Planning & Environment Committee - 8 October 2024
Date: Tuesday, 8 October 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:00:09
Synopsis: Noosa Junction noise, midnight trading and live music opposed over enforcement concerns, Serenity resort downsized and referred, bus stop contested, Koala offsets, Performing Arts Centre approved.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson opened and chaired; noted attendance incl. CEO and directors; meeting confirmed prior minutes (00:00) (Minutes 1–2). Deputation received on Noosa Junction night noise impacts from Danica Allan for residents; concerns tied to proposed Noosa Plan 2020 amendments (Fact Sheet 12) allowing midnight trading and live music (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Major resort change at 3 & 7 Serenity Close, Noosa Heads—extension to currency period and “other change” to existing approval—was referred to General Committee due to significance; carried unanimously (12:55–13:30) (Minutes 5.1). Officers reported negotiated downsizing: 186 units, ~17,000 m² GFA, increased open space/vegetation retention, relocation outside environmental zone; traffic, stormwater, bushfire acceptable per external reviews (15:20–20:28, 22:29–24:44) (Minutes 5.1). State conditions include koala habitat offsets and a private bus stop on Serenity Close; Council infrastructure and applicant oppose the bus stop and will make representations to the State (16:06–20:08) (Minutes 5.1). Frank Wilkie confirmed parking meets code; roundabout delays acceptable; offsets provided for any vegetation removal (20:42–24:44) (Minutes 5.1). Tom Wegener sought data on unit mix shift to 177 one‑bedrooms (family vs dual‑key balance) to assess broader housing/STA pressures; officers to obtain applicant rationale (27:53–30:04) (Minutes 5.1). Council’s trustee obligations over adjacent conservation land and bushfire fuel loads (8–10 t/ha) reaffirmed; maintenance budgets handled within reserve management program (30:04–37:40) (Minutes 5.1). Good Shepherd Lutheran School Performing Arts Centre approved with conditions and preliminary master plan approval; height (10.64–11 m) exceeds 8 m acceptable outcome but meets performance outcomes given 40 m setback and context (38:58–47:26) (Minutes 5.2). Access/parking upgrades at Goodchap St drop‑off required; façade colour/material articulation conditioned; public art encouraged but not mandated (41:53–49:55) (Minutes 5.2). Delegated decisions noted: 33 total, 31 approvals, 2 refusals; staffing now at full complement; increasing activity in Cooroy (54:35–59:35) (Minutes 6.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Danica Allan alleged persistent non‑compliance by some Junction venues (warnings, fines, penalties by OLGR) and arduous complaint processes placing burden on residents (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Residents dispute petitions supporting live music as dominated by non‑residents; seek relocation of nightlife, not a ban on music (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Active travel connectivity from The J to Serenity Close acknowledged as suboptimal; full path along Grant St deemed technically complex and not developer‑conditionable, to be addressed via broader capital works (25:03–27:53) (Minutes 5.1). State‑imposed private bus stop on Serenity Close lacks local support, raising inter‑agency alignment concerns (16:06–20:08) (Minutes 5.1). Legal / Risk Serenity Close assessment framed under Planning Act “other change” to existing approval; report noted s 63(5) Planning Act 2016 compliance (16:06–20:28) (Minutes 5.1–5.2). Koala and Glossy Black‑Cockatoo assessments found no evidence on site; State requires offsets and rehabilitation plan for any habitat removal—non‑compliance risk sits with conditions (16:06–20:08) (Minutes 5.1). Delegated refusal of six units/food & drink at Bottle Brush was appealed, indicating ongoing litigation exposure (56:20–56:42) (Minutes 6.1). Noosa Junction noise regulation primarily under OLGR; Council’s role limited to land use/zoning—risk of community dissatisfaction if amendments proceed without enforceable noise control mechanisms (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Council, as trustee of conservation land relied upon for bushfire mitigation, carries operational risk and budget obligations for fuel management (35:27–37:40) (Minutes 5.1). Noise Pollution & Night-time Economy (Noosa Junction) Danica Allan opposed proposed Plan 2020 amendments extending food/drink hours to midnight, seven days, and enabling live music; cited topography (Sunshine Beach Rd “valley”) amplifying noise into residences 300–400 m away (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Reports of post‑closing street disorder, hooning on Noosa Dr, and safety concerns for teens; residents demand addressing current breaches before any policy liberalisation (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). OLGR’s reactive complaints model (logs/matched evidence) creates prolonged harm; residents argue amendments would entrench irreversible impacts (02:26–12:55) (Minutes 4.1). Environmental Concerns & Conservation Management Serenity Close redesign reduces footprint, retains more vegetation, and removes works from mapped environmental areas; fauna surveys undertaken; offsets conditioned where applicable (15:20–24:44) (Minutes 5.1). Amelia Lorentson sought consideration of local ecological experts during tree retention works; officers noted qualifications/WH&S constraints but will consider further (31:17–33:55) (Minutes 5.1). Conservation land fuel‑load targets maintained by Council across reserve network for bushfire protection benefiting multiple developments (35:27–36:27) (Minutes 5.1). Planning Scheme Performance Outcomes (Education Facility) Brian Stockwell affirmed that despite exceeding acceptable height/GFA outcomes, the Performing Arts Centre meets performance outcomes given setbacks, context, and functional design needs (50:07–51:16) (Minutes 5.2). Karen Finzel encouraged creative façade treatment/public art; officers to engage separately as conditioning direct public art is difficult for this code‑assessable proposal (47:39–49:55) (Minutes 5.2). Short Stay Letting & Housing Signals Tom Wegener linked Serenity unit mix (predominantly one‑bed) to potential pressure on family accommodation/STA; requested evidence base on market need (27:53–30:04) (Minutes 5.1). One STA application approved in August; many secondary dwellings are self‑assessable, with officers proposing a separate update on housing strategy outcomes (56:42–58:13) (Minutes 6.1). Transport & Active Travel Bicycle/pedestrian link from The J to Serenity exists off‑road but upgrades (e.g., full path on Grant St) are complex and require Shire‑wide budget programming, not a single‑DA condition (25:03–27:53) (Minutes 5.1). Serenity to rely on on‑site drop‑off and a 21‑seater shuttle to public bus stops; large coaches unsuitable for local streets per infrastructure advice (22:29–24:10) (Minutes 5.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 8 October 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 8 OCTOBER 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 10 September 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 4. DEPUTATIONS 4.1. DEPUTATION - NOISE ISSUES IN NOOSA JUNCTION APPLICANT: LIAM ALLAN SPEAKERS: LIAM ALLAN & DANICA ALLAN PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 OCTOBER 2024 5. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 5.1. 