Planning & Environment Committee, 10 December 2024
Date: Tuesday, 10 December 2024 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:18:11
Synopsis: Major rural function facility referred to General Committee, Conditional approval with guest/event limits, noise, buses and State roadworks, Notification and amenity concerns aired, Legal tests affirmed.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Nicola Wilson Karen Finzel Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Committee: Referred MCU24/0084 (Function Facility, 658 Louis Bazzo Dr, Ringtail Creek) to General Committee due to significance; no final determination made (Item 7.1) (01:08:03, 52:40). Frank Wilkie: Moved that Amelia Lorentson participate despite a declarable COI; carried unanimously, with Amelia not voting on the COI motion (03:39) (Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy: Proposed approval subject to conditions: max 150 guests, up to 96 events/yr (72 weddings), hours to 10:00pm with all off-site by 10:30pm, no Sundays/public holidays; impact assessable but consistent in Rural Zone (04:24, 44:20) (Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy: Key controls include 39 dB LAeq,15min at nearest residence, 1.8m x 30m acoustic barrier near 642 Louis Bazzo Dr, Noise Management Plan, driveway sealing to reduce dust (04:24, 15:50, 50:17) (Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy: SARA requires access road widening, sightline vegetation clearing; applicant to fund works; safety rationale on State-controlled road (21:00–23:18, 01:01:42) (Item 7.1). Staff: Bus transport condition for functions >50 guests foreshadowed; applicant agreeable; to return with amended recommendation (35:51–37:56, 01:06:57) (Item 7.1). Staff: Bushfire addressed via siting to achieve 29 kW/m², onsite refuge and evacuation plan (38:08) (Item 7.1). Staff: Environmental covenants to protect significant vegetation; ecological and stormwater plans reviewed (04:24) (Item 7.1). Patrick Murphy: Nearest dwelling ~750m; acoustic criteria set from 34 dB background +5 dB (16:34–18:36, 46:54) (Item 7.1). Committee: Noted October 2024 delegated planning decisions (50 total) (Item 7.2) (01:11:56). Staff: Explained exemption certificates for minor/overlay errors (landslide overlay) and approach to setback relaxations under delegation (01:14:06–01:16:32) (Item 7.2). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Challenged adequacy of public notification; some adjoining owners claim no letters; staff to verify Australia Post registered delivery records and signatures (08:55–13:36, 01:05:11) (Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Stated registered post is deemed effective service under the Planning Act; further follow-up still to be done (10:58–13:06, 49:12–49:36) (Item 7.1). Karen Finzel: Requested SARA roadworks attachment be included for accessibility; staff agreed to circulate/add (53:30–54:21) (Item 7.1). Staff: Supporters (30) vs objectors (30); nearby residents all objected, support skewed to non-local/business interests (45:02–47:23, 56:14–57:43) (Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Queried resident expectations of “rural amenity” and quiet enjoyment, especially for purchasers pre-2020 scheme change (41:25–44:41) (Item 7.1). Frank Wilkie: Raised delegated decision transparency after past view-loss dispute; flagged policy discussion (01:15:11–01:17:21) (Item 7.2). Legal / Risk Council/Staff: Conditions must meet the Planning Act “reasonable and relevant” test; variations (e.g., hours, transport) must be technically justified to withstand challenge (01:06:08–01:07:46) (Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Superseded planning scheme rights lapse after 12 months; no retrospective challenge to 2020 scheme changes beyond that window (51:40–52:11) (Item 7.1). Staff: Function facility not a “vulnerable use” under State Planning Policy; SPP defines sensitive/vulnerable uses (39:29–41:25) (Item 7.1). Staff: Cultural heritage handled under the Cultural Heritage Act; no specific First Nations consultation trigger under the Planning Act for this MCU (55:30–56:14) (Item 7.1). Staff: Any expansion to other uses (e.g., equestrian events) could trigger a new/change application; animal keeping thresholds may be accepted development if code-compliant (27:13–29:16) (Item 7.1). Staff: Potential site clearing appears non-native; officers to verify timing, approvals, and any compliance implications (23:18–25:39) (Item 7.1). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson: Declared a declarable COI for prior one-off personal legal advice from submitter Pat Rogers; Council resolved she may participate and vote on Item 7.1 in the public interest; she abstained on the COI motion (7.1) (03:39). Planning Scheme and Zoning Changes Staff: Noosa Plan 2020 shifted function facilities in Rural Zone from inconsistent to consistent (still impact assessable) to diversify rural economy (31:23–34:19) (Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Queried whether residents were adequately engaged on 2020 changes and definition alignment; staff to confirm submissions/definitions history with Strategic Planning (32:12–33:43) (Item 7.1). Staff: Assessment must apply current scheme, not prior expectations of purchasers (34:08–34:19) (Item 7.1). Noise, Traffic, and Operations Brian Stockwell: Sought real-time noise monitoring; staff indicated it’s in the OMP and can be strengthened as a condition (15:18–16:08) (Item 7.1). Frank Wilkie: Probed 39 dB standard and what it means; staff to bring acoustic expert to General Committee (16:09–18:36) (Item 7.1). Staff: Acoustic fence targets the