Planning & Environment Committee - June 2024
Date: Tuesday, 11 June 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:15:05
Synopsis: Noosa Springs resort near sewage plant contested on odour and bushfire, Childcare refusal urged over zoning and 10m buffer, Short‑term accommodation approvals tightened, Further report sought.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Jessica Phillips Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Committee: Quorum present; no apologies; observers included Crs Jessica Phillips and Nicola Wilson (Minutes 1.). Deputation: Unitywater’s Rhett Duncan opposed Noosa Springs resort location near STP; childcare deputation withdrawn (Minutes 4.1–4.2; 02:20–12:28). STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd (Kin Kin): Referred to General Committee due to significance; officers recommended approval with conditions (Item 5.1; 12:28–39:36). STA at 428 Cootharaba Rd (Cootharaba): Referred to General Committee; officers recommended approval with standard limits (Item 5.2; 40:55–55:24). Childcare at 28 Eenie Creek Rd (Noosaville): Referred to General Committee; officers recommended refusal due to inconsistency with zoning and loss of 10m landscape buffer (Item 5.3; 57:54–01:21:10). Veterinary clinic, 69 Mary St: Minor change approved; amend conditions incl. parking contribution via Infrastructure Agreement; noted per Planning Act 2016 s63(5) (Item 5.4; 01:26:10–01:28:31). Noosa Springs Resort MCU21/0110: Further report referred to General Committee; extensive debate on odour, bushfire, biodiversity, height, tennis courts (Item 5.5; 01:29:54–02:14:36). Data requests: Officers to table hotline complaint data for hinterland STAs; further advice on draft scheme “weighting,” bushfire evac info, biodiversity pet controls (29:09; 50:56–52:44). Process integrity: Chair Amelia Lorentson repeatedly confirmed current scheme governs assessments; amendments too early to carry significant weight (15:52–16:15; 34:31–35:40). Contentious / Transparency Matters Rhett Duncan (Unitywater): Warned resort within 2.5 odour unit contour risks reverse-amenity, costly upgrades, and prosecutions under amended Environmental Protection Act (02:20–12:28; Minutes 4.1). Frank Wilkie: Sought officer rebuttal to deputation claims at General Committee; requested clarity on modelling inputs and separation distances (02:04:47–02:05:10). Amelia Lorentson: Noted >400 submissions on resort; confirmed all submissions, including pro‑formas, were considered; flagged ongoing community concern (02:11:21–02:13:43). Tom Wegener: Raised enforcement burden and effectiveness of STA hotline, especially in remote areas; officers to provide complaint statistics (24:57–28:43; 29:09). Brian Stockwell: Queried accuracy of applicant visuals for childcare (misleading biobasin levels) and buffers; sought mapping comparators (01:01:53–01:05:10; 01:21:13–01:21:33). Legal / Risk Draft scheme weight: Officers confirmed limited weight at this stage; more weight only as amendments progress and post-public notification (15:52–16:15; 34:31–35:40). Appeal posture: If Council refuses STA (Kin Kin/Cootharaba) under current scheme, applicants retain appeal rights; no superseded planning provisions apply (39:11–39:31). Party houses: Chair cited Planning Act s260 prohibitions as backstop where amenity breaches escalate (46:12–46:37). EPA changes: Unitywater cited new s391 offence (contravention of general environmental duty causing serious/material harm), higher odour enforcement risk; officers to report (02:03:06–02:04:24; 02:03:30–02:03:56). Urban encroachment: Officers noted statutory principle protecting existing lawful utilities from incompatible encroachment; compliance first assessed against Unitywater ERA conditions (02:00:39–02:03:06). Infrastructure Agreement: Vet clinic to pay in-lieu contribution for one parking bay; avoids vegetation loss and formalises obligation (Item 5.4; 01:26:10–01:27:25). Short‑Term Accommodation in Hinterland Tara/Patrick Murphy: Kin Kin STA impact assessable due to lot size; recommended approval with caps (4 bedrooms/8 persons; outdoor to 9pm); one supporting submission only (13:13–18:01; Item 5.1). Tom Wegener: Opposed further remote STAs citing enforcement burdens, amenity risks, and housing loss; pressed for refusal grounds (24:57–28:09; 37:43–37:50). Officers: Current scheme allows rural STAs; proposed amendments aim to pivot to home‑hosted models to protect housing supply (29:57–31:45). Data-driven approach: Chair requested hinterland hotline complaint metrics to inform General Committee deliberations (29:09). Bushfire & biodiversity (Cootharaba): Further conditions to address bushfire readiness and pet controls in biodiversity overlay to be considered (49:53–50:56; 51:20–52:44; Item 5.2). Childcare Centre – Noosa Business Centre Nadine Gordon: Proposed 96-place centre on Hofmann Dr inconsistent with Business Park precinct and would erode mandated 10m landscape buffer from prior court outcome (57:54–01:01:17; Item 5.3). Design issues: Biobasin and bike parking further constrain buffer; artist impressions misrepresented levels; setback must remain a vegetated park-like setting (01:02:21–01:05:10). Path forward: Officers to explore applicant willingness to redesign/reduce scale or relocate into Village Mixed Use (consistent use) north of site; RAL boundary shifts mooted (01:08:17–01:14:10). Traffic/parking: Expert review found on-site car parking acceptable; tandem staff bays allowed by scheme (01:16:28–01:18:14). Needs vs scheme: While childcare desirable, compliance with zoning, buffers, and Civic masterplanning prevails; potential mediation flagged (01:19:01–01:20:56). Noosa Springs Resort vs Sewage Treatment Plant Interface Officers: Buildings sited outside 2.5 odour unit line per expert odour modelling; outdoor areas conditioned for limited hours to mitigate nuisance (01:30:56–01:36:13; 01:44:12–01:44:50). Unitywater: Asserted proximity would force costly odour controls and broaden risk under amended EPA; Council challenged to consider reverse scenario (02:20–12:28). Built form: Height reduced; some minor exceedances and setback variations justified by ownership unity and lack of street interface; koala habitat impacts offset on golf course (01:35:57–01:41:49). Bushfire: Third‑party review supports separation; staged refuge (existing buildings then golf course) and controlled emergency egress routes via QPS/QFES (01:53:55–01:57:25). Zoning anomaly: Tourist Accommodation zone boundary not science‑based; officers effectively “ground‑truthed” siting with odour line; potential future scheme realignment noted (01:45:03–01:46:45). Process: >400 submissions considered; application amended (tennis courts/koala habitat, height); further officer rebuttal to deputation to be provided at General Committee (02:11:21–02:12:31; 02:04:47–02:05:10). Environmental Concerns Biodiversity overlays: Cootharaba STA within overlay; added conditions for pets and conservation outcomes to mirror Boreen Point approach (51:20–52:44). Landscape character: Childcare proposal compromises Civic’s mandated 10m green buffer integral to Noosa’s “built form within vegetation” principle (01:15:27–01:16:28). Bushfire readiness: STA approvals to include water supply, defensible space, and evacuation info; officers to refine conditions and advice (50:00–50:56).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 11 June 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 11 JUNE 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 7 May 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. RHETT DUNCAN ON BEHALF OF UNITYWATER TOPIC: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JUNE 2024 4.2. GEORGINA MADSEN TOPIC: MCU22/0094 - NOOSA BUSINESS CENTRE SANCTUARY CHILDCARE Deputation did not occur due to late apology from applicant. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. MCU23/0101 APPLICATION FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.2. MCU24/0003 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 428 COOTHARABA ROAD COOTHARABA Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.2 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.3. MCU22/0094 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 JUNE 2024 5.4. MCU16/0070.01 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES - COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TYPE 3 - VETERINARY AT 69 MARY STREET, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU16/0070.01 to make a minor change to an existing approval for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Commercial Business Type 3 - Veterinary situated at 69 Mary St, Noosaville and: A. Agree to amend condition 2, as outlined in Attachment 1. B. Agree to include additional condition 8, as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Agree to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with the applicant that provides for contributions in lieu one on site car parking space. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.5. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.5 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11.44am.