132008.176.04 - APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO CURRENCY PERIOD AND 132008.176.05 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES - RESORT DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING A MULTIPLE DWELLING (109 DWELLING UNITS) AND ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (90 ACCOMMODATION UNITS) AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO A RESORT COMPLEX AND SHOP AT 3 AND 7 SERENITY CLOSE, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 5.2. MCU23/0096 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (EXTENSION TO EXISTING - PERFORMING ARTS BUILDING) AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A MASTER PLAN AT 115 EUMUNDI NOOSA RD, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 October 2024 regarding Application No. MCU23/0096 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use Educational establishment (extension to existing – Performance Arts Centre) and Preliminary Approval for an Educational Establishment in accordance with a Master Plan situated at 115 Eumundi Noosa Rd Noosaville Qld 4566: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions in Attachment 1. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 OCTOBER 2024 6. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - AUGUST 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 8 October 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority during the month of August as per Attachment 1. Carried unanimously. 7. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 8. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.34am
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
They didn't go. Excuse me, Councillor Wegener, can I ask for quiet, we're about to open the meeting. Thank you very much. Good morning everyone and welcome to the planning and environment meeting October 8 at 9:30am. I'd like to begin with an acknowledgement to country and I'll first respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi elders that we have in the gallery today, Aunty Bucky and Dylan. Aunty Buffy and Dinua welcome. I respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional custodians of the lands and waters that form the region that we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to Elders present, past and future and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. In attendance I'd like to note that I have the Mayor Wilkie, Councillor Tom Wegener fresh from his holiday in Europe. Council Brian Stockwell will be attending but he is running late. Also I'd like to acknowledge online we have Councillor Finzel online. Before we start the meeting can Before we start the meeting can I respectfully request that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off and I would also like to remind councillors and anyone speaking today of their obligations under the Local Government Act to talk respectfully to staff and HR. Confirmation of minutes. I'll start with a confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover? Thank you. Mayor Wilkie. Thank you. Tom Seconding. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. Excuse me, I forgot to also acknowledge our CEO, Larry Sengstock. Presentations and deputations. We have a deputation, so I would like to welcome to the floor, Liam. Before Liam and Danica Allan, I welcome you to present your deputation and the matter in front of us, the Noosa issues in Noosa Junction. I remind you that deputations are generally no longer than 15 minutes. Thank you, Danica. Thank you, Amelia. Danica Allan 02:26.179
Good morning, everybody, council members. Thank you for having us here. Speaking for you today, I'm Danica Allan. I'm a resident in the Noosa Junction area and I'm here to speak to you today on behalf of my family and many hundreds of fellow residents in the Noosa Junction. So as I stand here solo talking to you today, I'd like you to just imagine there are a few hundred people behind me that I'm representing. We are vehemently against the proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020, particularly those outlined 2020, particularly those outlined in Fact Sheet 12 regarding business and entertainment activities in Noosa Junction. As we understand it, the proposed amendment includes following changes and concepts. 1. Extending the operating hours of all food and drink outlets in Noosa Junction until midnight. 2. Applying these extended hours to all seven days of the week, not just weekends, and 3. That the concept for the future of Noosa Junction is that it become a nightlife entertainment precinct including the provision of live music. Why are we so strongly why are we so strongly against these proposed amendments? Because there is already a noise issue in Noosa Junction due to live music, patron noise and also car noise, resulting in residents' inability to sleep. Even with their doors and windows closed, I'll say that again, us residents are unable to sleep in our own homes due to the noise currently emanating from the junction. We live in Banksia Avenue, 340 metres from Noosa, from Sunshine Beach Road. The residents we're presenting today ignore South East and West of Sunshine Beach Road, all within about a 400 metre radius. We are all adversely impacted. by music noise, patron noise and late night reckless driving noise emanating from the junction. Our right to peace and quiet within our amenity is being very quickly erased. We are seeking to have the current issue addressed and to ensure that proposed amendments are not passed so that our right to peace and quiet is restored and we can actually sleep in our homes as we are entitled to do. So please understand this is simply about our right to right to sleep in our homes. I'd first like to address the number of community groups including the Noosa Junction Traders Association who are currently very verbal in promotion of the Noosa Junction and speaking out by way of petitions against us, media articles and You're all probably aware of these movements. Those petitions have a lot of signatures from people who do not live in the Junction and don't understand the issues at hand. Their focus is solely on saving live music. I want to make a couple of things very clear in relation to those movements. We are not a small to those movements, we are not a small number of serial complainants, we are hundreds of sleep-affected residents in Noosa Junction. We have made complaints against a number of venues who have been breaking the regulations of their practices. Those licences were given formal warnings by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation. Then they were fined for ignoring those warnings and eventually they had more serious penalties imposed because they were again caught the act of operating outside of their licences. No one has been unfairly targeted, only venues that have repeatedly ignored complaints and OLGR have been penalised. We are not trying to kill live music in Noosa. We are supportive of live music in Noosa and we are supportive of bringing life into Noosa, but in a well thought through and sustainable way. We are empathetic to the plight of musicians and licensees. In fact, we have attempted to engage both licensees and musicians, and those generating the aforementioned petitions, in an attempt to work together. No one has replied back to engage with us. The issue isn't the music, it's the location. Noosa Junction is simply not the suitable location for live music after hours. is one strip in the middle of a residential area. It's surrounded by homes. There also seems to be a complete lack of consideration or understanding about topography of the area, being that Sunshine Beach Road is