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 Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Deputations
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
Frank Wilkie 00:01.770
Here, they went to go watch the meeting. Amelia Lorentson 00:04.321
Excuse me, Councillor Tom, can I ask for quite a bit about you opening the meeting? Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning everyone and welcome to the planning and environment meeting October 8th 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 buffy and dinuwa, 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 emerging 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, Councillor 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 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 to each other. 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 and Danica. Presentations Alan, I welcome you to present your deputation and the matter in front of us, the noise issues in Noosa junctions. I remind you that there is deputations are generally no longer than 15 minutes. Thank you, Danica. Danica Allan 02:25.517
Thank you, Amelia. Good morning everybody, Council members. Thank you for having us here to speak with you today. I'm Danica Allan. I'm president 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 and Noosa's. In Noosa Junction. So as I stand here solo talking to you today, I'd like you to just imagine the few hundred people behind me that I'm representing. We are vehemently against the proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020, particularly those outlined in fact sheet 12 regarding business and entertainment activities in Noosa Junction. As we understand it, amendment following. Includes following changes and concepts. One, extending the operating hours of all food and drink outlets in Noosa Junction until midnight. Two, applying these extended hours to all seven days of the week. Not just weekends. And three, 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 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 the noise currently emanating from the junction. We live in Banksia Avenue which is 340 metres from Noosa, from Sunshine Beach Road as a road class. The residents we're presenting today are north, south, east and west of Sunshine Beach Road, all within about metre a radius. We are all adversely impacted by music noise, 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 a current issue addressed and to ensure that the 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. So please understand, this is simply about our right to sleep in our home. I'd first like to address the number of community groups, including the Noosa Junction Traders Association, who are currently very verbal in promotions of our views of the Noosa Junction, and speaking out by way of petitions against us. Articles and also an upcoming rally against our neighbourhood petition to stop live music from the junction. You're all probably aware of these movements, and 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 number of serial complainers. We are hundreds of sleep-affected residents in Noosa Junction. We have made complaints against a number of venues who have been in breaking. Regulations of their licenses. Those licenses were given, licensees, sorry, 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 in the act of operating outside 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 in Noosa and we are supportive of bringing live music 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. Sunshine Beach Road 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 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 Pearson pike and 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 a residential suburb. Currently, late night music and patron noise often continues 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 drowning patrons. Residents have teenage children who work part time at the junction. They're no longer 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 parents 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 tires and speeding cars. The proposed changes do state that live music is to be unamplified, however performers always use amplification and acoustic guitars by nature of their 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 along with the music, essentially creating open-air karaoke bars in competition with one another at times. Licensees have told us the more merrier and the more noise patrons make, the more crowds are drawn in by that noise, so they encourage it. It's free advertising. One venue has free TV. Outside brando, without volume. However, when sporting games are being played, the lack of sound doesn't make any difference to the degree of noise that patrons watching the game make. That outdoor karaoke bar becomes an outdoor sports bar. I'm and all the whooping, cheering, chanting you'd expect from a sports bar is clearly audible from our bedrooms. After closing time, the patrons from those venues are on the street. They're emigrated, and they're waiting for ubers and taxis. After the music stops. The music 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 not 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 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, 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 noise in this adjunction because of this separation of roles. 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. They don't operate in a home or 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, down travel down to the junction video evidence of the court-refining venue or 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 we 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 providing of some heart life nightlife for local young people and older people alike. But to be clear, we, the residents of Noosa Junction, will not sleep until Noosa Junction a is no location nighttime 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 guise junction and secondly the future strategic plans for junction. Put simply and in summary, plans to turn Noosa Junction into an entertainment precinct are not workable. Thank you very much for your time. Amelia Lorentson 12:55.892
