Planning & Environment Committee, 6 August 2024
Date: Tuesday, 6 August 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:59:37
Synopsis: Car Wash proposal contentious—officers recommend refusal on zoning, form and traffic, Infrastructure Charges update adopted amid cap concerns, Noosa Blue approval consolidated, Affordable Housing concessions planned.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Ceo Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions A development approval at Noosa Blue (16 Noosa Dr) was amended to consolidate historic permits, remove obsolete uses, and reframe the approval as Multiple Dwelling (65 units) with Indoor Sport & Recreation (yoga/spa), Shop, Office and Food & Drink Outlet; conditions 1 & 9 amended, 54–56 added, 10, 11 & 13 deleted (Item 5.1) (02:09–06:52). Frank Wilkie confirmed no external works; officer confirmed compliance and no known noise complaints; existing restaurant floor area halved with hours capped at 7am–10pm (Sun–Thu) and to midnight (Fri–Sat) (Item 5.1) (03:59–06:51). Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.8) 2024 adopted to align with State indexation (Planning Regulation Sch 16), effective 15 Aug 2024; no apportionment changes (Item 5.2) (07:37–11:08). Luke advised the update improves transparency; charges recover ~20% of trunk spend; caps set by State constrain adequacy; LGAQ advocacy and a bill before Parliament propose cap removal (Item 5.2) (09:08–13:05). Brian Stockwell queried incentives for affordable housing; Kim Rawlings confirmed a forthcoming report on additional concessions beyond existing discounts for NFPs/social enterprises (Item 5.2) (17:04–18:08). Application for a car wash with ancillary cafe at 34 Elm St, Cooroy was elevated to General Committee due to significance; detailed assessment discussed (Item 5.3) (20:38–54:51). Delegated decisions for June were noted with correction to exclude MCU16/0070.01 (Item 6.1) (56:33–58:17). Contentious / Transparency Matters Car wash proposal is impact assessable and an inconsistent use in the District Centre Zone under Noosa Plan 2020; officers assessed it as contrary to the desired active street-front retail character and employment outcomes (Item 5.3) (28:15–36:42). Public notification yielded ~520 submissions: 498 support, 19 objections; officers acknowledged community need but recommended refusal on planning grounds and alternative industrial land availability (Item 5.3) (24:57–36:28). Tom Wegener challenged the scheme’s alignment with “market reality” given local vacancies; Kim Rawlings defended the vision-led scheme but noted provisions can be reviewed and integration projects may shift feasibility (Item 5.3) (44:00–48:25). Late traffic consultant advice raised queuing risks at Diamond Lane/Opal St despite lower generation than an approved small centre; Elm St is State-controlled—DSDILGP had no State-interest objection (Item 5.3) (26:58–28:12). Due to significance and competing public interest factors (need vs strategic intent), the Chair referred the matter to General Committee for broader debate (Item 5.3) (53:49–54:51). Legal / Risk Noosa Blue change approved under Planning Act 2016 s63(5) reporting; consolidates prior approvals and clarifies lawful uses/conditions, reducing enforcement ambiguity (Item 5.1) (02:09–06:52; minutes 5.1 F). Charges Resolution No.8 aligns with Planning Regulation indexation; failure to transparently reflect indexation risks disputes over applied rates; adoption mitigates interpretive risk from Sch 16 (Item 5.2) (07:42–11:08). Cap inadequacy presents fiscal risk: only ~20% of trunk costs recovered, shifting burden to ratepayers; pending State bill to remove caps could materially alter Council’s charging powers and litigation exposure over reasonableness (Item 5.2) (10:08–13:05; 18:08–13:05). Car wash: impact assessment must reconcile strategic conflict with any “sufficient grounds”; officers cite land-supply data (0.32 ha District Centre vs 16.57 ha Industrial, plus potential +23 ha) and urban form objectives—weakens any approval defensibility in current zone (Item 5.3) (41:14–53:10). Traffic queuing and 24/7 operations raise amenity and safety risks; partial hour restrictions were floated by applicant but not formalised—conditions would be essential if approved to withstand appeal (Item 5.3) (20:38–29:27; 38:21–39:16). Planning Scheme Interpretation & Zoning Outcomes (Cooroy) Officers relied on Noosa Plan 2020’s defined activity groups: car wash falls under “industry activities,” hence inconsistent in District Centre but consistent in Industrial Zone (Item 5.3) (33:41–34:03). Amelia Lorentson pressed why a commercial car wash is not “commercial”; officers cited process/impact (noise, overspray, machinery) distinguishing it from retail/office (Item 5.3) (32:08–34:10). Service stations in District Centre are also impact/inconsistent under the current scheme; historic approvals explain existing stations, but co-locating a wash with a station could be more supportable than a standalone (Item 5.3) (34:10–36:42). Strategic entry statement: officers say a car wash reinforces car-dominant/industrial character on Elm St, undermining active frontage aims for Cooroy’s eastern gateway (Item 5.3) (24:57–36:28; 43:04–43:40). Employment differential: car wash estimated 2–3 staff vs approved small centre/nine shops providing materially higher jobs; District Centre land scarcity prioritises higher-yield jobs (Item 5.3) (41:55–43:04). Connectivity projects (rail crossing, potential transit hub) could enhance District Centre viability; officers affirmed the plan sets a desired future state that market may meet as access improves (Item 5.3) (47:34–48:25). Infrastructure Charges & Housing Affordability Amelia Lorentson highlighted inequity of caps shifting costs to current ratepayers; LGAQ argues modest increases won’t harm affordability relative to unfunded trunk deficits (Item 5.2) (11:08–12:33). Historic five-year indexation freeze compounded under-recovery; Council maintains proportional reductions for lower-demand dwelling types (e.g., 1-bed, secondary dwellings) consistent with pre-2011 PSPs and SCC practice (Item 5.2) (14:31–16:30). Affordable housing incentives: report due on prorated fee/charge concessions for long-term social/affordable stock, aligning with Council’s housing strategy commitments (Item 5.2) (17:04–18:08). Environmental & Amenity Considerations (Car Wash) Noise and lighting were assessed; hours and design could mitigate, but 24/7 operations elevate risk; applicant verbally open to night limits, not formally amended (Item 5.3) (20:38–21:44; 38:21–39:16). Stormwater/wastewater approach considered satisfactory in principle; detailed engineering would be resolved at operational works stage if approved (Item 5.3) (39:16–41:14). Attributions of Notable Points Amelia Lorentson : Queried parking oversupply at Noosa Blue and pressed on infrastructure cap inequities and zoning logic for car wash (05:17–05:58; 11:08–12:33; 32:08–33:41). Brian Stockwell : Probed land-supply math and job yield rationale underpinning refusal; sought timeline on affordable housing fee concessions (41:14–43:40; 17:04–17:33). Tom Wegener : Questioned scheme’s market alignment and tables of assessment; sought clarity on existing reductions vs rates (14:18–16:59; 44:00–45:53). Frank Wilkie : Confirmed external works absent in Noosa Blue change; moved adoption (03:59–04:23; 06:51–06:52). Kim Rawlings : Confirmed pending State bill to remove caps and imminent report on housing concessions (12:41–13:05; 17:33–18:08). Richard MacGillivray : Noted Elm St’s State-road status and queuing risks; clarified minimum parking standards context (05:45–05:58; 27:26–28:12). Nadine : Led car wash assessment—use inconsistency, urban form conflict, traffic queuing, and industrial land alternatives; acknowledged high support submissions (20:38–36:28; 41:55–43:10).