essentially a valley. So sound travels up out of the valley to homes on the small hillsides that surround it. No one seems to be considering this as an extremely important geographical factor. The Junction has long been home to restaurants and cafes without issue, but bars and restaurants trading as bars with a focus on alcohol and live music almost every night of the week is a different thing. If the proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan are approved, the disturbance to the peace and to the peace and quiet of Noosa Junction residents will be irreversible. Once those changes are implemented and licensees capitalise on the opportunity, that change to Noosa Junction will be permanent. The changes are essentially creating a late night entertainment hub in the middle of Currently, late night music and patron noise often continue past 2am. Residents can't have their windows open at night due to the noise. Running fans, air conditioners, using white noise and hearing protection have all proven useless against the level of noise. Residents no longer feel safe walking through or near the junction after dark, fearful of drunken patrons. Residents have teenage children... Residents have teenage children who work part-time in the junction, they're not always safe walking home, so parents are now having to drive into the junction to collect them at the end of their shifts. In addition, Noosa Drive has increasingly become a racetrack, with hoons showing off to their friends drinking in the bars located near Sunshine Beach Road and Noosa Drive roundabout, so we are regularly woken with the sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and speeding cars. us. The proposed changes do say that live music is to be unamplified, however performers always use amplification and acoustic guitars by nature of their construction are naturally amplified, so that restriction as to unamplified essentially is meaningless. Venues and their artists play their music at excessive volumes over and above the regulations and they don't control their patrons who yell and scream and screech along with the music essentially creating open-air karaoke bars in competition with one at times. Licensees have told us the more merrier and the more noise patrons make, the more crowds are joined in by that noise so they encourage it in street advertising. One venue has three TVs on the outside and one on the inside. However, when sporting games are being played, the lack of sound doesn't make any difference to the degree of noise the patrons watching the game make. That outdoor karaoke bar becomes an outdoor sports bar. And all the whooping, cheering, After closing time, the patrons from those venues are on the street. They're inebriated, and they're waiting for Ubers and taxis. After the music stops, sound is replaced with yelling, fighting, screaming, and all kinds of unsavoury behaviour taking place out on the streets. Ensuring that licensees operate within the rules and regulations in place around the provision of live music is difficult and does come back to Council. It's not your responsibility. It also does not fall to local police. It's not within their jurisdiction to deal with noise complaints and licensed venues. That falls to the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation, OLGR, and they will only step in after a number of complaints are made. OLGR and State Department. They're relatively small in terms of staffing numbers and they cover the entire Sunshine Coast and right up to Hervey Bay. The legislation in place for noise complaints is extremely arduous and it's not in favour not in favour of the complainants. Many of us presidents have been in communication with OLGR for eight months this year, before any change was made. That's eight months of seriously, seriously interrupted sleep. To reiterate, Council controls zoning and issues of permits, but a completely separate body, being the OLGR, handles the complaints. This detachment effectively shifts accountability away from the Council, who we believe were for some time not even aware of the issues of Noosa. Let me explain a little bit about the process of making a complaint with OLGR. When residents experience excessive noise, they are required to submit a written log of the date, time and type of noise encountered. Our log needs to match at least two or three other complaints before OLGR staff will even be given permission from management to open the case. OLGR cannot attend to complaints at the time they are made. don't operate in an on-call service. It's not a live process, but it's a reactionary process and it's a very protracted one that places a burden on the public to document and record disturbances multiple times to prove that there is an issue. This includes... having to get out of bed late at night, get dressed, travel down to the junction and take video evidence of the court refining venue or venues night after night after night. And even then, that evidence is only of value if other residents provide the same evidence from the same night, from the same venues, at the same time, and log that evidence with OLGR at the same time they do. All the while, we, and more importantly our children, are not getting normal sleep on a normal school night. We understand the need to breathe life into Noosa, and the concept of providing some nightlife for local young people and older people alike. But to be clear, we, the residents of Noosa Junction, will not sleep until Noosa Will not sleep until Noosa Junction is no longer a location for live night-time music. In closing, we collectively implore you to review and address two major issues. That is the existing noise pollution caused by bars and clubs trading under the of restaurants in Noosa Junction. And secondly, the future strategic plans for Junction. To put simply and in summary, plans to turn Noosa Junction into an entertainment precinct are not workable and must be moved elsewhere. Thank you very much for your time. you very much for your time. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 12:55.346
Thank you Danica. I'll now go to item number five of course. Welcome Councillor Stockwell to Stockwell to the table, item number five, reports for consideration of a committee will go to 5.1, development application 132008.176. application for extension to currency period and 132008.176.05 application for other change to develop an approval for materials change of use of premises. Resort development comprising multiple dwelling 109 dwelling units and accommodation building 90 accommodation units and ancillary facilities to a resort complex and shop at 3 and 7 Serenity Close Noosa Heads. And welcome to the desk our planning director Richard and planning staff Patrick and Nadine. We might start with an overview. overview of the application that's in front of us noting that because of the significance of this development it is moved, it will be moved to the general meeting so that all councillors can partake in the discussions. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Right, so the first report is considering two applications as Councillor Lorentson has indicated. The first application is the point application four which is for an extension to the currency period of an existing approval and then the O5 application is of a change to an existing approval. So the sites we're talking about are at 3 and 7 Serenity Close, Noosa Heads, they're the last two residential high-density sites in Settlers Cove which was part of the master plan developed and approved back in 2004. They were approved as part development of a application that created the rarest high lots around Serenity Close and a number of residential single-housing lots along Bank Serenity and the dedication of Conservation Park directly to the west part of Settlers Cove. Nadine 15:20.342
