Planning & Environment Committee, 11 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 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 Deputation: Unitywater’s Rhett Duncan opposed Noosa Springs resort location near STP; childcare deputation withdrawn (Minutes 4.1–4.2; 02:20–12:28).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 00:00.140
I'm sorry, the planning environment meeting, and I declare the meeting open at 9:30. I want to begin firstly with 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 Kabi Kabi people as the Traditional Custodians 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 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 Nicola and Councillor Jess. And we have I think Councillor Finzel? No, she's done stuff. I'd like to please request 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 and have a second. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. No discussion at all in favour. Thank you. Presentations and deputations, I note we have a deputation. Us today by Rhett Duncan on behalf of the order. I welcome Rhett to stand in a front of us. Our single-party movement. Thanks. You. Before you start, I'd just like to remind you, Rhett, that speaking time is limited to 15 minutes and that's quite strict. Thank you. Rhett Duncan 02:21.231
Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for coming here this morning. Uniting water and 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 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 in Noosa Springs, just the proposed location. Which would be too close to the existing Noosa sewerage treatment plant. 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 Unitywater applied for approval. To build a new sewerage treatment plant within 200 metres of established luxury accommodation with significant outdoor recreational facilities within the 2.5 odour unit contour, would Council approve? Sewerage treatment is 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 Unitywater in July 2010. The STP operates 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 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 of the proposed STP augmentation by approximately 300 the proposed Noosa Springs development 400 metres to the west and southwest of the proposed 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. 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 700 metres from the sensitive receptors in the north. In addition, kyoto generating sources were located at the southwest boundary of the STP in order to further maximise from those sensitive receptors to the north 1997 STP was designed with consideration to the 400 metre buffer zones to the then proposed Noosa Springs development. Approved, if 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 unit contour. 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 older complaints. Since the post-1997 upgraded STP. This is largely the result of two things. Unitywater deliberately operating the plant in ways that aim to minimise odour. And therefore impacts on neighbours and the geography and buffer zones provided. While we operate the plant to 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 network events. We also note catchment volumes are increasing, meaning that while within 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 plant will continue to treat more sewage with a widening of the 2.5 odour unit contour. So while it's true the oasis community of permanent residents is located approximately 300 metres to the west of the STP, 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 available protection. You unity will want know, to note that while the proposed conditions have been amended to remove the requirement for all to guests be to 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 how 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. Unity will even want to know. The reference the 2.5 odour unit limit however DESI 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 Protection Act. 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 or material environmental would harm. To take this opportunity to say thank you 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 in prison. So this means any odour complaint made to the regulator will be investigated and could result in action against Unitywater that may lead to prosecution and costly planned modifications. In fact, in light of the new environment legislation, Unitywater would need to consider costly plant modifications before any complaints are received should this development be approved. And for reference, Unitywater 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 as a shareholder of Unitywater would be directly impacted by an investment like this. We don't have a blank checkbook for upgrades. An investment like this would need to be recovered through sewage charges to Noosa customers. Unitywater upgrades its STPs as catchments grow to ensure ongoing compliance. Surge 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. And I remind you, the 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 support this development in this proposed location because it locates new sensitive receptors close to existing sewage treatment operations. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unitywater that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost Unitywater. 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 Unitywater, 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. Unitywater are asking this committee and Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. 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. Brian Stockwell 12:24.412
Thank you, Rhett. Thanks, Rhett. Amelia Lorentson 12:28.848
We have no more deputations. An apology for another deputation that came through early this morning. So we're going to go straight to reporting. Reports for consideration of the committee. And the first report, one, NCU23/0101, application for short-term accommodation at 561 Gympie, Kin Kin road, Kin Kin. Welcome to the desk, Richard and Patrick. Oh, hang on, firstly, are there any conflicts of interest? No conflicts of interest. Can you give us a summary or only Patrick and tara of the report in front of us? Sara Wilson 13:13.794
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 which 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 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:00pm. It 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 the planning scheme to actually be taken into consideration through this current application. Any questions? Frank Wilkie 14:43.166
Yes. Has the applicant been able to prove existing use rights? Sara Wilson 14:48.215
They weren't unable to, which is why they've had to watch the application. Amelia Lorentson 14:56.854
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 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. Any different? If this application came, say, two months after we put out the publication for amendments for. Notice of the amendments. Patrick Murphy 15:52.549
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 16:15.737
Could you talk a bit about the reason why we ask property owners of dwellings prove to existing use rights? Patrick Murphy 16:27.746
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 an existing DA which allows the 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. Tom Wegener 17:10.591
No you go ahead Amelia Lorentson 17:13.328
So in terms of the short-term accommodation is supported in our planning scheme. Visitor accommodation in the hinterland is supported by these conditions. It's got to be low density, small and scaled, can't impact rural activities or amenity. 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 17:46.620
To give you number, a 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 18:01.939
And in terms of strategic intent and outcomes our Noosa Plan and also our tourism strategy, the application falls within what Patrick Murphy 18:17.357
The new scheme has sought to sort of diversify our opportunities within the hinterland area and some survey calls with this scheme at the moment. Amelia Lorentson 18:28.699
Thank you, Tom. You've got some questions. Tom Wegener 18:33.179
So it's. Assessing 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 decision? Patrick Murphy 19:00.073
So you're saying it's a document prepared by Tourism Noosa? It's not part of the planning scheme, so it has no influence. 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 19:21.906
When so says that we want to diversify into the hinterland high dollar tourists, that was reflected in the Tourism Noosa document, but perhaps that was brought in to support the same concept within the planning scheme. Be would that how that works? Patrick Murphy 19:41.546
Sorry, you're suggesting that the document informed the Noosa Plan at the time the 2020 plan was introduced? Tom Wegener 19:49.776
It could be, or because it's quoted in the report. So it's the only, there's all sorts of plans we have out there. We have the Corporate Plan, we have the um uh Housing Strategy plan, but and I was just surprised to see that this plan, the 2017 plan about bringing more business to the hinterland, the tourism plan, why it was so in this report. That, why, I'm asking. We'll just put that on notice then. Richard MacGillivray 20:22.205
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 funding planning scheme amendments are seeking to make some changes there, and that largely relates to your way around that, the housing piece around that STA should be taking up that, housing supply, so it obviously does encourage with the new scheme amendments, but 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 isn't consistent. Sort of activity and obviously impact assess also requires assessment against the entire planning scheme and all of those factors within the planning scheme could be considered as part of this decision. Tom Wegener 21:16.824
