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 00:01.720
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 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 owners of the land 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 are councillors on the planning and environment committee. I here welcome Councillor Tom, Councillor Brian, and Councillor Wilkie. I also invite Councillor Nicola Wilson, please, in the gallery as an observer. Welcome Nicola. There are no confirmations, no presentations, deputations, so let's go straight to the confirmations of the minutes. Thank you, we have a seconder. No discussion, all in favour? Thank you. No presentations, no deputations, and reports for consideration of the committee. Item 5.1, 51998.2462.07, application for an other change to a town planning consent permit. For multiple dwellings, 65 units, conference facility, and vehicle hire premises at 16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads, are welcome to the table. excuse me in time, and ask that we just commence with a summary or overview of the report. Tara 02:09.065
So this one is another change for an existing development approval for the Noosa Blue Resort. So it's a fairly straightforward change, but it is a little bit technical admin-wise. So essentially what there is is this existing approval that was So this 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. is seeking to basically consolidate those two approvals and remove the conference facility and the vehicle hire premise from the approval. So this 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. 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 halve the tenancy and have one half as a cafe and the other as an additional yoga studio, and then the existing Hertz renter car. 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 I don't know if you've seen, and to include... hours of operation and outdoor dining and removing some conditions that are referencing the conference facility. Amelia Lorentson 03:55.629
Any questions? Thank you Tara. Questions, councillors? Frank Wilkie 03:59.909
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 Tara 04:21.245
Yes, all consistent notifications. Frank Wilkie 04:23.305
With the uses? Yes, correct. Thank you. Tom Wegener 04:29.065
Councillor Wilkie. I'm just going to accommodate. It's kind of an evolution of the Noosa Blue Resort going into this health yoga space. The offices will probably be some sort of remedial health thing for that that complements the yoga studio SPEAKER_00 04:46.817
And the... 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, health care are separate, sorry, healthcare services are 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 that's more traditional office. Tom Wegener 05:14.341
Okay, that's interesting. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:17.502
Just a question and it's well addressed in your report in terms of car parking. is a requirement, 95.3, one space for 20 square metres and there's an oversupply. The applicant actually has more car parking than is required. SPEAKER_00 05:38.926
Yeah, so the original approval, they provided more than what was required in the original approval. Richard MacGillivray 05:45.454
The scheme sets out minimum standards so yeah, so in some situations applicants will provide more than the minimum to ensure that users have got adequate parking available. Amelia Lorentson 05:58.874
Any further questions? Questions from the gallery? Thank you. Tara 06:03.674
In attachment 1, the proposed conditions, condition 54 says that the food and drink outlet must not operate 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? 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 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. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 06:51.342
Happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 06:52.882
Can we have a seconder please? going to say Brian. Any further discussion? All in favour? Tom Wegener 06:59.770
So just after the two discussions, so we'll just, we'll just get a vote this straight through to the ordinary so nobody, okay. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 07:08.370
All in favour? Thank you. Next report for consideration of the committee is item 5.2, update to infrastructure charges. This is really exciting. Richard MacGillivray 07:33.030
We've got Luke online, Councillor Amelia. Sorry, we've got Luke online. Amelia Lorentson 07:37.950
Hey, welcome to the planning environment, Luke. Luke 07:42.478
I'll pass it over to you, if you can give the committee and anyone watching today just an overview or summary um of the infrastructure charges resolution okay good morning councillors um this uh the the acts requires councillors to have a charges resolution to be able to issue uh charges on development um as get approved uh this council's charges resolution is this update is it's just a basic update to bring it in line with the recent indexation that the State did to the planning regulation It just makes it more transparent and it has been updated quite a number of times as you can see with the number of reports to council over the years. Basically 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. It's basically just an indexation update. Amelia Lorentson 09:03.635
Questions around the table? Luke 09:08.595
No, so, thank you. So you're saying in essence it's a technical and mandatory update? 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 aligns with the current schedule 16 of the planning regulation. It just makes it easier for everyone without having to understand how the indexation is applied by the State. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 09:47.103