So there's an existing approval over these two sites that was lodged in 2008 and approved in 2011. The approval has gone through a number of extension applications. And it approved a total of 199 dwellings on the site in a four story configuration with basement car parking and pools along the southern boundary. The submitted other change that we're considering, or has been launched recently, was originally submitted with 205 rooms, four stories, 19,000 square metres of GFA, 40% site cover and access of Banksia Avenue. Patrick Murphy 16:06.522
Throughout the process, we negotiated with the applicant, and we ended up with the final set of plans, with 186 units, four stories in height, the GFA reduced down 17 to, 000 square metres approximately. Basement parking, pools, the whole development sort of moved further along the southern boundary, and the pools located in the northern boundary. All development was relocated out of the environmental zone. Shops had previously been proposed in the centre with access of serenity closed were relocated to go underneath the building. Yep, so that's what we've ended up with. So briefly we've talked about the requirements under the Planning Act when we're dealing with an other change and whilst the process is And whilst the process is similar and has gone through a whole new process in terms of it's been lodged, there have been information requested, there have been public notification for submissions, and we've now assessed it, we have to consider this. The changes with respect to the existing approval. And that's what we've looked at. So in our basis, in our assessment, the existing, Existing, the the new new development development compared compared to to the existing footprint has been reduced. We've got more areas open space, we've got more retention of vegetation, we have less number of units and we've got less GFA. We've reviewed the current proposal, the final proposal against the planning scheme and basically the development has been altered now and takes form of small separate buildings. We consider it to be consistent with the scale of development in the surrounding area. There's some variation in design and materials. We've got some breaking up of the buildings through the form. They're rooftop garden and terrace. The proposal complies with Compliance with car parking and in terms of that based on car parking, stormwater has been reviewed by an external consultant and has been considered to be acceptable, traffic has been reviewed by external consultants and also is considered appropriate, and the number of submissions were received in regard to traffic and impacts. Our consultants have looked at those concerns and indicate that the current roundabouts and road system is capable of supporting the proposed development. Bushfire was also reviewed by an external consultant remodelling by the applicant and council's consultant indicates that it's outside the hazard area. And can be dealt with under conditions. Biodiversity mapping, the development footprint is less than the existing approval. And more vegetation is retained on site. A koala survey has been undertaken. There's no evidence of koalas on site. And the previous approval has... The existing approval, sorry, has actually paid contributions for removal of koala trees previously, sorry. The survey was also undertaken in terms of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo feed trees. Again, there's no evidence of those species found. 107 submissions were received in response to advertising of the proposal. 21 were in support, the others were not. the State for koala and state transport infrastructure, the State has imposed conditions relating to removal of koala habitat, also required a rehabilitation plan. or not, the applications will serve. and an offset for removal of trees. the State has also required the permission of a private bus stop along Serenity Close. That bus stop, private bus stop is not supported by the infrastructure section and the applicant has also indicated they don't support it. They'll be making representations to the State along those lines. Nadine 20:08.120
There are a couple of areas of non-compliance which we have reviewed and are considered quite minor: number of attached units in one plane, the rooftop terrace that we believe are quite minor and don't have significant impacts and staff have therefore recommended Amelia Lorentson 20:28.040
Thank you. I'll now throw it to the floor and councillors. Any questions to Nadine, Patrick or Richard? Thank you, Chair. Frank Wilkie 20:42.320
You mentioned that there are, through the Chair, you mentioned there are 107 submissions, 27 in support. Could you outline the main reasons for objection in those submissions? Could you in support. Nadine 20:56.769
Yes, it is indicated in my report. There are several submissions that move with the in terms of habitat. And it has been indicated that the applicant had undertaken extensive testing across the site on observations. So we're happy with that information being provided in terms of the vegetation removal. One of the big ones was the traffic side of things. That was a big consideration of the number that was put forward by the submitters. But, as I said, we've had actually two traffic consultants have looked at this and they haven't had an issue with the existing capacity of the road network and the roundabouts. There was a suggestion to open up Banksy Road. We We specifically specifically asked asked our traffic consultants to have a look at that and they again advised that that wasn't appropriate and it wasn't required. Quite a few of the submissions also raised things about Energex. Which isn't anything to do with council and also that the assistance on station is not sufficient. Patrick Murphy 22:03.320
Again, that's a new order and that doesn't fall under our realm. So, a lot of them... There were comments about... There were comments about... There were comments about the design. Nadine 22:14.308
Traffic impacts were raised during construction but that can be dealt with by conditions of approval in terms of the requirement for a traffic management plan. And there were again comments about parking. So a lot of it is to do with access to Long Branch Street. Frank Wilkie 22:29.613
So follow up question. Parking can be handled on site? Yes. Energex and Unitywater are obviously capable of providing the services to the development? I assume that's what the problem raised in submissions is. Also the private bus, the requirement of the private bus stop on the street, I imagine that is something to do with farrowing, farrowing, farrowing, not farrowing, farrowing, transferring the guests to either the junction The guests to either the junction or Hastings Street, by means other than a private car, if there's not a private bus stop on the street, are they still going to be achieved as objected by other names? Nadine 23:17.607
They've got, underneath, there is a drop off and there is a provision for a 21 seater bus underneath the building, so that's what they've indicated that they can use. that also said that they won't be having big buses, so that, yes, they will be ferrying people to the bus stop down by The J and using that. Our infrastructure said you won't get buses through Grant Street, not Natasha Avenue, it's just, you know, you can't take a big bus through that section. So they'll be looking at whether we've got pathways through the junction. got pathways through the J through the park system back up to the site and yes we've talked about there is a condition about scooters and electric bikes to be available to guests as well. There's a bus available on the bus park available on site as well. Frank Wilkie 24:10.057