Thank you Danica. I'll now go to item number five of course. Welcome Councillor Stockwell to the table. Item number five, reports for consideration of the Committee will go to 5.1, development application 132008.176.04, application for extension to currency period and 132008.176.05, application for other change to a development approval for materials change of new sub-premises. This sort of development advising multiple dwelling, 109 dwelling units and accommodation building, 90 accommodation units and ancillary facilities to a resort complex and shop at 3 and 7 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. 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 Committee so that all Councillors can partake in the discussions. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Nadine Gordon 14:23.776
So the first report is considering two applications as Councillor Lorentson has indicated. The first application is the point four application which is for an extension to the currency period of existing approval. And the O5 application is another 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 is part of the master plan developed and approved. Back in 2004 they were approved as part of a development application that created the highest high lots around Serenity Close and a number of residential single housing lots along Banksia Avenue and the dedication of Conservation Park directly to the west serenity of Coast. So there's an existing approval of these two sites that was launched in 2008 and approved in 2011. The approval has gone through a number of extensions. Applications and 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 storeys, 19,000 square metres of GFA, 40% site cover and access of Banksia Avenue. Throughout the process, we negotiate. With the applicant and we ended up with a final set of plans with 186 units, four storeys in height, the GFA reduced down to 17,000 square metres approximately, basement parking, pools, the whole development sort of moved further along the southern boundary and the pools located to the northern boundary. All development all was relocated out of the environmental zone. Shops had previously been proposed in the centre with access off Serenity Close were relocated to go underneath the building. Yeah, so that's we're what we ended up with. So briefly we talked about the requirements under the Planning Act when we're dealing with an other change 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 and 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 on our basis, in our assessment, the existing, the new development compared 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 car parking and in terms of that basement car parking. Some of it 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. A 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, remodelled 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 was no evidence of koalas on site, and the pre-disapproval has, the existing approval, sorry. Paid contributions for removal of koala trees previously, sorry. As I said, A it was survey was also undertaken in terms of the glossy black-cockatoo feed trees, again there was 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 applications also referred state for koala and state transport infrastructure. The State has imposed conditions relating to removal of koala habitat, also required a rehabilitation plan. 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. And be they'll be making representations to the State along those lines. 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 believe they're quite minor and don't have significant impacts and staff are therefore recommending approval of the application. Amelia Lorentson 20:28.687
Thank you. I'll now throw it to the floor and Councillors. Any questions to Nadine, Patrick or Richard? Thank you, Chair. Frank Wilkie 20:42.981
You mentioned that there were, Through the Chair, you mentioned there were 107 submissions, 27 in support. Could you outline the main reasons for objection in those submissions. Nadine Gordon 20:57.215
Yes, it is indicated in my report. There were several submissions about removal of vegetation in terms of habitat, and it has been indicated that the applicant had undertaken. Extensive testing. Across the site and observations. So we're happy with the information that's been provided in terms of the vegetation removal. One of the big ones was 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 don't have an issue with the existing capacity of the road network and the roundabouts. There was a suggestion to open up Banksia Avenue in new, we specifically asked our traffic consultant to have a look at that and they again advised that wasn't appropriate and it wasn't required. A couple of, quite a few of the submissions also raised things about Energex, which isn't anything to do with Council and also that the existing farm station is not sufficient. Again, that's a Unitywater and that doesn't fall under our realm. So a lot of them, there were comments about, the design traffic impacts were raised during construction, but that can be dealt with by commissions of approval in terms of the requirement for a traffic management plan. And there were, yeah, again, comments about parking. So a lot of it is to do with access along Grant Street. Frank Wilkie 22:30.128
