Planning & Environment Committee, 7 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 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 00:01.360
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 kami people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. In terms of attendance, again this is a new meeting so we have Councillor Tom Wegener, Councillor Brian Stockwell, Mayor Frank Wilkie and we have Councillor Amelia Lorentson online who's still incapacitated with a bone, I broken believe. 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 my teams. Frank Wilkie 00:52.876
I'll move take a dip. And the motion is that Councillor Lorentson be approved to attend the meeting date 7th May 2024 via Microsoft Teams in accordance with section 245 K of the Local Government Regulation. Larry Sengstock 01:07.153
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 01:29.819
I'll move. That Councillor Lorentson be appointed as Chairperson of the Planning & Environment Committee in accordance with section 267 and brackets 2 of the Local Government Regulation of 2012. Thank you. Larry Sengstock 01:41.148
Can I get a seconder? Councillor Tom. Frank Wilkie 01:45.323
Would you like to speak to it? No, I think it's, um, Councillor Lorentson is more than capable of chairing the meeting and it's a good experience for all Councillors to have had an opportunity to Chair meetings. Is how schools are developed. Larry Sengstock 02:01.247
Councillor Amelia, can I ask you, did you accept being a nominee? Amelia Lorentson 02:07.046
I do accept and just looking at a bird's eye view of the meeting at the moment, I think it's also just lovely balance to have a groves amongst this lovely rose garden, to be there. Space. We go. Larry Sengstock 02:24.075
Fair enough. We are a table of males at the moment sitting around the table, so we look forward to having you back in the room with us, Amelia, as well. Amelia Lorentson 02:34.135
I'm missing the contact, but working very focused and very hard online, thank you. Larry Sengstock 02:39.175
All in very good. So if I put that to the favour? 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 have a nomination for that? Like to nominate the Mayor. Okay. I'll second that. By Councillor Stockwell. Put that to the vote. Sorry, Frank, if you're prepared to accept that. yes. And put that to the vote. Thank you, that's unanimous. So, Frank, if I can ask you to take over the running of this meeting. Mr. Frank Wilkie 03:33.725
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councillors. First item we have on our agenda is an application for a minor change to. Sorry. Pardon? Confirmation of minutes from the previous P&E committee. Brian Stockwell 03:49.417
So moved. Frank Wilkie 03:50.581
Councillor Stockwell I'll second. Councillor Lorentson. 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 & Offices at 214 David Low Way, Peregian Beach. We have Richard MacGillivray. Patrick? Here. And also Samuel. Amelia Lorentson 04:19.496
Samuel, this is your report. Would you like to speak to it? Samuel 04:22.179
Yes. So the original application was approved by Council in February last year at its honourary meeting. So the approved development was for alterations the existing building just in Peregian Beach within the established commercial but just fronting David Low Way and backing onto the Village Green. The application included two retails of food and drink premises on the ground floor with an additional story storey 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 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 up the change application retains the approved five tenancies. The use of the tenancies and the basement doesn't constitute gross floor area so that maintains the car parking. The only supposed issue we raised was the fact that they introduced external beauty materials which 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 state where we've conditioned plan amendments just for minor changes including reducing the masonry. Frank Wilkie 05:57.993
So the changes involve some aesthetic improvements? Correct, yes. To do with use of wooden louvres? What else? Samuel 06:07.066
So the 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 louvres which they've taken out. The architectural treatments on the upper level and the lower awnings we've recommended they change some wooden cladding. And then the building facades were not glazed must be provided with sun shading and very gentle material just to reduce that masonry feel and improve the timber cladding feeling. Brian Stockwell 06:40.447
Questions Councillor? Councillors? Yeah I've got one just for clarification in nine and ten which is on our page six and seven we have comparisons between the approved elevations and the proposed changes the only problem is it doesn't say which is so questions you just outline on that if we can have it up Cathy those diagrams just so I 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 proposed plans Patrick Murphy 07:17.756
Page six the bottom of page six and the top of page seven yeah yeah so it's the bottom of page six is the approved plan and the proposed plan is to the top of page seven so you'll see that the timber treatment has been removed there's the a lot more hard surfaces a lot more masonry proposed with the new Brian Stockwell 07:51.160
