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 00:00.980
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 Amelia Lorentson online who's still incapacitated with a bone, broken I believe, in her foot. So welcome everybody. Do need to yes, I'm sorry. Yes, we need to allow Amelia to attend my martins. Teams. I'll that's how you move do it. Bones, Frank Wilkie 00:54.224
Motion is that Councillor Lorentson be approved to attend the meeting dated 7th May 2024 via Microsoft Teams in accordance with section 245 K of the Local Government Regulation. Larry Sengstock 01:06.104
We'll present move on to the vote. 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 01:29.482
I 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. Can I get a seconder? Councillor Wegener. Would you like to speak to it? No, I think Councillor Lorentson is more than capable of chairing the meeting and it's a good experience for all Councillors to have opportunity to Chair meetings and see how our skills are. Larry Sengstock 02:02.344
Can I ask you, did you accept being nominee? Amelia Lorentson 02:05.964
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 rovers. Groves a Rose amongst this lovely Rose garden. Which we've been to bed in. Larry Sengstock 02:23.594
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 02:33.714
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, appoint an acting Chair for this meeting, just until you're back, if that's okay. Can I have a nomination for that? Brenda on the left, yeah. You're there? Okay. I'll take a second then, by Mr. Stockwell. Can I put that to the vote? Oh sorry Frank, do you have the opportunity to accept that? And um. Thank you that's unanimous. So Frank if I can ask you to take over the running of this meeting. Frank Wilkie 03:33.368
Thank you Mr CEO, thank you Councillors. The first item we have on our agenda is an application for minor change to Confirmation of minutes from the previous P&E committee. So moved. Seconded. I'll Councillor Lorentson. Lorentson. All in favour? That's carried. The first item before us is the 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, this is your report. Would you like to speak to it? Yes. Samuel Collins 04:23.451
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 storey story which was proposed to have and an office on the first floor. So this change application maintains exactly the same thing with minor internal reconfiguration which also includes basement level for storage purposes. There's no change to any of the approved use. The original application was subject to an infrastructure agreement lieu of car parking. The new proposal doesn't increase the GFA and as such the infrastructure agreement remains valid. Change application retains contains the approved appropriate five tenancies. Things. 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 introduced external beauty materials which was a bit hard and did not comply with the local plan area. With the outcomes for 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 we're the masonry. And improving the façade treatment so that it complies with the outcomes for the local plan area. Frank Wilkie 05:57.370
So the changes involve some aesthetic improvements? Correct, yes. To do with use of wooden louvres? What else? Samuel Collins 06:07.450
The changes we've included as are part well. 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 that to include 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 06:39.904
Questions I've got one just for clarification in figures nine 9 and ten 10. 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? Nine and 10. Patrick Murphy 07:17.515
Six the bottom of page six and the top of page seven yeah yeah so it's is the approved plan and the proposed plan is to so you'll see that the timber treatment has been removed there's a lot more hard surfaces masonry proposed with the new Brian Stockwell 07:49.858
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 your treatment yeah that's what I saw said and for the western elevation same thing the left hand side is the approved and the right proposed which is that one's probably a more stark contrast of the design is that correct I'd hate to um be sitting there in western sun being that's proposed Amelia Lorentson 08:34.785
A question um I do it's in relationship inclusion of the basement level area um Sam Patrick if you can just clarify um does that is going to be an addition of basement parking no it's not basement parking it's only accessed internally it is a small area that's to be used for the storage of equipment fantastic thank you though so in terms of construction impact there'll be um it's negligible Patrick Murphy 09:11.471
It would be limited that's right it's away from the boundaries Frank Wilkie 09:15.331
Thank you very much Tom Tom Wegener 09:18.429
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 jeez 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 it use area and if they wanted to put an if 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 SPEAKER_03 10:07.626
As 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 you know too deep into the 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 10:53.056
And 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 you have to fix it or that they have to ensure that the construction methodology imposed prevents water the 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 Richard MacGillivray 11:24.418
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 SPEAKER_03 11:38.039
Waterproofed appropriately then of course Tom Wegener 11:41.160
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 sinking or something correct. Richard MacGillivray 11:59.577
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 there isn't any impact to it. Adjoining premises as part of that so that they take photos user 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 further questions Amelia Lorentson 12:33.247
Sorry in terms of GFA the proposal is that there is a flight increase of think 8 of the approach 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 formula you take 50 square metres from the basement you take 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 basement 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 GSA GFA up slightly but it's considered minor and have I misread that or is that correct Samuel Collins 13:57.685
So the planning scheme definition of a gross floor area does not include basement as a basement is not a story so the whole 50 square metres is completely excludable as part of gfa as it doesn't constitute a story Patrick Murphy 14:11.826
And the actual and the changes internally have also changed the gfa such that it's brought down 25 square metres and what was originally approved Amelia Lorentson 14:25.972
Thank you for clarifying things SPEAKER_03 14:29.752
Is our planning scheme discussed basements I don't think I've seen it in there Patrick Murphy 14:37.310