My question is, are the increases in line with construction costs and whether infrastructure charges are adequate? SPEAKER_02 10:01.999
No, that's been an ongoing issue for quite a few years. Luke 10:08.579
The State sets the charges, the maximum charge, under the regulation. The charges are not linked to councils legit and because of that the charges, they're about, I think the last few I think the last few years the revenue from infrastructure charges has accounted for about 20% of the actual council's you know trunk infrastructure spend. I believe there is a there's a resolution or something going to the State come upcoming to actually 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 paying for the trunk infrastructure for which they're collecting. Amelia Lorentson 11:08.663
No, they are going to LGAQ, Rawlings. And asking, and I've got a quote here, for fairness, especially given the way very little ability councils have to fill the gap without impacting rate payers. So they've got a really big advocacy piece in this October LGAQ conference. And it's interesting because I think the Cooperative Council have actually replied to LGAQ's motion and said that increasing the cap will impact on housing affordability. LGAQ 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. Luke 12:10.104
One big component 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 you're five years behind on the charges now which is about 20% I believe is what it should be up high just on that alone. just on that alone. Amelia Lorentson 12:33.344
Kim Rawlings, you've got your hand up and welcome to planning committee. You can speak. Kim Rawlings 12:41.124
Yes, good morning councillors. further to Luke'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, as Luke just mentioned, so it's currently before parliament. Fantastic. Amelia Lorentson 13:05.840
Thank you. It would be great to have an update on that when that gets resolved. Tom Wegener 13:17.828
So there are decreases, though, and I think these reflect what we decided in the budget, which is Caretakers accommodation in multiple dwellings have gone down by substantial amounts. Is that a reflection of what we decided in the budget this year? Where we, where we, we're all again at rate A. Yeah, so this is different from the rate. So, your council has made some decisions regarding rates as such, but not infrastructure charges as such. So, there's no change. 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? Residentials used as caretakers in multiple dwellings. SPEAKER_06 14:12.688
Which page are you referring to? Sorry. Tom Wegener 14:18.128
It's, I don't know. No. Is it in the spreadsheet? It's... Yes, in the spreadsheet. It's in the very top of the spreadsheet at the bottom. There's a table number there. Table number is... Luke 14:31.212
Table should be 10.3 if you're looking at the charges... resolution, but the charges haven't gone down. Patrick Murphy 14:40.796
It's column four, so they would be existing reductions that have been maintained, is that correct? SPEAKER_02 14:46.176
Oh, column four. They're the reductions that council decided to actually reduce the charges for 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 And to keep it aligned with previous policies. And it's just to align with the actual demand generation. And it's basically, it's just the one-bedroom units are lower than a two-bedroom units. And similarly, a secondary dwelling is lower again than a normal two Which makes sense. Richard MacGillivray 15:45.673
Can you clarify when those council made those decisions on those reductions? Luke 15:53.793
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. 2011 when the adopted charges first came into play for each of the three planning schemes back then and then council maintained that when Noosa was formed again and so 2014 onwards there have been the amounts, the reductions. Richard MacGillivray 16:30.257
So essentially the maximum charges but in this particular case you see in that column four council has opted for a lower based on demand i.e. where there's less bedrooms in a particular dwelling unit Tom Wegener 16:59.321
So it just seems very consistent with where council is going. Brian Stockwell 17:04.021
Yeah, so my question probably follows on from that, it's probably to Kim Rawlings. In our housing strategy we committed to 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 that body of work coming to Council in the near future? SPEAKER_00 17:33.473
Thanks Councillor Stockwell. Through the Chair, yes it is. So you may recall that we have had some discussions with Council. The Council already does offer a range of incentives. So we offer discounted rates for not-for-profits and social enterprises. and, you know, so there are a range 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. Thank you Any further questions? Amelia Lorentson 18:08.433
I think the key point that was raised in this debate is there that is draft legislation which hopefully will put the burden of deciding appropriate level infrastructure charges back onto local government. As we heard, the capping was a result of strong advocacy from the property industry rather than from councils. It was based, in my opinion, on the misconception that developers not having to pay of providing the services to the developments they're undertaking in some way affected the selling price of homes and dwellings. It has been a mechanism where generally what the outcome is, is the existing ratepayers pay up front for the services to provide the ratepayers yet to 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 10 years to meet the gap. so it is a significant issue. Any further comments? No? No further 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 within this item to generate... to general 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. Thank you. Nadine 20:38.514