Layout so the timber treatment you're talking about up top that's at the top level to the right is that they they're not it's not immediately evident what's timber and what's not between the two diagrams it is to the top right there's a treatment yeah that's what thought 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 is that correct I'd hate to be sitting there in the western sun being what's propose to the law yeah Amelia Lorentson 08:31.065
Thank you did you have a question I do it's the relationship inclusion of the basement level storage area Sam Patrick if you can just clarify does that is going to be an addition of a basement parking Patrick Murphy 08:54.959
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 fantastic Amelia Lorentson 09:05.903
Thank you though in terms of construction impact they'll be it's negligible Patrick Murphy 09:12.267
It would be limited that's right it's away from the boundaries thank you very much Amelia Lorentson 09:18.610
Tom Tom Wegener 09:19.230
Just I'd like to continue where amelia's gone and is it like we don't we say you can't go up but is there any regulation about going down and is this going to set a precedent for everybody saying oh you know geez I could add more GFA by going down it doesn't Patrick Murphy 09:35.731
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 use area and 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 there's 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 10:09.826
An opening that I didn't see coming anyway yeah that there are elements with any underground excavation and obviously there's things like acid sulfate soils can get triggered as well and obviously it can be very expensive as well to construct sheet piling and digging out the excavation for basements and the like so and often it can be cost prohibitive for people to dig know you too deep into earth to you know establish uses under the natural ground level so obviously in this case it's merely just for the inclusion of a storage area for that particular purpose so is there if we approve it Tom Wegener 10:53.096
And if 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 or that they have to ensure that the construction methodology imposed prevents water and grease into that facility as well so that's where a lot of the cost comes into it is when you go under that the ground particularly 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 itself so it Richard MacGillivray 11:25.380
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 it's waterproofed appropriately Larry Sengstock 11:40.857
Then of course Tom Wegener 11:41.200
It's all sand there and I'm always worried about when you start digging around on sand and putting construction around sand the earth starts shaking while sand turns into a liquid form with enough shaking so I just wonder you know again they would have to be a lot you know that the next property starts or sinking something. Or correct. Richard MacGillivray 11:59.779
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 putting sheet piling in so that to there isn't any adjoining premises as part of that so that they take photos user photos and investigations usually before any works are done to ensure there's no movement on adjoining premises at all including public land as well as private land any Amelia Lorentson 12:32.471
Further questions sorry in terms of GFA the proposal is that there is a flight increase of I think eight reports 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 on the formula you take the 50 square metres from the basement you take excuse me and take out a piece of total and it's still forms within the compliant GFA of 378 square metres. Can you explain that ration information? I'm just confirming on there what report are you referring to in terms of the increase to the first floor area? In terms of the basement area so so the basement area is 50 square metres. I've understood and maybe I just read it in the tracking documents but I feel 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 13:58.386
So the planning scheme definition of a gross floor area does not include basement as a story. So the whole 50 square metres is completely excludable as part of GFA as it doesn't constitute a story. Patrick Murphy 14:13.459
And the actual and the changes internally have also changed the GFA such that it's brought it's a brought it down 25 square metres from what was originally approved. Amelia Lorentson 14:28.579
Thank you for clarifying. Thanks. Richard MacGillivray 14:31.592
Is there a planning scheme to discuss basements? I don't think I've seen it there. Patrick Murphy 14:37.253
In 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 only one access. There's also provisions in the scheme around setbacks for basements. Well, basements to comply with setbacks associated with the zone, but in this zone for the lower level, there's no setback requirements, noting that this basement is well set back from the boundaries as well. So it's only if the storage area starts to be used for some other commercial purpose that will affect GFA and car parking requirements? If it was in part of the use area, it would. Yeah. So these elements of storage and kitchen areas are excluded from the use area for a food and drink out of that storage area. Frank Wilkie 15:41.587
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 15:53.815
Yeah I will. I support the staff recommendation and I particularly support their continued 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. Unknown 16:21.946