There are provisions about what constitutes a basement in terms of it not protruding more than a metre out of it 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 to will basements to with setbacks associated with the zone but in this zone for the lower level there's no setback requirements noting that these that this basement is well set back from 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. So there's elements of storage and kitchen areas that excluded from the use area for food and drink out of that storage area. Frank Wilkie 15:44.435
Care to move the recommendation? Move Councillor Stockwell. Can I have a seconder please? Councillor Wegener. Any discussion? Brian Stockwell 15:53.695
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. Frank Wilkie 16:21.946
Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else wish to speak to the. Tom Wegener 16:28.766
Congratulations, Sam, for your first report to the Council. Brian's exactly right, we do have to uphold these principles. Of making it look, work. 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
Mayor, I can't see if you've got your hand up. Do you wish to speak? No, I don't. Thank you. All right. Put the motion to vote. Those in favour? Amelia? Yes, in favour. Thank you. We're not responding quickly in minutes because there's a slight delay in transmission with your broadcast. We'll cancel. So that's carried unanimously. Next item. This is another change to an existing approval for Material Change of Use. 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? Thank you, Samuel. Samuel Collins 17:48.679
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 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 a vegetation 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 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. Frank Wilkie 19:34.620
Amelia. Amelia Lorentson 19:35.760
Given 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 19:50.560
This report was prepared internally. The original application was 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. 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 are just making some slight changes to timing time. For, again, when the vegetation removal can occur and when the Stormwater Management Plan needs to be provided Amelia Lorentson 20:31.719
That's exactly the way that all the conditions of the approval are required before commencing not after commencing. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 20:49.272
It's just for these two conditions, the timing associated with 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. Councillor Stockwell. Moved, Frank Wilkie 21:12.522
Seconded, Councillor Lorentson. Stockwell is to speak. Brian Stockwell 21:17.342
Oh yeah, as Councillor Lorentson mentioned, we're both 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 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 22:04.577
Any other people who would like to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 22:13.418
So, obviously, the 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? Mean, it's colossal in size. It's a significant change. 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 that's correct. And remembering that they already they 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 Richard MacGillivray 22:54.691
And the detention basin will be installed. You. Where is construction planned? Councillor Amelia that's 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. Frank Wilkie 23:28.700
Okay, okay, any other questions? Or comments? Tom Wegener 23:38.400
Well I hope there's a drought coming up, you know, to some extent you guys can get all this done without constant rain in the past few years. That would be appreciated. Frank Wilkie 23:49.214
Does the Stormwater Management Plan have to come back to Council? No, no it won't. It will be assessed by staff? Correct, just an update to it. Mr. Collins. The surprise and oslo Council would do is going to suggest we put in condition that it should stop raining. I'll put the motion to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. That's unanimous. Item 3, which is application for. Thank you, Samuel. Application for minor change to a development approval for Material Change of Use of premises, undefined use of motorcycles, scooter sales on the pair of 16 windham street, Noosaville. Have Sara. Welcome, Sara 24:31.968
Thank you. So, this application originally came to Council in December 2021. It because 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 both the sales component and the servicing and repairs component so it came 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 sales component so they've increased 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 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 certain minimum height so that service vehicles can get on site. Questions? Frank Wilkie 26:06.747
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 towards the back of the site they've just moved it up to join the existing shed. Providing more car parking on site? Correct. Tom Wegener 26:25.309
Questions? So there's already a repair site on the facility? 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. 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 be there's an alleyway. Amelia Lorentson 26:50.226
There's an easement, yes, so they're not able to construct. Able any buildings in that easement. They do have a concrete pad for their bins. Located on that side so they can bring them out front from the side of the building. Richard MacGillivray 27:04.860
Okay, yeah, it doesn't mention that. Figure five, Councillor, is a good one that just illustrates, yeah, easement. The lies and 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 buffer separation to the adjoining premises next door as well. Frank Wilkie 27:36.760
Any further questions? Amelia, any questions? Amelia Lorentson 27:43.120
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 small business, what's the cost of putting in application for operational works? And this is just for my information. Richard MacGillivray 28:03.518
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 28:22.407
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 28:41.175
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 29:12.505
Councillor Wegener, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Wegener, do you wish to speak to the motion. No. Any Councillors I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's 2.0. Unanimous. Thank you. Sara. Next item on the agenda. Item 4. Representation to development approval. For material change of it's a hardware and trade supplies store at 178 Eumundi Noosa Road, And Patrick, is this your report? Patrick Murphy 29:55.452