Good morning. As Councillor Amelia has introduced, this 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... 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 Exit out Diamond Lane. The applicant also proposes a small food and drinks outlet on the corner of Elm Street and Opal Street and that's to provide generally coffee and drinks. As an ancillary sort of facility for the car wash. The car wash, the applicant intends, has sought approval for a 24 hour, 7 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 night time operations. Just as a comparison Just as a comparison, the two car wash bays that we've got down in Noosaville, there's 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 bays as well as vacuum bays as well. So it just gives you an The site is located in the Cooroy local planning area and included in the district centre design. The Noosa Plan indicates it as an inconsistent use and therefore it's impact accessible. 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... with 19 objections. The district centre zone in accordance with the Noosa Plan is intended to cater for commercial development and is to maintain... there's a whole range of 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 the two service stations on the street and again reinforces the dominance of cars along that locality rather than providing for shop frontages which is what we envisage under the district centre design. the 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 and planning need and in relation to the above you know it is agreed that there is no car wash within Cooroy and surrounds with residents having to go down to Noosaville however 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 main reason strategic and the strategic and environment department have also advised that there is limited centre-signed land in Cooroy approximately 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 have which are in private ownership and that's about four thousand square metres they're underdeveloped with houses on them we also have Taylor Court which is owned industry as well it has two hectares of undeveloped land at the rear with 1.9 rear with 1.9 hectares facing Holtz Road, which is undeveloped. There is also a future proposal for 23 hectares to go into the urban footprint under the... shaping of the SEQ under the State government. That's also on Holtz Road as well. So the relevance of that is that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial zone. So one of 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 time of preparation of this report, which was several weeks ago, we had unfortunately only received verbal advice from our traffic consultant and that initial verbal advice had indicated that that the proposal was appropriate. He's had, we've since sort of liaised with him in liaised with him in terms of the traffic. His comments are that the 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 in terms of the queuing coming We've only just received that today, so following those discussions, we can also include that as a 30 grams per refusal. In Diamond Lane, there are some concerns in terms of, sort of, exiting and the impact on that intersection as well. So the commercial development only allowed the service vehicles to exit via Diamond Lane. That was proposed, and in the circumstance of the car wash, all vehicles would be required to exit via Diamond Lane. Richard MacGillivray 27:26.731
And it's important to highlight too that Elm Street is a state controlled road. And so, the Department of State, in the name of our tour referral agency, took this application, provided no concerns from their perspective, and our consultants have given us some it feels like the applicant hasn't demonstrated satisfaction that the use has adequately addressed queuing, particularly during peak periods, maybe the indoor weekend, where 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 28:12.632
The questions, and I know we've got lots, so you can't really decide. Tom Wegener 28:15.972
Thank you, and humour me, because that's a very basic question. That's fine. 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. 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. That's under the Noosa Plan, the table of assessment. Patrick Murphy 28:46.668
Or there's a table of assessment within this game, and it sets out the use zone. I don't know, uh, um, 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 accessible, or you're impact accessible, or 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 the inconsistent uses are those that the scheme hasn't, you know, it hasn't designed that zone to accommodate the use. Nadine 29:27.334
So we have code-accessible, and impact-accessible, and that's what... yeah, where it's not defined, it becomes a impact-accessible and inconsistent use. Tom Wegener 29:39.361
So if it's not a consistent use, then it's an inconsistent use. That's correct. And so the tables of assessment, where are they here? SPEAKER_01 29:49.049
They're in, the tables are part five. Tom Wegener 29:52.949
Sorry, you guys can answer. I can show you. I can show you right here. This is part five. So in your table of assessment, in your tables of assessment, part five, categories. Patrick Murphy 30:05.469
Okay. We can go through this. This gives, this gives all perspective. Developers guidance in terms of the framework that they're going to pass through in terms of an assessment of a development application and council's planning and council's position respectively on that type of development. SPEAKER_01 30:24.396