Next question is evidence for not disrupting amenity so it I didn't see a study or anything that suggests that would prove or have any weight to show that this would not disturb the amenity because the opposite has happened around the beaches where we 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 evidence here that it will not affect the amenity there's no study that I've seen Patrick Murphy 22:07.902
Supporting this application yeah so in that regard we will look at the site conditions to see where the dwelling is situated in proximity to other dwellings as I said the kind of separation that's afforded and then that would be reflected through the conditions of the approval I think in this case have limited it to 9:00pm. That occupiers of the dwelling for short-term accommodation would be able to be outside. Amelia Lorentson 22:37.776
Metres from this resident and it was the saloon that had no problem with the application using that into 370 metres continuing from where Tom is. In terms 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 immunity, amenity? How do assess that amenity? Patrick Murphy 23:09.793
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 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 23:32.095
Also 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 guests, around, you know, how they'll behave. And the noise that they may or not make during their stay, 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 site boundaries. Patrick Murphy 24:03.708
Layer of that would 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 24:17.630
So, say that person at this time was, what I'm worried about when the STA is out there is once you give the approval, then you have to enforce these 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 assessable decision, wouldn't it? Would be. Okay, well, reason-- I'm just going to speak to this. I'm not going to, you know, obviously, I think that I think that Amelia Lorentson 24:57.344
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 too general, but I would love to hear your position on this. I know you're quite passionate in this space. Tom Wegener 25:19.348
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's 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 is someplace 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 enforcing it, and that's why I'm very, I have a very hard time giving further STA approvals, especially out there in kincan, 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, away. I think there's just a massive problem there in philosophy of the way we do things. But then when it comes to the high value tourist, that's not the case. We've proven that's not actually the case. There's no link, definite link, between high value tourists, which is what the planning team wants, and an STA. And we know that the amenity will be disrupted eventually, it's 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 crisis in Noosa, around the whole Sunshine Coast, and here we're taking two properties 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 people. It's just going exactly the wrong direction. And then, earlier when we'd look at STAs in town, we would say, oh, it's near restaurants, it's near a bus stop, it's near-- right in the middle of where we want to be. That's where 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 conditions, and they'll have to be travelling and so forth. It it's going the opposite direction from where we are with our housing policy. Frank Wilkie 28:10.360
Question. Under the STA approval on the Local Law, the manager needs to be within 30 minutes? Yes. Minutes of the property and to attend if it needs to be-- that's correct. Patrick Murphy 28:27.638
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 of the operation. The bike we've got at the moment. We are finding that calls are made to the hotline and in most instances the issue is resolved at that time. So I just think it's important to clarify that. And also importantly, the calls that we get to the hotline, they're not coming from the inside area. They're coming from the areas which are more populated. And so we do have a number of STAs operating in the rural area at the moment and certainly not getting calls about those. Amelia Lorentson 29:09.503
Could I request for the General Committee, Patrick, would you provide some data regards to complaints made in the 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 support. 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 national management plan with rural tourism and short-term accommodation and housing diversification is part of that puzzle or balance? Richard MacGillivray 29:58.810
I mean I'll just add the comment that obviously with the scheme change that are being proposed and seeking to obviously create reflect the Housing Strategy 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 STA on the site so it does the scheme movement forward is seeking to have a bit of both if you want so to accommodate housing but also the ability for STA is a consistent use in the rural zone 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 with that strategy is moving forward so the scheme is seeking to accommodate both elements so that the tourism economic development element and also to maintain the housing piece Frank Wilkie 31:04.523
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 home stay 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 Amelia Lorentson 31:45.220
Um can you be seated sentiment? To me that's probably the most valuable indicator for me about impacts. Interesting this application had no objections and in fact one person in support. Is that unusual in places like Kin Kin and say other hinterland regions where you find the opposite of what happens if the application is made in a coastal area? Patrick Murphy 32:16.950
Well, wow. You I can mean, you can certainly get a number of objections to short stay applications and we do fine with an application for it under the local law when the community become aware of that. In the coastal area we do receive a number of complaints or submissions about that application but I think in area the responses to notification is probably generally less. But it's good that we've had it, you know, we've been able to provide, to take the effort to provide support for the application to give us a rendered picture. Amelia Lorentson 32:52.822
Can't I don't, it's not well, it's Brian Stockwell 32:55.893
Going to come away from me. Oh, we're basically talking, fellas, yeah. Only their mother can tell them what that is. 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 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 change says you can consider more relevant factors. The report suggested assessment is that while not meeting the acceptable outcome, it meets the performance outcome in terms of amenity and therefore that the four hectares is not a significant issue. Does moving get moving to an impact assessable allow us as Councillors to consider the competing objectives within the strategic outcomes of the scheme between tourism and housing choice, or are we bound by the nature of the performance benchmarks about the particular development? Richard MacGillivray 34:31.564
In fact this legislation allows us to consider the whole scheme 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 important just to come back and reference the comments particularly in the report around the coding principle and the timing of when the application is lodged and into the decision phase which was actually well before the scheme was publicly released by the comment which is when essentially the starting point is 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 scheme amendments however if it's lodged after the amendments have 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 35:39.277
Subsequent question in the medium density residential zone or in the or might be in the eastern beaches code there's a provision about retaining the dominant residential nature of the zone anything is there anything similar that Council could rely on the ground of refusal within the rural zone? Patrick Murphy 36:00.499
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 is. A similar type outcome they would want to refuse or have to change Tom Wegener 36:22.502
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, amenities throughout the town plan, we do not want to disrupt amenity. And it's assumed that our conditions will ensure that amenity is not disrupted. And that is the assumption behind the acceptance of the application. It seems to me that that's the cornerstone. Because amenity is it's the fundamental principle of application. Patrick Murphy 37:10.448
Well I think as Richard referred to earlier there is a limitation on the amount of people that will be staying on the premise and 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, there are factors that lead us towards a reasonable conclusion that the immediate outcomes would be reasonable. Frank Wilkie 37:38.032
So, Council, what do you Councillor Wegener, are you disagreeing with the recommendation and ought it be referred to the general? Tom Wegener 37:44.101
Yeah, I I'd like to have this move to just be referred to the General Committee. Amelia Lorentson 37:51.377
Due to the significance, happy to refer it to the general, but can I request information in terms of how many estates are already in country? 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, how much weight I can understand where this application was made before the draft amendments, but I'd still love to understand what are the repercussions if we did put more weight on the coding principle in this instance? What are ramifications, legal ramifications? I'd also like to understand super. The superseded planning scheme 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. Are the. What happens if we refuse it? So just maybe some information in terms of. Richard MacGillivray 39:12.401