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else wish to speak to the. Tom Wegener 16:29.546
Okay, good. Congratulations, Sam, for your first report to the Council. Brian's exactly right, we do have to uphold these principles. Of making it look, we do not want it to look as dark as other places wants to be. That's not the look we want. And that's not what the residents want either. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 16:51.759
Amelia, I can't see if you've got your hand up. Do you wish to speak? Amelia Lorentson 16:56.938
No, I don't. Thank you. All right. Put the motion to vote. Those in favour? Miller? Yes, in favour. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 17:05.792
Thank you. We're not responding quickly in minutes because there's a slight delay in transmission with your broadcast. Okay. So that's carried unanimously. Next item. 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. Amelia Lorentson 17:43.037
And we have Samuel again presenting the report. Can you give us an overview? Thank you, Samuel. Samuel 17:49.483
Thank you. 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, we've included two conditions of consent, condition 40 and 43, that required vegetation. Registration protection covenant to be registered with the titles office before any works, including clearing, occurring. And then also condition 43 required an updated Stormwater Management Plan be provided, which includes the resource recovery area before any works commenced. 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 covenant be registered with the title of this before the clearing commences, the request that we revise the condition to revise it to read before the use commences and then the stormwater condition required this 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 it can so the 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 19:33.320
Thanksgiving. Amelia. Thanksgiving day. 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 19:51.455
This report was prepared internally. The original application was a assessment undertaken taken 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. We 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 20:32.839
That- I think we- that- the conditions of the approval are required before commencing, not after commencing. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 20:49.581
It's just for the. I'm happy to move it. Frank Wilkie 21:14.413
Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell used to speak. Brian Stockwell 21:17.689
Oh yeah, as Councillor Lorentson mentioned, 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 resequencing 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 is brought on as soon as possible. Frank Wilkie 22:05.359
Any other people who would like to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 22:10.517
So, obviously, SWMP, the Stormwater Management Plan, that's in the process of being written right now, but we've got to get going because it's an enormous project, isn't it? I mean, it's colossal in size. Patrick Murphy 22:27.455
It's a significant change. Richard MacGillivray 22:30.059
So, 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 they 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 will be installed. Thank you. Where is construction planned? O' Councillor Amelia that's a decision for 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. Thank you. Unknown 23:30.228
Okay, any other questions? Any other questions or comments? Tom Wegener 23:37.583
Just come well I hope there's a drought coming up you know to some extent so you guys will get all this done without constant rain because we've had it for the past few years that would be appreciated. Does the Stormwater Management Plan have to come back to Council for notification? No, no it won't. Richard MacGillivray 23:54.090
It will be assessed by staff? Correct, just an update to it. Brian Stockwell 23:56.998
Okay, push to close only and the I thought Councillor Wegener was going to suggest we put it in condition that it should stop raining. I'll Frank Wilkie 24:07.750
Put the to motion to debate. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank 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 motorcycles. Sales on the at 16 Rene St Noosaville. We have Sara, welcome Sara. Sara Wilson 24:32.656
Thank you. So this application originally came to Council in December 2021. It came to Council because it was defined as an 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 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 to 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 use is carried out. They are slightly increasing the GFA of both 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 proposed an awning over the driveway as well they were requesting to amend the condition for on-site service vehicle parking too. 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 questions? Can get on site. Questions? So they're joining two ships together? Essentially yeah yeah so they had an approval. Figures five and six I believe show the original approval in the current so they did have it of towards back of the site. They've just moved it up to join the existing shed. Frank Wilkie 26:20.571
Providing more car parking on site? Correct. Councillor Stockwell? Tom Wegener 26:25.812