closest dwelling; other receivers assessed as sufficiently distant; driveway sealing addresses dust and some noise (49:52–50:42) (Item 7.1). Staff: SARA road widening designed for turning movements and through-traffic safety; similar to Sunshine Butterflies treatment (21:00–23:18) (Item 7.1). Staff: Parking exceeds code; buses encouraged to reduce trips; guest transport via Uber/taxi is discretionary and unreliable in rural areas, hence bus condition focus (35:51–37:56, 01:01:46–01:03:15) (Item 7.1). Environmental Concerns Staff: Environmental covenants to protect significant vegetation; stormwater and ecological impacts assessed; clearing for sightlines limited to undergrowth along road edges (04:24, 21:00–23:18) (Item 7.1). Karen Finzel: Raised ecosystem/wildlife and potential First Nations perspectives; staff clarified statutory triggers and pathways (54:28–56:14) (Item 7.1). Staff: Alleged onsite clearing reviewed; appears non-native regrowth; further verification pending (23:18–25:39) (Item 7.1). Community Consultation & Property Impacts Staff: Public notification complied via digital press ad, onsite signage, and registered post to seven directly adjoining owners; many submissions came from wider area (09:41–10:58, 49:36) (Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Highlighted residents’ concern about post-10pm egress and safety on unlit rural roads; bus condition targeted to mitigate risks (01:01:46–01:03:15) (Item 7.1). Staff: Property value impacts are not a relevant planning consideration; amenity managed via enforceable conditions (50:42–51:40, 42:25–44:41) (Item 7.1). Delegated Decisions Oversight Frank Wilkie: Sought assurance view-impacting relaxations don’t bypass Council; staff outlined delegation practice and triggers for Councillor decision (01:15:11–01:16:32) (Item 7.2). Patrick Murphy: Noted busy workload and that significant applications will come to Council; minor changes handled under amended delegations (01:12:56–01:13:38) (Item 7.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 10 December 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 10 DECEMBER 2024 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.30am. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Karen Finzel EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 12 November 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 2024 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1. MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK The following material was presented to the meeting by staff in relation to this item: Attachment 1 to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Minutes Item 7.1 - Locality Aerial Photo Attachment 2 to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Minutes Item 7.2 - SARA Plans In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers in a personal capacity for legal advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that Cr Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Carried unanimously. Cr Lorentson did not vote on the above motion. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 2024 7.2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OCTOBER 2024 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 10 December 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority as per Attachment 1. Carried unanimously. 8. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.48am
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:01.322
Good morning and I declare the planning and environment meeting open. I'd like to begin with a welcome to the people of the gallery. I'd also like to begin with an Acknowledgement to Country. I respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi People as the Traditional Custodians of the land and waters that form the region we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to elders past, present and emerging and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. Attendance. There is one apology. I have an apology from Councillor Tom Wegener who sits on the committee. He can't be with us today. I note we have observers. Councillor Karen Finzel, welcome. And also Councillor Nicola Wilson, you're online. Welcome to the planning and environment. Both councils are observers. Can my place or I please request before the meeting commences that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off. And I also remind Councillors of their obligations under the Local Government Act to talk respectfully. To both staff and each other. I'll go straight to confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder please? So moved. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. No discussion. All in favour? And just stay bear with me, my computer's just shut down. So what does it tell you? Okay, it is. Presentation. Next presentations and deputations, there are none. So we'll straight go straight to the reports. For consideration of the committee. And it's all up and running now. So we have two reports to consider. Report 17.1, MCU 24008.0084 Material Change of Use, function facility at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive, Ringtail Creek. Before commencing discussions, I note that this report will be moved to the General Committee for further consideration. And allow all the Councillors to partake in discussion and debate and ask questions due to the significance of the matter or the decision in front of us. So firstly, conflicts of interest. I want to make a declarable declaration. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers, in a personal capacity. For legal advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person I could have a have bias because. Of a perception of. Bryce because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Frank Wilkie 03:39.854
