.320
May we have a mover? Councillor Wegener? Seconder? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener wish to speak to the motion? No. Okay. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's new. Yep. That's unanimous. Thank you. Tara. Thanks Tara. Thanks Brian. Next item on the agenda. Item 4: Representation to Development Approval. For material change of use, it's the hardware and trade supplies store at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville. And Patrick, is this your report? Patrick Murphy 29:55.474
I'll be speaking to this one, yes. So this is another application seeking representations to an approval that was issued by Council in late October 2023. You may recall there's an undeveloped part of the Bunnings site which contains vegetation at the moment and it's been approved that there'd be a new trade supplies building situated in that area and when that decision was made there were some conditions requiring some amendments. the plan around landscaping adjacent to the northern boundary which is adjacent to the driveway to screen retaining wall there well the properties access off Gateway Drive but it was adjacent the northern boundary which is adjoins another industrial lot so the driveway goes up from Gateway Drive along that northern boundary there was a requirement for an eave to the front of the building and the main issue was the height of the building and the condition required that condition required that the height of the building be dropped to comply with the scheme requirement of 10 metres, so they've made representations. They have provided a landscaping strip adjacent to the northern boundary, half a metre wide. They've taken landscaping from the southern the building and put it to the northern side of the building. They have put a 1.2-metre, I think it is, eave to the front of the building. They've dropped the building height so that has a height of no more than 10 metres above the natural ground level, but it exceeds the height above the finished ground level. It goes to 10.94 metres. So the height of the building is reduced by approximately 1.5, 1.6 metres. From the previous height they've done this by increasing the excavation, they've reduced the floor to ceiling height and amended the pitch of the building. So we're satisfied that the height of the building being no more than 10 metres above the natural ground level is consistent with the height of buildings within proximity of the site. There are some other representations that have been made seeking landscaping within the road reserve, around the external colours of the building, they also sought representations around the acid sulphate soils. there was a bit of duplication across three conditions that's been brought into one condition and they sought the removal of the bond. We didn't support the removal of the bond, we've supported the amalgamation of the acid sulphate conditions. We've provided some clarity around the trees to be planted to the site's frontage not to include the area that's required for the driveways and also clarified that the original plant the colours on the original plans met the condition around the external colours. Frank Wilkie 33:08.218
And it's going to be quite a shock to the community when this site is cleared. explain why you're satisfied that the landscaping plans are sufficient to soften what's going to be built there? Patrick Murphy 33:19.864
Yeah, well there is a minimum requirement of areas to be provided for landscaping. This meets that and notably the buildings were all set back from the street And it provides an extensive area for landscaping so that will help soften the building and also the landscaping adjacent the northern boundary will soften the retaining wall that's a result of the cut on this side. There's a significant slope on this side and hence there is quite a large retaining wall to the side boundary. But again you know primarily the building being set back does provide an opportunity for some meaningful landscaping between it and the front boundary. Frank Wilkie 34:01.463
Can you explain the difference between what you mean by 10 metres above the natural ground level and 10.94 metres above the ground level? Patrick Murphy 34:10.583
So 10 metres, so the existing, there's an existing ground level so when you measure at any point on the land 10 metres above that, that will... reflect 10 metres above the existing... It won't exceed that. It won't exceed that? The natural ground level? That's right. Because of the excavation it results in a building facade that exceeds 10 metres in when you when you measure that physical facade and that goes up to 10.94 metres. Questions? Richard MacGillivray 34:45.700
Just concerning the underground car park, seeing it's a bulk trade yard, will there be a problem for people getting their stuff down to the car which is below if they park it in the underground car park? Or is that there's a loading ramp? Patrick Murphy 35:01.600
Yeah, so the exit by a ramp, it has been It has been reviewed and considered to be satisfactory in terms of enabling vehicle movement and circulation. That's been internally reviewed. Richard MacGillivray 35:18.345
Just when I think of bulk, I'm thinking people going in there with their trailers. Yeah, and it's 7.2 metres wide. It is quite wide. As I said, we have reviewed it and we're satisfied that the vehicle movement is satisfactory. And just a thought, if people, if the trade "I can't put my trailer in there, " well that's something that we consider. If they're building it, if they're an underground car park, and for some reason it's insufficient for some of the tradies, that's not our issue. not our issue is it we don't we don't micromanage what they're doing to that level. Patrick Murphy 36:03.884
Well we have looked to ensure that circulation is satisfactory but safe to say there is a responsibility for Bunnings to make sure they can accommodate the patronage that they're going to have and I must say in that the Bunnings that the past I've generally found there is ample room for car parking and vehicle movement it just looks like that to me but I don't know what I'm talking about that's minimum standard just just to clarify there is a hard standard anointing at the rear which would allow for the trailer used to go around and get the large bulky items big as you say bunions down in Maroochydore has all underground parking as well so yeah and and it's generally they're designed for the convenience of the user so obviously you know getting in their trailer and the circulation movements are generally there's more than minimum required as part of that so our assessment will just focus on does it meet minimum for appropriate circulation of vehicles through the site. Brian Stockwell 37:07.495