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 6 August 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 6 AUGUST 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE CEO Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & 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 9 July 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. 51998.2462.07 APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (65 UNITS), CONFERENCE FACILITY AND VEHICLE HIRE PREMISES AT 16 NOOSA DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 AUGUST 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 regarding Application No. 51998.2462.07 for an Other Change to Development Approval for Multiple Dwelling (65 dwelling units), Conference Facility and Vehicle Hire Premises situated at Noosa Blue 501 - 503/16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads and: A. Approve the Other Change application B. Amend the approval type as follows: Development Permit for Material Change of Use for- Multiple Dwelling (65 Units) as defined by the 1990 Schedule to the Planning Scheme Indoor Sport & Recreation (Yoga Studio & Health Spa), Shop, Office and Food & Drink Outlet as defined by the Noosa Plan 2020 C. Amend conditions 1 and 9 as outlined in Attachment 1. D. Include additional conditions 54 to 56 as outlined in Attachment 1. E. Delete conditions 10, 11 and 13 as they are no longer relevant to the proposal. F. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. 5.2. UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 and: A. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.8) 2024” provided as Attachment 1 to the report, to replace the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.7) 2022” and take effect on 15 August 2024. Carried unanimously. 5.3. MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson 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 6 AUGUST 2024 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - JUNE 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 6 August 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority during the month of June as per Attachment 1 (excluding item MCU16/0070.01). Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.30 AM
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:02.481
Good morning and welcome to the planning and environment meeting today. I officially declare the meeting open. Firstly, I'd like to begin with an Acknowledgement of Country. Noosa Council has 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 the Noosa area and we pay respect to Kabi Kabi Elders, present, past and emerging, and to their enduring commitment to pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. Attendance and apologies. I note all the Councillors on the planning councillors the and environment. Committee are here. Welcome Councillor Tom, Councillor Brian and Mayor Wilkie. I also note Councillor Nicola Wilson is within the gallery as thank you. An observer. Welcome Nicola. Okay, you're in. There are no confirmations, no presentations, deputations, so let's go straight to the thoughts, oh excuse me, confirmations of minutes. Thank you, we have a second. No discussion, in favour, thank you. Discussion, all in favour? Thank you. Okay. No presentations, no deputations, and reports with consideration of the committee. Item 5.1, 51998.2462.07, application for an other change to a term of running consent. Permit for multiple dwellings, 65 units, conference facility, and vehicle high premises at 16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. A welcome to the table, our planning staff, Patrick Murphy, Richard, and. Aspect. That, and tara, sorry, excuse me, and tara, and ask that we just commence with a summary or overview of the report, tara. Sara Wilson 02:08.921
Okay, so so one this is one is another change. For an existing development approval for the Noosa Blue Resort. So it's a fairly change, but it is a little bit technical admin-wise. So essentially what there is this existing approval that was issued in 1998 for the multiple dwellings, the conference facility, and the vehicle hire premises. There was an additional approval issued in 2016 for the yoga studio that's on site at the moment and a restaurant. So this approval is seeking to basically consolidate those two approvals and remove the conference facility and the vehicle hire premise from the approval. Us approval so the applicant is looking to convert an existing kitchen that was used for the conference facility that's behind the yoga studio at the moment, looking to convert that to a wellness spa. So plunge will obviously be that nice ice baths and things like that, looking they're looking to convert the existing restaurant that's at ground level, which is a retrospective approval, so they've already done the works to half the tenancy and have one half as additional a cafe and the other as an additional yoga studio and then the existing Hertz Rent A Car building, hertz has moved out and they're looking to convert that with multiple uses, so office food and drink, sorry, office indoor sport and rec or office as a potential interchangeable use in those buildings, so this report recommends approval and consolidating the conditions. From the existing MCU from 2016 for the restaurant, which include giving them hours of operation and outdoor dining and removing some conditions that are referencing the conference facility. Say something. Amelia Lorentson 03:56.160
Any questions? Thank you tara. Questions, Councillors. Frank Wilkie 04:00.746
And tara, in your report, thank you, it was a very good report, it mentions that there will be no modifications to the outside of the building and all car park parking can be accommodated on site. Correct. So does that mean for all intents and purposes the community won't notice any change Sara Wilson 04:18.228
At that site? Yes, so it's all internal modifications. Yes, all consistent with the uses? Yes, correct. Thank you. Tom Wegener 04:28.069
Can I just, Oh, just gonna accommodate, it's kind of an evolution of the Noosa Blue Resort going into this health space, this yoga space. The offices will probably be some sort of remedial health thing for that complements the yoga studio and the. Sara Wilson 04:47.470
So they don't have a tenant lined up for that building yet, which is why they've sought sort of interchangeable uses. So an office would be limited to specific uses that are allowed in the planning scheme. A health care facility is a separate, sorry, a health care service is a separately defined use that they haven't applied for, so something like a chiropractor or something like that would sit under that use, so we'd be looking at maybe an accountant or something like that a more traditional office. Tom Wegener 05:13.899
Okay, that's interesting. Okay. Amelia Lorentson 05:16.822