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
I'm sorry, the planning environment meeting and I declare the meeting open at 9:30. I want to begin firstly acknowledgement of country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep abiding connection to this country. We recognise the recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of our beautiful Noosa region, and we pay respect to Kabi Kabi elders past, present and emerging, and to their enduring commitment to pursuing... pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. Attendance, so there are no apologies, and I note everyone is in attendance, Councillor Tom Wegener, Councillor Deputy Mayor Stockwell, and Mayor Frank Wilkie. I also note we have two councillors in the gallery as observers, welcome Councillor Wilson and Councillor Phillips, and we have, I think, Councillor... I'd like to please request before we commence the meeting that everyone have their phones on silent and turned off. And I'd also like to remind councillors of their obligations under the councillor code of conduct to treat fellow councillors and council officers respectfully. I'll start with confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder, please? I'll move it. Brian Stockwell 01:44.276
I'll be the second. Amelia Lorentson 01:45.316
Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. No discussion at all in favour? No discussion. Thank you. Presentations and deputations. I note we have a deputation in front of us today by Rhett Duncan on behalf of... ENV Order, I welcome Rhett to stand in front of us in the podium. Thanks. you, Rhett, that speaking time is limited to 15 minutes and that's quite strict. Thank you. Rhett Duncan 02:20.920
Thank you Councillor and thank you for having me here this morning. Unity Water is the water and wastewater services provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan and in my role as Executive Manager of Customer Delivery, the operation and maintenance of our network is my responsibility. So thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. After ensuring the protection of public health and the natural environment, our most important priority is enabling economic development that allows communities to thrive. I'm here today to convey our very clear position that we do not support this development in this proposed location. This is our second deputation on the matter. And our opposition to the proposed location has not changed. In fact it's stronger than before as a result of changes to the Environmental Protection Act introduced earlier this year. To be clear, we're not opposed to growth of Noosa Springs, just the proposed location, which would be too close to the existing Noosa sewerage treatment plant. I'll explain our I'll explain our position and what we're asking of this committee and council. However, firstly, I'd like to pose a question. If Unity Water applied for approval to build a new sewage treatment plant within 200 metres of established luxury accommodation with significant outdoor recreational facilities within the 2.5 odour unit contour, would council approve? an essential community service that's been lawfully carried out under council operation since the mid 1970s. The STP was fully upgraded in 1997 and transferred to Unity Water in July 2010. The STP operates under a Department of Environment, Science and Innovation environmental approval and continues to meet all of its licence obligations. The 1995 environmental impact statement commissioned by Noosa Council notes in section notes in section 3.10 buffer area and I quote "Substantial buffer precincts exist around the existing and proposed STP. Nearest housing is more than 400 metres to the north of the existing STP northern boundary. The STP will be augmented to the south of the existing facility increasing buffer from the centre Increasing buffer from the centre of the proposed STP augmentation by approximately 300 metres. The proposed Noosa Springs development 400 metres to the west and south west of the proposed STP. STP is protected against noise, odour and visual impacts by the intervening ridgeline. So there's some key points to note in this particular section of the EIS. Prior to the 1997 upgrade, odour complaints were being received by Council from the sensitive receptors 400 metres to the north. Council at the time made a conscious decision to shift the plant a further 300 metres to the south, increasing the buffer distance to from the sensitive receptors in the north. In addition, Kyoto generating sources were located at the south-west boundary of the STP in order to further maximise distance from those sensitive receptors to the north. And the 1997 STP was designed with consideration to the 400 metre buffer zone to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. If approved, today's proposed development would see significant sensitive receptors located approximately 200 metres from the STP, significantly closer than the 400 metres. considered in the design of the STP. The development encroaches up the ridgeline, noted in the 95 EIS as providing protection, and the development knowingly places sensitive receptors within the 2.5 odour So Council's decisions and actions at the time in this EIS were consistent, appropriate, and in keeping with the principles outlined in Part E of the current State Planning Policy 2017, which still seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. Therefore, approving the proposed development would be in conflict with the Council's own earlier decisions to minimise the potential impact of the STP on nearby land use, and in conflict with the intent of the State Planning Policy. It's true to note there have been few odour complaints since the post-1997 upgraded STP, and this is largely the result of two things- Unity Water deliberately operating the plan in ways that aim to minimise odour and therefore impacts on neighbours and the geography and buffer zones provided. While we operate the plan to minimise odour, there is a limit to what we can achieve. The STP comprises of thousands of pieces of mechanical equipment that can fail over time. They can have power supply interruptions through weather or electricity. We also know catchment volumes are increasing, meaning that while we are in licence limits, the plant is treating more sewage today than when it was built. Catchment volumes will continue to increase into the future, meaning the continue to treat more sewage, with a widening of the 2.5 od unit contour. So while it's true the Oasis community of permanent residents is located approximately 300 metres to the west This community is afforded some shelter from the ridgeline running north-south between these properties and the STP. The Noosa Springs proposal, however, shifts development north along the ridgeline, reducing that nity will want to note that while the proposal conditions have been amended to remove the requirement for all guests to be advised of a potential odour from the sewage treatment plan, it retains the condition that the resort manages odour complaints internally via an odour complaint management plan. But this is not it works in reality. The Department of Environment, Science and Innovation is the regulator in this space and regardless of any good intent from the proponent, responsibility cannot be transferred. You don't even want to note the reference reference to the 2.5 odour unit limit. However DESE do not take this into account when investigating owner complaints and issuing enforcement action. In fact, the application of general environmental duty, environmental harm and nuisance is very open under the Environmental Changes to the Environmental Protection Act passed earlier this year now mean that odour is treated even more significantly under the Act and environmental nuisance may now constitute serious In addition, a new offence has been created under section 391 of the Act in relation to contravention of general environmental duty while undertaking an activity where the contravention causes or is likely to cause serious or material environmental harm. Penalties relating to this offence include financial penalties and even up to two years imprisonment. So this means any odour complaint made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Unity Water that may lead to prosecution and costly plan modifications. applications. In fact, In fact, in light of the new environment legislation, Unity Water would need to consider costly plant modifications before any complaints are received, should this development be approved. And for reference, Unity Water installed odour control equipment. Murrumba Downs treatment plant in 2010 as a result of urban encroachment. This cost $38 million in 2010. I hate to think what that would cost in today's climate. Noosa Council. Noosa Council as a shareholder of Unity Water would be directly impacted by an investment like this. Shaun Walsh 10:27.256
We don't have a blank checkbook for upgrades and an investment like this would need to be recovered through sewage charges to Noosa customers. Rhett Duncan 10:36.796
Unity Water upgrades its STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing compliant sewage treatment. Upgrades to the treatment plant will change the odour contours used in modelling. A future DA application will need to consider sensitive receptors only 200 metres from the STP as a result of this proposed development. I remind you of Murrumba Downs installation where odour control equipment cost $38 million in 2010. So while we support development that promotes sustainable economic growth, we do not this development in this proposed location because it locates new sensitive receptors close to existing sewage treatment operations. The proposed development would impose reverse...reverse amenity obligations on unity... that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost unity water, Noosa residents and Noosa Council tens of millions of dollars and limit our ability to meet future growth in the region. Approving this proposed development would be at odds with the 1995 EIS and current state planning principles. The conditions proposed to be applied in an approval with good intent would actually further increase risk to unity water to to Noosa Council as a shareholder and our customers and this risk could be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in the first place. Unity Water are asking this committee and Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. Again Again, I'd like to ask the committee and council, if the scenario was reversed, would council approve a new sewage treatment plant only 200 metres from existing luxury accommodation? Thank you, Rhett. Thanks, Rhett. Amelia Lorentson 12:28.182
We have no more deputations and apologies for another deputation that came through early this morning. So we're going to go straight to report... going to go straight to reports for consideration of the community. And the first report, one, MCU23/0101, application for short-term accommodation at... 561 Gympie, Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. Welcome to the desk, Richard and Patrick. I'll hand... Firstly, are there any conflicts of interest? No conflicts of interest? Can you give us a summary of the report in front of us? Tara 13:13.496
So the proposal is for a short-term accommodation inside an existing two-storey, four-bedroom dwelling house. The proposal doesn't include any works to be carried out on site, so existing access will be retained. There's no vegetation removal proposed either. The application triggered impact assessment because the site at 2.25 hectares is under the four hectare threshold for code assessment in the rural zones. One submission was received for the application that was actually in support of the development. It is noted that a short-stay approval, sorry, application was lodged in September 2022 seeking a short-stay approval for the site. There was a bit of back and forth through that process where the owner was unable to establish existing use rights and hence have since lodged the DA. The report is recommending approval for the application with standard conditions including limiting the number of bedrooms to four and the number of people on site to eight. Standard outdoor recreation area conditions limiting the use to 9pm. is noted that the current planning scheme amendments are under public notification at the moment where this sort of short-term accommodation in the rural zones would be inconsistent. It is too early in that legislative process for the changes to to the planning scheme to actually be taken into consideration through this current application. Any questions? Frank Wilkie 14:42.760
Yes. Has the applicant been able to prove existing use rights? Tara 14:47.680
They weren't unable to, which is why they've had to watch the application. Amelia Lorentson 14:56.140
In terms of the draft amendments, Tara, so there's reference to the career principle and I understand that not much weight can be given to the draft considering what stage we're at. My question is even if we were at say a more progressed stage with the amendments, an amendment is simply, a draft amendment is simply that it's a draft amendment. My question is does it carry any legal force if it's just a draft amendment and would the decision be... would the decision be any different if this application came, say, two months after we put out the publication for amendments for... notice of the amendments? Patrick Murphy 15:52.710
Consideration for the draft scheme can be... more weight can be given to the draft scheme as we move through the process. So we go through the notification process and then there's consideration of those submissions that may be made, and then if Council seeks to adopt the draft scheme, then it certainly allows us to place more weight on that draft scheme. Frank Wilkie 16:15.062
Could you talk a bit about the reason why we ask property owners of Gwellings to prove existing use rights? Well. Patrick Murphy 16:28.464
Well, that relates to the short-stay local law. So, as you may be aware, properties that have been used for short-term accommodation are required to obtain the short-stay local law approval. And there's a pathway of entitlement, so to speak, before they can obtain an approval, and that is to have existing DA which allows use to occur, or if it's a dwelling that they demonstrated that they had existing use rights prior to the commencement of the 2020 scheme, because dwellings that were constructed prior to that date were able to be used interchangeably for permanent or short-term accommodation. Amelia Lorentson 17:12.140
So in terms of the short-term accommodation is supported in our planning scheme, visitor accommodation in the hinterland is supported and by these conditions it's going to be low density, small and scaled, it can't impact rural activities or amenity. My question My question is how many short term accommodations already exist in the hinterland and was that considered or factored into the decision making? Patrick Murphy 17:48.251
You a specific number I'd have to go back through some data to give that to you but certainly the prevalence of short term accommodation in the rural areas is significantly less than what we have on the scene. Amelia Lorentson 18:01.430
And in terms of strategic intent and outcomes? So both our Noosa Plan and also our tourism strategy, the application falls within that intent. It is consistent with the new scheme that's been sort of perversed. diversify our tourism opportunities within the hinterland area and sub-survey calls with the scheme at the moment. Thank you Tom. You've got some questions. Tom Wegener 18:34.397