So the two traffic consultants they acknowledge that in acknowledging the submitters concern traffic they acknowledge that there will be an increase in traffic. Yes. On the roads there but the roundabout and the road network can handle that. Patrick Murphy 24:26.254
They said the wait times at the roundabouts were within normal realms. Projected wait times. Yeah, that's right. So the first, with the original application they didn't have enough car parking So so they they did did go go back back and and revise revise the design and put a lot more car parking in the basement area. Frank Wilkie 24:44.703
So it's a smaller footprint, more open space, the buildings are no longer in the environmental and conservation area? That's correct, yes. more vegetation retained on site? That's correct. And offsets for any vegetation removed? That's right, yes. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 25:00.912
Questions? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 25:03.652
Maybe Brian will ask this again. Or, Brian, with the bike paths, it mentions that there are paths going from there to the junction. Yes, yes. Are they bicyclable? And can they be upgraded to the point where bicycles can easily get from the junction without, 'cause the traffic, the roads are narrow. Yes, they are. They're not walking big roads, and there's really never gonna be a bike path on those roads, unless we. Nadine 25:32.962
Unless I haven't walked it for a while, I have walked that one, I've ridden, I have ridden. It's not on the road, it's off the road. No, it's off the road. Amelia Lorentson 25:40.102
Sorry, can I just notice, Shaun Walsh, director of the structure. Shaun Walsh 25:47.842
I've walked that route recently, from the J up to towards where the site is. Tom Wegener 26:13.844
And in terms of, this is one of the submissions, the full path along Grant Street, Shaun can I ask, that full path is in very urgent need of upgrade. Has discussion and it was part of the submissions made to the application. Amelia Lorentson 26:33.724
I note Council have responded by saying that that issue is a Thank you. You saying that that issue is a complex issue? Can you further elaborate? Tom Wegener 26:42.013
Yes, so the first is that the development of this scale doesn't treat us, you know, for them to actually construct a full part of that scale in the way that we're going to street because we already have a connection. You know, through the conjunction. Ideally, we would have full part but not great strength as long as supplemented. As council's been receiving development applications, duplexes and the like, we haven't been getting that great of a funding to work to provide a full part since it's disjointed. For council to go in and And that, you know, is not something we can bear upon the developer for this particular application. It's something we have to spread across the community and be a part of in the whole budget process. But it's not straightforward. It's actually technically quite complex and would take a fair bit of time and cost to actually implement. But we can work towards it in terms of as we get additional development applications and we can also put it in our long term people works program. Amelia Lorentson 27:45.123
Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 27:53.203
I have a couple of questions and possibly requesting further information. This is economic data on accommodation needs. The report I think on page 32, economic development outline the huge economic benefits of high-end hotels like the Carlyle. What it is lacking and what I'll probably be seeking information for for the general meeting is data on the specific accommodation needs in terms of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom unit. I'd love to have that information and I say that because our initial conversations some time ago with the applicants was that and I note the existing approval had included 19 two-bedroom units, 39 two-bedroom dual key units and 51 three-bedroom dual key units totalling, and I did all my numbers, I've got 129 one-bedroom and 17 two This now has changed to 177 one-bedroom unit with only five two-bedroom units and only four three-bedroom units. So I just want to understand the reasoning behind the shift and understand the supporting data to justify these changes. Again, sort of understanding how we've gone from family-friendly accommodation, which would sort of help... alleviate, in my opinion, our pressures with Airbnbs and residential zones and homes. So I just want to understand what data supported that. Patrick Murphy 29:38.480
So that was the applicant. So we didn't get the configuration, so I would have to go back to them to ask them. So it wasn't us who said we want more of these. Nadine 29:53.729
They came back with that proposal. So I would have to go back to the applicant rather than an economic site. Yeah, that was the applicant who proposed this configuration. Amelia Lorentson 30:04.469
Great, okay. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Still questions on the floor. In terms of the conservation land, so my understanding there's three lots directly to the south. The site that council is a trustee and it is responsible for management of management of the conservation land. Can you explain what that actually means? Nadine 30:30.436
So the three directly to the south, they're actually state land with the council's trustee the one the big one to further that's the conservation park. We're required to maintain them yes there was an agreement as part of this original there are conditions sorry as part of this original development that there's maintenance in terms of bushfire and yes we're required to maintain those levels as per those conditions and there's a deed of agreement that's been signed by a previous Amelia Lorentson 31:17.300
I've got a few questions now, Councillor Stockwell. In terms of design, and I think I've raised this a couple of times. In terms of design, we noted in the report that we did actually request independent review of the design by an expert architect. Can I ask what was his findings on the design? His findings on design? Fantastic. Thank you. In terms of, okay, and I'm going back to sort of learnings that we had with the Sunrise application in terms of the... think there's a couple of conditions. Vegetation protection covenant. Oh, sorry, the... I think it's condition number 60, eh? it's condition number 68, retention of existing trees. So there's also fauna management. I wonder, and this is just a question, can we include, and this is just from learnings from the Sunrise development, can we include a noting or some sort of condition that requires local experts? Local experts to be on site when that retention happens. Something maybe I'll discuss with you, Richard, after this meeting. Tom Wegener 33:08.808
Yeah, happy to explore that. Obviously challenges regarding the role for... Richard MacGillivray 33:16.636
Yeah, the particular parties to do that work. So we'll take that on notice, possibly, for the conversation. The issue is, yeah, there'll be a person, a qualified person engaged to undertake those works. Bringing in third parties can be quite a challenging situation, particularly if they're not specifically qualified to undertake that work, and then there can be further requests for help and safety risks and the like. But happy to consider that a bit further and understand the role of community members and... Tom Wegener 33:48.482