Yeah, thank you. Just a question. It's well addressed in your report, but in terms of car parking, there is a requirement square metres and there's an oversupply there. Oversupply. The applicant actually has more car parking than is required. Sara Wilson 05:39.148
Yeah, so the original approval, they provided more than what was required in the original approval. Richard MacGillivray 05:44.590
The scheme sets out. The scheme minimum standards, so yeah. In some situations, in some situations, applicants will provide more than the minimum to ensure that users have got adequate parking available. Amelia Lorentson 05:59.855
Any further questions? From the government? Thank you. Nicola Wilson 06:04.580
In attachment one, the proposed conditions, 54 says that the food and drink outlet must not operate outside the hours of 7am. To 10pm. Sunday to Thursday and 7am. To midnight Friday and Saturday. Do those conditions apply to the existing restaurant on site and is there likely to be any noise considerations for neighbouring properties? Sara Wilson 06:26.139
So yeah, so those are existing conditions that's on the 2016 approval. So they're basically just being rolled in from that original approval for that restaurant. I'm not aware of any noise complaints not to say there hasn't been but none that we've been made aware of. There's no additional outdoor dining proposed so that's limited through that condition and they've actually halved the size of that tenancy as well. Frank Wilkie 06:51.766
Happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 06:53.093
Can we have a second to please answer Brian? Any further discussion? Tom Wegener 06:58.871
All in favour? So just after the discussion so we'll just get it both the straight through to the ordinary so nobody okay fantastic all in favour? Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 07:11.763
Grabbed report. Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Tom. Next report for consideration of the committee is item 5.2, update to infrastructure and charges. This is really interesting. We've got Lourdes online, Councillor Amelia. Sorry, we've got Lourdes hey, planet of Lourdes bye, Lourdes. I'll pass it over to you if you can give the committee and anyone watching today just an overview or summary of the infrastructure charges resolution. Okay, good morning Councillors. The this, the Lloyd 08:02.170
Requires Councillors to have a charges resolution to be able to issue charges on development as they get approved. This council's charges resolution is this update is just a basic update to bring it in line with the recent indexation that the State did to the planning regulation. And it, yeah, it's, it just makes it more transparent. And it has been updated quite a number of times, as you can see within the number of reports to Council over the years. So basically, um it sets the level of charges at the current 2024-25 rates. There's been no changes in the apportionments of charges. Or reductions to items that Council has previously applied. So it's basically just an indexation update. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 09:04.332
Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 09:09.560
No, so thank you. So you're saying in essence it's a technical and mandatory update? Lloyd 09:18.673
Yeah, well we don't have to actually update it because we can still apply the indexation under the legislation, but this just makes it a lot more transparent so that we 100% align with the current um uh 16 of the planning regulation. Just makes it easier for everyone without having to understand how the indexation is applied by the State. Amelia Lorentson 09:46.055
Thank you. My question is, are the increases in line with construction costs and whether infrastructure charges are adequate? Lloyd 10:02.115
Uh, no. that's been an ongoing issue for quite a few years. The State sets the charges, the maximum charge, under the regulation. The charges are not linked to councils' LGIP, and because of that, the charges, yeah, well, they're about, I think the last few years, the revenue from infrastructure charges has accounted 20% of the actual council's, you know, trunk infrastructure spend. I believe there is a, there's resolution or something going to the State upcoming to actually contest that issue and the LGAQ has done a massive report which clearly shows that all the infrastructure charges across the State are not keeping up and not, you know, adequately, you know, paying for the trunk infrastructure for which they're collecting. Amelia Lorentson 11:09.368
No, they aren't going to LGAQ, you're right, and asking, and I've got a quote here, for fairness, especially given the way very little ability councils have to build a gap without impacting ratepayers. So they've got a really big advocacy piece in this October LGAQ LGAQ conference. Our key conference and it's interesting because I think the competent Council have actually replied to LGAQ's motion and said that increasing the cap will impact on housing affordability. LGAQ responded by saying, responded by saying small increases won't have an impact on housing affordability and the issue is what happens with the infrastructure if councils can't fill in that gap. Especially critical infrastructure. Lloyd 12:09.159
Well, that's correct. Yeah, one big component that everyone, that they tend to forget is that the first five years of this new charges regime, there was no indexation at all and that's straight away five years behind on the charges now. Which is about 20% I believe is what it should be up high, just on that alone. Amelia Lorentson 12:33.272
Kim Rawlings, you've got your hand up and welcome to the committee, you can speak. Kim Rawlings 12:39.845
Yes good morning Councillors. Just further to Lloyd's response Through the Chair, there is a bill in front of parliament at the moment that proposes to the planning and other legislation that proposes to remove the caps on infrastructure charges it would. Ruth just mentioned, so it's currently before parliament. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 13:06.373
Thank you. It would be great to have an update on that when that gets resolved. Sure. And for the questions, Councillor Tom and then Councillor Brian. Tom Wegener 13:18.627
So there are decreases though, and I think these reflect what we decided in the budget, which is do um, uh, dual, yeah, caretakers accommodating. Caretaker's accommodation in multiple dwelling have gone down by substantial amounts. Is that a reflection of what we decided in the budget this year? Where race. Where we, we're all again at rate A. Richard MacGillivray 13:48.216
Yeah, so this is different from the rate of the rates, so your Council has made some decisions regarding rates as such, but not infrastructure charges as such, so. There's no change being proposed in relation to infrastructure charges specifically. But did you want to speak to the point on any of those elements? Tom Wegener 14:09.521
Residentials used as caretakers in multiple dwellings. Which package it's. I don't know. It's. Is it in the spreadsheet? Yes, it's in the spreadsheet. It's in the very top of the spreadsheet at the bottom of. There's a table number there. The table number is. Lloyd 14:35.312