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 is, raised that's right. Also the private bus, the requirement of the private bus stop on the street, I imagine that is something to do with ferrying, not furrowing, ferrying, transferring, guests to either the junction or Hastings Street by means other than a private car. That's right. If there's not a private bus stop on the street, how, are they still going to be achieved, this objective, by other lanes? Nadine Gordon 23:17.754
They've got in, 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. They've also said yes, that they won't be 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 and I'm detached around here. It's just, you know, you can't take a big bus through that section. So they'll be looking at it. We've got pathways through the junction, from The J through the park system back up to the site. And yes, we talked about there is a condition about scooters and electric motorbikes. Electric bikes to be available to guests as well. There's a bus available on the bus parking, available on site as well. Frank Wilkie 24:10.554
So the two traffic consultants, they acknowledged that in acknowledging the submitters concerns about traffic, they acknowledged that there will be an increase in traffic on the roads but the roundabout and the road network can handle that. Nadine Gordon 24:26.390
They said the wait times at the roundabouts were within normal realms. Projected wait times. That's right. So with the original application they didn't have enough car parking so they did go back and revise the design and put a lot more car parking in the basement area. Frank Wilkie 24:45.213
So it's a smaller footprint, more open space that the buildings are no longer in environmental and conservation area. That's correct, yes. And more vegetation retained on site. That's correct. And offsets for any vegetation removed. That's right, yes. Thank you. Questions? Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 25:03.563
Um, maybe Brian will ask this again. Brian, with the bike paths, it mentions that there are paths going from there to the junction. Yes. Are they bicycle-able? And can they be upgraded to the point where bicycles can easily get from the junction without. Because the traffic, the roads are narrow. They're not walking big roads and there's really never going to be a bike path on those roads unless I haven't walked it for a while. I have walked that one. I have ridden that one. It's not on the road, it's off it's the road. No, it's on off the road. Amelia Lorentson 25:39.608
The road, it's off the road. Sorry, can I just notice, Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure. Shaun Walsh 25:48.076
I've walked that group route from The J up to, you know, towards where the site is. It's certainly traffical. It could do with environment. So, I'm just being honest, but it could be a wider path. And it could do, perhaps, with some lighting. I think some of the residents, you know, objections to using the path would be, you know, to be accepting issues. It is a bit concealed. It would be much more, just being honest, the existing pathway, the path and the pathway. Amelia Lorentson 26:14.652
Thank you. And in terms of, this is one of the submissions, the I'm full path along Grant Street. I'm sure can ask that full path is in very urgent need of upgrade, has discussion and it was part of the submissions made to the application. I note Council have responded by saying that it's, that issue is a complex issue, can you. Further elaborate? Shaun Walsh 26:42.361
Yes, so the first is, that the development of this scale doesn't treat, you know, for them to actually construct a full part of that scale in the land on Grant Street, because we already have a connection, you know, through the conjunction. Ideally, we would have full part on Grant Street as long as supplemented, as it council's been receiving development. Applications. For duplexes and the like, we haven't been getting that from edgeworks to provide a full part since it's disjointed. For Council to go in and construct at its own accord would require reconstruction of most of the residents' driveways, to actually meet accepted driveway entry and approach angles, as well as. Protocols well as significant consultations, significant cost. And that, you know, is not something we can bear upon the developer for this particular application. It's something that has to spread across the community and be part of a normal 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 it immediately, 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 27:45.537
Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener? I any other questions? 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 offices 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 the General Committee 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 got 129 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom units. 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 our alleviate, in my opinion, pressures with airbnbs and residential zones and homes, so I just want to understand what data supported that, Nadine? Nadine Gordon 29:40.329
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, they came back with that proposal, so I'd have to go back to the applicant rather than an economic side. Yeah, that was the applicant who proposed this configuration. Amelia Lorentson 30:04.733
Great, appreciate that, thank you very much. Questions from 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 is responsible for management of the conservation land. Can you explain what that actually means? Nadine Gordon 30:30.943