The superseded provision wouldn't apply because we haven't got. Yeah, so essentially the decision is it's not subject to any superseded. So if Council were to not support the proposal, the applicant would have appeal rights regarding the decision. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 39:32.648
Any more information for a General Committee. Thanks. Tom Wegener 39:37.124
We have one more to go through. Sorry. Frank Wilkie 39:41.178
Councillor Wegener disagrees with the recommendation. Yes. We only have three choices. Brian Stockwell 39:48.038
So I'd like to-- 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. So that if you writing are a report rather than just providing information, if you could include that would be good. Otherwise I'll just add it, if there's an approval motion going forward. Amelia Lorentson 40:24.340
All right. Great. Okay, so could I have a mover please that be moved to the General Committee due to the significance of the matter. Councillor Wegener, a seconder please. Councillor Stockwell and all in favour. Thank you. So 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. MCU NCVU MCVU 24/0003 development application for Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba road, Cootharaba. And tara, Patrick, Richard, summary again, tara, if you can give us give a us an idea or a summary of the application in front of us. Sara Wilson 41:15.340
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, for due to the lot size, so it's 3.16 hectares, so it doesn't meet the four hectare threshold to make it code-assessable. No submissions were received for this one. It's very small in scale. A two bedroom dwelling with four people on site. It's consistent as a short-term in the rural zone under current schemes. There's a recommendation for approval, which includes all of our standard conditions regarding the number of people on site, bedrooms limited, outdoor area. Use limited to 9:00pm. So in terms of this particular application, again, very similar to the previous. Amelia Lorentson 42:23.124
So I'll wait for Councillor Wilkie to come back. Any questions, firstly, from the table, Councillor Wegener? Wegener, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 42:33.442
If this was refused, they would still be able to apply for the four times at 60 days a year. And that would be an easy application, I would suspect. If it's their principal place of residence. Amelia Lorentson 42:47.439
Right. Is it an investment or is it. I would have to consider that. I'm not the sure I have that information. Patrick Murphy 42:56.067
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. Tom Wegener 43:11.969
One big thing that concerns me is the long road in there. And my apologies for misstating. I'm saying that nothing happened. But back what on is, say, the 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 hotline 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 43:48.643
Um if it was occurring at night, we wouldn't have officers that we would 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 a request to contact the police, but I think it would be, we 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 we receive, we have to make sure that we're safe, all the systems are out there. Tom Wegener 44:28.624
If it was, if it wasn't an STA, and there was a party there, and reducing amenity, they would call the police, the 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 44:57.403
Two elements as there, you're right, 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 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 areas or commercial areas or the like if there's concern from residents. So they'll act. On those issues as well. Tom Wegener 45:35.136
So if there's eight cars there, you know, quite often, and it's not a police matter, the police would say, well, but it is a big deal to the amenity of the people. So then our local laws officers would be, you know, it would be their obligation to go in and enforce the conditions. Patrick Murphy 45:52.435
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, um, are you saying if there was eight cars full of people that were partying there? Tom Wegener 46:09.006
Full of, you know, partying there, but it's not a police issue yet. Amelia Lorentson 46:12.991
Isn't it section 260 of the Planning Act prohibits party houses and that would probably fit within that definition. So, um, that's, probably better. Tom Wegener 46:24.525
Or, lighting, you I don't need, to. I guess we are taking on responsibilities when we make, when we give it the STA approval and we put conditions on. We are accepting 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 enforce. Is that right? Yeah. The question is, do we take on more responsibility as Noosa Council when we approve an STA with conditions? Patrick Murphy 47:02.152
Any approval that we issue with conditions, every time we issue an approval, we take on that responsibility, whether it be for an industrial. Use or a restaurant or whatever it might be, ultimately we are responsible for enforcing those conditions. So, it's part of what we do. Amelia Lorentson 47:21.888
Sorry, can I just add. This is 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 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 47:46.710
Obviously I have an issue with taking on more responsibilities that increase the pressures upon our own staff to do their jobs. Richard MacGillivray 47:54.693
And to that point, just to add 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 the point that every approval that's got conditions adds an extra impost 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 detected. Frank Wilkie 48:31.486
Thank you Richard. Councillor Wilkie? Has there been any instance incidents of complaint about this property being illegally used as a short-term accommodation property? Not that I'm aware of. 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 rule of setting? That's correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 48:57.606
Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 48:58.688
Properties so I note the property is 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 is through a high bushfire hazard area and that the short-term use by visitors may be from 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. There anything is there anything should in our scheme which would allow us to consider higher levels of consideration higher levels of bushfire as a result of, as Councillor Wegener suggested, along driveways through a high bush fire area? Patrick Murphy 49:53.205
I'd like to come back to you on the Council level of the scheme with and some of the discussions we'll watch that. Amelia Lorentson 50:00.058
The with condition 22 actually has bush fire management as one of the conditions, Councillor Stockwell. It references an accessible dam swimming pool water tank in addition to day water supply with an on-site water 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. Brian Stockwell 50:26.701
That's probably enough to protect but as we know the severity of bushfires these days generally the advice is to get out. Looking where the dominant remnant vegetation is it's all to the north so via the other side many there's a road. I'm just thinking is that something we should be thinking about in this case in that you're introducing a use where the yeah they may not know the local situation it may have an impact. Amelia Lorentson 50:56.270
So maybe a condition in terms of evacuation process might or I'm not sure if that's captured under bushfire management it's not specific. Spelled out, but maybe spelled it out a little bit. Perhaps we could get some further information for the Councillors. Any further questions around the table? We've got a question, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 51:20.159
It's 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 where 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. Tom Wegener 52:04.826
That is interesting. Many people, you know, have an STA and they go there and is there an obligation to have a dog fence area? Patrick Murphy 52:19.126
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 of the approval that we did out there. It did address cats and dogs through those conditions. So we'll present that to you at the General Committee. Amelia Lorentson 52:42.390
Councillor Nicola. Councillor Nicola, Councillor Jess, any questions? No. Just a thought bubble and a note, probably not a question, so again I ask that everyone just bear with me. Thinking we're a prudent approving and spending a lot of money with our trail, our upgrades. We had events that are going out the juro out which are attracting thousands and of people. We're sitting in the space with Destination Management Plan where dispersal is part of the solution and I don't know where I'm going with 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 are in 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 trail vans, 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 I'm going to be thinking about is 60 days, is that going to be enough? And 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 54:25.087
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, it needs to be their primary place of property. So they're away for, you know, the 60 days per year and then they can STA it. Obviously in this case, what it is that they don't live on site. So it's not their primary. Amelia Lorentson 54:47.262
So it's not. Principal. Established there? Patrick Murphy 54:49.300
Yeah. So that's the any only further questions on the table? Amelia Lorentson 55:08.053
Further questions on the great discussion and we'll continue at the General Committee. Yeah. Can I move that the matter is moved to General Committee due to the significance of the matter? Any thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded. Councillor Wegener. Please. Look, I Frank Wilkie 55:29.867