So this is the district. district centre zone here and you can see a caretaker and then it's code accessible and these are the codes it has to follow. Amelia Lorentson 30:33.007
Can I say, I'm sorry, this question is, can you define, just 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 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 struggle to find this, the Noosa planning scheme 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. And when you take the, look at low impact industry zones, they reference manufacturing, processing, supply, repairs. So business to business. Commercial activity, couldn't find any clear definition in our discipline scheme, but if we use just sort of common sense, business to business. So here's So here's where I'm sort of struggling and a question to you, Lydie. Why isn't a commercial car wash a commercial activity? Nadine 32:08.135
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, a decision has been made that car wash is not a consistent use in a commercial zone. 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 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, it's a higher level of noise impact than you would have from a commercial development. 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 It talks about large variety of uses and activities to serve the district of the Noosa Shire, including, for example, administrative, business, community, cultural, entertainment, professional, residential or retail uses or activities. And when you go yes to 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 33:41.124
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, there's a subset 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. Nadine 34:03.399
That's if you go down into our definitions? That's the defined activity groups, that's right. Amelia Lorentson 34:10.946
So when you look at uses, and I'm looking at it in the context of the area, you've got two service stations. Service stations, are they industrial or commercial activities? And my other question is, is a car wash an ancillary to a service station where there'd be consistent use? SPEAKER_01 34:37.873
I think if you look at it that way, yes. And I think if this had been included with the service station, on one of those service station sites, you That would be something we could look at, co-locating it, but as a stand-alone. When you look at it, this is three lots. 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 you know, it's three lots, 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, long time ago. I think I've got that written in my report. Richard MacGillivray 35:16.220
Yeah, so they were a long time ago under different schemes. So now we've, you know, the scheme... I mean, it's important to highlight, too, what the current scheme for the nursing plan is seeking to achieve from those locations is district centre. So it's essentially a nursing seeking shopping type operation that's consistent with a local village. We have the shops that fit in with the existing character that we're 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 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 36:28.185
Further to your comment though, service stations are an impact-accessible, inconsistent use in the district centre zone. So that's under our current scheme. So if they were coming in to apply for that now, we wouldn't support them. Patrick Murphy 36:42.805
Just further that, a service station is a business activity, but a car wash is an industrial activity. But notwithstanding the district centre zone, a service station is still an inconsistent, impact-accessible use. Amelia Lorentson 37:03.680
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. You mentioned the traffic report, it has said that there is less impact in terms of traffic with car wash, rather than retail sales, for example. was a small elderly store, et cetera. So in terms of impacts, what impacts does a car wash have that's worse than, say, a commercial activity? Nadine 38:21.398
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 the potential for cars to-- the applicant hasn't satisfactorily demonstrated that cars won't impact on that intersection as they're trying to turn again at queuing. Yes, they have addressed the noise. There were several submissions that were in relation to potential for noise. And that late-night use might be an issue in terms of the noise, in terms of vacuums, car doors, people. Yep, they did address noise. We've got stormwater that has been satisfactorily addressed as well. So, I suppose it's lighting might be different as well. You've got lighting, you've got people using that site. All potential But... 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 39:16.669
In terms of the stormwater and waste water management plan, can you explain what the applicant is proposing for the proposed car wash, because I've never seen a stormwater management plan like this. I actually 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 emphasis and the passion the applicant has for, A, the environment, and to provide a community, you know, a well-needed service. But the storm water management plan, can you give us a little bit of detail? It might be appropriate for us to bring a development engineer to a general community meeting to discuss the details in a manual way. And all of those details can be worked through the operational work stage as well, whether it's the details and the specific mechanics of how that's going to achieve particular work quality outcomes will be delivered likely through the operational works application part of the process which comes after a decision made about the in use. Yeah thank you just so I understand what I'm reading on page 14 of 17 of the planning officers report it looks looks like 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. Yes that's right. Brian Stockwell 41:14.276