And then they were put into the vegetation retention management. Amelia Lorentson 33:55.242
Thank you. And next we've got Councillor Finzel on line. Karen, what questions... Sorry, we have audio issues. Can you hear me? Do you have a question? We might request that you maybe go to your chat box and submit your question online and we can have it answered. If you can submit your question on chat that would be great. Frank Wilkie 34:45.840
Try again Karen. Karen Finzel 34:48.840
Yeah I've added that now. Oh Amelia Lorentson 34:51.080
Okay. We can hear you now. You can speak. Oh can you hear me now? Yes we can. Karen Finzel 34:54.740
Oh fantastic. Thank you for your patience everybody. Just going on from the conservation area, given that the natural environment of Noosa is highly revered in our landscape, I'm just wanting more information on the benefits and risks to Council with regards to the condition to maintain that area. Just going on from you patients, everybody. Patrick Murphy 35:27.680
We are required to maintain that area. There are conditions of the original application. There is an agreement that we are to maintain it. Council has signed over that responsibility. So we are responsible for managing that land regardless of this development going ahead. So we're not seeking to impose any further constraints on that land. Tom Wegener 35:53.577
There was a requirement that it be managed to 8 tonnes, 10 tonnes. So that's the current arrangement and the development will be relying upon that occurring to ensure that they have their adequate bushfire protection. Nadine 36:13.397
Noting that that's what it should be maintained that's what it should be maintained at for also those existing developments in the area. So we should be undertaking that maintenance. That's my understanding. Tom Wegener 36:27.029
And that will be undertaken similar to our wide range of reserve networks as well. The Council already undertakes regular management and maintenance of those other estates. This is another one of the... Karen Finzel 36:47.250
Thank you. Following on top of that question, though, in terms of risk back to Council, what's the economic... Is that in our budget for maintenance for that moving forward, or will that have to be something that's reconsidered when it comes to budget? Tom Wegener 37:05.102
Yeah, we have funds set aside every year for undertaking reserve management across our entire reserve network, Councillor Finzel, so this will be included as And obviously each year the team provide details on whether there's such funding or any increases required to undertake further maintenance and management work in those reserve networks. Karen Finzel 37:31.635
Thank you. Do you think this will trigger a review of our reserve management funds and how it's managed across the Shire into the future? Tom Wegener 37:40.755
I'm unable to answer that at this time. Amelia Lorentson 37:45.345
The application in front of us, so I won't allow that question. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any further questions? Karen Finzel 37:54.025
No, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 37:55.805
Any further questions on the table? No. I'll move it. To go to the General Committee. Fantastic. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Going to the Second Day Council webinar. Thank you. No further discussion? All in favour? Thanks. I request that the development application is moved to the General Meeting for further discussion. Go to the next item, Report for Consideration of the Committee 5.2, NCU 23009. Application for Material Change of Use for Educational Establishment, Extension to Existing Performing Arts Building and Preliminary Approval for a Master Plan at 115 Eumundi, Noosa Road, Noosaville. So, Gabe Wilkins, Gabe, and Nadine, can I request an overview of the application in front of us? Thank you. Certainly. Nadine 38:58.553
Okay, this application is about an extension to the Good Shepherd Lutheran School in the form of the construction of the performing arts building, and the arts building is to be constructed over an existing car parking area which isn't currently used by the school. The, um, I believe in any case that car I believe in any case that car park is not only used for this. They currently use the new staff car park that was approved in the western corner of the site. The performing arts centre is to be built next to the existing pool and sports building and it's not intended to increase numbers of children on the site but to be used as a day-to-day teaching facility but also... The performing arts building is set back at least 40 metres from the Walter Hay Drive frontage, has a gross floor area of over 1,600 square metres and is two storeys in height. With a height of 10.64 metres from natural ground level and 11 metres from the finished excavated ground level. This is a co-accessible application, but because of the level of non-compliance on the site, it has been reported to council. The planning scheme indicates also The planning scheme indicates also a maximum of 1,000 square metres for buildings in the community facility zone. We're up at 1,692 square metres, however we consider that an appropriate size in terms of the scale of the development and how it fits into the site. The overall height of the building at 10.64 is at 10.64 is above the eight metre height limit but again we consider it to be consistent with the scale of buildings on site especially next door which the adjoining sports hall has a height of 11.9 metres. Also noting in the report that we have approved other schools and facilities of this type with additional height the Noosa Christian College has a height of 10 metres for multi-person buildings while St. Teresa's Christian College permits a maximum building height of 9 metres. As part of this proposal there are upgrades to the existing Goodchap Street entrance and that will be providing increasing the number of car parking spaces there including a lot more drop-off bays for the development so we'll be improving that intersection the admin also seeks a preliminary approval for a master plan which is something that we've wanted to sort of get an idea to see what they're proposing again it's just indicating the maximum number of students and again sort of building locations it doesn't alter assessment levels it will still require Alter assessment levels. It still requires co-accessible application to Council. So they're the two things that we're currently considering and we've recommended for approval as part of this report. Amelia Lorentson 41:53.315
Questions? Councillor Wilkie, Deputy Mitt. Frank Wilkie 41:57.055
Madam Chair, the setbacks from Walter Hay Drive, 40 metres you indicate. Yes. what would be required under the planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 42:09.024
I think it's 6 or 10. Sorry off the top of my head. A lot less, 6 or 10 metres and because it's 40 metres back we consider the height of the building not to have such an impact. Patrick Murphy 42:22.384
That's correct. Frank Wilkie 42:22.984
Being a performance based planning scheme, you judge it on the impact it has. judge it on the impact it has, so it's a less prescriptive view? Nadine 42:29.661