So my question my question there's discussion how you've agreed to reduce street trees from seven to two or something like that and bet you know not you calculating number of of trees based on the road frontage excluding the driveways, I understand that. We haven't got a revised landscaping plan and the bioretention basin that's on site plan and layout one, it's in front of the existing Bunnings facility. Is there another bioretention basin going straight out in front of this one? Yes, there is. So when we talk about extensive... extensive landscaping, if we say there's only two street trees and a bioretention basin, is between the front facade and the bioretention basin, is there more landscaping proposed? Patrick Murphy 38:03.061
There is. So if you look at the proposal plans attachment, it's on page two, you'll see the bioretention basin to the front of And you'll see that there is probably, you know, as that green area in between there is between the boundary and the road reserve, which is, that's right. And that's where they can bulk up. That's right. and And it it is is also also possible possible to get some plants within a biobasin that are just not low level you can have some higher plants in the biobasin as well but obviously not as high as what you'll get out of the basin and there is the opportunity an through operational works application for the applicant to provide further details regarding the landscaping work so we'll get a closer look at the species selection and the density of landscaping as part of that. Missed that little bio attention. Frank Wilkie 39:03.954
Just on that, one of the conditions said that they must provide vegetated screening of the proposed development from that which I designed such that the development was screened at maturity. So what does that mean? Does it mean they'll just be a softening of the facade or will it be hidden by... trees once they're mature? What are you aiming for? Because obviously the land is preferable. Richard MacGillivray 39:28.716
Yeah so it'll be it'll be up to just absolutely soften that as much as possible noting the landscape strip that we've got there so there's sufficient space for that. So that's the plan is to soften that as much as possible. Patrick Murphy 39:45.096
I don't think it'd be I don't think it'd be possible to completely screen it with the amount of area that's available and and fair to say that other buildings in that industrial area are not completely screened from trees so it's not unreasonable think in an industrial area to see a building but we'll screen this up as much as we can the species selection will be important in that to ensure that it gets enough foliage. Frank Wilkie 40:11.456
And you're saying it's a setback a fair way from the 12 metres? Patrick Murphy 40:15.667
Ah yes so I don't have that figure in front of me but I believe it's well beyond the setback and I think 12 metres is from memory yes what's normally required as far as setbacks are concerned? in an an industrial area? I might have to double check for you Frank but in an industrial area generally there's no setback requirements but maybe from Gateway Drive there is so I don't have that. Frank Wilkie 40:41.929
It's well beyond what's normally required. Yeah, it is well, yeah. Online Councillor Lorentson, do you have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 40:51.752
Just one question. In terms of willingness to adapt and work with council the applicant good in that regard? Were they cooperative? And do they willingly work with council? Again, just reading bits and pieces. You know, that's critical when they suspended the appeal process. And I think initially they talked about, you know, conditions that we imposed on was unworkable. So was that reluctant to get into this point? Was that a good, easy process? Patrick Murphy 41:34.188
Obviously, I wasn't the officer that did the assessment of the application. So I was sort of, you know, second and third hand observing. Some of the challenges that the officer did have throughout the original process, you know, the officer was certainly clear for a long period of time on the outcome that she was seeking in terms of height and probably right up until the end of the initial application was getting a fair bit of pushback from the applicant in that regard. It is noticeable that they chose to suspend the appeal period and make representations which gave us the opportunity for a bit more discussion and time and a bit more dialogue and and they have in that period obviously modified the plans significantly to accord with that 10 metre height above the natural ground level so I think that's probably kudos to the officer Nadine who was assessing the application for holding her ground for a long period of time and also of the council for for imposing that condition as Amelia Lorentson 42:32.407
Well. Fantastic. Frank Wilkie 42:36.710
We have a mover for the motion please. Amelia Lorentson 42:43.190
I'm happy to move the motion. Frank Wilkie 42:44.810
Moved Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Amelia would you like to speak to the motion? Amelia Lorentson 42:51.809
No, just thank you Nadine and all those that have worked to get a really good outcome. I think mediated outcomes are always desired means we don't We don't have a court and it's a moving situation. So well done. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 43:12.087
Just to point, the major issue that we discussed in the conditioning of this approval was around the height and appearance of bulk of the building. I think the outcome where there is a small relaxation given, but it I think the criteria that many of the councils discussed was that it should be no higher than the building next door, so I think that's a reasonable outcome that it allows for the facility to operate in the manner intended, but also achieves a better outcome in terms of the streetscape. Frank Wilkie 43:47.940
Okay, do you wish to close Amelia? No. That's carried unanimously. We've got no reports for noting, no confidential items, so therefore I declare the meeting closed at 10:17. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Patrick. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