Table should be 10.3 if you're looking at the charges resolution, but the charges haven't gone down. It's gone forward, so they would be existing reductions that have been maintained, is that correct? They're the reductions that Council decided to actually reduce the charges for those particular items because, you know, historically and, you know, correctly probably, they to like a, actually have a lower demand compared a, you know, a one-bedroom dwelling is not going to have the same amount of traffic as a two-bedroom dwelling, even though you could charge the full amount, but Council have decided, well, we've done that, you know, throughout the years and to keep it, aligned with previous policies. And it's just to align with the actual demand generation. It's basically, just the one bedroom units are lower than the two bedroom units, and similarly a secondary dwelling is lower again than a normal two bedroom dwelling, which makes sense. Richard MacGillivray 15:45.594
Can you clarify when those Council made those decisions on those reductions? Lloyd 15:54.517
Basically they followed all the previous PSPs that were prior to 2011 and the ICP before. The same proportion was adopted by the Sunshine Coast Council initially in 2011 when the adopted charges first came into play for each of the three planning schemes back then. And Council, you know, maintained that when Noosa came, you know, was formed again. And so 2014 onwards, they've been the amounts, the reductions. Richard MacGillivray 16:31.067
So essentially they're maximum charges, but in this particular case you're seeing that forward. Council has opted for a lower based on demand, I.e. where there's less bedrooms in a particular dwelling unit, that the charge rate reflects that there's tomorrow. Less demand. Thank you. The charge is reduced. So it's a fairly logical reason why you wouldn't charge a higher infrastructure amount in those small units. Tom Wegener 16:59.969
So it just seems very consistent with where Council is going. Counselling. Brian Stockwell 17:06.727
So my question probably follows on from that. It's probably to count Kim Rawlings. In our Housing Strategy we committed to exploring concessions on development costs such as application fees and infrastructure charges on a prorated basis where a proportion of the development will be for long term social. Or affordable housing. So as we've just heard, these amendments don't do that. Is that body of work coming to Council in the near future? Kim Rawlings 17:34.033
Thanks Councillor Stockwell. Through the Chair, yes it is. So. Um so you may recall that we have had some discussions with Council. The already does offer a range of incentives. So we offer, you know, discounted rates for not-for-profits and social enterprises and. Know, so there are a range of incentives already in place. But yes, we have looked further into what might be viable, and a report will be coming to Council in the next month or two. Brian Stockwell 18:04.523
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 18:07.175
Any further questions? Brian Stockwell 18:30.899
On to local government. As we heard, the capping was a result of strong advocacy from the property industry rather than from councils. The full cost of providing the services to the developments. In some way affected the selling price of homes and dwellings. Mechanism where generally what the outcome is the existing ratepayers pay up front for the services to provide the ratepayers yet to come to the Shire and that is inequitable. We may have only 20% coming for our trunk infrastructure upgrades. We have a fairly modest development growth footprint. I know in councils like Logan that they might be looking at something like a billion dollars over ten years. 10 to meet the gap. So it is a significant issue. Amelia Lorentson 19:44.039
Any further comments? No? No more discussion? All in favour? Thank you. We'll now go to the next item for consideration by the committee. Which is item 5.3. MCU22/0201 application for Material Change of Use for car wash and food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy. I am moving this item to general. It's harder meaning because of the significance of the matter. But we will have a discussion too late. So I'm going to hand it over to Nadine. Nadine Gordon 20:35.402
Thank you, Councillor Amelia. Good morning. As Councillor Amelia has introduced. Is an application for a Material Change of Use for a car wash and food and drink facility at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy. The proposed car wash involves car washing facilities with two auto bays, two manual wash bays and two. Super wash bays along with three vacuum bays and a dog wash area. Access comes in off Opal Street and exits out Diamond Lane. The applicant also proposes a small food and drink outlet on the corner of. Elm Street and Opal Street and that's to provide generally coffee and sort of food and drink as an ancillary sort of facility for the car wash. The applicant intends has sought approval applicant for 24 hours seven day a week proposal however they have verbally indicated that if there are concerns with some operations they'd be happy to perhaps limit some of the nighttime operations. Just as a comparison the two car wash bays that we've got down in Noosaville, there's a. The existing one near Bunnings that has four car wash bays. The other one opposite the Good Shepherd it has four manual wash bays plus the two big wash bodies bays as well as vacuum bodies as well. Just gives you an idea of size. The site is located in the Cooroy local planning area and included in the District Centre Zone. It is an. The Noosa Plan indicates it as an inconsistent use and therefore it's impact assessable. Of and subject to a whole public notification. Period. The applicant advertised it and as a result of the advertising and public notification there are approximately 520 submissions of which 498 were in support of the proposal with 19 objections. The district centre zone in accordance with the Noosa Plan is intended to cater for commercial development it's this is to maintain, there's a whole range of provisions in the planning scheme to talk about. It's on the eastern side maintaining. A traditional town centre as well as with the development of addressing the street, active street fronts and cars not dominating the streets as well. The proposed car wash isn't considered to meet these provisions of the planning scheme. It's considered to reinforce the partially established industrial character from reduce the two service stations on the street. And again, reinforces the dominance of cars along that locality rather than providing for shop frontages, districts and which is what we envisage under the District Centre Zone. Also when we're looking at it we've considered we have considered need and in my report we've addressed sort of there are three aspects of need which are like economic need, community need and planning need and in relation to the above you know it is agreed that there is no car wash within Cooroy and the surrounds with residents having to go down to Noosaville however on balance the loss of the district centres on land which is intended for commercial and retail uses and the proposed car wash having limited employment opportunities it doesn't fit in terms of that district centre zone and we don't support the car wash as the main reason strategic and the strategic and environment department have also advised