Assessed against the whole of the planning scheme, but then we bring in the tourism Noosa report which talks about wanting to diversify economy out into the hinterland. How does that fit in? How does the tourism Noosa, the 2017 document, influence this Patrick Murphy 18:59.336
So you're saying it's a document prepared by Theresa Noosa. It's not part of the planning scheme, so it has no influence. influence in our determination of the application. We can consider the document and review its intent, but it's not part of the planning scheme. Tom Wegener 19:22.011
When it says that we want to diversify into that high dollar tourists, that was reflected in the tourism Noosa document, but perhaps that was brought into... in to support the same concept within the planning scheme. Would that be how that works? Patrick Murphy 19:41.998
Sorry, are you suggesting that the document informed the Noosa Plan at the time the 2020 plan was introduced? Tom Wegener 19:48.366
Because it's quoted in the report, so it's the only, there's all sorts of plans we have out there. It could be. We have the corporate plan, we have the housing strategy plan, but I was just surprised to see this plan, the 2017 plan about bringing more business to the hinterland, the tourism plan, why it was in this report. that, that's why, that's why I'm asking, but we'll just put that another. Richard MacGillivray 20:21.881
Yeah, there are economic development benefits of obviously generating further activity in the hinterland and obviously accommodation is one element of providing that diversification, but as you're aware the current planning scheme amendments are seeking to make some changes are seeking to make some changes there, and that largely relates to your way around the housing piece, around that STA should be taking up that housing supply. So it obviously does encourage the new scheme amendments, but not... not at the cost of losing that permanent housing supply. So I guess that's where the housing strategy is seeking to influence on the new planning scheme moving forward. But the current scheme, as the team have identified, it is a consistent sort of activity and obviously impact accessible. It also requires assessment against the H5 planning scheme and all of those factors within the planning scheme could be considered as part of this decision. Tom Wegener 21:16.547
Next question is evidence for not disrupting amenity. So I didn't see a study or anything that suggests that would prove or have any weight to show that this wouldn't disturb the amenity because the opposite has happened around the beaches where it's pretty much understood now that short-term accommodation does affect negatively the amenity. of the areas where there's short-term accommodation, Airbnb's and so I don't I didn't see any the evidence around us says that it affects the amenity but there's no Patrick Murphy 22:23.440
Which I think in this case have limited it to 9pm, that occupiers of the dwelling for short-term accommodation will be able to be outside after 9pm. Amelia Lorentson 22:44.936
Terms of the approval, which I think in this case have limited it to 9pm, that occupiers of the dwelling for short-term accommodation will be able to be outside after 9pm. Terms of the approval, which I think in this case have limited it to 9pm. of noise, rural noise amplifications, so my understanding is when you live in like isolated locations like in Kin Kin, noise amplifies. Is that an amenity? How do you assess that amenity? Patrick Murphy 23:09.366
Certainly recognising the rural areas that noise can carry from a range of activities including agricultural activities. So we do have a standard suite of conditions that we do apply to these approaches. approvals or recommendations which do address amenity again noting that the 9pm I think is a reasonable time for occupiers to be inside. Richard MacGillivray 23:31.162
And also the the scale obviously being limited to four bedrooms and eight persons is a decision to control the scale of that particular activity. To your point though it is difficult to particularly with with guests around you know how they'll you know, how they'll behave and the noise that they may or may not make during this day, which is why the team put some recommended conditions on there around controlling the time that they're outside, which is likely to create that noise emitting beyond the And with the extra layer of the short stay local more approval that will be required to follow, should they obtain this approval, will it enable someone to be able to contact the hotline 24/7 if there were any amenity issues that were arising? Tom Wegener 24:16.800
So, say that this person at this time was, what I'm worried about when STA is out there is once you give the approval then you have to enforce conditions forever. And if this person was opening up at this point a small business making jams from local fruits, that would be an impact accessible decision, I'm just going to speak to this, I'm not going to, you know, obviously, I think that Amelia Lorentson 24:57.199
Sorry, I will give you leniency to speak today, Councillor Wegener, but I do remind you that in committees, this is an information seeking committee and debate is left possibly I too would love to hear your position on this. I know you're quite passionate in this space. Tom Wegener 25:18.666
When we have to enforce these obligations that we put on them, the conditions, it goes forever. So it's not like a business, like, you know, if somebody is going to make jams right now, it'd be impact assessable. We'd look at it and say, okay, the purse is there. You're making too much noise. The same person's there. So the business is permanent there, and the same person runs the business. With an STA, and they could easily cancel that business. Where an STA goes on and on, where the visitor comes in, makes all sorts of noise, people call up the hotline, and really nothing really happens. There's not really enforcement. Monday comes on, those people are gone. The owner gone. The owner is someplace far, far away. And so it's not like the person making jam in their kitchen who you go back and say, hey, you know, that was a bit noisy. The visitor's gone. The next set of visitors come in. And that's our problem with STAs. This is the problem we have with with enforcing it. And that's why I'm very I have a very hard time giving further STA approvals, especially out there in Kin Kin and especially in the next one. We have that long driveway where I really don't want officers driving up that long driveway trying to enforce. the conditions that we imposed upon them. I don't think we need to be in the business of enforcing local laws on STAs that we approve out in the hinterland where the owner is far, far away. I think there's just a a massive problem there in philosophy of the way we do things. But then when it comes to the high value tourists, well we know that's not the case. We've proven that's not actually the case. There's no link, definite link between high value... value tourists, which is what the planning team wants, and an STA. And we know that the amenity will be disrupted eventually, and it's it's just just forever and so I don't and of course we have our housing policy which is a big one where we just realised that we have a housing crisis in Noosa around the whole Sunshine Coast and here two we're properties taking out of the rental pool and giving it STA status while at the same time we're breaking our bones to make housing over here for four people it's just going exactly the wrong direction and then earlier when we look at STAs in town we would say oh it's near restaurants it's near a a bus stop it's near it's right in the middle of where we want to be that's we want the tourist sector to be this is the complete opposite it's an STA way out there making it hard to enforce the the conditions and they'll have to be travelling and so forth it just it's going the opposite direction from where we are with our Frank Wilkie 28:09.113
Question, housing policy under the STA approval on the local law the manager needs to be within 30 minutes from the 20 minutes of the property and That's correct, so that is correct, and if I might just add Councillor Wegener's comments that people were in the hotline and nothing happens, but I think that's a reasonable comment in terms Patrick Murphy 28:43.136
We are finding that calls are made to the hotline and in most instances the issue is resolved at that time, so it's important to clarify that, and also importantly the calls that we get to the hotline, they're not coming from the inside areas, they're coming from the areas which are more populated, and so we do have a number operating in the rural area at the moment, and certainly not getting calls about those. Amelia Lorentson 29:09.079
Could I request for the general meeting, Patrick, would you provide some data in regards to complaints made in Bec hinterland? Just so that we can put some facts to arguments. Continuing with Councillor Wegener, I'm going to add a question to your debate. Does Does supporting rural tourism conflict with our housing needs assessment and in fact our destination management plan or is it the reverse? Is it the balance we actually want to create with our destination management plan with rural tourism and short term accommodation and housing diversification as part of that puzzle or balance? Richard MacGillivray 29:57.837
I mean I'll just add the comment that obviously with the scheme change that are being proposed it's seeking to obviously reflect the housing strategy which is which is about ensuring that the there's either a four and sixty available where it's not the residents principal place of property or where it is the applicants or the residents primary place of residence that they can That they can STA on the site. So it does, the scheme moving forward is seeking to have a bit of both if you want. So to accommodate housing but also the ability for STA as a consistent use in the rural. So it's seeking to cater for both. In this particular situation obviously taking up that housing supply for just STA is not what it's seeking moving forward. So that's where part of the conflict lies at the moment where that strategy is The scheme is seeking to accommodate both elements, so the tourism economic development element and also to maintain the housing piece. Frank Wilkie 31:04.300
It's a really good question. My understanding is that planning scheme amendments will allow home hosted short stay accommodation, so the direction we're heading, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we still want to encourage short term accommodation uses and home stays in the hinterland to contribute to the local economy and the visitor experience, but also if it's only homestay, you've got on-site owner and you'll have a resident or a resident's family in that accommodation at the same time, so not detracting from permanent residency. Is that correct? That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 31:45.350
Can you be sentiment? To me, that's probably the most valuable indicator for me about impacts. Interesting, this application had no... objections and, in fact, won the person in support. Is that unusual in places like Kin Kin and, say, other hinterland regions where you find the opposite of the opposite of what happens if the application is made in a coastal area? Patrick Murphy 32:17.909
Well, yeah, I mean you can certainly get a number of objections to short-stay applications and we do find with an application for it under the local law, when the community become aware of that it's in a coastal area, we do receive a number of complaints or submissions about that application. But I think in the hinterland area the responses to notification is probably generally less and it's good to have had it, you know, for them to be able to provide, to take the effort to provide support for the application to give us a round of good share. Amelia Lorentson 32:52.448
Oh councillor, I don't, Stockwell, it's been a long week now, it's been very difficult. Oh we're basically knocking fellows, yeah. Only their mother can tell them what happened. Brian Stockwell 33:04.112
If I brush my hair. Just a question about refining or clarifying the nature of our deliberations under the Act. So correct me if I'm wrong, if this site was four hectares, reading your report, it would meet all assessable benchmarks and therefore If I Code assessable, therefore the Act would say we must approve it. Is that right, if it's on four hectares? Yes. So the reason it's now an impact assessable application because the scheme says if it's not four hectares it becomes an impact assessable, which turns it into a material change of use. Now material change of use says you do consider, you can consider more relevant factors. The report suggests that your assessment is that while not meeting the acceptable outcome it meets the performance outcome in terms of of amenity and therefore that the four hectares is not a significant issue. Does moving to an impact assessable allow us as councillors to consider the competing objectives within the outcomes of the scheme between tourism and housing choice? Or are we bound by the nature of the performance benchmarks about the particular development? Patrick Murphy 34:31.341
Impact assessable application allows us to consider the whole scheme. And other relevant matters as well. So it's a bit broader in the act in terms of other relevant matters but I think it is it is important just to come back and reference the comments particularly in the report around around the Cody principle and the timing of when the application is lodged and then into the decision phase, which was actually well before the scheme was publicly released by the comment, which is when essentially the starting for Council to start considering some weight, and obviously as Patrick alluded to earlier, because where we are and where this application was lodged and is due for decision, it's very early in the process, so very little weight can be given to the proposal based on the scheme amendments. However, if it was lodged after the amendment been released and we make a decision later in the process, potentially substantial weight could be given to the scheme intent for the changes. Brian Stockwell 35:40.627
Density Residential Zone, or it might be in the Eastern Beaches Code, there's a provision about retaining the dominant residential nature of the zone. Is there anything that Council could rely on on a grant of refusal within the rural zone? Patrick Murphy 35:59.991
The Medium and the High Density do make a reference to predominantly permanent residents. That is not provided within the rural zone. We don't believe that there's a similar type outcome that would lie in the refusal application. Tom Wegener 36:21.220
The question of amenity to me it's very very interpretive it's fuzzy in to say that it's not going to disrupt the amenity is a very much a judgment call it seems to me like saying yep amenity yep, amenities throughout the the town plan we do not want to disrupt amenity and it's assumed that our conditions will ensure that the amenity is not disrupted and that that is the assumption behind the acceptance of the application. seems to me that that's the cornerstone. Because amenity is the fundamental principle of of this application. Patrick Murphy 37:09.880
Well I think as Richard referred to earlier there is a limitation on the amount of people that will be staying on the premise. limitation on the outdoor areas, the times that they can be used and noting the separation from the surrounding areas and the letter of support to the application from the neighbour. They're factors that lead us towards. towards a reasonable conclusion that the immediate outcomes would be reasonable. Frank Wilkie 37:37.580