So the three directly to the south, they're actually state land with council's trustee and I'll give you a bit of her park and drainage. The one, the big one to further to the left, that's the conservation park. Agreement as part of this original condition. There are conditions, sorry, as part of this original development that there's this 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 previous councils in that regard. Amelia Lorentson 31:17.359
I've got a few questions now, Mr. Stockwell, in terms of. Design, and I think I've raised this a couple of times with other submissions. In terms of design, 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? Fantastic, thank you. And. You in terms of. OK. And I'm going back to sort of learnings that we had with the sunrise. Application think in terms of the. It there's a couple of conditions. Vegetation protection covenant, oh sorry, the I think it's condition number 68, protection of existing trees and there's also fauna management. I wonder, this is a question, can we include, and this is just from learnings from sunrise development, can we include a noting or some sort of condition that requires local experts to be on site when that retention happens? Something that I'll discuss with you, Richard, after this meeting. Richard MacGillivray 33:07.899
Yeah, happy to explore that. Obviously challenges regarding the role for particular parties to do that work. We'll take that on notice, possibly, for conversation. The issue is, you know, there will 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 it can be. And the like, but happy to consider that a bit further and understand the role of community members and. Importance. An error put into particular elements around vegetation retention and management. Amelia Lorentson 33:55.884
Thank you. And next we've got Councillor Finzel online. Karen, what question would you like to ask? No, sorry, we have audio issues. Karen, can you hear me? Do you have a question? We might request that you maybe go to your chat box and submit your you can submit your question online and we can have it answered. If you can submit your question on chat that would be great. Try again, Karen. Yeah, I've added that now. We can hear you now. Karen Finzel 34:52.498
Oh, can you hear me now? Yes, we can. 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 post the development. Nadine Gordon 35:28.331
We are required to maintain that area. There are conditions of the original, I suppose 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. Richard MacGillivray 35:49.222
We're not seeking to impose any further constraints on that land. There was a requirement that it be managed to 8 tonnes, 10 tonnes per hectare. So that's the current arrangement. Patrick Murphy 36:03.939
And the development will be relying upon that to ensure that they have their adequate bushfire protection. Nadine Gordon 36:13.783
Noting that 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. Richard MacGillivray 36:27.468
And that'll be undertaken similar to our wide range of reserve networks as well where Council already undertakes, you know, regular management and maintenance of those other estates. This is another one of the many that Council oversees and manages as part of its normal duties. Karen Finzel 36:48.110
Thank you. Following on top of that question, though, in terms risk factor Council. Of factor 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 really considered when it comes to budget? Richard MacGillivray 37:04.784
Yeah, we have funds set aside every year for undertaking reserve management across our entire reserve network, Councillor Karen. Parents this so will be included as part of that and obviously each year the team provide details on whether there's sufficient funding or any increases required to undertake further maintenance and management work in those reserve networks. Karen Finzel 37:32.240
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? Richard MacGillivray 37:40.778
I'm unable answer that at this time. And I'd like to say that Amelia Lorentson 37:44.322
It's not relevant to the application in front of us, so I won't allow that question. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any further questions? No, thank you. Any further questions on the table? No? Frank Wilkie 37:59.771
I'll move it to go to the General Committee. Amelia Lorentson 38:02.247
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, John. The second day Council webinar. Thank you. No further discussion. Favour? Thanks. I request that the development application is moved to the General Committee for further consideration and debate. Thank you. I'm going to go to my computer. Go to the next item, report for consideration of the committee 5.2, MCU 230096, 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, gibb welcomes gibb, and indeed can I request an overview of the application in front of us. Thank you. Nadine Gordon 38:58.257
Certainly. 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 park is no longer in use because 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 and sports building and it's not intended to increase numbers of children on the site but to be used as a day-to teaching facility but also have special events there. The building, the performing arts building is set back at least 40 metres from the Walter Hay Drive frontage. Has a gross floor area of over 1600 square metres and is two storeys in height with a height of 10.64 metres above natural ground level and 11 metres from the finish. Excavated ground level. This is a code-assessable application, but because of the level of non-compliance on size, it has been reported to Council. The planning scheme indicates also a maximum of 1,000 square metres for buildings in the community facilities zone. We're up at 1,692. However, we consider that an appropriate size in terms of the scale of the development and how it fits into the site. 1692 square metres. The overall height of the building at 10.64 is above the eight-metre height limit. But again, with we can see 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-purpose buildings, while theresa's st Christian college permits a maximum building height of 10 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 co-assessable 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 41:52.724