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 set world community sentiment and scrutiny around each and every short-term accommodation property that this Council approves. Um, that community concern is reflected also in the amendments which will ensure that in future in order for any sort of short-term accommodation to be approved in the rural and residential areas it has to be home hosted so that it's not taking away a permanent place of residence but and it'll be on site managed short-term accommodation and for the reasons that were discussed here it is a balance because we do have a we're aspiring to create a national class some say even a world-class network eventually out in the hinterland and we do need accommodation for mountain bikers, hikers, runners, equestrians to stay in if they wanted to access that trail network a 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 assessed this application under the current settings of the Noosa planning scheme. You've done that diligently. We've you've taken into account amenity. Thank you for your work. Amelia Lorentson 57:04.645
Councillor, thank you and thank you for staying with us. Really tricky one. 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. Thank you which is, very much. N MCU 220094, 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 an overview. Nadine Gordon 57:54.440
Okay, thank you. Good morning, Councillors. About a development application for a childcare centre out at Hofmann Drive for 96 children and 17 staff. 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 4 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. Slightly move the boundary eastward and slightly down by 2 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 division a sub approval back in 2018 which created 23 lots for the Noosa Civic area. The subdivision application was quite a protracted application and ended up in appeal where there was a negotiated outcome which will address the 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 in some instances doing well and other needs a little bit of work. The site is located is zoned under the Noosa Plan major centre and has a business park precinct. This zoning and is envisaging employment and commercial uses. The proposed childcare centre isn't actually is an inconsistent and impact assessable use in this zone and precinct. A childcare centre notably is a consistent. Use in the 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 a couple of other sort minor aspects as well. The bio-basin which is in the north-western corner, 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 by recommended. Staff not to be supported Amelia Lorentson 01:00:54.147
Thank you Nadine. I'm just going to ask the first question. In terms of the appeal settlement of the negotiated outcome between Council and the applicant back in 20, 20, 19, 20, 20, is an appeal settlement final and binding? The, it was, yes it is. Patrick Murphy 01:01:18.331
It is and, but it can be subject to an application to make a change to the approval. Yeah, so, 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. Instances where it's a code-assessable application, like the reconfiguration, a minor change to conditions or lay out of that approval can be assessed by Council. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:52.602
Just questions? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:54.001
Yeah, just one for clarification. The artist impression won. One is looking from the south west and I presume bestering the vista includes the initial, that's the pathway off the site. Sorry, is that in the attachments or is that in? No. Artist impression, sorry, I've only got a. Nadine Gordon 01:02:22.777
That's one, you got it. 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 the bio-basin is. Brian Stockwell 01:02:33.470
So where they've got a seat is actually where the bio-basin is. And in your report you said there's a 700 millimetre drop into the bio-basin? Millimetre drop into the bio-basin? Yeah. 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 artists' impression 3 three, that vantage point, that's the one with the wooden deck and the children. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:06.231
Excuse me, can we have that up on screen, please? It's page five of the first attachment one. Brian Stockwell 01:03:25.518
One looking east. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:28.173
Yes, it's that one, okay. Attachment one? Page five. Brian Stockwell 01:03:39.950
It's probably all. Yeah, yeah. Next, keep going. Next one, this Nadine Gordon 01:03:45.919
I believe this is at the back of the site. It's actually the back of the site looking towards. Brian Stockwell 01:03:52.629
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. So that's the entrance, yeah. So if you look at site plan 3D. That's along Hofmann Drive. Yes, looking back. Looking to the 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. 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? Nadine Gordon 01:04:43.573
Yes. So they have a four metre landscaped, dense landscaped area. Brian Stockwell 01:04:48.798
And at the moment the canopy trees in that planting appears there's to have failed and mainly just small loess shrubs and a few like I think Tyler clissman, salignus or melaleuca's that have Nadine Gordon 01:05:00.841
But we understand that might have just been the planting. I don't think it, we don't think it's deliberate. I think just some parts have thrived and some parts haven't. I think just some parts Frank Wilkie 01:05:09.635
Question. Site two, figure two site plan, an attachment one. Could you just, I'm having trouble. Having reading that on a small screen. You point out where the 10 metre buffer is meant to be? Where the green is. Nadine Gordon 01:05:27.356
So that's, this is Hofmann Drive here, Hofmann Drive. Let me see the whole thing, please. Oh, no, that way. Brian Stockwell 01:05:37.399
Yeah, there. Something's happened. Thank Nadine Gordon 01:05:49.301
So this is Hofmann Drive, Council pathway here, the HOF is here, Council pathway. This is where the bio-retention basins is, driveway. That point there is about ten something, and that's the ten metre setback, and that's a four metre setback here. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:08.429
Four metres, so ten metres to that point. Frank Wilkie 01:06:13.177
Where so ideally should at about ten that metres. Nadine Gordon 01:06:17.097
Metre. So so ten metre landscaping of what's existing and what's approved should go to that area, Frank Wilkie 01:06:22.508
And this is all play area that they're wanting to utilise. So they need it Nadine Gordon 01:06:27.813
As flat area, whereas this is all to be densely planted out with trees and understory species. Frank Wilkie 01:06:34.059
Is that where some of the planning is to follow? Yes. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:36.282
Yeah, yeah, Well, they're premature. Yes. Immature. Can yeah. You outline the reasons why the applicant is submitting these 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. Can you fill us in? Nadine Gordon 01:07:07.821
Yes, so we have been um 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 of financial viability of a centre you need up around that hundred 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 is 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 greatest setback but that wasn't part of their options. Patrick Murphy 01:08:17.525
We'd certainly like to see a Childcare centre. In overall development of the Noosa Civic, noting that it is a consistent use in the visit and 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 in they've gone the with knowledge that it needed to have that landscaping so they're trying to fit this use on the site with those constraints. There is an application at the moment that Council is assessing for the Village Mixed Use Zone so there's no development that has occurred there at this point and certainly they're intending to them develop in the future. It's an opportunity for them to look at their development in the visit mixed use zone to see whether that can accommodate issues. Questions? Frank Wilkie 01:09:18.603
Is there the capacity to fit 96 child a 96 child childcare centre in the mixed use area? Is there a lot of sufficient size to allow the open space required? Nadine Gordon 01:09:30.756
Not in the current, so we've got the proposal in with us at the been moment. We've gone through the information request for the site to the north, the village 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 01:09:51.642
It is a four hectare lot. It's a four hectare lot? Yes. That they're seeking to develop for the city of mixed use. So there is a lot of space available. Frank Wilkie 01:10:00.352
But the way they've configured it at the moment, something would have to come out to fit a child. Yes, that's right. But if that was done, would a childcare centre fit in there of this size? Patrick Murphy 01:10:11.367
Oh, as Patrick said, it's 4,000 square metres. Yes. Four hectares. Sorry, four hectares. Yes. That's 40,000 square metres. Yes. And the size? About two and 2,500. Brian Stockwell 01:10:32.059
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, the. 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, the bio-retention basins can only go there and a driveway. So if we say forgo the 10 metres to the west of the driveway, looking at a fairly small area to meet the current scheme requirements in terms of 10 metres. Is that 15, 20 metres by 6 metres? So about 120. So the other option, as you say is rather than going out to meet you could go extend the block in a different direction and get that set back. Nadine Gordon 01:11:35.552