So, Councillor Wegener, are you disagreeing with the recommendation in order to be referred to the general? Tom Wegener 37:43.720
Yeah, I would like to. Yeah, I'd like to have this. Move to this be referred to the general. Amelia Lorentson 37:50.851
Due to the significance, happy to refer it to the general, but can I request information in terms of how many yesterdays How many complaints have been made through the hotline and also we'd probably like a little bit more information in terms of the coding principle and in terms of, you know, much weight, I understand where this application was made before the draft amendments, but I'd still love to understand what are the ramifications if we did put more weight on the coding principle in this instance? What are the potential ramifications, legal ramifications? I'd also like to understand super... be superseded plans in compensation. If we refuse this application, is it in contradiction with SPS at this change in compensation claim? I'm throwing my head around like what happens if... refuse it? what happens So just maybe some information in terms of Richard MacGillivray 39:11.414
The... The superseded provision wouldn't apply because we haven't got... so essentially the decision is it's not subject to any superseded provision. So if Council were to not support the proposal, the applicant would repeal rights regarding the decision. Just repeal rights, okay. Amelia Lorentson 39:31.399
Thank you, any more information for general meeting? Thank you. Thanks. Tom Wegener 39:36.379
We have one more to go through. Frank Wilkie 39:39.759
Councillor Wegener disagrees with the recommendation three choices. Amelia Lorentson 39:47.634
Right, just in terms of other information, I've already asked for it. I'm just looking at the potential to have a notification if it is approved that acknowledges the rural nature of the block and the potential for agriculture-related nuisances to be visited upon this particular use. If you are writing a report rather than just providing information, if you could include that, that would be good. Otherwise, I'll just add it if there's an approval motion going forward. Thank you very much. Great. Okay, so could I have a mover, please, that be moved to the general meeting due to the significance of the matter. Councillor Wegener, a seconder, please. Councillor Stockwell, and all in favour. Thank let's move to this next item on the agenda. Again, another short-term accommodation approval in Cootharaba. If you could just bear with me. MCU24/0003 development application for material change of use for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, Cootharaba. and Tamara Patrick. again, if you can give us an idea or a summary of the application in front of us. Tara 41:15.117
So this one's quite similar to the previous application. So it's an existing two-bedroom dwelling. The applicants are proposing four people on site as maximum. There's no works proposed on the site. It is noted that the site is heavily vegetated and is within the biodiversity overlay. They're not proposing any vegetation removal within the overlay at all. The application has triggered impact assessments, again, due to the lot size. So it's 3.16 hectares, so it doesn't meet the four hectare threshold to... hectare threshold to make it code accessible. No submissions were received for this one. Again, it's very small in scale, a two bedroom dwelling with four people on site. It's consistent, has a short term in the rural zone under current scheme. There's a recommendation for approval which includes all of our standard conditions regarding the number of people on site, bedrooms limited, outdoor area of use limited to 9pm. So in terms of this particular application again very similar to the previous. Amelia Lorentson 42:22.661
So I'll wait for Councillor Wilkie to come back. Any questions? questions firstly from the table? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 42:32.690
If this was refused they would still be able to apply for the four times at 60 days a year. and be much, that would be an easy application I would suspect. Amelia Lorentson 42:44.140
If it's their principal place of residence? Tom Wegener 42:46.180
If it's their principal place of residence, right. Amelia Lorentson 42:48.600
So, question, is it an investment or is it--- I would have to consider that. This service address is not for the property, it's for another property, so I would suggest it's not their principal place of residence. So they would not be able to do it. with your own safety, that's exactly what we're talking about. Tom Wegener 43:11.271
One big thing that concerns me is is the long road in there and and in my apologies for for misstating I'm saying that nothing happens but what I fall back on is say, they ring the hotline, nothing does happen, and there's a wild, you know, there's something going on that is disruptive, that's disrupting the local amenity, and the... the hotline people, the people that are supposed to amend the situation, don't. Is it an obligation of council to step in and send our own officers in there? Patrick Murphy 43:48.594
If it was occurring at night, we wouldn't wouldn't have offices that we'd be able to send in if it was occurring during the day. We could be contacted and we would make efforts to contact the owner. We'd likely try and contact the police, also request that they contact the police. I think it would be, we'd just have to assess what was happening at the time to see if it was safe to send officers in to a premise like any other complaint that Tom Wegener 44:27.703
If it wasn't an STA, and there was a party there, and reducing amenity, they would call the police. state police. As an STA, there's a problem with amenity there. They may call the police, but really the conditions that we impose upon them are being violated. So it would be our responsibility to enforce the conditions that we imposed upon them. Richard MacGillivray 44:56.924
There's the approvals that we issue, and if there's conditions we can enforce those, but the police have also got their own powers as well that they can enforce. So not dissimilar than other multi-government agencies have differentiated different jurisdictions and ability to deal with issues such as nuisance and disturbance, so we would be able to enforce conditions in approval if they were breached, but also the police can deal with disturbances, you know, in residential Tom Wegener 45:31.459
So if there's eight cars there, you know, quite often, and it's not a police matter, the police are saying, well, but it is a big deal to the amenity of the people, so then our local laws officers would be, would be, you know, it obligation to go in and enforce the conditions. Patrick Murphy 45:53.578
If there was eight cars parked on site, I don't think that would be an issue, because it's a big site, and I don't think anyone would know, so are you saying if there was eight cars full of people that were partying there? Tom Wegener 46:07.958
Eight cars of people, you know, partying there, but it's not a police issue yet. Amelia Lorentson 46:12.378
I think so, isn't it? Isn't it section 260 of the planning act prohibits party houses and that would probably fit within that definition, so that's prohibitive. Or lighting, you know. I guess the reason, we are taking on responsibilities when we make, when we give it the STA approval and we put conditions on, we have, on we have we are accepting work more responsibility for our officers our law enforcement officers because if we didn't approve it then they wouldn't have these conditions that we would have to potentially of course is that right yeah yes another the question is do do we take on more responsibility as Noosa council when we approve an STA with conditions approval that we issues of conditions every time we issue an approval we take on more responsibility whether it be for an industrial use or a restaurant or whatever it might be ultimately we are responsible for enforcing those conditions conditions. It's part of what we do and sorry can I just add this is like where I think the data is really quite important so I think the best way to answer that question is understanding how many complaints what time What time of day and how many properties? Do you understand the significance of the issue, if it is significant or if it's not as huge as what we think? Tom Wegener 47:46.543
Obviously I've got an issue with taking on more responsibilities that increase the pressures upon our own staff to do their jobs. Richard MacGillivray 47:54.066
And to that point, just to add to Patrick's comment, obviously when conditions are applied to an applicant for a decision which runs with the land, the obligation rests with that applicant, the person, the permit holder, to ensure that they do comply, because if they don't then action can be taken against them. So I'd like to take on your point that every approval we issue that's got conditions adds an extra imposter as an extra impostor on council and you're right we need to regulate and manage complaints and issues where conditions may be breached but those obligations lie with the applicant to ensure that they adhere to those and if they don't we can take serious compliance action for any breaches. Thank You Richard. Frank Wilkie 48:33.027
Councillor Wilkie. Has there been any incidents of complaint about this property being illegally used as a short-term accommodation property? Amelia Lorentson 48:43.107
Not that I'm aware of. Frank Wilkie 48:44.127
And this application before us you have assessed it under the current settings of the planning scheme which makes short-term accommodation a consistent use in the rural setting? That's correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 48:57.481
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 48:58.921
So I note the property's in a high bushfire area and you talk in the report about a building certified can certify the dwelling. My query relates to the fact that access and egress to the site is through a high bushfire hazard area and that the short-term use by visitors may people who are unfamiliar with rural fire issues. In urban areas there is higher levels of fire protection required say for units in a resort complex compared to a dwelling. Is there anything our scheme which would allow us to consider higher levels of consideration of bushfire risk as a result of, as Councillor Wegener suggested, a long driveway through a high bushfire area? Patrick Murphy 49:53.923
I'd like to come back to you on that, Councillor, on the scheme and have some discussions with Will about that. Patrick. Amelia Lorentson 50:00.762
Condition 22 actually has bushfire management as one of the conditions, Councillor Stockwell. It references an accessible dam swimming pool water tank in addition to day-to-day water supply with an on-site water volume. volume of not less than 5,000 litres must be available for firefighting purposes located within reasonable proximity to building. So I looked at that, thought about that. That's probably enough Brian Stockwell 50:27.013
But as we know, with the severity of bushfires these days, generally the advice is to get out. to protect... Looking where the dominant remnant vegetation is, it's all to the north, so via the other side, maybe there's a road. I'm just thinking, is that something we should be thinking about in this case in that you're introducing... introducing a use where they may not know the local situation and it may have an impact. Amelia Lorentson 50:56.001
So maybe a condition in terms of evacuation process might... not sure if that's captured under bushfire management. It's not spelled out, but maybe spelled it out a little bit, perhaps, would you, Patrick? We'll get some further information for that for the councils. Any further questions? Any further questions around the table? We've got a question, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 51:20.172
Once again, it's one that I've already raised with staff and we're in discussions, but for the general committee, the site is under the biodiversity overlay and has a riparian corridor as well mapped in the scheme. If I compare that to a recent approval in Boreen Point we put in conditions where we sought to achieve conservation outcomes because we wouldn't have a resident, you'd have visitors potentially bringing cats, dogs. It's just something that I've asked staff to come back to have a look at because of the change in the nature of the use, should we be having conditions in there that will maximise the conservation outcomes as well. Amelia Lorentson 52:03.340
Well that is interesting. Have you considered dogs, in that so many people, you know, have an STA, and they go there, and is there an obligation to have a dog fence area? Patrick Murphy 52:18.899
As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, it has been in communication with us, and we are looking at potentially bringing back an amended recommendation that incorporates the conditions from the point, the approval that we did out there, and it did address cats and dogs through those conditions, so we'll present that to you at the general meeting. Amelia Lorentson 52:44.007
Councillor Wilson, Councillor Phillips, any questions? No. Just a thought bubble and a note, probably not a question, so again I ask that everyone just bear with me. keep thinking. We're approving and spending a lot of money with our trail, our upgrades. We had events that are going out through Juro out of the trails which are attracting thousands and thousands of people. We're sitting in the space with destination management plan where dispersal is part of the solution and where I'm going this but I just keep going back to balance we need to be able to balance when these whether it's visitors or people visiting family in the hinterland whether it's people that are need of affordable short-term temporary accommodation because they're fleeing from domestic places or they're here for the week or weekend for these trial these where are they Where are they going to stay and are we going to exacerbate the already, you know, volatile situation we have here in coastal areas? So I come back to balance and question be thinking about is 60 days. Is that going to be enough and possibly is, because that's available for everyone. But just a thought that I just sort of want to leave with the table today. Richard MacGillivray 54:24.253
The four and six years, Patrick alluded to, the four and six years where it's their primary place of residence. And they have to. So they, essentially they need to, need to, that needs to be their primary place of property. So they're away for, you know, the 60 days per year. then they can STA it. Obviously in this case, it appears that they don't live on site, so it's not their primary. Amelia Lorentson 54:46.803
So it's not their principal place. Establish that. Patrick Murphy 54:49.303
Yeah. Yeah. So the only way they can undertake STA on this property is through a Amelia Lorentson 55:24.557