that there is limited centre-zoned land in Cooroy on Cooroy. About three over three thousand square metres compared to industrial land in Cooroy which there is approximately eleven and a half hectares of Council owned land. Which is undeveloped. Council has also three lots which are about five thousand square metres which are at the end of Jarrah Street or not at the end, close to the end of Jarrah Street. There are also four lots along Mary River Road which are in private ownership and that's about four thousand square metres. They're underdeveloped with houses on them. We also Taylor Court which is owned industry as well. It has two hectares of undeveloped land at the rear with 1.9 hectares facing Holts Road, which is undeveloped. There is also a future proposal for 23 hectares to go into early urban footprint under the ShapingSEQ under the State government. That's also on Holts Road as well. So the relevance of that is that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial zone. So one of our reasons again going back to that is there is limited district centre zone land while there is more industrial land available for this type of development. We've also at the time of preparation of this report which was several weeks ago we had unfortunately only received verbal advice from the received verbal advice from our traffic consultant and that initial verbal advice had indicated that the proposal was appropriate. We've since sort of liaised with him in terms of the traffic. His comments are that existing, there was an existing shopping centre approval on the site and in terms of the traffic generated by the car wash, that would actually be less than the shopping centre. However, he has raised some further concerns. Terms of the queuing coming into Opal Street and he's not satisfied after a further review of that, queuing won't congest that intersection. So we've only just received that today. So so following those discussions, we can also include that as a further grounds for refusal. So I'm in line in Diamond Lane, there are some concerns in terms of exiting and the impact on that intersection as well. Patrick Murphy 27:12.875
So the commercial development only allowed the service vehicles to exit by Diamond Lane, as the blueprint was proposed, and in the circumstance of the car wash, all vehicles will be required to exit by Diamond Lane. Unidentified Speaker 27:27.338
And it's important to highlight too that Elm Street is a state controlled road, and so. Say the department of state and the Main Roads were a referral agency, I was out of the nation and provided no concerns from their perspective. Our consultants have given us some it feels like the applicant hasn't demonstrated satisfaction Richard MacGillivray 27:48.301
That the use has adequately addressed queuing, particularly during peak periods, maybe the end of the weekend when a lot of people have been up at the North Shore. Or further north when it's likely to have a higher volume of vehicles potentially appearing with trailers and boats and the like. Amelia Lorentson 28:10.106
Okay, I'm going to throw it to the table for questions, and I know we've got lots, so tell me where to start. Tom Wegener 28:16.164
Sorry. So, Thank you. And humour me because that's a very basic question. First, what is the sentence that it's inconsistent with? Because usually when we look at something that's inconsistent, it's usually the height or not enough car park. Nadine Gordon 28:33.839
It's an inconsistent use in the zone. It's an inconsistent use, a car wash in the district centre zone is an inconsistent use. So it's not desired under our Noosa, that's under the Noosa Plan, the table of assessment. Patrick Murphy 28:47.464
Or there's a table of assessment within the scheme and it sets out the business uses, accommodation type uses, industrial uses, infrastructure uses, it breaks them up and it says if you're doing this use, you're accepted development, or you're code-assessable, or you're impact assessable, all consistent use, and then for some uses, if it doesn't specify them, they fall into the bucket of an inconsistent use. So the scheme's saying, in this zone, these are the uses we want, those consistent uses, but the inconsistent uses are those that the scheme hasn't designed that zone to accommodate. Nadine Gordon 29:27.817
So we have code-assessable and impact assessable. Accessible-, and that's what. Where it's not defined, it becomes an impact assessable and inconsistent use. Tom Wegener 29:39.889
So if it's not a consistent use, then it's an inconsistent use. That's correct. And then it becomes. Okay. Yes. And so the tables of assessment. Where are they here? They're in the tables of part five. Sorry, you guys can. I show you. Right here. This is part five. So assessment. Type any type of assessment, part five, categories. Patrick Murphy 30:05.722
Okay. We can go through this. Gives all prospective developers guidance in terms of the framework that they're going to pass through in terms of an assessment of a development application and councils. Council's plan and council's position respectively on that type of development. Nadine Gordon 30:25.061
So this is the district centre zone here. Yeah. And you can see a caretaker and then it's code-assessable and these are the codes it has to follow. Amelia Lorentson 30:35.297
I'm sorry, this question is can you define district centre zones? So my understanding is land available for commercial, community and entertainment related uses and it provides or covers for the needs of the similar communities. Yes, so the issue we've got is whether the use is commercial or industrial and that's where I'm going to go with my next questions. Can you, and I actually struggled to find this. The Noosa of cleansing seems to be silent. There is, for me when I look at what is industrial use, I sort of ended up in the low impact industry zoning to get an idea of what's considered industrial when you take and industry zones they reference manufacturing, industry zones they reference manufacturing, processing, supply, repairs, so business to your time, and I look forward to the next session. Our business planning scheme, but if we use just sort of common sense, business to So here's where I'm sort of struggling and question to you, lydie, why isn't a commercial car wash a commercial. By commissioning that security. Nadine Gordon 32:08.643
So a car wash is a definition under the State legislation. So that's incorporated into our planning scheme. So there's a definition of car wash and when the Noosa Plan was written in 2020, it has been indicated. It has been determined. A decision has been made that car wash is not a consistent use in a commercial zone and it's a consistent use in the industrial zone. So the terminology, the definition is a state definition. But our planning scheme includes it as being suitable use in an industrial zone. Because a car wash again has, it's got different processes and it has greater impacts than a normal commercial development. You know, you've got noise from vacuums, you've got overspray, there's a whole, it's a more, higher it's a higher level of noise impact than you would have from a commercial development which might just have trucks delivering. So that's under the Noosa Plan. So when you go and look at the district centre's own code, if you flick right back up to the purpose and overall outcomes, it talks about a large variety of uses and activities to serve the district of Noosa Shire, including, for example, administrative, business, community, cultural. Entertainment, professional, residential or retail uses or activities. And when you go, yes, to the industrial zone, it talks more about processes and things like that. But our scheme has designated a car wash as being. Suitable in the industrial zone. Patrick Murphy 33:41.019