And then to go below that in Cooroy highlighted in yellow the available amount of industrial land 16.5 that 16.57 hectares? Yes that's correct. So you compare that the amount of district centre land which is for job generating employment employment and commercial activities relatively rare, only 3,200 square metres, but for industrial land is, given that one hectare is 10,000 square metres, so we're looking at 160,000 square metres of land zone. industrial uses in Cooroy? Nadine 41:53.656
Yes, that's correct Brian Stockwell 41:55.196
Yes. Okay, and the site itself already has an approval for a small shopping centre and nine shops. Yes. Could you give us some ballpark figure about the amount of jobs generated between, should the application go ahead? They've got approval to build, on that vacant lot there's been approval granted in 2019 for small shopping centres. for small shopping centre and nine shops versus a car wash. Traditionally, can you can you compare? Nadine 42:25.282
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 might be somebody 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. would flick over to the shopping centre. If it's nine shops, you could at least basically start, there would be at least nine people there. It could be greater. There'd be different hours. So yeah, it's got a greater employment generation than the car wash. Brian Stockwell 43:04.536
So that's one of the intents of the planning scheme is to have that site for employment-generating activities? Yes. the report right you're saying 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 so if I understand Approved shops on the site with the car wash on some of the land in the industrial estate. SPEAKER_01 43:38.057
That's correct, yes. SPEAKER_02 43:40.027
And there are concerns about queuing in Diamond Lane and Opal Street that the car wash could create. Yes. Tom Wegener 44:00.340
First of all, I'd love to meet up because I really want to be able to understand the planning scheme. I don't see the tables of assessment listed here and also 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, Noosa Plan. No. Noosa Plan. With their definition section, it has the defined activity groups. And again, accommodation or business activities, recreation and industry, and a car wash is nestled in the plan. Then the next question is, I want to know this because if... because if this is approved, then I want to know the impact of the planning scheme. And so 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 is 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 space is not. And so... here we have something that, you know, people, somebody's 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 scheme seems to be actually out of step with reality? SPEAKER_00 45:53.060
What a great question. So, Councillor Wegener, towns like Cooroy that separated by rail or separated by some major road can always have challenges around creating an integrated and combined centre. So, you know, the development of the Noosa Plan was very much community aspiration, you know, to ensure that the centre reflected both sides of, you know, of town. And so the Noosa Plan was built on that basis and to look for ways to, you know, to integrate and, you know, and build that kind of, you know, character around. 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 provisions. Provisions for making this part of town district centre, that it is, you know, a legitimate part of town, it offers services, you know, it's part of town. So, you know, it can... You know, can provisions in the Noosa Plan be reviewed? Yes, they can be. 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 district centre. the time and you know what what the team have done is assess this application in line with the current provisions of Noosa Plan. Brian Stockwell 47:34.550
Can I have a subsequent follow-on? The plan is about establishing the desired future. There are a number of projects going on in this locality. One to look at how we improve the pedestrian connectivity across the railway line. 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, getting off a train or a bus and then connecting to local initiatives going down. If those pedestrianisation, more passing traffic, more visitation from the railway station, would that change the nature of what the market would see as appropriate in the district centre zone? Would that change? SPEAKER_00 48:25.800
I would say absolutely yes. So you're absolutely correct. The plan is 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 where our community wants our town to be and what the appropriate, you know, land use responses are to that. And absolutely, there are a range of things underway at the moment, particularly around planning for... Planning for addressing some of the movement and connectivity challenges and issues in Cooroy, but yes, I would say absolutely that would strengthen the integration of the town and what might, you know, be considered by the market more feasible on these key sites. Amelia Lorentson 49:20.420