I want to thank the staff for correctly assessing this application under the current settings of the Noosa Planning Scheme. The discussion you've heard around the table is principally driven by the change in community change in community sentiment and scrutiny around each and every short-term accommodation property that this council approves, that community concern is reflected also in the amendments, which will ensure that in the future, in order for any sort of short-term accommodation to be the rural and rural residential areas, it has to be home hosted so that it's not taking away a permanent place of residence, but, and it will be onsite managed short-term accommodation. And for the reasons that were discussed here, it balance. Because we do have a, we're aspiring to create a national class, some say even a world class trial network, eventually out in the hinterland. And we do need accommodation for mountain bikers, hikers, runners, equestrians. stay in, if they're wanting to access that trial network, and for a host of other reasons. So again, I want to finish by thanking staff. We've undergone a lot of scrutiny here this morning, but you have correctly. have correctly assessed this application under the current settings of the Noosa Planning Scheme. You've done that diligently. You've taken into account amenity. Thank you for your, thank you for your work. And thank you for because, you know, this is a really tricky month. So thank you for all your work. Great. Okay, so, I've got a minute, I've got a second. All in favour? Thank you. And now we're going to move to the next item on the agenda. Which is, okay, MCU22/0094, development application for a childcare centre at 28 Eenie Creek Road. Welcome to the desk, Nadine Gordon, and I'll hand it over to you for November. Nadine Gordon 57:54.540
Okay, thank you. Good morning, councillors. This is a development, this is a report about a development application for a childcare centre out at Hofmann Drive for 96, 96 children and 17 staff. This is a councillors. The applicant is proposing to house the childcare centre in a single storey building located roughly to the rear of the site and the building has a setback of approximately 10 metres with a four metre landscape strip and car parking down the western side. As separate to the MCU there's also a reconfiguration application just to slightly move between the subject site and the site next door to slightly move the boundary eastward and slightly down by two metres to accommodate the childcare centre and to provide appropriate recreational areas. for the kids. The site we're looking at has quite a bit of history. It was created under a subdivision approval back in 2018 which created 23 lots for the Civic area. The subdivision application was quite a protracted application and ended up in appeal where there was a negotiated outcome which addressed a number of aspects but there was a significant aspect relating to the creation of a park-like setting for Hofmann Drive and the surrounding streets and that required a condition for a 10 metre landscape buffer to be provided along the street frontage. Those works have subsequently been undertaken by an operational works application which The site is zoned under the Noosa Plan, a major centre, and has a business park precinct. zoning and precinct is envisaging employment and commercial uses. The proposed childcare centre is an inconsistent and impact-accessible use in this zone and precinct. A childcare centre notably is a consistent use in the Zion village mixed use zone which is directly to the north of this site. So in this regard we've assessed the application we consider that it fails to meet the requirements of the planning scheme in terms of the zoning. It also fails to meet the requirements under the reconfiguration approval, the condition which requires the maintenance of the 10-metre setback which was required to maintain a park-like setting. There are are a couple of other minor aspects as well. The biobasin, which is in the south-western corner of the site, further erodes the ability for landscaping and the bicycle location impedes some of the movement around on site. So for those reasons, the application is recommended by staff not to be supported. Amelia Lorentson 01:00:53.672
Thank you Nadine. First question, in terms of the appeal settlement or the negotiated outcome between council and the applicant back in 2020, 2019, 2020, is an appeal settlement final and binding? Just going to ask... It was, yes it is. Patrick Murphy 01:01:17.631
It is, but it can be subject to an application to make a change. In some instances where there is an application that was notified and there were submissions, that change would need to go back to the court. Council can do a pre-request response. In instances where it is a code accessible application, like the reconfiguration, a minor change to change conditions or lay out that approval can be assessed by Council. Questions? Amelia Lorentson 01:01:52.477
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:53.537
Just one for clarification. The artist impression one is looking from the South West and I presume the VISTA includes the initial, that's the pathway off the Sorry, is that in the attachments or is that in the artist impression? Jessica Phillips 01:02:21.440
Sorry, is that the one you got on? Brian Stockwell 01:02:22.580
That's one. You got it? Nadine Gordon 01:02:24.260
Yeah, that one. Yes, that's from, that's actually looking, that's the Council pathway. That's right. That's the pathway, that's the South Western corner where they've got a seat is actually where the biobasin is. And in your report you said there's a 700 millimetre drop into the biobasin. Does the artist's impression therefore accurately represent what we've been asked to approve? No. Okay, thank you. Because I, last night I was having great difficulty working out where that was. And artist's impression three, that vantage point, that's the one with the wooden deck and the children. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:06.500
Excuse me, can we have that up on screen please? It's page five of the first attachment one. Patrick Murphy 01:03:18.062
Attachment one? Brian Stockwell 01:03:24.762
It's the one looking from the east. Yes, it's that one. Attachment one? Attachment one. Page five. It's probably all, yeah, yeah. Next, keep going. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:44.220
No, next one, this one. I believe this is at the back of the site. Oh. That's actually the back of the site looking towards. Brian Stockwell 01:03:52.380
No, I don't think so. Because if you look at the proposal plan, that wooden deck is up front in the 10 metre zone. Richard MacGillivray 01:03:59.400
But that's the entrance, yeah. Brian Stockwell 01:04:03.740
So if you look so if you look at site plan 3D, that's along Hofmann Drive. Richard MacGillivray 01:04:10.109
Yes, looking back. Brian Stockwell 01:04:12.149
Looking to the west. Yeah, looking west. So basically that's a view where six metres of that is meant to be in a park-like setting and they, rather than a park-like setting, they've got roads and a deck, not roads, grass and a deck. Yeah. Does the, does the landscape setback preclude shade trees and use as part of the childcare complex? The condition requires a 10 metre landscape buffer. So that means it should be separate from the use? Yes. Nadine Gordon 01:04:43.933
So So they they have have a a four four metre landscaped dense landscape and at the moment the the canopy trees in that planting appears to have failed and there's mainly just small low shrubs and a few like I think Tyler Clissman, Salignus or Melaleuca's that have but we understand that might have just been the planting I don't don't think think it it, we we don't don't think think it's it's deliberate deliberate, I think just some parts have thrived and some parts haven't. Frank Wilkie 01:05:10.442
Question, site two, figure two site plan, an attachment one, could you just, I'm having trouble reading that on a small screen, could you point out where the 10 metre buffer is meant to be? Where the green is, so that's... This is Hofmann Drive here, Hofmann Drive. Can we go up a little bit? No, that way. Yeah, there. Something's happened. So this is Hofmann Drive, Council Pathway here, the Hoff is here, Council Pathway. This is where the bioretention basin is, driveway. That point there is about 10 point something, and that's the 10 metre setback, and that's a 4 metre setback here. metres, so 10 metres to that point. So ideally where should that 10 metre... So 10 metre landscaping of what's existing and what's approved should go to that area, and this is all play area that they're wanting to utilise. So they need it as flat area, whereas this is all to be densely planted out with trees and understory species. Is that where some of the planning is to follow? Jessica Phillips 01:06:35.540
Yes. Oh, yeah, yeah, yes. Frank Wilkie 01:06:38.140
They're premature? Amelia Lorentson 01:06:39.420
Yes, yes. Immature? Immature, yeah. Can you outline the reasons why the applicant is submitting these proposals? proposals, I'm thinking in terms of childcare regulations and number of kids allowed in the childcare centre. There is a regulation that stipulates that this is a minimum amount of open space or recreational area. Yes, so we have been negotiating with the applicant. They were advised as part of the preliminary pre-lodgement meeting that there was a 10 metre step back as part of the information request. So that's being conveyed to the applicant. They've indicated that for sort financial viability of a centre you need up around that 100 children roughly. And with that, yes, then there's the number of staff that are required and then each child is required to provide x square metre of open space. So for a centre of 96 people, they need this area of open space for each child. So there as you know they are looking at moving the boundary two metres across. I have asked could they not widen or change the configuration to accommodate and give us the greater setback but that wasn't part of their options. Patrick Murphy 01:08:17.641
We'd certainly like to see a child In the overall development of the Noosa Civic, noting that it is a consistent use in the visitor mixed use precinct to the north, it would suggest to me that this is not a suitable site for this use on a number of levels because they can't, you know, they've had the requirement for the landscaping and so they've gone into So they've gone into this within the knowledge that it needed to have that landscaping, so they're trying to fit the issues on the site with those constraints. There is an application at the moment that the council is assessing for the So there's no development that has occurred there at this point, and certainly they're intending to develop in the future, but it's an opportunity for them to look at their development in the visitor mix use zone to see whether that can accommodate the issues. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:14.800
Questions? Frank Wilkie 01:09:17.940
Is there the capacity to fit a 96 child childcare centre in the mix use area? Is there a lot of sufficient size? Nadine Gordon 01:09:27.980
Not in the current, so we've got the proposal In with us at the moment, we've gone through the information request for the site to the north, the Village of Mixed Use. No, there's no, based on their current design, which is the cinema, the shops, the supermarket offices, no, there's no sort of space available there. Patrick Murphy 01:09:51.572
It is a four hectare lot. Yeah, yeah. It's a four hectare lot. Yes. That they're seeking to develop for the Village of Mixed Use. Okay. So there is a Frank Wilkie 01:09:59.889
But the way they've configured it at the moment, something would have to come out to fit a childcare centre. Jessica Phillips 01:10:04.569
Yes, that's right. Frank Wilkie 01:10:05.109
But if that was done, would that, would a childcare centre fit in there of this size? Nadine Gordon 01:10:11.847
Patrick says, it's 4,000 square metres. Yes. Four hectares. Four hectares, sorry, four hectares. Yes. 40,000 square metres. Patrick Murphy 01:10:18.247
And this size? Jessica Phillips 01:10:21.747
About two and a half thousand. Brian Stockwell 01:10:29.038
Because of the applicant seeking a childcare centre, if we put aside the inconsistent use side of it and just look at the development design. In essence, if we were to achieve the 10 metre setback and we were, say, to forgo the fact, I think you previously advised that because of topography, that it... bioretention basin can only go there and there's a driveway, so if we, say, forgo the 10 metres to the west of the driveway, we're looking at a fairly small area to meet the current scheme requirements in terms of the 10 metres. Is that 15, 20 metres by 6 metres? which is probably better. Amelia Lorentson 01:11:57.177
Child care centre whether they can reduce the numbers. You mentioned that it may not be economically feasible. Can I understand that a little bit more? So at what point does a child care centre, and that's true, I know that there's a certain number where it's just not economically viable to manage a child care centre, but can I understand what that number is? I can't tell you yet. Jessica Phillips 01:12:23.252
That's what the applicant has advised me and that's what their provider has advised them. So I'm assuming it's government funding and costs and staffing. Richard MacGillivray 01:12:34.332
And it's not really a block of planning consideration. know it is for an applicant to make it stack up from a numbers perspective, but we don't look at that in terms of suitability for, you know, meeting a planning scheme, whether it's a viable project, because I guess that comes down to what legal profit margin you want to, you know, make out of a project. So, yeah, I guess that's what we've just put the question. And as Nadine pointed out, we've been seeking to try and negotiate to get them to either the scale or modify the layout to try and get that buffer to the 10 metres, which is set out in those improvements. Obviously, they haven't moved on that, which is why they're sticking with the four metres as proposed. And the outdoor areas, we understand, is the minimum area that they're required to have based on the number of children that they're looking to cater for. So, if they were to reduce if they were to reduce the scale, say to 80, that would potentially shrink the building slightly and may provide that sufficient space to get the bumper to the 10 metres, but obviously they're not seeking to do that. The other option is if they're able to modify the loft boundaries to provide them that extra bit of space and land to cater for that, noting that they will be seeking to Yeah, you can just see it on that by two metres. They've already made some adjustments here to alter the boundary across because there's two vacant lots to the east. So that's another option for them to be able to take a little bit more of that extra land off the lot to pay for the extra space. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:10.002
So Richard, the two-metre buffer, that's non From what I'm listening to. From our perspective. From your perspective. And the social outcomes don't know the wide descriptive nature of the plan because there are other options. the developer. Which make childcare a consistent use. And I think that's part of the reasons, a significant part of the reasons for refusal is that it's an inconsistent use for this site. Yes. Yes, yes. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:14:45.576
Yes, and having that 10 metre buffer is really an essential part of our Noosa landscaping in our field because when we go out to the aquatic centre and then there's a tennis court you have those really nice buffers and you don't you don't you feel as though you know you're in nature basically you're not feeling like it's one parking lot from one to the next and then one there's not a 10 metre buffer is in Pacific right behind Sandy Bolton's office and I always find that that's very it's just it's not big enough to really give that the Noosa feel so is that right so that so that the buffers are really important for our Noosa feel that we want to adhere to. Jessica Phillips 01:15:27.753