In our definitions, we also have defined activities, and it breaks them into recreation activities, infrastructure activities, industry activities, business activities, accommodation activities, and then within there, a subset users of uses. And within the industry. Activities, a car wash is nominated as a subset of an industry activity. So it pushes it into that category. Unidentified Speaker 34:03.855
That's if you go down into our.if you go down into the definitions. Patrick Murphy 34:08.284
That's to define activity groups, that's right. Amelia Lorentson 34:12.169
So when you look at uses, and I'll look at it in the context of the area, you've got two service stations. Are they industrial or commercial activities? And my other question is, a car wash ancillary to a service station where there would be consistent use? Nadine Gordon 34:38.045
I think if you look at it that way, yes. And I think if this had been included with the service station, on sites, one of those service stations. You know, that would be something we could look at, co-locating it, but as a stand-alone. When you look at. This is three lots. This isn't just a small site. This is. What am I saying here? It's, you know. It's three lots. In total. It's over 1,800 square metres of land that's getting taken out and being used for industrial purposes, cars driving through. So those service stations were approved a long, time ago. I think I've got that written in my report. Yes, the 1980s. Yes, so a long time ago. A long time ago under different schemes. So now we've, you know, the scheme, I'm sorry, was. I can't remember what the scheme is. I can have a quick look if you'd like. District centre. Zone. Richard MacGillivray 35:34.327
What the current scheme for the Noosa Plan is seeking to achieve for Noosa locations is district centre. So it's essentially a seeking shopping-type operation that's consistent with a local village the shoal shops that fit in with the existing character that Cooroy is seeking. The concern from the assessment perspective is the use is more industrial in nature and won't provide the sort of the street interface that the planning scheme is seeking. There's a direct conflict with that. So whilst there's acknowledgement on the need piece for a car wash in the Cooroy area, the concern is that the use is inappropriate and it is suited to one of those other lots that are located in the Cooroy area that do have the industrial zoning that are not far away that could be utilised and developed for this particular purpose. Nadine Gordon 36:28.585
Further to your comment though, service stations are an impact assessable, inconsistent use in the district centre zone. So that's under our current scheme. If they if were they coming in to in apply for that for now, we wouldn't support them. Patrick Murphy 36:42.674
So, further just to add to that, a service station is a business activity, but a car wash is an industrial activity. But notwithstanding industry. The district centre zone, a service station is still an inconsistent, impactless system for use. Amelia Lorentson 37:04.534
In terms of, so the car wash doesn't go ahead. That site was sitting dormant for quite some period. And I think in the reports and the tracking documents, I think it actually states that the previous owner sold the land because there was little or no response in terms of retail space. So. Nice. You look at uses and impacts, you mentioned the traffic report has seen that there's less impact in terms of traffic with car wash rather than retail stores, for example. There was a small LP store, et cetera. So in terms of impacts, what impacts does a car wash have that's used as a commercial activity? Noise, acoustics, that was all addressed in the report. In fact, the report is gone. I think it's four years in the making. Nadine Gordon 38:18.999
There are, what so again, as we've highlighted too, we've got that further advice now that there are the impacts on the queuing. So getting in, there's some potential for cars to, the applicant hasn't satisfactorily demonstrated that cars won't impact on that intersection as they're trying to turn and get in at queuing. Yes, they have addressed the noise. There were several submissions that were in relation to potential for noise. And that late time, that late night use might be an issue in terms of the noise, in terms of vacuums, car doors, people. But yeah, they did address noise. We've got stormwater that has been satisfactorily addressed as well. So I suppose lighting might be different as well. You've got lighting, you've got people using that site. Potentially all during the night, which has a different level of impact than a shopping complex which might close at, you know, five or six. Amelia Lorentson 39:16.675
Well, in terms of the stormwater and waste water management plan, explain what the applicant is proposing for the proposed car wash? Because I've never seen. I probably not. Spoke to the designer yesterday who is intending to publish an article on, you know, if this car wash goes ahead, but the detail. And the success and the passion the applicant has for a environment and to provide a community, you know, a well-needed service. But it's still more than an introvert thing. Can you give us a little bit of detail? Patrick Murphy 40:01.987
Detail. It might be appropriate for us to bring a development engineer to a General Committee Meeting to discuss the details in a manual way. And all Richard MacGillivray 40:16.768
Can be worked out. Those details through the operational work stages. The details and the specific mechanics of how that's going to achieve particular work quality outcomes will be delivered through the operational works application part of the process which comes after a decision made about the in use component. There will be some high level but other elements that you can consider as part of the original system. I'm just going to have a further discussion. Yeah, but that is still not going to be that big of a challenge, and you have to keep that in mind. Frank Wilkie 40:48.413
Yeah, you go ahead. Thank you. Just so I understand what I'm reading on the page. 14 Of 17 of the planning officer's report, it looks like, am I reading this correctly, that the available amount of district centre land in Cooroy totals about 3,200 square metres, if you add up all those figures on the table, is that yes that's right and then to go below that, in Cooroy highlighted in yellow, the available amount of industrial land, 16.57, is that 16.57 hectares, yes that's correct. So you compare that the amount of district centre land which is for job generating employment and commercial activities are relatively rare only 3,200 rare, square metres. But for industrial land is given that one hectare is 10,000 square metres so we're looking at a hundred and sixty thousand square metres of land zone for industrial uses in Cooroy? Yes that's correct. Okay and the site itself already has an approval for small shopping centre and nine shops. Could you give us some ballpark figure about the amount of jobs generated between should the application go ahead? Do they've got approval to build on that vacant lot there's been approval granted in 2019 for small shopping centre and nine shops versus a car wash. Traditionally can you compare? Nadine Gordon 42:25.871