Yes, that's correct. So it's set back substantially over 40 metres. It is also stepped, so at the front it steps down and then rises back and then there's another part of the building that is lower as well. So our area of non-compliance relates mainly to the roof area which is also required in the course of the use of it for lighting, curtains, all those type of functions relating to the performing arts centre. Functions relating to the Performing Arts Centre does require additional height in the building, so it's been designed for a specific purpose. Frank Wilkie 43:00.390
And what is the height of the portion of the building that's closest to the road, 40 metres back? Amelia Lorentson 43:08.329
That starts, there is a plan, I report, taking 6, 4 and 11 metres from excavated ground level. Is that what the report? Yes. At the front though, where it starts, there is... Richard MacGillivray 43:29.388
I'm pretty sure it's, as you can, if you go to, actually if we bring it up on page, figure 7 of the report, can we do that? Frank Wilkie 43:42.228
It looks a lot closer to 8 metres. Nadine 43:50.405
If you go into the planning report, figure 7, that might be the easiest way. Amelia Lorentson 43:57.685
Can I just ask a question while we're getting that on the screen, Nadine? My understanding that it's located near the sports... located near the sports hall, which has an approved height of 11.9 metres. So it's considered compatible with what's surrounding it? That's correct. And again, we are set back. So really, it's when you come around the corner and you're looking across the car park, that's really where you'll, I suppose, see it. that have any kind indicated that they can do some landscaping, again, some supplementary landscaping, and we've got some conditions. Patrick Murphy 44:35.473
So if you have a look there, there's the red line is the eight metres. So we've got... Actually, no, it's not that one. Sorry, I was trying to... It's the one above that, sorry. That's all right. I'll bring it back up. So figure... It is figure seven, but it's at the top. Richard MacGillivray 45:05.420
There are two sections, and it's the top section. That one. Nadine 45:14.640
So at the top, you can see the red line there. So it is, that's the eight-metre height limit. And you can see, so the right-hand side of the screen is the... Walter Hay Drive. Walter Hay Drive. And remember, we've got 40 metres. metres and then we step back up and you can see, so it is 8 metres at the front of the building and it does step up and you can see the dotted outline of the adjoining sports hall next to it. Frank Wilkie 45:40.783
And with this sports hall being... with this sports hall being much taller at 11.9, what is the history of that development? Is that pretty standard for education facilities to be given where they're supposed to be? Yes. Because of the nature of the buildings that they require? Yes. Yeah, you do end up with quite a large footprint, and then consequently the roof won't. It will be significantly larger. And then, yeah, you've just got the functionality of the buildings trying to achieve internally in terms of some of those measures that Nadine was talking about, acoustic properties, lighting, infrastructure. The infrastructure that's needed for, you know, block around stages and whatnot. The seating, stage seating, that's right. Nadine 46:26.039
So when we, initially they had, on the right hand side on the upper level, you can see that's the change rooms. So they actually adjusted that and went, yeah, we don't need the height for the change rooms, so they brought that down. So originally they were... But they have indicated that they need this additional height for the performing side of things. So we did, they have given us an architectural report, reasoning, stating why they need it. And again, it's purpose built, it is set back, we've got screening there, so. It's a bit of a different situation, it's quite a unique situation really, in terms of, as I said, form follows function, and it's location, it's got good setbacks, it's tucked away, we have an existing building next door, we also have industrial land across the road, which has quite large buildings in it as What's the line in the industrial board? Richard MacGillivray 47:22.438
Ten minutes. Ten minutes, so it's consistent with what you've expected in that time. Amelia Lorentson 47:26.698
Thank you. Fantastic. Further questions? I'm happy to move the recommendation. Yes, please. Oh, Councillor Finzel, yes, what question would you like to ask? Karen Finzel 47:39.518
Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Just in terms of this is an exciting opportunity for performing arts and education and hopefully developing emerging creatives along the way. Developing our creative environment through our different by nature. Just wondering if there was any discussion around encouraging public art on the building and the use of timber on the facade to give that creative... creative narrative between the community coming to the building, driving past the community, has there been any discussion around that? Nadine 48:16.246
There are two conditions on the approval, conditions 9 and 10. Now I haven't gone about public art, I must say, Councillor Finzel. I have asked for a colour scheme to be provided. The existing colour scheme is quite grey, so I've asked for some, again, to get some different sort of colours in there, and we have indicated a mix of lightweight and textured external finishes. I haven't really looked at public art, I'm not quite sure if they're required. Well, I just raised it, given it's one of our design principles, our creative environment, and encouraging the use of public art that's subtle and sensible to the environment and our local character, I just thought given it's it's a a performing arts building, maybe this is a great opportunity to look at that as part of the overall design. Richard MacGillivray 49:13.190
Yeah, Councillor Finzel, we could probably have a separate conversation. Obviously with the application in front of us, difficult for us to require the school to provide a separate piece of public art, but certainly happy to engage with the school regarding opportunities there for art installations at a later date. I think it would be difficult to link it directly to this particular application and require subsequent investment in public art as part of this proposal. Karen Finzel 49:42.731
Yeah, thank you. It could even be as simple as like a Mayoral on a wall. It doesn't have to go to the extent of infrastructure and public art. But yeah, thank you for that. That would be a great conversation. Frank Wilkie 49:55.610
To second it, Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 49:56.690
Happy to second. I would like to just speak. Excuse me. Councillor Stockwell, I'm thinking, who knew that? I'll speak after you. Brian Stockwell 50:07.489
So, I as think has been mentioned, this is a great addition to the local secondary – well, I suppose they are probably there as well – education. It's been talked about relaxation, but in fact, we don't have to relax the scheme at all. Acceptable outcomes are just one way to achieve the performance outcome and in the report it's clearly argued and is correct that this building meets all the requirements of the performance outcome. It does not does not meet the acceptable outcome, but it is a school. The similar height was deemed suitable for basketball, so we can't argue that it's not suitable for theatre sports. It does have a scale that's bigger than the residential area to its north, but akin to the industrial area to its southwest. When I look through all the requirements for the performance outcome, I think it complies with the So, while it's not meeting acceptable outcomes, we don't have to meet acceptable outcomes if the design meets the performance outcome, and to me, it does. Amelia Lorentson 51:16.416