My understanding with the appeal it was a very significant factor in terms of the subdivision appeal that it was to achieve a park-like setting and the councillors very much pushed for that that landscape buffer to be Noting that it's not just for this site that it goes to the sites next door and the innovation zone further to the south as Tom Wegener 01:15:48.900
Well. So that's consistent with the Aquatic Centre and that area there. Patrick Murphy 01:15:53.860
Noosa has certainly established about having built form within paid vegetation. Environment that the vegetation is a very dominant element and not the built form and you know when Noosa Civic was created they created the open space covenants or areas around the site to provide that buffer so that you didn't didn't have a dominant built form in that area and the park-like setting concept has been a consistent theme through the master planning of the Noosa Civic, MP1 and MP2, and certainly the conditions are reflective of that long-held intent. Frank Wilkie 01:16:28.394
Can you talk about the car parking provisions on site and are they adequate or not? Jessica Phillips 01:16:35.314
We had, they're slightly under, but we did have Stuart Holland, who we use extensively and he's been used in a lot of the, he's very familiar with the Civic and has been a party to a lot of Council's appeals. He reviewed the reviewed the car parking and had to go back twice, I think, or once to them and he was satisfied that the numbers would be sufficient for the proposal and the layout. He also raised, however, there are the, there's the bike parking, push bike parking. Which is where? I just can't think of that one. Frank Wilkie 01:17:11.128
Apologise, my screen is too small. No, that's all right. I don't understand a lot of these elements. Nadine Gordon 01:17:18.328
It's in front of those four here. The bike parking, so this is a pathway. It's all in here. the bicycle parking. Frank Wilkie 01:17:43.020
Yeah. And how do these car parks work here? Are Jessica Phillips 01:17:46.000
They... The tandem ones, so their scheme... Yes, that's correct. Yeah, to plan... Standard direction. That's what our planning scheme requires, or allows. Okay, allows for staff to potentially be parked in at times by visitor cars. Well, yeah, I suppose so. Well, most of the time they're going to be there. I suppose if a centre lasts from, you know, it's open most of the stuff will be there. So yeah, that's what our planning scheme allows. Okay, just interesting. Frank Wilkie 01:18:14.409
If a spot is vacant and a visitor pulls up, it blocks that space from being used by the staff member. I just hadn't noticed that before. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:18:25.425
So Nadine, if we refuse the application, there's been a lot of expense, these applications don't just happen, there's a cost. If the applicant is agreeable to suspending the currency period and working with Council for a mediated outcome, that would That would be of benefit to him and potentially we might reach a win-win situation. Have we passed that point of mediation or is there still opportunity to work with the applicant? Jessica Phillips 01:19:01.628
Through the whole process we have indicated that we desire a 10 metre landscape setback, so we have tried. Prior to this meeting, the report being finalised, I asked if they could increase the Because it would have changed, I think you know there might have been some changes. They indicated no, but a decision hasn't been made so we can go back to the applicant. it has been extended until this round of meetings, I can ask. That's about all I can do. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:38.489
That would be great because I think the sentiment is... Well, my lesson from all the councillors is that we love a child care centre, but it's again got to work within the parameters of the Noosa Plan and community... expectations. Can I throw that at the table, maybe a discussion for the general meeting, but just to go back to the applicant to see if there's any appetite to negotiate. Well, I got Frank Wilkie 01:20:14.303
That's implicit that we always want a good outcome, but I think we can't condition that at this... No, no. The only recommendations we can make here is to move it can move it forward to the general committee because of the significance of the issue or we can condition that recommendation from the general. Or we can just ask the applicant between now and the general meeting if they have... meeting if they have any appetite to just consider some of the issues that we've discussed here tonight. Sometimes it takes a refusal to send a message that we're serious. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:56.266
Thank you. So I'm going to move that we move the application to the general meeting again due to the significance of the matter. A mover please. I'll move it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie, Seconder, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Just before you do. Oh Brian Stockwell 01:21:13.505
Excuse me. Just for the general, I've just been looking at the mappings. It would be good to understand the width of the buffer for the Walter Hay in the creek component of the Noosa Business Centre. Just measuring it off it appears like 10 metres is a tree cover in there plus there's also in that case. Tom Wegener 01:21:33.825
Yeah, it's 10 metres as that case, it is 10 metres. Before we vote on it, we should probably ask the fellow councillors. Amelia Lorentson 01:21:40.121
They haven't indicated they wanted to speak. So, oh, Councillor Phillips? Tom Wegener 01:21:45.521
You're allowed to ask questions, yeah. Questions? No, not to speak. Always face your hands if you want to ask some questions. Jessica Phillips 01:21:51.321
A couple of questions, please. I might have two or three in this. During the assessment... Maybe for my own knowledge and anyone online, during the assessment for refusal for this, is there a needs assessment done on child cares within the area? Like, part of my local knowledge is that there's... Been undertaken but we note that the planning scheme is supported with a childcare centre in the Village McSue sign to the north and not this side. So there is the capacity to have a childcare centre in that locality. Okay, but we don't know if, I think there was something you said, if there isn't, there's space there but they haven't... The current design doesn't facilitate a childcare centre in that Village McSue sign application. Patrick Murphy 01:23:08.973
We've had this application for nearly two years. A very, very long time that it's been held in advance by the applicant. At that time the application was received, there was no application for the visit of mixed use. We didn't know what was happening there, that site hasn't been cleared at this stage. Jessica Phillips 01:23:33.923
As things have evolved and we've become probably a bit more informed of their capacity to develop that site, their intent to develop that site, we see that there's a good opportunity for them to align the development And as I said there is with the current application we've got in so the village mix used to say that big and there the current application proposal only comes to you know two-thirds of the site so there is an area there that hasn't been that we haven't seen there's no application over that and that would be a consistent that would be a consistent sign for this use I guess yeah I and also just with assessments of this I start thinking of like the transport around the area all of a sudden we don't have a child care and people are driving through Tewantin and Sunshine and the impact that has on our traffic management so does that is that considered when we look at refuse all of this as well again I think that comes back to our basic- I see. our basic sort of premise on this one that there is a area within the Civic that is zoned for a childcare centre so there is a zone so I think we accept that yeah it'd be great to have a childcare centre within the precinct we support that but again this site this development this proposal hasn't quite got there for us. And my last question I guess potentially around that 10 metre buffer is childcare I need that outdoor play area at the front yes yeah okay Thank you. Councillor Wilson and can I remind councillors in the gallery if you have any questions please raise your hand and I'll ask thank you okay yes okay so so all in favour please thank you so let's move to next matter on the agenda so MCU16/0070.01 application Application for for a minor change to development approval for a material change of use of premises. Commercial business type 3, VET at 69 Mary Street, Noosaville. Welcome back Tara, can you give us a summary? summary of the application in front of us. Tara 01:26:10.597
So there was an approval issued in 2016 for the VET on the corner of Mary and Rita Street. The applicant has lodged a minor change to that existing approval to increase the internal GFA of the VET. So they're looking 183 up to 240 square metres of GFA. They're looking to add an x-ray room, an extra consult room, an office and just rearrange the internal floor layout just to make it a little bit more user friendly. The applicant has actually requested to enter into an infrastructure agreement to pay contributions in lieu of one additional lieu of one additional on-site car park that's required. So the original approval required 10 car parks. They provided 11. The current application requires 12 to be provided. So with the current design layout of the existing site, they're unable to provide that additional car park on-site without requiring removal of additional vegetation, which is not the desired outcome from our perspective. So the recommendation... the recommendation is to approve the proposal and enter into an infrastructure agreement with the applicant to provide contributions. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:25.952
Questions? Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener. No questions? Questions from the gallery? Councillor Stockwell. Stockwell, please. Yeah, I'll just move the recommendation. I'll second it. Great. And questions, Councillor Wilkie? Frank Wilkie 01:27:44.477
How busy is this vet clinic? Don't you suggest that they're doing a thriving business if they're wanting to expand? Tara 01:27:49.457
I believe so, yes. So I don't think it's to increase the I think it's just to fit what they're currently operating at. Frank Wilkie 01:27:55.659
Yeah, to accommodate current demand. Tara 01:27:58.579
Yeah, so I went out on site a few weeks ago and there was only two or three cars in the car park and then a couple of staff parked on site as well, so there was sufficient on-site parking. on-site parking when I was there, but I guess it's ebbs and flows of pick-ups and drop-offs and things like that where the car parking might... Frank Wilkie 01:28:14.241
So there's 11 there, 12's required. Have you ever seen a car parked four? Tara 01:28:20.041
I've not been out there enough to comment on that, but I believe it would be four probably at the pick-ups and the drop-offs, but the applicant hasn't really given any indication about that. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:31.442
I do visit, or should I say my dog, my Labrador Piper does, not me, and I've never seen the car park. I think there's only a very limited amount of vets there and it's always really well managed. Great. Any, no? So all in favour please. Thank you. And I think that brings us to the last report for consideration of this committee and it's report 5.5. A further report MCU21-0110, application for material change of use, resort complex and ancillary bar food and drink outlet, outdoor sport and recreation and club. Minor extension to exist in Clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads. And if I could overview. I note the matter will probably be moved to general because of the significance of the matter so we'll continue asking questions today but please a summary of what's in front of us. Patrick Murphy 01:29:54.172
This is a 106-bed resort that is proposed at Noosa Springs, also with an ancillary bath, food and drink outlet, outdoor support and recreation and it's brought in club use through the... recent other change to the application. I've also got Will Lowe here at the table. He's our senior environment officer so he'll be able to assist with questions regarding biodiversity and bushfire. As you know, this one's been around for a while. This is... It was almost one year ago that a report was first put to Council with a recommendation to approve the application. It might be worth just bringing up the proposal plans, specifically page three, just so I can maybe talk I can maybe talk to the development, um, I'll let you bring that up. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:53.733
Um, okay, so which attachment are we on? Patrick Murphy 01:30:56.993
Um, proposal plans, attachment six, yep. And then the page... page three, this is a, uh, like it's a site plan and it, it shows the split zoning that's applied to the site and it also has the, um, 2.5 odour unit line and the site... the site under the previous planning scheme was all open space recreation. That's the 2006 scheme. Um, and when the implementation or the design of the 2020 scheme, it was identified that the park ridge development, um, which was intended... intended to be a resort facility, didn't eventuate as such. The approval was a multiple dwelling approval and it allowed for either permanence or short-term residence and the take-up has been primarily permanent residence. So that, that or that preference that was part of the master planning for this area wasn't realised and so the new scheme addressed that by applying a tourist accommodation zone to this part of the site. it was probably quite opportunistic really because at that time we didn't know that we were going to be getting the Olympics and so it's a great opportunity for Noosa to provide further accommodation, particularly luxury accommodation that's proposed. location. The reason for the split zoning was to create a buffer between the serious treatment plan and the resort and also I think recognise the open space activities that were occurring on the land. There was no science that was applied at that time to determine where that line should be. Interestingly, the 2.5 over unit line shows that part of that zoning has allowed for tourist accommodation zoning within the 2.5 over unit line. So as and also importantly the existing facilities on the site being the resort building and the clubhouse and car parking take up the majority of what was zoned tourist accommodation. in our assessment of this application, it was always a ground-truthing exercise in terms of the suitable location on the site for the resort to be located, and that was around the Ota So, the applicant has provided an OTA report that's been reviewed by our external consultant and the methodology used is one that's recommended by DES and also applied in the Planning Environment Court of using the the 2.5 O unit line to determine that area where it's appropriate for the development to occur. The buildings are fully contained outside of the OTA line. There is some recreation area associated with some of the tennis courts and part of the pool that's outside of that area. Noting at the moment we've got four tennis courts on the site which are primarily all primarily all located outside that area. There is conditions that are sort of jumping ahead, but there are conditions that are recommended to address those outdoor areas and when they should be used to make sure that the use of it won't result in many impacts to the users. So very vigourous assessments. Assessment of the odour through the course of the assessment. Unity Water did not make a submission to the application. They were not a referral authority, but we engaged with them as we understood that they may have an interest in the development and they made comment through the process around reporting, around the suitability of the siting. Again, no, but no science has been provided by Unity Water in the assessment of the suitability. That science was done by the applicant and reviewed by our consultant. And found it and it was verified? And supported the location of the buildings and with conditions how the outdoor areas are used. Your consultant is an odour specialist? Excuse me, Councillor Wilkie, can I ask that we ask questions after the overview, please? Yes, so how many Oscars we go? I mean, I don't mind. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:52.761