So the applicant indicated that they've got three spaces designated to staff so there might be up to three people who've got the cafe which will generate at least one person. There might be somebody there dealing with the car wash in terms of change and just being on site for that. So you might have a generation of two to three. It would flick over to the shopping centre of its nine shops. You could at least basically staff there would be at least nine people there. Could be greater. There'd be different hours. So yeah, it's got a greater employment generation than the car wash. Frank Wilkie 43:04.975
So that's one of the intents of the planning scheme is to have that site for employment generating activities? So if I understand the report right, you're saying staff, you don't recommend approval for this development because of the industrial look and feel it would create for the entry statement to Cooroy coming from the Coast? Yes. Also that the best outcome from Cooroy would be the approved shops on the site with the car wash on some of the land in the industrial estate. That's correct, yes. And that there are concerns about queuing in Diamond Lane and Opal Street that the car wash could create? Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 43:56.552
I'll be going ahead, I've been asking lots of questions. Tom Wegener 43:59.872
Yeah, first of all, I'd love to meet up because I want to be able, I really able to understand the planning when I don't see the tables of assessment listed here and also, so I just want to talk to you about that and then of course in the planning it says the State and other statutory instruments, it doesn't say that it's an industrial use, you say that it's an industrial use in the State plan, is that right? In the tables of assessment. That's the State plan. No, no, here's the plan. Patrick Murphy 44:33.712
With the definitions section, it has the defined activity groups, and again, accommodation or business activities, recreation, and then industry, and then car washes, business. Tom Wegener 44:45.706
Okay, then the next question is, I want to know this because if this is approved, then I want to know the impact of the planning scheme, you know. And so I have the question actually to Kim Rawlings. Did we perhaps get the planning scheme wrong in this particular area? And I'm saying this because the big real estate next to the BP currently empty. Railway square, the upstairs. Is currently empty. And so the businesses that are there, sowers, the petrol stations, they're busy, but the office and space is not. And so, and then here we have something that, you know, people, somebody is willing to invest in, which a lot of people, like in 448 people said, you know, that's what they want, they're okay with it. So what happens when our planning seems to out be actually out of step with reality? Of step with reality? Kim Rawlings 45:54.065
What a great question. So, Councillor Wegener, towns like, um, karoi Cooroy that are separated by rail or separated by some major road or, you know, can always have challenges around creating an integrated and combined know, centre. Um, so in, you know, in the development of the Noosa Plan it was very much community aspiration, you know, to ensure that the centre reflected both sides of, you know, of town. Um, and so the Noosa Plan was built on that basis. And to look for ways to, you know, to integrate, um, and, you know, um, and build that kind of, you know, character around, Cooroy centre because it does sit across the railway, two sides of, you know, of town. So that was kind of the fundamental kind of driver behind the, um, provisions for making this part of town district centre, um, that, it is a, you know, a legitimate part of town, it offers services, um, it, you know, it's part of town. Um, so, so, you know, it, can provisions in the NUSA Noosa Plan be reviewed? Yes, they can be. Um, but that's what really, you know, that was what was really driving, you know, the drafting of the provisions and the approach to this side of town being made, um, district centre, um, at the time. Um, and, you know, what, the team have done is assess this application in along line with the current provisions of Noosa Plan. Brian Stockwell 47:35.097
Can I have a subsequent follow on? Um, the plan is about establishing the desired future. Uh, there are a number of projects going on in this locality. Um, one to look at how we improve the pedestrian connectivity across the other is to actually look at the potential for a transit centre which would see this as a key hub for people coming into the Shire, um, getting off a train or a bus and then connecting to local initiatives going down. Would that change, um, change, you know, if those pedestrianisation, more passing traffic, more visitation from the railway station, would that, um, change the nature of what, uh, the market would see as appropriate in the district centre zone? Kim Rawlings 48:26.384
Um, I would say absolutely yes. So you're absolutely correct. That plan is planning's about the future design state for our Shire and our localities. So it definitely sets up, you know, what, where we want, you know, where our community wants, our town to be and what the appropriate, you know, land use responses are to that. Um, and absolutely, there are a range of things, um, underway at the moment, um, particularly around, um, planning for addressing, um, some of the movement and connectivity challenges, um, and issues in, Cooroy, but yes, I would say absolutely, uh, that would, um, strengthen, uh, the integration of the town, um, and what might, you know, be considered by the market, um, more feasible on these key sites. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 49:19.981
Okay, um, further questions? This will be moved to the General Committee. Um, I have a couple more questions, Nadine. Um, so, the so, we were born in a case of. Report indicates that it is still appropriate to have car wash visits in industrial nature located in the industrial site. Um. I'm trying. Still challenged on the definition of car wash use in industrial. I'm still challenged on that. Um. And so, what I'm thinking is. I A, are we not taking up valuable industrial land if it's located in an industrial zone? Are we then putting a commercial car wash in an industrial located area? And is that taking up land for proper industrial activities? So I, you know, I think, okay, my question is, can the use be legally challenged? Um, can, uh, not legally challenged, uh. Nadine Gordon 50:38.078