Noting that the Village Mixed Use site to the north, the application that has come in has got an area that's currently undeveloped on that Village Mixed Use site as well. At the rear of the site? At the rear, yeah. So they haven't got any plans for that as of yet, or that we've seen. Amelia Lorentson 01:11:54.577
And Dean, so I'm going through my head about Childcare 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 Childcare centre. And I know that there's a certain number where it's just not economically viable to run a Childcare centre, but can I understand what that number is? I can't tell you yet. Nadine Gordon 01:12:23.763
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 01:12:35.309
And it's not really a planning consideration. I 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 meeting a planning scheme. Whether it's a viable project, because I guess that comes down to what level of profit margin you want to make out of a project. So yeah, I guess that's what we've just put the question. And hasn't it been pointed out, we've been seeking to try and negotiate to get them to reduce the scale and the scale or modify the layout to try and get that buffer to the 10 metres which is 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 the scale say 80 then that would potentially shrink the building slightly and may provide that sufficient space to get the buffer to the 10 metres but obviously they're not seeking to do that. The other option is with they're able to modify the lockdown to provide them that extra bit of space and land to cater for that. Noting that they will be seeking to adjust the boundaries. 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 as we are able to take a little bit more of that extra land off the lot to the east to pay for the extra space. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:10.343
So Richard, the two-metre- buffer, that's non-negotiable from what I'm listening to. Our perspective. From your perspective. And the social outcomes don't override the scripted nature of the plan because there are other options to 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. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:14:45.699
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 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 area where 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 the Noosa feel. So is that right? So that, the buffers are really important for our Noosa feel that we're, wanting to adhere to. Nadine Gordon 01:15:28.615
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 much pushed for that landscape buffer to be provided. Noting that it's not just for this site, that it goes to the sites next door and the innovations iron further to the south as well. Tom Wegener 01:15:49.412
So that's consistent with the aquatic centre and that area there. Patrick Murphy 01:15:54.117
Noosa's certainly established about having built forms in a vegetated environment. That the vegetation is a very dominant element and not the built form. And, you know, when Noosa Civic was created, they the open space covenants or areas around the site to buffer so that you 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 reflecting reflective of that long-held intent. Frank Wilkie 01:16:27.518
Can you I'm sorry, Matt. No, you go. You talk about the car parking provisions on site and are they adequate or not? Nadine Gordon 01:16:35.559
We had, they're slightly under, but we did have Stuart Holland, who we use expensively and he's been used in a lot of the and he's very familiar with the pacific and there's been a party to a lot of council's appeals. He reviewed the car parking and had to go back twice, I think, once to them and he was satisfied that the numbers would be sufficient for the proposal and the layout. There are the, there's the bike parking, push bike parking. Which is where? Frank Wilkie 01:17:09.033
I apologise, my screen is too small for me. No, that's alright. I don't understand a lot of these elements. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:25.256
It's in front of those four here. Nadine Gordon 01:17:27.844
The bike parking, so this is a pathway. It's all in here. That's the bicycle parking. I have a police car parked over here. Hearing. The tandem ones, so their scheme. Yes, that's correct. That's what our planning scheme requires or allows. Okay, allows for stuff to potentially be parked in at times. By visitor cards. 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. Frank Wilkie 01:18:12.252
Okay, just interesting. If a staff member, 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 01:18:27.008
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 be of benefit to him and potentially, you know, we might reach a win- situation. Have we passed that point of mediation or is there still opportunity to work with the applicant? Nadine Gordon 01:19:02.879
We've been, through the whole process, we have indicated that we, you know, 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 setback. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:19.180
Because it would have changed, I think, you know, there might have been some changes. Nadine Gordon 01:19:23.877
They indicated no, but a decision hasn't been made, so we can go back to the applicant. Amelia Lorentson 01:19:30.734
It has been extended until this round of meetings, I can ask. That's about all I can do. That would be great, Nadine, because I think the sentiment is from Madison think the sentiment is Thomas, all Councillors, is that we love the Childcare centre, but it's again got to work within, you know, the parameters of the Noosa Plan and community expectations. If that's what Councillors would. Can I throw that at the table, maybe a discussion for the General Committee, but just to go back to the applicant to see if there's any appetite to. Frank Wilkie 01:20:13.474
Well, I think that's implicit that we always outcome, want a but I think we can't can condition throw that at the table, maybe a discussion for the General Committee, that but I think at we. This. Can I condition that at this. No, no. The only recommendations we can make here is to move it forward to the General Committee because of the significance of the issue, and we can condition that recommendation from the general. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:37.110
Or we can just ask the applicant between now and the General Committee if they have any appetite to just consider some of the issues that we discussed here today. Frank Wilkie 01:20:50.320
It takes a refusal to send a message. That would be serious. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:56.825
Thank you. I can do that. So I'm going to move that we move the application to the General Committee again due to the significance of the matter. A it please. It. I'll move it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie, seconder, Councillor Wegener. Brian Stockwell 01:21:11.095
Just before you do. Oh 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 indy creek component of the Noosa Business Centre. Just measuring it off, it appears like 10 metres is the tree cover in there, plus there's also, in that case, it is 10 metres. Tom Wegener 01:21:36.943
Before we vote on it, we should probably ask the fellow Councillors. Amelia Lorentson 01:21:40.231
They haven't indicated they wanted to speak, so, oh, Councillor Jess? You're allowed to ask questions, yeah. Jessica Phillips 01:21:47.332
No, not to speak. Always nice to meet that's right. 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 apple berries and little lambs nearby. However, they're both at capacity. Little lambs feeds Good Shepherd. Apple berries is more with government subsidy. Is there those things taken into consideration? Around we would need a childcare in the area, given that we know there's going to be more people, workers. Nadine Gordon 01:22:36.671
That area in the future, so. No, a needs assessment hasn't been undertaken, but we know that the planning scheme is supported with a childcare centre in the Village Mixed Use sign to the north. Not this way. And not this side, so there is the capacity to have a childcare centre in that locality. Jessica Phillips 01:22:56.263
Okay, but we don't know if, I think there was something you said, if there isn't, Nadine Gordon 01:23:00.375
There's space there, but they haven't. The current design doesn't facilitate a childcare centre in that village mixed mixview. Use zone application. Patrick Murphy 01:23:10.023
We've had this application for what, 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 visitor mixed use. We didn't know what was happening there. That site been cleared at this stage. No, the visitor mixed use hasn't. Was, yeah, so as things have evolved, probably we've become a bit more informed of their capacity to develop that site and their intent to develop that site. We see that there's a good opportunity for them to align the development there with the intended uses. Nadine Gordon 01:23:50.391
Application we've got in, so the village mix used to say that big, and the current application proposal only comes to 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 zone for this use. Jessica Phillips 01:24:12.413
I guess, yeah, and also just with assessments of this, I start thinking of like the transport around the area if all of a sudden we childcare in that area 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 refusal of this as well? Again, I think that comes back to our basic Nadine Gordon 01:24:35.395
Premise this 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 it would be great to have a childcare centre within the precinct, we support that, but again this site, this development proposal hasn't quite got there for us Jessica Phillips 01:24:57.632