I'll agree to that. Sorry, informal meeting. Patrick Murphy 01:35:57.201
So yes, the expert was an odour expert that we've used. He's an acoustic and odour expert and we've used him on a number of applications and appeals. So there's a whole range of matters that needed to be assessed through this and odour was the primary matter. Yes. Yeah. Built form was also looked at in terms of the appearance of the building, noting the built form existing within Noosa Springs, within the resort facilities, the clubhouse and park ridge. The buildings exceed the height allowances. Initially they were significantly over the height, but they've made modifications. They took a level off at the lower They removed the level and put a rooftop terrace in and that has primarily addressed the height of the building in that location. There is some still minor exceedance. The open space zone has an eight metre There's some setback issues in terms of the double storey car park, which is a new storey above the existing car park on that western boundary. That setback's zero metres. Both the land, the golf course land and this site are in the same ownership and there's a covenant that prevents them from being sold separately due to the water treatment that occurs through the golf course. They need to stay in the same ownership so there are trees within the golf course. This site is really away from any sort of streetscape so those setback variations were considered reasonable, similar to one of the setback variations to the tennis courts. There's an infinite 20 metre setback, ranges I think from about 15.6 metres to 22 metres on the tennis courts. Those tennis courts were sited in that location because when the initial application came in it was only proposed to have three tennis courts and they were sited in an area that's identified as cork wild habitat. There were submissions around the loss of a tennis court so the applicant modified it to four tennis courts. It was still in the cork wild habitat area. We were not supportive of that so they've moved the tennis courts to a location where they're going to be sited above parking and we now retain the vegetation that's mapped as called koala habitat and there is a setback variation to eastern boundary for the the topmost building building five it accords with the setback requirement under the tourist accommodation zones and not the setback requirement under the open space recreation zone site cover and plot ratio again the plot ratio that's allowed under the tourist accommodation zone is about 15 000 square metres of gfa this sits at around 10 000 square metres of gfa although it's spread out over both the zones it's still well under from a site cover point of view is it's right on the right on the threshold, I think it's a couple hundred metres under what's allowed, if you were to apply, sorry, that's under both of the zonings, but the amount that's in the open space area is more than what would normally be allowed in the open space area. Again, that came back to our ground truthing in determining what was a reasonable area for tourist accommodation to occur on the site. So, sort of the we've applied there. There are a number of reports that were provided with the application: traffic, car parking, bushfire, water quality, quantity. They've all been reviewed by external consultants and found to be adequate. Adequate car parking, adequate bushfire, measures in terms of the setbacks of the buildings, the hazardous vegetation and the capacity for occupiers of the buildings to take refuge in some of the other buildings on site and if needed to go and seek refuge on the golf course. There was some acoustic issues that were raised relating to a loading dock near the, so on that service road so to speak where the number 6 is. Our acoustic consultant has requested that if we were to approve the application that we include a condition that requires further assessment of noise impacts and that any mitigation measures identified as being needed through those reports be implemented. What else have I got to go There's a bit in this one. There's 120 koala trees proposed to be planted on the golf course as an offset to vegetation removed on site and also 25 plus feed trees. Also proposed to be planted on the golf course. I think I don't want to cover it. And so to go back to that, that was the original report that was put to council back in July. Officer Officer recommendation. At that time, councils were not supportive of the proposal. There were some grounds of refusal that were prepared. But prior to it going to the, and that was voted on and a refusal was supported by councils at the general meeting. It didn't get to the ordinary meeting because they haven't been stopped the clock. When the recommenced, we sought to bring it back to council with the same recommendation. And the applicant at that time made another change to the application in November last year by bringing in the club use. And so the existing clubhouse is proposed to be modified with an additional 105 square metres of GFA. some internal rearrangements. Because that was bringing in new use into the application it was another change. It took it back to the beginning of the process so council was not able to decide it. And that brings us to today. So we've got the updated set of plans including the clubhouse. The officer recommendation remains the same. The grounds of refusal that were... on and supported by council have been refined. And they're contained within the further report that was to go to council in November of 2023. So if councils are still of a mind to refuse the application, they're the grounds I suggest that you would refer to. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:32.646
Thank you, Patrick. Thank you Madam Chair. We heard during the deputation that the sensitive receptors would be affected by Ola sewerage treatment plate. Is that referring to the sensitive receptor? Would that be anyone, considered any person, swimming in the pool or in this? Yeah, sorry, on this side of the, this, the zone of life, is that what it's meant by? Patrick Murphy 01:44:12.983
Well, those, the potential for... Sensitive receptor is a person, is that right? Yeah, that's right. So any person who would be on this that's right. And that's, and there is recommendation for the use of those, the times that that area can be used, that it was put forward by our consulting odour expert to demonstrate that if the, those areas were used at that time, that it would be suitable and make the threshold for... um, not causing humidity impacts. Okay. Frank Wilkie 01:44:50.377
So all this green area is open space rec? That's correct. Could you just explain what sort of structures these are in the open space rec zone and whether they're consistent with the planning scheme? Patrick Murphy 01:45:03.257
Yeah, so they're not consistent by, they're the, they form part of the accommodation and the, it's really, it's really, it's a sort of a U-shape that's made up of five pavilions that sort of step down the site, so those buildings, the use of those buildings for a resort is inconsistent with the intent of the, or it's an inconsistent use for the open space recreation zone, and the amount of site coverage in, if you were to look at the amount that's allowed in the open space zone, 10% site cover, about 1500 square metres, it would exceed the amount of site coverage that's allowed, technically, under the zone, as I said before. looked at it from a ground-truthing exercise as to where it was appropriate for that tourist accommodation zone really to be, and hence why we consider it suitable in terms of meeting the requirements under the zone. Frank Wilkie 01:45:57.290
So if I understand correctly, you're saying this is more suitably, would be more suitably zoned as tourist accommodation? Patrick Murphy 01:46:06.470
That land is a consistent use in the tourist accommodation zone, but am I saying that that land would be more suited to be zoned as tourist accommodation? Yes. Well, with the ground-truthing that's being done, yes. Planning scheme amendments could solve that issue? If Council was of a mind to interrogate that further, certainly a planning scheme amendment would... could align that zoning to the 2.5-metre, 2.5-odd unit line. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:45.048
Interesting. Questions? Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 01:46:49.648
Yeah, you commented didn't think there was a lot of science in the determination of the tourist accommodation zone, but looking at the mapping, it's very clear to me that no part of that mapped tourist accommodation zone is underneath the biodiversity overlay. Is that correct? Great. Patrick Murphy 01:47:05.672
If you don't mind, I'll just have a quick look at the mapping to see if I can see that. Sorry, I might have to take it on--- Yeah, take it on those 'cause we're gonna do it. The other aspect other aspect is your comment there that that part of the lot could be considered more suitable for tourist accommodation zone. For the General Committee, can you identify whether we have any other land that we're zoning under the current amendments or under the 2020 amendments where we've put tourist accommodation underneath the biodiversity overlay? Amelia Lorentson 01:47:47.520
Questions? Councillor Wegener? Frank Wilkie 01:47:51.040
I have another question. Sorry, Tom. No, no, no, you go. Yeah, thank you, Patrick. You mentioned that all of the site was open space recreation under the 2006 scheme, is that correct? Yes. So what sort of activities... was envisaged to occur on that site that prompted it to be zoned open space recreation, more tennis courts, more... Well, yes. More well-impacted structures? That's right. Well, the golf course itself is also in the open open space recreation area, so that kind of club activity, that sporting activity. I might have to get clarification whether it was just sort of aligning it with those predominant uses that were on the site, the golf course use. So, perhaps extending the golf course up there, that was... Well, no, no, I was more in terms of just aligning it with the predominant land use that was in that area as opposed to suggesting that the golf course should be up there. Amelia Lorentson 01:48:53.596
Can I just interrupt? Just for the new councillors, questions from the gallery are asked after the table has completed their questions and I will get to you, thank you for putting your hand up. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:49:06.716
Was the open space recreational area, was that set before the master plan was changed and the big chunks sold off to Elysium, or after it the big chunk was sold off. Patrick Murphy 01:49:25.025
I'd have to go back and look at the previous planning schemes and probably the 2016 scheme to understand what designing was and the transition of designing to give you that answer. Tom Wegener 01:49:37.194
Important. A second point, you mentioned the ownership and I kind of missed a beat there. Is it all on the golf course and the clubhouse and everything and the new area? Is that all owned by Patrick Murphy 01:49:52.291
It's all in the same ownership and it all has to be in the same ownership because of a covenant that links the water quality treatment for both lots. Tom Wegener 01:50:06.727
And would it, since it's all in one ownership, would it be impossible for them to move that and put it on the golf course as the Gem Life applicants wanted to do? Patrick Murphy 01:50:22.272
I'm not sure I understand the nature of the question, but, I mean, the applicant has responded to the scheme as it is at the moment in terms of that's where the tourist accommodation zone is and have sought to put the tourist Tom Wegener 01:50:47.457
What do we call it, the open recreation zone. Patrick Murphy 01:50:50.006
Now the golf course is owned open space and as is part of this site. So this development is located in the tourist accommodation zone and it does extend into that open space zone where the tennis courts were. golf course is totally zoned open space recreation and so the applicants in my mind have sought to align as much as possible with with the existing zoning by putting the resort here. To putting it on the golf course, you would ask the question as a planner, why are you putting it on the golf course when you've got part of the site that's zoned through as accommodation? Also noting It would put the resort in close proximity to some of the existing houses that are part Amelia Lorentson 01:51:45.780
A question that was posed by Rhett Duncan in his deputation and it's a question that's been asked a few times and I haven't got an answer yet so I'm going to ask the question if the hotel was existing would council allow a sewerage treatment plan to be built 200 metres from a luxury hotel? Patrick Murphy 01:52:10.948
If you could demonstrate that it wasn't going to have an adverse impact on the hotel then that would be a considerable factor in opening your Amelia Lorentson 01:52:40.600
Clubhouse tweets to the clubhouse. In terms of layout and scale of the application, has there been any change to what was presented to us in 2023? Patrick Murphy 01:52:55.160
So when the application was originally made it was a hundred to address that, yeah, now down to a hundred and six. That was to address the height of that court chair and some movement of the tennis courts. This most recent change, the club change of a hundred and five square metres is the only amendment to the plans. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:17.280
In terms of bush-related risk and consequences, you mentioned is adequate revision. Community race was serious concerns. That was one of the primary concerns from the 450 senators that objected to the application. Again, any changes to the application in front of us that addresses or identifies that the applicant has listened to some of the concerns of the residents? Patrick Murphy 01:53:55.428
We'll answer that, but before I say the full world starts, the submissions that were received, about nearly 390 of them were pro forma. Standard. Yeah, they were all standard and they raised a number of issues and a number of those issues were addressed through the process, such as the tennis courts and the koala habitat trees. terms of bushfire, I thought that you'd maybe talk to... Absolutely, so the application provided a bushfire hazard assessment which was reviewed by a third party on behalf of council. Jessica Phillips 01:54:30.968