Fantastic, questions, Councillors, Mayor, deputy, Mayor? Frank Wilkie 41:57.605
Madam Chair, the setbacks from Walter Hay Drive, 40 you indicate, what would be required under planning scheme? Nadine Gordon 42:09.808
I think it's 6 or 10.6 or metres because Frank Wilkie 42:15.575
Metres, and because it's 40 metres back, we consider the height of the building not to have such an impact. That's correct. Being a performance-based planning scheme, you judge it on the impact it has, so it's prescriptive view. Nadine Gordon 42:29.899
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 does require additional height in the building, so it's being designed for a specific purpose. Frank Wilkie 42:59.897
Needs and what is the height of the portion of the building that's closest to the road, 40 metres back? Amelia Lorentson 43:07.711
That's us. There's a plan, I think, of 6, 4 and 11 metres from excavated ground level. Nadine Gordon 43:16.391
Yes. The front, though, where it starts, there is. Richard MacGillivray 43:22.606
Page 131. Nadine Gordon 43:30.146
Yeah, sure. I'm pretty sure it's. If you go to. Actually, if we bring it up on page. Figure 7 of the report, can we do that? Frank Wilkie 43:42.541
It's a lot closer to Richard MacGillivray 43:43.601
8 Metres. Mm. How is it in. Nadine Gordon 43:48.141
Er. If you go into the planning report figure 7, that might be the easiest way. Amelia Lorentson 43:57.684
Can I just ask a question while we're getting that on the screen, Nadine? My understanding that it's located near the sports hall, which has an approved height of 11.9 metres, so it's considered compatible with what's surrounding it? Nadine Gordon 44:17.288
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. They have indicated that they can do some landscaping, again, some supplementary landscaping, and we'll look at some conditions. So, if you have a look there, the red line, there's the eight metres. So, we've got, actually, no, it's not that one. Sorry, I was trying to. Oh, it's the one above that, sorry. That's all right. Oh, no, I'm just. I'll bring it back up. So, figure. It is figure seven, but it's at the top. One. There are two sections, and it's the top section. That one. Yeah, that one. 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. And remember, we've got 40 metres. And then we step back up. And you can see. So, it is eight metres at the front of the building. And it does step up. And you can see the dotted outline of the adjoining sports centre hall next to it. Frank Wilkie 45:41.451
And with the sports hall being much taller at 11.9, what is the history of that development like? Is that pretty standard for education facilities to be given where they're supposed to be? Yes. Because of the nature require. Building. Yes. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 45:59.680
Yeah, you're doing quite a large footprint, and then consequently the roof form will be significantly larger. And then you've got the heap that the building's trying to achieve internally in terms of some of those measures that Nadine was talking about. Acoustic properties, lighting, the infrastructure that's needed for, you know, around stages and whatnot. Yeah. The seating. Stage seating. That's right. Nadine Gordon 46:26.544
So when we initially they had on the right hand side on the upper level, you can see that's the change rooms. So originally they went above height. So they actually adjusted that and went, yeah, we don't need the height for the change rooms. So they brought that down. 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 of different situation. Quite unique situation, really, in terms of form follows function and its 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? Frank Wilkie 47:22.146
Ten minutes. It's consistent to what you've expected in that time. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 47:30.799
Fantastic. Further questions? Brian Stockwell 47:32.732
I'm happy to move the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 47:34.484
Yes, please. Councillor Finzel? Yes. What question would you like to ask? Karen Finzel 47:40.290
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 narrative between like the community coming to the building, driving past the community. Has there been any discussion around that? Nadine Gordon 48:15.589
That there are two conditions on the approval conditions nine and ten. 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 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. Karen Finzel 48:52.305
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 a performing arts building, that maybe this is a great opportunity to look at that as part of the overall design. Richard MacGillivray 49:12.991
Yeah, Councillor Karen, 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 49:43.123
Yeah, thank you. Could even be it's as simple as like a mural on a wall. It doesn't have to go to the extent of infrastructure and public art, but yeah, thank you for that. Would be a great conversation. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 49:54.992
I'm happy to second it, Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 49:56.676
Happy to second. I would like to just speak of it. Sorry, we're moved. Excuse me. Councillor Stockwell, I'm thinking, who knew that? I'll speak after you. Brian Stockwell 50:07.170