And my last question I guess potentially around that 10 metre buffer is childcare, I look at the operational perspective of that, they're obviously wanting outdoor play because we want our kids outdoors, is that, do you believe, is that why they're not willing to move on that area? Yes. Because they want outdoor play. That's correct, yeah, they need that outdoor play area out there. Of course yeah okay, Amelia Lorentson 01:25:19.871
Thank you. Councillor Nicola. And can I remind Councillors in the you have any questions, please raise your hand and I'll ask. Thank you. Yes. Okay, so all in favour, please. Thank you. Great, so let's move to the next matter on the agenda. NCU160070.01, application for a minor change to development approval for a Material Change of Use of premises, commercial business type 3, VET at 69 Mary Street in Noosaville welcome back tara can you give us a summary of the application in front of us Sara Wilson 01:26:10.924
So there was an approval issue in 2016 for the vet on the corner of Mary and Rita street the applicant has lodged a minor change to that existing approval the internal GFA of the VET. So they're looking to go from 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. There the applicant has actually requested to enter into an infrastructure agreement to pay contributions in lieu of one additional on-site car park that's required, so the original approval required 10 car parks, they provided 11. Current application requires 12 to be provided, so with the current design and 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 perspective. So, the recommendation is to approve the proposal and enter into an infrastructure agreement with the applicant to provide contributions. We've got questions. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:27.875
Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener? No questions? From the gallery? Do we know how busy the- Sorry, Councillor Stockwell, please. Brian Stockwell 01:27:38.681
Yes, yeah, I'll just move the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 01:27:41.224
I'll second it. Great. And questions, Councillor Wilkie? Question. Frank Wilkie 01:27:44.670
How busy is this vet clinic? Don't you suggest that they're doing a thriving business if they're wanting to expand? Sara Wilson 01:27:49.837
I believe so, yes. So I don't think it's to increase demand, I think it's just to fit what they're currently operating at. Yeah, to accommodate current demand. 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 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 01:28:14.461
So there's 11 there, 12's required. Have you ever seen a car parked for? Sara Wilson 01:28:20.468
I've not been out there enough to comment on that, but believe it would be for probably the pick-ups and the drop-offs, but the applicant hasn't really given any indication about that. Amelia Lorentson 01:28:32.113
Tyra, I do visit the kink, or should I say my dog, my labrador Piper does, not me, and I've never seen a car park for, I think there's only 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 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 start with just an 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 okay. Patrick Murphy 01:29:54.817
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 it's brought in a and club use through the most recent other change to the application. I've also got Will Lowe here at the table. He's our senior Environmental 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. 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 the proposal plans, specifically page 3, just so I can maybe talk to the development. I'll let you bring that up. Proposal plans, attachment six. 6. And then the page 3. This is a site plan and it shows the split zoning that's applied to the site and it also has the 2.5. Odour unit line and the site under the previous planning scheme was all open space recreation. That's the 2006 scheme. And when the implementation or the design of the scheme, it was identified that the park ridge development, which was intended to be a resort facility, didn't eventuate as such. The approval was a multiple. Dwelling approval and allowed for either permanents or short-term residents and the take up has been primarily permanent residents. So that, opportunity or that preference that was part of the master planning for this area wasn't realised. And so the new scheme address that by applying a Tourism Accommodation Zone to this part of the site was probably quite opportunistic, really, because at that time, we didn't 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 in this location. The reason for the split zoning was to create a buffer between the sewage treatment plant and the resort and also I think to 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 2.50 unit line shows that part of that zoning has allowed for tourist accommodation zoning within 2.50 unit line. So, 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. So, 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 buffer. So, the applicant has provided an odour 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 2.50 unit line to determine that area where it's appropriate for the development to occur. The buildings are fully contained outside of the odour 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 you know all located outside of that area. There is conditions that are 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 vigorous assessment of assesment the odour through the course of the assessment. Unitywater 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 the suitability of the siting. Again no, but no science has been provided by Unitywater in the assessment of the suitability. That science was done by the applicant and reviewed by consultant. And found it and it was verified? And supported the location of the buildings and with conditions how the outdoor areas are used. Frank Wilkie 01:35:39.316
Your consultant is Otis Becker. An odour specialist? Amelia Lorentson 01:35:42.313
Excuse me Councillor Wilkie, can I ask that we ask questions after the overview please? Patrick Murphy 01:35:48.143
Yes, so ask as we go? I mean I don't mind. Amelia Lorentson 01:35:53.057
Thank you. Agree to that. Sorry, informal meetings. Sorry, Joe. Patrick Murphy 01:35:57.269
So yes, the expert was an odour expert. Thank you. 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 needs to be assessed through this and odour was the primary matter. 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 level of the site, they removed a 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 height limit. The Tourism Accommodation Zone has a 12 metre height limit so the majority of the built form in the open space area is under the eight metre height limit. There are parts that do go above the height limit. To the roof form. There's some setback issues in terms of the double storey car park which is a new storey above the existing car western park on boundary. That's set back 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. 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 considered reasonable similar to one of the setback variations to the tennis courts. There's meant to be a 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 it was only proposed to have three tennis courts and they were sited in an area that identified as core koala 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 core koala habitat area. We were not supportive of that so they've moved the tennis courts to a location going to be sited above. Parking and we now retain the vegetation that's mapped as core koala habitat and there is a setback variation to the eastern boundary for the top-most 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 Tourism 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 it's right on the threshold I think it's a couple hundred metres under what's allowed if you were to apply sorry that under both of the zonings, but that the amount that's in the open space area is more than what we normally be allowed in the open space area again that came back to our ground truthing and determining what was the reasonable area for tourist accommodation to occur on the site so mentality sort of that we've applied there. Are a number of reports that were provided with the application traffic car parking bushfire water quality quantity they've been all been reviewed by external consultants and found to be adequate car parking adequate bushfire measures in terms of the setbacks of the buildings that has to do with vegetation and the capacity for occupiers of the buildings to take refuge in some of the other 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 six 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 through? 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 glossy feed trees I think you want to cover it and sorry I should and so to go back to that that's was the original report that was put to Council back in July officer recommendations. 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 Committee it didn't get to the Ordinary Meeting because they haven't been stopped the clock when the clock 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 club clubhouse is proposed to be modified with an additional 105 square metres of GSA and some internal rearrangements because that was bringing a new use into the application it was another change it took it back to the beginning of the process the 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 voted 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 would refer to Amelia Lorentson 01:43:31.991
Thank you Patrick. Questions? Frank Wilkie 01:43:39.909
Thank you Madam Chair. We heard during the deputation that the supreme court of sensitive receptors would be affected by over from the serious treatment plate. Is that referring to, a sensitive receptor, would that be anyone, considered in any person a pool or in sorry, on this side of the, zone of life, Patrick Murphy 01:44:11.954
Is that what it's meant by? Well, those, the potential for-- sensitive receptors in person, is that right? Frank Wilkie 01:44:19.896