The outcome of that bushfire hazard assessment situated the hotel infrastructure in a suitable location and met the separation distances required as part of the State planning policy and as part of that state planning policy there's underlying documents one being the bushfire resilient communities technical reference guide and that provides guidance guidance with regard to things such as evacuation, which I think might be one portion that you were talking about here. So there's two options as far as the SPP is required, the State plan policy. Where evacuation is, we're limited in this situation. At the moment we've got an evacuation plan for the entire area of the Springs and in relation to the Springs there is a procedure in place to provide alternate evacuation routes from the estate if required. So one of those routes will take people straight of those routes will take vehicles straight to Enid Creek Road, the other will take traffic by the Garroween Sports Track and add on to Enid Creek Road. Both routes will only be implemented under the direction of QPS and QFES. In addition to that, the SPP also allows for a safe assembly area. That's what the applicant has provided as far as safe... safe evacuation area to the south of the site to the economy existing buildings and then further evacuation route which would take occupants and users of the site to the golf course outside of the bushfire prone area. area. Patrick Murphy 01:56:18.320
I think there was a lot of concern that if there was a fire that there would be chaos on the roads, that all the occupants of the hotel would gunk in their cars and it would be coming. Jammed and people wouldn't be able to leave. But that's not what's actually proposed. It's proposed that there is a capacity for people to take refuge in some of the other existing buildings, noting that resort drive is between the hazardous vegetation and the buildings, and there is a capacity for firefighting appliances to get in there to defend the space, and that the buildings are suitably located for the separation that vegetation. But, so further into the site are existing buildings which people can go into to seek refuge, but then if that's not adequate they can also go onto the golf course. So that risk of people jumping in their cars Jessica Phillips 01:57:25.884
Traffic. This has included removing overhanging vegetation and laying and packing up asphalt residue. Both access routes do have gates to normal access but are secured with a simple key and lock which can be easily removed. Brian Stockwell 01:57:55.828
Is the model based on the current infrastructure, noting that the block has approximately 80 metres closer, the boundary of the existing sewerage treatment lot is 80 metres further away from the last bond, or closer to this resort than the last bond. Patrick Murphy 01:58:16.488
So the question is, was the ODA modelling done on the existing development or the maximum permissible It was based on some data from 2016, but there was also some older modelling. Actually done on the site. So the applicant's consultant, from reading my report, came back through it again. It does talk about them being Brian Stockwell 01:58:54.980
So can we just get that one clarified because I think that's really important. I'm suggesting that the sewage treatment plant's got lawful use rights to expand and so was our modelling based on the existing infrastructure and treatment processes or for example if new ponds were established close to the south west corner of the lot Amelia Lorentson 01:59:31.800
So, in terms of upgrade, again, raised in the deputation that there's a risk for future plant upgrades because of the proximity of the sewage plant to the proposed development, that any costs in the upgrades would be borne by, or worn by residents. And reference was made to sewage upgrade, which cost increased. in the vicinity of 38 million. I know we had some intense conversation in this application. Can you, just for the new councillors, just run through who pays if there is voter complaints? voter complaints and there is a requirement or a breach of environmental act that requires the sewage plant to upgrade. Who is the cost of a wastewater treatment plant upgrade? Richard MacGillivray 02:00:39.490
Well, I mean, I'll have a chopper. Yeah, so the obligation for compliance for ODA with the permit holder, so in this case UniWater have a number of conditions and their environmental relevant authority and their permit that they can comply with. rests If they're found to be a breach of their conditions and they're not managing the odour correctly as they're required to under that permit, then they can be to make adjustments and changes and modifications to meet those permit requirements. first step if there are issues is their compliance with the current obligations under that permit and if not then that can then trigger an action which may result in further measures to Further measures to be installed to manage those particular impacts that have been created and certainly there is an element that's relevant in terms of urban encroachment and obviously there's a term referred to in the Planning Act around urban encroachment where there are existing facilities facilities that need to be protected so from urban encroachment so that we don't have a situation we get reverse amenity we get new people move into an area and then start complaining about existing infrastructure that's well established obviously in Obviously in this case is where the science comes into it is around testing. Is the current facility as proposed adversely impacting on that? There's two elements of it. Is the permit holder implying with their permit permit obligations. The further issue is whether the urban encroachment piece is creating a situation where the permit holder can't comply with their permit obligations. So that's the two elements that have essentially been raised. And if they are found that they aren't complying, then you need water lifting to undertake those adjustments. And as you go to earlier, there's another similar location where they had to do significant upgrades. However, in this case, obviously, there's been a robust assessment undertaken of both the potential impacts. impacts and hence recommendation has been put forward by officers which obviously, you know, satisfied that it can be addressed. and Amelia Lorentson 02:03:06.716
Deputation also made reference to a new, I don't know whether it's new or not, but Section 391 and implications of Section 391 contravention. Can we get some more information on that? Just to understand that. Yeah. Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 02:03:30.487
If I can perhaps ask what I think I heard previously In another way, if the wastewater treatment plant was required to upgrade, would, and this was approved in its current form, would its proximity to the wastewater treatment plant prohibit Patrick Murphy 02:04:24.085
To consider some of these things that have been put to us today and I do note some of the measurements that were mentioned I would disagree with as well so in terms of the separation of existing buildings from the site. I'm just mindful that we might need a bit more notice or specified questions to respond to there. Frank Wilkie 02:04:47.359
Would you be able to clarify your views on what was heard in the deputation perhaps at the general? There's an opportunity to rebut? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:55.001
Has the applicant met with council officers discussing amending the plans between, you know, last meeting and now? How much contact have you had with the applicant? Patrick Murphy 02:05:10.763
I've had a bit of contact and a bit of discussion around... I think I go back to some of the comments that were made at the initial council meeting around the proposal. They said that they're open to making open to making some changes, but then they've also said they don't want to completely redesign the development. So, you know, I think depending upon what council we're seeking... We probably have to have more understanding of the nature of that, the applicant name as well. So if it's pulling the pull back or something like that, they're probably amenable to that, pulling it away from the treatment plan and pulling the billings I'm not too sure. Frank Wilkie 02:05:58.655
Would it be fair to say that the creation of an appropriately sited five-star accommodation hotel is desirable under the Noosa the Noosa planning scheme and also could help mitigate the demand for short-term accommodation. Patrick Murphy 02:06:16.585
It certainly is a wonderful opportunity for Noosa to have a luxury resort and it does throw your mind We have a lot of people that are seeking to use luxury homes for accommodation. Does an offering such as this lessen that demand? That's the question I'm asking. Richard MacGillivray 02:06:39.115
It's plausible, certainly it's plausible, yes. And it is safe to say that there is a huge shortage for high-end across the whole of South East Queensland, particularly in the Sunshine Coast, and it's an area where there is limited to no availability of that high-end... Patrick Murphy 02:06:55.371
I think it would be fair to say that we want to get this right. Brian Stockwell 02:07:03.141
The link in terms of the Olympics was raised earlier on in your overview. the ambition for the SEQ Olympics in 2032 is to be the first carbon neutral Olympics. Is there any part of this proposal that would contribute to achieving carbon neutrality? Patrick Murphy 02:07:28.151
I'd have to go, they have provided a sustainable... building response. I'd have to go back through that to give you the detailed answer. Frank Wilkie 02:07:37.725
Thank you. And Patrick, one last question for me. Is there any consideration for staff accommodation to be included on site? Patrick Murphy 02:07:45.765
That has not been proposed as part of this development. Frank Wilkie 02:07:56.360
I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 02:07:58.760
We have some questions in the gallery, just checking the tables. Jessica Phillips 02:08:03.200
I'm good. Okay. Councillor Phillips. Thank you. Probably close on from Mayor and Councillor Stockwell's questions around, because Patrick you mentioned around the need for five star this end of the coast. Is there any way council can look at conditions around it always remaining five star? I'm hoping I've questioned this correctly. And we don't have maybe a repeat of cool and quiet. is there, my question is, if the application was successful, is there a way council can impose a condition that it always remains a five star and maybe even that it's always local? always local, not a franchise or something similar to that is hopefully my question. You couldn't condition how it was owned or operated. The compliance would have to come back to the plans and what was provided on the plans. I mean they're seeking an approval for a resort. We don't have a five-star land use within our planning scheme so I would think that would be unreasonable. So they, because of the potential impact on the local road network from this development was referred to the State. Patrick Murphy 02:09:41.660
So they've, they're accepting the application, but as part of their conditions from Yeah. Conditions from the State, they have to have a space available for a courtesy bus, and a management plan for how people are going to be managed around the courtesy bus, so it is nothing that says they actually have to have a courtesy bus, but there is a requirement that they can accommodate it in their parking. Jessica Phillips 02:10:09.527
Is that something we can impose? It is probably something that is worth me speaking with the applicant to get their agreement for a condition in that regard. We will get their comments on it. And then my last point around the current tennis courts there and during, again, if approved during construction, where has the applicant considered the 150-odd young people that play every week and the community Patrick Murphy 02:10:53.430
Courts are going to be on an elevated platform and the construction activity that will be occurring on the site and the kind of vehicles that will be needing to access it at that time and the very close proximity of those tennis courts to the construction area. I can talk to the applicant about how they, you know, what the potential impacts would be and maybe the downtime and what they'd be looking to do with people that do get lessons there and the like in that time. Tara 02:11:19.493
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 02:11:21.293
Two questions. First one's a quick one. Are there any zone changes to this site in the current proposed amendments? No. Thank you. The second one's a bit longer. So we've received over 400 submissions from residents and it kind of feels like they've been almost downplayed or sidelined because of having a pro-format element. element: I think it's reasonable that people who live in Noosa Springs, Elysium, Park Ridge would all share the same concerns and it's quite common for one or two people to put forward a draft submission and share that with others to make the process efficient for people who might be a bit nervous about submitting to council and just help them along the way. So I just want to be sure that those submissions just because they were all similar we're still taking it seriously. the question is do we commonly get that many submissions on a development application and with the changes that have been made to this submission or this application if we were to put this out to public consultation. put this out to public consultation again, do we think we'd get the same concerns or would they have been addressed? Patrick Murphy 02:12:31.551
We certainly don't downplay any submissions whether they're on a platform or otherwise. The report deals with the issues that are raised in the submissions. There's a section which talks about the notification and the submissions that were received. The report itself also addresses a number of those issues. The applicants are asked to provide a response to the submissions which they did and that the application was also amended through the process, so all submissions are considered and provide us valuable So we certainly value those submissions. The question around whether we would get the same number of submissions again, I think it's fair to say a number of the elements that people were concerned about have been addressed and maybe the report would alleviate some of those concerns. I think there's definitely people that are genuinely opposed to the resort. That with the close proximity would certainly make another submission. Amelia Lorentson 02:13:43.329
Good questions Councillor Phillips and Councillor Wilson and as a councillor and we've been through quite a few meetings on this matter, submissions were taken very seriously by the councillors. Have you moved it goes to the general please Madam Chair. Seconded please. I was happy to second and can we move that this conversation continues to the general meeting due to the significance of the matter. Thank you. All in favour please. Thank you. That's unanimous. Okay. Now that's it. Frank Wilkie 02:14:34.780
Great. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:36.100
So there are no reports from loading, no confidential session and I now declare the meeting closed at 11:44. Next meeting will be general meeting. I note the time is 12:30, Monday 17 June. Thank you for those in the gallery. Great conversation. Thank you to the councillors. Thank you, Madam Chair. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