So the Noosa Plan has the Noosa Plan has identified it as an industrial activity. The Noosa Plan, the table of assessment, includes a car wash, uh, details a car wash in the district centre as an impact assessable, inconsistent use. That's what the planning scheme says. Uh, the Noosa Plan table of assessment indicates that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial zone land. So that's what I've got to work with and that's what we've got to work with. So in terms of, in terms of, uh, looking at, I suppose the other thing to look at with a car wash, um, I suppose there is a process happening. The cars go in, there's wash, there's some process and servicing going on, which to me you can look at it from, uh, as an industrial activity. There's processing happening. The car's going in dirty and coming out clean. There's water, there's spray, there's lots of mechanical moving parts, which is different to a shopping centre where you have business, where you have people sitting down, whatever, office-type functions, retail-type functions. We're not having things, and even if it is perhaps servicing you might have, I don't know. Computer repairs or something like that, or watchmakers or whatever. So it's quite a lesser impact than big machines operating, noisy, industrial vacuums with a high volume, high level. We've got water spraying. So in terms of more. Commercial retail uses that we're used to, I can sort of see how it fits into that of industrial activity here. There's some processing and servicing happening Amelia Lorentson 52:23.710
But it's useless to have sites so that's Nadine Gordon 52:26.901
A service yeah that's a it's a convenient service that's being provided, yes. It is a service that's servicing a local lot community. Of yes. I just so Frank Wilkie 52:40.523
So we're comparison. Clear about comparing apples with you're saying that the district centre land is in short, relatively short supply. 3,200 square metres is actually 0.32 of a hectare compared to yes. Compared to 116.57 hectares. Nadine Gordon 52:59.853
That's, yeah, approximately yes. Of industrial land. And potentially another 23 hectares under the SEQ, shaping the SEQ. Frank Wilkie 53:08.982
Right. So you're saying in order to maintain the character of the Cooroy entry area, provide employment. Areas, maximise employment, generate opportunities, have something that's consistent with the character of Cooroy, it's a better outcome to have the already approved shops on that site and the car wash in some of the industrial land out of Cooroy. I notice in your report you acknowledge the need for the car wash in the Cooroy area, but it's a good idea but in the wrong place. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 53:47.342
Councillor Tom, any further questions? No, I'm happy to move it. Councillor Nicola, a question Nicola Wilson 53:55.716
You. Of the submissions made, we weren't able to pinpoint where those people live, so could we see if people in support or against the proposal actually live in the surrounding roads where they'd be more Nadine Gordon 54:06.850
Affected? A lot of them work with Cooroy addresses. I didn't. Caroyal I. Pinpoint them, but yeah, a lot of them are. Yes, I can. We have a look at that. Patrick Murphy 54:16.499
Maybe we can look at where the objections came from. Nicola Wilson 54:20.284
In terms of the objections to the side. Objections rather than support? Yes. Oh, okay. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 54:38.932
Discussion about it. Thank you, and another second address. Thank you, Councillor Tom. Any further discussion on by-law? Thank you. Nidhi. No worries. Thank you, nidhi. Are you there? Down? Can I go that there? Way? You come down, once you finish, come down and see us, and we'll go through all of it. Good to meet you. Thanks. Oh, sorry. We're now up to reports and noting. 6 and we're going to 6.1 for the applications decided by delegated authority, and I'll hand it over to Patrick. Thank you. Patrick. Sorry. Patrick Murphy 55:23.550
It there must be a report for the matters that were decided by delegation for the month of June. You have the table which details all those decisions that were made under delegation. I should advise, I've just picked up, that if the report includes the application additions to the veterinary additions to the veterinary clinic, which was actually reported to Council at the last June round meeting. At the last time, about that June round meeting, so that should be. So that should be in this report. So just a minor adjustment there. But other than that, you've got the report details, those applications that were we've decided on the delegation. Tom Wegener 55:58.632
Council, are there any questions? No, thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick, I see the Noosa Woods Park and public toilets club. Claude Batten Drive. So, I'm not at the works meetings, and so what's happening Patrick Murphy 56:16.140
There? That was the operational works approval that was for the dredging, and it was just a minor increase. In the extent of area that needs to be dredged to facilitate the completion of the works. That was a minor change to that approval. Tom Wegener 56:34.438
By the way, if you get to the river mouth it appears to just be spectacular the way there's the lagoons and you know the channels where we want it to be running down the river not etching out Dog Beach but there's still plenty of water around Dog Beach. It's not just a giant Sahara our desert type situation, it's very nice. Happy to move if I don't shake. Brian Stockwell 57:00.131
Kitten 4, for thoroughness we vary the motion to including extricating a little faster. The Noosa Veterinary Surgery from that. Yes. We're going to provide some suggestive wording. But it's not seconded. Unidentified Speaker 57:24.201
We can't so the motion hasn't been seconded so it doesn't exist I just want to move out. Take care. Bye-bye. Have a nice day. Patrick Murphy 57:44.703
MCU 16 forward slash doubles 0070.01 701 We could just leave it at that. Frank Wilkie 58:04.564
And just the reason for that, it's already been approved, is that the only reason? Patrick Murphy 58:10.084
So it's more accurate to say it hasn't been approved under delegated authority. That's correct. That's what you're saying. So this is a report, itemised in today's report, those applications have been decided by delegated authority? Yeah. That one clearly wasn't decided by Councillor Stockwell. Frank Wilkie 58:24.089
Councillor Stockwell, that's your motion. And I'll take it. No, your motion. Oh, you want me to do Brian Stockwell 58:29.130
How doing, Louie? It? Yeah. Hey, good to have you with us. Frank Wilkie 58:31.647
I'll second it. Brian Stockwell 58:33.930
I do so, and I will raise one more thing, because I got a bit excited last night when I saw the item relating to moving a house within the character area of Pomona, and I had a look at the lovely little house at 11 station street, and fortunately, about lifting it's not moving very fast. Far. The dwelling to establish a habitable first floor level of 90.4 AHD approximately one metre above the flood level, repositioning the dwellers in the site to achieve two metre side boundary setbacks and six metres from front setback. So we're not losing a character house just in case others like me got a bit excited about losing a little bit of a character house. And fortunately, Amelia Lorentson 59:14.925
All the way up in favour? That's carried unanimously. And that brings us now to 5 and 7, our collective interest sessions. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10:30. Thank you Councillors, thank you staff. Great discussion around the table. You Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