Yeah, that's right. So any person who could be on this side of the road line could potentially be affected by it. Patrick Murphy 01:44:27.561
That's right. And that's, and there is recommendation for the use of those, the times that area can be used, that it was put forward by our consulting expert, to demonstrate that if the those areas we use at that time that it would be suitable and make the threshold for not causing humidity impacts. Frank Wilkie 01:44:51.002
So all this green area is open space rec? That's correct. Explain what sort of structures these are in the open space rec zone and whether they're consistent planning scheme? Patrick Murphy 01:45:03.599
Yeah, so they're not consistent, they form part of the accommodation and it's really, it's a of a U-shape they form part of the accommodation and it's really, it's a sort 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 of site coverage in amount if you were to look at the amount that's allowed in the open space zone, 10% site cover, that 1500 square metres, it would exceed the amount of site coverage allowed, technically, under the zone, as I said looked at it from a ground-truthing exercise as to where it was appropriate for that Tourism Accommodation Zone, really, to be, and hence why we consider it suitable in terms of meeting the requirements under the zone. Frank Wilkie 01:45:57.833
So, if I have secretary hussain, this is more suitably, would be more suitably zoned as tourist accommodation. Patrick Murphy 01:46:06.932
That land is a consistent use in the Tourism Accommodation Zone, but, are you, am I saying that land would be more suited to be zoned as tourist accommodation? Done, yes well, yes. With the ground truth that's and what do you, planning scheme amendments could solve that issue? If Council was of a mind to interrogate that further, certainly would, you know, planning scheme and then we could align that. Zoning to the 2.5 metre, 2.5 unit line. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:46:46.195
Interesting. Questions? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:46:50.512
Yeah, you commented that you didn't think there was a lot of science in the determination of the Tourism Accommodation Zone, but looking at the mapping, it's very clear to me that no part of that map Tourism Accommodation Zone is underneath the biodiversity overlay. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:47:06.710
You don't mind, I'll just have a quick look at the mapping to see if I can see that. Brian Stockwell 01:47:16.548
Yeah, take it on notes because we're going to do it. The other aspect your comment there that part of the lot could be considered more suitable for Tourism Accommodation Zone. For a General Committee, can you identify whether we have any other land that we're are zoning under the current amendments or under the 2020 amendments where we've put tourist accommodation underneath the biodiversity overlay? Amelia Lorentson 01:47:48.256
Questions? Councillor Wegener? Frank Wilkie 01:47:51.641
I have another question. No, you go. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:53.543
Sorry, Tom. Tom Wegener 01:47:54.124
No, no, no, you go. Frank Wilkie 01:47:55.366
Yeah, thank you, Patrick. You mentioned that all of the site was open space recreation under a 2006 schemes. Is that correct? Yes. So what sort of, activities, what, was envisaged to occur on that site that prompted it to be zoned open space recreation? More tennis courts, more? Patrick Murphy 01:48:16.771
Well, yes. That's right. The golf course itself is also in the 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 primarily. Ball shoes primarily sure, perhaps extending the golf course up there, that was part of it. 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 01:48:54.441
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 01:49:06.636
So, was the open space recreation area. Was that set before the master plan was changed and the big chunk sold off to Elysium or after it was the big chunk was sold off? Patrick Murphy 01:49:25.650
I'd have to go back into the previous planning schemes and probably pre the 2016 to understand what designing was and the transition of designing to give you that answer. Tom Wegener 01:49:37.905
To me that's important. A second part, you mentioned 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 the same? Patrick Murphy 01:49:52.858
It's all the same ownership and it all has to be in the same ownership because a covenant that links the water quality treatment for both lots Tom Wegener 01:50:06.029
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 that applicants wanted to do? Patrick Murphy 01:50:20.145
I'm not sure I understand the nature of the question, but the applicant has responded to the scheme as it is at the moment. Tom Wegener 01:50:44.406
The, what do we call it, the open recreation. Zone. Patrick Murphy 01:50:50.788
Now the golf course is owned open space and as is part of the site so this development is located in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. It does extend into that open space zone where the tennis courts were. The golf course is totally zoned open space recreation and so the applicants in my mind have sought to align as much as possible 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 tourist accommodation? Also noting that it would put the reserve the resort in close proximity to some of the existing houses as part of this development. Amelia Lorentson 01:51:46.771
A question that was posed by Rhett Duncan in his deputation 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 sewage treatment plant to be built 200 metres from a luxury hotel? Patrick Murphy 01:52:11.419
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 mind to support it. Amelia Lorentson 01:52:24.650
That would be an immediate issue that would have to be approved and disproved. That's right. And in this case we're sort of doing the opposite. Okay. The application in front of us, Patrick, other than of the clubhouse tweets to the clubhouse, in terms of layout of scale of the application, has there been any change to what was presented to us in 2023? Patrick Murphy 01:52:55.772
So when the application was originally made, it was 112, to address that, yeah, now down to 106. That was to address the height of that share and some movement of the tennis courts. This most recent change, the of 105 square metres is the only amendment to the plans. Amelia Lorentson 01:53:18.473
In terms of bush related risk and consequences, you mentioned is adequate revision. Community raised some serious concerns. That was one of the primary concerns from the 450 signatories that objected to the application. Again, any changes to the application in front that addresses or identifies that the applicant has listened to some of the concerns of the residents. Patrick Murphy 01:53:55.878
We'll answer that, but before I say the full world starts, the submissions that were received, three nearly hundred 390 and ninety pro of them were forma. 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 habitat trees. In terms of bushfire, I thought you'd maybe talk to. Absolutely. Frank Wilkie 01:54:23.681
So the application provided a bushfire hazard assessment which was Will Lowe 01:54:27.967
Reviewed by a third party on behalf of application provided a bushfire hazard assessment which was Council. 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. As part of state planning that policy there's underlying documents one being bushfire resilient communities technical reference guide and that provides 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 in as far as the SPP is required state planning policy where evacuation your wife is. Where evacuation is over, but 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 the springs there is a procedure alternative evacuation routes from the estate if required. So one of those routes will take vehicles straight to Eenie Creek Road and the other will take traffic by the garameen sports track and out onto Eenie Creek Road. Both routes will 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 as far as safe evacuation area to the south of the site to one of the 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. Patrick Murphy 01:56:16.247
I think the 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 in would their cars and it would become jammed I think 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 the 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 from 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 and creating that gridlock is being mitigated. Through that process. Will Lowe 01:57:19.443
Further I'll add, the emergency routes out of the estate have been improved to provide some greater confidence in their capacity to handle 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 Frank Wilkie 01:57:39.967
Simple key in the lock which can be used to provide access in an emergency. Amelia Lorentson 01:57:46.694
We've got further questions? Councillor Stockwell, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:57:49.866
Apologies, I haven't I read really read reports the I was I you in can tell me. The odour assessment is the model based on the current infrastructure, noting that the block has approximately 80 metres closer to the boundary of the existing sewerage treatment lot is 80 metres further away from the last pond or closer to this resort than the last pond so the question is was the odour modelling done on the existing development or the maximum permissible development of the sewerage treatment plant? Patrick Murphy 01:58:26.015
It was based on some data from 2016 but there was also some odour modelling, actually done on the site so the applicants consultant from reading my report came back through it again it does talk about them being out on the site and taking samples of the odour concentrations. Brian Stockwell 01:58:56.119