Wonderful. I'll quickly speak to the application. I'm also really excited that this is here in front of us for approval. Several councillors Several councillors last year actually had the opportunity to meet with the school principal and staff and to see this exciting project come to fruition is really wonderful. It's a significant milestone. milestone for both the school and it's an incredible opportunity for the students of Good Shepherd. I do want to note we're so lucky to have so many outstanding schools in the Shire and it's wonderful. that Noosa Council is committed to supporting them in delivering the best possible facilities and I note that the application started in I think July and went straight through with and it doesn't seem like very many hiccups so working in partnerships with the schools I think can achieve best outcomes for both and the broader community. I want to talk about the arts just quickly value of arts mainly performing arts in education cannot be overstated and again wonderful to see Good Shepherd School and this is part of our conversations with the school last year that they are so committed to providing top quality programs for their students. This new facility and the principal sent me a lovely letter just outlining it will offer much needed specialist music, drama and dance spaces and again looking forward to seeing positive impacts this facility will have on the students and again the wider school community. I'm excited that this is here for approval and hopefully gratified at ordinary university. Any further discussion? Look it is wonderful to see an extension to this existing performing arts centre. It's great to provide an extra opportunity for young people to explore the dramatic arts, music and theatre and I've noticed in that a lot of our young noticed that a lot of our young people are so well-rounded these days. Not only do they play all sorts of sports, they're also equally as comfortable on the stage singing and doing theatre. this will help the personal development of the Shire's young people and it's only appropriate that the Performance Arts Centre should meet the performance outcomes of the Noosa planning scheme. Brian Stockwell 53:51.608
That's Amelia Lorentson 54:00.615
Thank you very much. Thank you. And I think we're up to our last item today. Excuse me as I get this up. I'm having computer problems, I think. So next item is 6.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority, August 2024. And Richard, Patrick, if I can hand it over to you, can give us an overview of the report. Patrick Murphy 54:35.551
Thank you. So the monthly report detailing all those decisions that were made under delegation, there were 33 decisions that were made, 31 of those were approvals, there was two refusals, there was also two applications that were determined by council throughout the month. So again, a variation of what goes through the planning department displayed in the report. Amelia Lorentson 54:58.022
So 33 development applications went through, 31 approved, 2 refused. I probably just want to note that the report is really excellent and very clear, that chart right at the beginning, really great summary. The two refused, and I noted one was six units, food and drink outlet at Bottle Brush. That was refused. Can I ask why, Patrick? So it came through, I think, as a material change of use. That's right. So it was an application that was code accessible. There was a lot of work that was done with Nadine, who was the planner dealing with the application, and the applicant advising on the number of concerns with the development. Essentially being an over-development of the site in terms of the scale of the development. There were some issues with car Patrick Murphy 56:20.392
So there was a lot of negotiation and Nadine advised that she wasn't supportive of the application and requested that the timeframe be extended out to bring it to council for decisions to be made, but the applicant wasn't supportive of that and they just wanted a decision made on the application, so it was refused and they've recently actually appealed that decision. Amelia Lorentson 56:42.626
Just a suggestion, I love the chart and what I wrote on the side was secondary guidance to understand how we're tracking in terms of providing extra housing and I know we had one application for a secondary dwelling, about five additional two secondary dwellings but in terms of what we're actually providing in terms of housing, so I thought that might be an interesting thing. Yes, correct. In terms of secondary dwellings, many may not even trigger a development application from the team, so a lot of them are self-accessible. So it can be undertaken without necessary permits. Some of them do get triggered if they don't comply with the scheme requirements and require assessment, but a lot of them will be approved by a private building certifier as part of, you know, particularly with that... But we could provide a separate update to councillors regarding, and maybe it would be an update on our housing strategy achievements in terms of number of new secondary dwellings and building improvements to chauffeur houses and secondary dwellings over time might be useful report to provide to councillors. And just note one short-term accommodation application approved and it'd be great to have that also may be separated I would be part of that Any further questions? Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 58:13.231
Yeah just looking through, even though they're all mostly minor, I've noticed that 15 out of the 33, nearly 50% are in the Cooroy Is that indicative of what they're seeing elsewhere or just an unusual happenstance? Patrick Murphy 58:27.754
It might be a little bit of a coincidence but we certainly are seeing more development that area than we have in the past years, definitely. Brian Stockwell 58:36.609
Because that's, I suppose, what we're saying over time, most of the development is going to be occurring out in the Hibs Island area. We're seeing change there for sure. Frank Wilkie 58:44.849
Here it's an indication of how hard the town planning department is working. Do you have your full complement of staff there? Is this indicative of a workload of the full complement of staff? Patrick Murphy 58:59.744
Yes, yeah, we're actually full complement now. I think it's the first time in a while, actually, probably the last 12 months. For the planned as we are. We're down and we've actually got to an interview today for engineering position, so certainly that team needs that additional resource to help with their workload. The numbers across the team are still reasonably high. We'd like to bring them down a bit more, but we should be able to do that now we've got the full complement on. Frank Wilkie 59:26.763
Yeah, now it's impressive the workload that your team does. You're too high standard. Yeah, that's correct. Very well, very well. Amelia Lorentson 59:35.003
Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Finzel? Nope. thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to move the application. Can I have a seconder please? Thank you Councillor Wegener. No more discussion or we'll pay the price. Thank you. That brings us to confidential sessions. There are no confidential sessions so I now declare the meeting closed at 10:30am. Thank you for... Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