Okay, further questions? This will be moved to the general meeting. I have a couple more questions, Nadine. So, the report indicates that it's all appropriate to have a car wash as its industrial nature located in the industrial site. I'm still challenged on the definition of how wash is an industrial. I'm still challenged on that. And so, what I'm thinking is, 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, so I am. I think, okay, my question is, can the use be legally challenged? Can, what legally challenged? So the Noosa Plan has identified it as an industrial activity. The Noosa Plan, the table of assessment, includes a car wash, details details of car wash in the district centre as an impact accessible inconsistent use. That's what the planning scheme says. The Noosa Plan table of assessment indicates that a car wash is a consistent use in the industrial zone layout. So that's what I've got to work with and that's what we've got to work with. So in terms of... of looking at... I suppose the other thing to look at with a car wash, 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 as an 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 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 so in terms of that more commercial retail uses that we're used to, I can sort of see how it fits into that sort of industrial activity here. There's some processing and servicing happening. But it's useless to have slots, so dominantly... That's a service, yeah. It's a convenient service that's being provided, yes. It is It's servicing a lot. SPEAKER_02 52:37.142
Just so we're clear about comparing apples with apples, you're saying that the district centre land is in relatively short supply. 3,200 square metres is actually 0.32 of a hectare. Yes. Compared to 116.57 hectares. Compared to... SPEAKER_01 53:00.153
That's, yeah, approximately SPEAKER_02 53:01.833
Yes. Of industrial land. SPEAKER_01 53:02.973
And potentially another 23 hectares under the SEQ, shaping the SEQ. Right. SPEAKER_02 53:10.713
So you're saying in order to maintain the character of the Cooroy entry area, provide employment... Provide employment, 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. it's a good idea but in the wrong place. Yes. That's what you suggest? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 53:47.115
Councillor Tom, any further questions? Tom Wegener 53:49.774
No, I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 53:52.695
Councillor Wilson, question you. Nicola Wilson 53:55.848
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 affected? SPEAKER_01 54:07.268
A lot of them work with Cooroy addresses. I didn't, I didn't pinpoint them, but yeah, a lot of them are, yes I can, we can have a look at that. Patrick Murphy 54:17.201
Maybe we can look at where the objections came from. Yeah, objections rather than support? Yes. Oh, okay, yeah, thank you. Frank Wilkie 54:29.695
Madam Chair, you moved that it's, are you moving it goes to the general? I'm moving that it goes to the general because of the significance of the matter and I'm not going to Council to have an open discussion about it. have no other second but this. Thank you, Councillor Tom. Any further discussion on by-law? Thank you, Nadine. No worries. Thank you, Nadine. Tom Wegener 54:51.488
Are you down there? Can I go down there? If you come down, once you finish, once you finish, come come down and see. I just want to go through it all. Nadine, thanks. Amelia Lorentson 54:58.786
Oh, sorry. We're now up to reports and noting. I don't think so. Six, and we're going to 6.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority. And I'll hand it over to Patrick. Thank you, Patrick. Sorry. Our monthly report for the matters that were decided by delegation for the 9th of June. You have the table which table which details all those decisions that were made under delegation. I should advise, I've just picked up, that the report includes the application for the additions to the veterinary clinic, which was actually reported to council at the last, like, June round meeting. So that shouldn't be in this report. So just a minor adjustment there. But other than that, you've got the report that details those applications. Council, is there any questions? No, thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick, I see the Noosa Woods Park and Public Toilets Club out in drive. So I'm not at the works meetings. And so what's happening there? Yeah, that was was the young 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 56:33.867
By the way, if you guys have been down to the river mouth, it appears to just be spectacular the way there's the lagoons and you Brian Stockwell 56:59.300
Kip before, for thoroughness should we vary the motion to including extricating the Noosaville veterinary surgeon from that? Yes. We're going to provide some suggestive wording. But it's not seconded. So the motion hasn't been seconded so it doesn't exist. Patrick Murphy 57:44.348
MCU 16 forward slash double zero seven point oh one. Seven zero point oh one. We could just leave it at that. SPEAKER_02 58:06.308
Just the reason for that, it's already been approved. Is that the only reason? 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 by the delegated authority. Patrick Murphy 58:17.888
Those applications have been decided by delegated authority. Yeah. That one clearly Brian Stockwell 58:28.380
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 little house at 11 Station Street and fortunately it's not moving very far. It's about lifting the dwelling to establish a habitable first floor level of 90.4 AHD, approximately one metre above the flood level, repositioning the dwell within 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 Amelia Lorentson 59:13.500
On paper, that's carried unanimously. And that brings us now to item 7 of the confidentiality sessions. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10:30. Thank you councillors, thank you staff. Great discussion. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