So can we just get that one clarified because I think that's really important. I'm suggesting that the sewage treatment plants 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 southwest corner of the lot would that affect the modelling? Amelia Lorentson 01:59:34.965
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. Cost 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 photo complaints and there is a requirement or a breach of environmental act that requires the sewage plant to upgrade, cost of a wastewater treatment upgrade. Richard MacGillivray 02:00:39.981
Well, I mean, I'll have a chop it. Yeah, so the obligation for compliance corroded for odour rests with the permit holder. So in this case, Unitywater have a number of conditions and their environmental relevant authority and their permit they can comply with. 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 required and compliance action can be taken by the department to require them to make adjustments and changes and modifications to meet those permit requirements. So it comes down to first step if there are issues is there a 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 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 that need to be protected so from urban encroachment so that we 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 this case is where the science comes into it is around testing is the current facility is proposed adversely impacting on that there's two elements of it is the permit holder complying with their 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 like essentially being raised and if they are found that 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 and its recommendation as put forward by officers which obviously you know satisfied that it can be addressed. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:07.139
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 I get some more information on that? Just to understand that. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 02:03:31.119
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 treatment plant prohibit the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant? If it had to expand and upgrade, would it inhibit it? Patrick Murphy 02:04:00.758
It's a bit challenging because I suppose that's not our expertise around what kind of infrastructure. Is required to upgrade a treatment plant and what technology is available today that's far greater from an odour point of view than what was implemented and is on site at the moment. I'm also mindful that deputation doesn't form part of the common material of the application. And that we haven't really had the opportunity to consider some of these things that have been put to us today. 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 and the new building from the site. So I'm just mindful that we might need a bit more notice or specified questions to respond to there. Frank Wilkie 02:04:47.162
Would you be able clarify your views on what was heard in the deputation perhaps at the general? Is it an opportunity to rebut? Amelia Lorentson 02:04:54.443
Yeah. 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 02:05:11.274
I've had a bit of contact and 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 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 is seeking, we'll probably to have more understanding of the nature of that 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, pulling the buildings down the site, I'm not too sure. Frank Wilkie 02:05:59.266
Would it be fair to say that the creation of an appropriately-sited five-star accommodation hotel is desirable under the Noosa planning scheme, and also could help mitigate the demand for short-term accommodation? Patrick Murphy 02:06:17.130
It certainly is a wonderful opportunity for those who have a luxury resort and it does throw your mind to we have a lot of people that are seeking to use luxury homes for accommodation does them offering such as lessen that demand that's the question I'm asking and it's Richard MacGillivray 02:06:37.575
It's possible certainly yes and it is safe to say that there is a shortage for high-end facilities across the whole of South East Queensland particularly in the Sunshine Coast area where there is limited to no availability of that high-end I think would be fair to say we want to get this right this opportunity right. Brian Stockwell 02:07:02.217
The link in terms of the Olympics was raised earlier on in your overview and 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 02:07:28.860
I'd have to go they have provided a sustainable building response I'd have to go back through that to give you a detailed answer. Frank Wilkie 02:07:38.128
Thank you. And Patrick one last question for me is there any consideration for staff accommodation to be included on site? Amelia Lorentson 02:07:46.255
There has not been proposed of this development. I can discuss that with you tonight. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 02:07:57.638
I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 02:07:59.203
We have some questions the in the gallery. Checking the tables. I'm good. Councillor Jess. Thank you. Jessica Phillips 02:08:06.002
Probably close on from Mayor and Councillor stockwell's questions around, because Patrick you mentioned around the need for five star at this end of the Coast. Is there any way Council can. Look at conditions around it always remaining five star? I'm hoping I question this correctly. And we don't have maybe a repeat of cool and quiet is probably my so is there, my question is, can, 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, not a. Franchise or something similar to that is probably my question. Patrick Murphy 02:08:56.591
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 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 to lock them into the standard of hotel as a condition. Jessica Phillips 02:09:25.157
Alright, my next is question then has there been any consideration around transport management from them, like a shuttle bus like RVCA? Patrick Murphy 02:09:33.414
Yeah, so they, because of the potential impact on the local road network from this development, was referred to the State um accepting the application, but as part of their conditions from the State, they have to have a space available for a courtesy bus. So 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 requirement that they can accommodate it in their parking. Jessica Phillips 02:10:09.931
Is that something we can impose that there's consideration? Patrick Murphy 02:10:12.559
Consideration it's probably something worth me speaking with the applicant to get their agreement for a condition in that regard. We'll get their comments on it. Jessica Phillips 02:10:20.728
And then my last point around the current tennis courts there and journey during, again, if approved during construction where has the applicant considered the 150-odd young people that play every week and the community that are using those courts. Is there consideration any consideration that put to assisting? Patrick Murphy 02:10:46.086
There's been no discussion around that I think that would be quite challenging because of the new tennis 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 are we needing to access it at that time and the very close proximity of those tennis courts to the construction area. Again 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. That's good. Yeah. Nicola Wilson 02:11:19.467
Yes, please. Thank you. Two questions. First one's a quick one. Are there any zone changes to this site in the proposed amendments? No. Thank you. Second one's a bit longer. So we 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. I think it's reasonable. That people 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 more efficient for people who might be a bit nervous about submitting to Council and just help them along the way. So I just want just to want to be that those submissions, just because they were all similar, we're still taking it seriously. And the question is, do we commonly get that many submissions? 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 again, do we think we'd get the same concerns or would they have been addressed? Patrick Murphy 02:12:29.708
Addressed certainly don't downplay any submissions, whether or not otherwise. The report deals with the issues that are raised in the submissions. There's a section 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 the application is also amended through the process. So all awesome all submissions are considered and provide us valuable guidance as to the community sentiment on an application and also potentially raising issues that we wouldn't necessarily know about because we aren't living in close proximity 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 um I think there's definitely genuinely opposed to the resort that within close proximity would certainly make another Amelia Lorentson 02:13:41.856
Submission good questions Councillor Jess and Councillor Nicola and as a Councillor and we we've been through quite a few meetings on this matter um submissions were taken very seriously by the councils um how do you move it goes to the general please um seconder please I was happy to second and can we move that um this uh this conversation continues to the General Committee due to the significance of the all in favour please thank you that's unanimous okay um good now oh, that's it. Great. So there are no reports from noting no confidential session and I now declare the meeting closed at 11 44. Next meeting will be General Committee um I note the time is 12 30 Monday 17th of June um thank you for those in the gallery um great conversation thank you to the Council thank you Madam Chair and of course to our great staff Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