Questions? So there's already a repair site on the yes. We don't need, there's not any need to really change the stormwater conditions for that because it's already there and it's already compliant? Yes. Yeah. And then the other side, so you have the awning on one side of the property, it's not clear what's on the other side of that building. It seems to there's an alleyway. Be up in there? Sara Wilson 26:50.914
There's an easement. So they're not able to construct any buildings in that easement so they do have a pad for bins. That are going to be located side so they can bring them out the front from the side of the building. Richard MacGillivray 27:05.230
Okay yeah there's an intervention with that piece there. Figure five Councillor is a good one that just illustrates um yeah where the easement lies and 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. Sara Wilson 27:37.381
Any further questions? Amelia, any questions? Amelia Lorentson 27:43.666
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? This is just for my information. Richard MacGillivray 28:02.529
Usually around, I'd be shooting at numbers at the moment, $2,000 to $3,000 a year, Councillor, merely I'd say is sort of the standard minimum fee for operational work. So obviously that increases due to the larger scale earthworks undertaken, but generally around the $2,000 to $3,000 for an assessment. Patrick Murphy 28:22.918
And there could be multiple applications that need to be made. So they'd need to assess 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. Richard MacGillivray 28:41.577
And also noting, Councillor, that the applicant has the opportunity to combine 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 29:12.525
Councillor Wegener, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener, do you wish to speak to the motion. No. Any Councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's good yep that's unanimous thank you. Next item on the agenda. Item 4, representation to development approval for Material Change of Use. It's a hardware and trade supplies store at 178 Eumundi-Noosa Road, Noosaville. Patrick Murphy 29:53.780
And Patrick, is this your report? I'll be speaking to this one. What can you tell us about this one? So this is a 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 is contains vegetation at and it's been approved that there be a new trade supplies building situated in that area. And when that decision was made, there conditions were requiring some amendments to the plan around landscaping adjacent to the northern boundary, which is adjacent to the driveway to screen retaining wall there. The property is accessed off Gateway Drive, but it was adjacent to 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 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 side of 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 it 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 1.5.6 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 with the height of buildings within proximity of the site. There are some other representations that have been made seeking clarity around landscaping within the road reserve, around the external colours of the building. They also sought representations around the acid sulphate soils conditions, 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 soil 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 plan, the colours on the original plans, met the condition around external colours. Frank Wilkie 33:08.952
And it's going to be quite a shock to the community when this site is cleared. Can you explain why the satisfaction of the landscaping plans are sufficient to soften what's going to be put there? Patrick Murphy 33:20.125
Yeah, well there is a minimum requirement for um of to be provided for landscaping this meets that and notably the building's well set back from the street frontage and it provides an extensive area for landscaping so that'll 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 provide an opportunity for some meaningful landscaping between it and the front boundary Frank Wilkie 34:02.174
Can you explain the difference between what you mean by 10 metres above natural ground level and 10.94 metres above ground level Patrick Murphy 34:11.132
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 will reflect 10 metres above the existing it won't exceed that the natural ground level that that's right because of the excavation it results in a facade building that exceeds 10 metres in when you fit when you measure that physical facade and that goes up to ten point nine four metres questions Tom Wegener 34:43.587
Just considering the other ground car park um 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 there's a ramp Patrick Murphy 35:02.177
Yeah so the exit by a ramp um it it's it has been reviewed considered to be satisfactory in terms of enabling vehicle movement and circulation that's been internally reviewed Tom Wegener 35:15.381
Um yeah which is just when I think of bulk I'm thinking you know people get you know going in there with their yeah Patrick Murphy 35:24.380
They are yeah and it's trailers quite sorry it's 7.2 metres wide it is quite wide um yeah so so we as I said we have reviewed it and we're satisfied that the vehicle movement is satisfactory and get just a thought if Tom Wegener 35:43.584
Trade is when they say I can't pull my trailer in there well that's not that something that we consider it if they're building it if they're their underground car park and for some reason it's um it's insufficient for some of the tradies that's not our issue is it we don't micromanage what they're doing to that level Patrick Murphy 36:04.527