Yeah, so, as has been mentioned, I think great addition to the local secondary 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 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 make acceptable outcome, but it is a school. 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 to the industrial area to its southwest. When I look through all the requirements for the performance outcome, I think it complies with the scheme. 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 51:18.811
I'll quickly speak to the application. Also really excited that this is here in front of us for approval. 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 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 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 does doesn't seem like very many have picked up so in partnerships with the schools I think can achieve best outcomes for both students and the broader community. I want to talk about the arts just quickly, value of arts 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 please have 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. Length of the statement. Any further discussion? Frank Wilkie 53:08.511
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 I've 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. So this help will the personal development of the shire's young people, and it's only appropriate that the performance centre should meet the performance outcomes of the Noosa planning scheme. Brian Stockwell 53:50.731
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 53:51.718
That's right. I was going to say that. Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Fantastic. All in favour? Please. No further discussions. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I think we're up to our last item today. 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 54:36.400
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 applications two that were determined by Council throughout the month. So again, variation of work that goes through the planning department displayed within the report. Amelia Lorentson 54:59.363
So 33 development applications went through, 31 approved, two refused. I want probably just to note that the report is really excellent and very clear. That chart right at the beginning, outlet at bottle brush. That was refused. Can I ask why, Patrick? So it came through, I think, as a Material Change of Use. Patrick Murphy 55:36.569
That's right. So it was an application was co of the school. Accessible, there was a lot of work that was done with Nadine. Nadine was the plan of 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's some issues car parking that we're trying to Resolve. But essentially there's an exceedance in things like plot ratios, site cover, there's elements of exceedance in stories. We see that as being a very important site as an entry into the junction and probably one of the first developments. There's some you know, renewal. That's the corner site, that now an original site. That's right, the corner site. Amelia Lorentson 56:18.967
It used to be a childcare centre. Patrick Murphy 56:21.077
Yeah, 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 just wanted that a they decision made on the application. So it was refused Richard MacGillivray 56:37.630
And they've recently actually appealed that decision. Amelia Lorentson 56:39.884
Justice is just a suggestion. I love the chart. What I wrote was secondary dwellings 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 to secondary dwellings. But in terms of what we're actually providing in terms of housing supply, I thought that was, that might be an interesting thing to say. Richard MacGillivray 57:09.879
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-assessable. 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 when they comply with the provisions. But we could provide a separate update to Councillors regarding, and maybe we'll re-update on our Housing Strategy achievements in terms of number of new secondary dwellings and building improvements for houses and secondary dwellings over time might be useful to provide to Councillors as well. Amelia Lorentson 57:56.419
And just note one short-term accommodation application approved. It'd be great to have that. It also may be separated and part of that table. Any further questions? Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 58:13.438
Yeah, just looking through, even though Councillor they're all mostly minor, I've noticed that 15 out of the 33, nearly 50% are in the Cooroy here. Is that indicative of what we're seeing elsewhere or just an unusual happenstance? Patrick Murphy 58:28.306
It might be a little bit of a coincidence, but we certainly are seeing more development in that area than we have in the past years, definitely. Brian Stockwell 58:37.038
Because that's, I suppose, what we're saying over time, most of the development's going to be occurring out in the hinterland area. We're seeing change there, for sure. Frank Wilkie 58:47.306
Yeah, 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? Richard MacGillivray 58:59.595
Yes, yeah, we're actually a full complement now. I think it's the first time in a while, actually, probably at least the last while. Patrick Murphy 59:07.295
For the planners, we are. We're down and we've actually got to an interview today for a vacant 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 59:26.904
Yeah, now it's the press and the workload that your team does. Until I send it. That's right. Pretty well. Amelia Lorentson 59:34.549
Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Finzel? No, thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to move the application. Can I have a seconder please? Thank you Councillor Wegener. No more discussion? All in favour please? 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 your attendance. Thank you Madam Chair. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