I'll be speaking to this one. Okay. So what can you tell us about this one? 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 conditions requiring some amendments to the plan around landscaping adjacent to the northern boundary which is driveway to screen retaining wall there. Gateway? On. Well the property's properties access off Gateway Drive but it was 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 condition required that 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 metre wide. They've taken landscaping from the southern side of the building and put it to the northern they have put at one point two metre I think it is Eve to the front of the building they've dropped 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 ten point nine four metres so the height of the building is reduced by approximately one point five six metres from the previous height they've done this by increasing the excavation they've reduced floor to ceiling height and amended the pitch of the building so we're satisfied that the height being more than ten metres above 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 clarity around landscaping within the road reserve around the external colours of the building they also sought representations around the acid sulfate soils conditions there was a bit of duplication across three conditions that's been brought into one condition and they sought the room the removal of the bond we didn't support we've the amalgamation sulfate of 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 plant the colours on the original plans met the condition around the external colours. Frank Wilkie 33:08.269
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 33:19.889
Yeah well there is a minimum requirement for of areas to be provided for landscaping this meets that and notably the buildings well set back from the street frontage and it provides an extensive area for landscaping so that will help soften the building and also 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 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 can you explain the difference between what you mean by 10 metres above natural ground level and 10.94 metres above ground level 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 the existing it won't exceed that the natural ground Frank Wilkie 34:25.205
Level that right Patrick Murphy 34:27.325
Because of the excavation it results in a building facade 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 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 35:01.304
Yeah so the exit by a ramp um it it's it has been reviewed and considered to be satisfactory in terms of enabling vehicle movement and circulation. That's been internally reviewed which is just when think of bulk I'm thinking you know people get you know going in there with their trailers yeah yeah and it's quite sorry it's 7.2 metres wide it is quite wide um yeah so we as I said we have reviewed it and we're satisfied that the vehicle movement is satisfactory SPEAKER_03_b 35:38.570
And you're just a good thought if people if trade is when there's pull my trailer in there Tom Wegener 35:45.324
Well that's not something we consider it if they're building their underground car park and for some reason it's um you can it's insufficient for some of the tradies that's not our issue is that we don't micromanage what they're doing to that level Patrick Murphy 36:02.953
Well what have looked to ensure that circulation is satisfactory but to say there is a responsibility for Bunnings to make sure that 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 car and vehicle. Richard MacGillivray 36:28.839
It just looks like that to me, but I don't know what I'm talking about. Brian Stockwell 36:32.359
The minimum thing. That's minimum standards that Council will say. Just to clarify, there is a hard standard awning at the rear which would allow for the trailer used to go around and get the large bulky items as you say the big bunions down in maroochydore has all underground parking as Richard MacGillivray 36:48.695
Well so yeah and it's generally they're designed for the convenience of the user so obviously 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 37:07.664
So my question, there's discussion how you agreed to reduce street trees from seven to two or something like that about. And you calculating I'm not calculating. The number of trees based on the road frontage excluding the driveways. I understand that. We haven't got a revised landscaping plan and the bio-retention basins that's on. Or was it site plan and layout one, it's in front of the existing Bunnings facility. Is there another bio-retention basins going straight out in front of this one? Yes, there is. So when we talk about extensive landscaping, if we say there's only two street trees and a bio-retention basins, is between the front facade and the there more landscaping proposed? There is. So if you look at the proposal plans attachment, it's on page 2, you'll see the bio-retention basins to the front of the building and you'll see that there is probably, you know. So 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 the land. Patrick Murphy 38:31.626
It is also possible to get some 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 38:44.406
And there is opportunity through. 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. Brian Stockwell 38:58.620
Yeah, I missed that little bio-retention there right in the front, yeah. Frank Wilkie 39:05.020
That one of the conditions said that it 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 39:28.689
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. Patrick Murphy 39:40.414
So that's the plan is to 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, 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. What's normally the climate there as are concerned? In an industrial area. 6 or 10? I might have to double check for you Frank, but generally there's no setback requirements, but maybe from Gateway Drive there is, so I don't have that. Frank Wilkie 40:41.957
It's well beyond what's on there. It is well, yes. Online Councillor Lorentson, do you have any questions? SPEAKER_02_b 40:52.137
Just one question. Last in terms of Amelia Lorentson 40:55.379
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 this, 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 41:34.197
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 time. We chose to suspend the appeal period make representations, which gave us the opportunity for a bit more discussion and time and dialogue. And they have, in that period, obviously modified the plans significantly to accord with that 10 metre height above 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. Amelia Lorentson 42:35.162
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 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 43:12.242
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 any 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 better outcome in terms of the streetscape. Frank Wilkie 43:47.298
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 thank you, Councillor Lorentson, and Stockwell. Thank you, Patrick, Richard, and. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