Well what we have looked to ensure that circulation is satisfactory but safe to say there isn't a responsibility for Bunnings to make sure they can accommodate the patronage that they're going to have and I must say that the Bunnings that I've been to in the past I've generally found there is ample room for a car parking and vehicle. Tom Wegener 36:29.610
It just looks like that to me but I don't know what I'm talking about. Brian Stockwell 36:33.825
That's minimum standards that Council will say. Just to clarify there is a hard standard anointing at the rear which would allow for the trailer you to go around and get the large bulky items, and as you say, the big Bunnings down in Maroochydore has all underground parking as Richard MacGillivray 36:48.900
Well so yeah 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 does it meet minimum for appropriate circulation of vehicles through the site so Brian Stockwell 37:08.853
My question there's discussion how you agreed to reduce street trees from seven to two or something like that and bet know not you calculating number of trees based on the road front is excluding the driveways I understand that we haven't got a revised landscaping plan and the bio-retention basins that's on whether it's I plan to lay at one it's in front of the existing Bunnings facility is there another bio-retention basins going straight out in front of this one Patrick Murphy 37:47.769
Yes there is Brian Stockwell 37:50.037
So when we talk about extensive landscaping if we say there's only two street trees and retention basin is between the front facade then the bio-retention basins is there more landscaping proposed there is so Patrick Murphy 38:04.952
If you look at the proposal plans attachment it's on page two you'll see the bio-retention basins to the front of the valley just there and you'll see that there is probably you know Brian Stockwell 38:23.128
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 Patrick Murphy 38:31.675
And it is also possible to plants within a bio-basin that are just not low level you can have some higher plants in the bio-basin as well but obviously not as high as what you'll get out of the basin Richard MacGillivray 38:44.775
And there is the opportunity through an 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 Brian Stockwell 38:58.608
Landscaping as part of that. Missed that little bio-retention there right in the front again Frank Wilkie 39:04.785
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 there'll just be a softening of. The facade or will it be hidden by these trees once they're mature? What are you aiming for? Because obviously the land is preferable. Richard MacGillivray 39:29.230
Yeah, so it'll be up to just absolutely soften that as much as possible, noting the landscape strip that we've got. So there's sufficient space for that. So that's the plan is to soften that as much as possible. Patrick Murphy 39:45.685
I don't think it'd be possible to completely screen it with the amount of area that's available. And, fair to say that other buildings in that industrial area are not completely screened from trees. So it's not unreasonable, I 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. And you're saying it's a setback a fair way from the 12 metres? 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. Frank Wilkie 40:24.945
What's normally the climate there as far as setbacks are concerned? An industrial area. Patrick Murphy 40:30.858
6 Or 10? 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. It's well beyond what's on there. It is well, yes. Frank Wilkie 40:46.897
Online Councillor Lorentson, do you have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 40:52.137
Just one question. Last in terms of willingness to adapt and work with Council, was the applicant good in that regard? Were they cooperative? And are they willing to 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 unworkable. So was that reluctant to get into this point? That a good, easy process? Patrick Murphy 41:34.641
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 they have, in that period, obviously modified the plans significantly to accord with that 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, obviously, Council for imposing that condition as well. Frank Wilkie 42:34.192
And good luck. Okay. We have a mover for the motion, please. I'm happy to move the motion. Moved, Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Amelia, would you like to speak to the motion? No, just thank you, Nadine and all those that have worked to get a really good outcome. I think mediated outcomes are always desired. It means we don't have to go to court and it's a win- situation. So well done. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 43:12.603
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 did achieve, I think, the criteria that many of the councils discussed. 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 43:47.803
Okay. Do you wish to close, Amelia? Put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's carried unanimously. We've got no reports for noting, no confidential items, so therefore I declare the meeting close at 10:17. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Patrick, Richard. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