Okay. Look, I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson. I'll turn to Councillor Lorentson. Participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest. I'll take that. Amelia Lorentson 03:56.495
Thank you. All in favour? That's carried. Thank you very much. Noting that I can't, clearly I can't vote. So let's go straight to staff members and welcome to the desk our planning staff officers. Can I ask by just requesting an overview of the report in front of us. Thank you. Matt 04:25.186
Thank you Mayor and Councillors and all in attendance. Like it's been stated the site is 658 Louis Bazzo Drive in Ringtail Creek. And the application before us is a Material Change of Use for function facility. By means of definition a function facility is the use of premises for receptions or functions and includes a preparing and providing of food and liquor for the consumption on the premises as part of a reception or function and this includes examples such as a conference centre or a reception centre. The proposal for a function facility is an impact assessable application and it is a consistent use in the rural zone. The function facility will be purpose of holding small-scale functions, weddings and events of up to 150 guests and the proposed operational hours are between 11:00am. And 10:30pm. Is when all people should be off the site. It's anticipated that a maximum of 96 events will occur per year and 72 of those may be weddings it's also anticipated that 70% to 80% of guests will be chauffeured to the event by a bus and the primary issues that we looked at in our assessment were land use noise, traffic and the protection of the site's environmental values. So noise, the key part for the assessment there was an environmental noise impact that was submitted and peer-reviewed in support of the proposed development and the recommendations from that report have been conditioned to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the relevant noise criteria. Recommendations from the report include the submission to Council and approval of a noise management plan and the construction of a 1.8 metre high by 30 metre long acoustic barrier parallel to the adjoining house at 642. Louis Bazzo Drive. Noise from the operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels external 20 off-site residents or night or noise sensitive receiver so house essentially yeah as I previously stated all guests are to vacate no later than 10:30pm. And functions must not occur on gazetted Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless by followed by a public holiday the matter of traffic it was addressed through an RPEQ certified traffic engineer engineering report and the State assessment and referral agency, SARA, have conditioned upgrades to the State controlled road and the access has been conditioned by council's engine. To be sealed to reduce dust and noise it's recommended that the site's environmental values are protected through environment by covenants so that will protect the significant vegetation in perpetuity and environmental impacts have also been assessed and addressed through a submitted ecological report and Stormwater Management Plan the application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that site can occur any questions? Amelia Lorentson 08:56.351
So we might start, given this is the only application in front of us today we just might start discussing us and just throwing some questions at stuff. So I'm going to start with the notification process. How were local residents notified about this development and was the notification process compliant with statutory requirements and I'm specifically speaking about whether or not can Council received confirmation from Australia Post that each letter sent to adjoining property owners about the proposed development was in fact delivered and it was in fact received. Richard MacGillivray 09:39.592
Yeah, sure. Yes, so the three need to be undertaken to ensure that notification is correctly carried out. So the first action is putting the notice in a paper or digital publication that circulates in the area. We have in the notice of compliance evidence of that. Secondly, the public notification signage. In that evidence there's three photographs of the location of the sign. Evidence there's three photographs of the location of the sign. It's a single frontage so a single sign was placed on the frontage in accordance with the requirements. The third was the adjoining landowners of which there are seven. They got sent by registered post a notice of the application. And from what we've been told by the applicant they checked that each of those being delivered and by the nature of registered post we believe on the postal Australia Post website that includes signature on delivery so that's just what we're that's just what we've seen on their Australia Post website but and in terms of I guess the applicant's their obligations applicants role to discharge under the act is actually by issuing those notices through registered post is deemed to be effective delivery of those notices as well so I understand Councillor Lorentson mentioned that there may be some residents that didn't receive a copy which is interesting given that yeah there's a requirement for those to be sent registered post so they would have received that or they would have received a docket that says to come and pick up the letter from the post office if they can't sign for it at the time when it was delivered Amelia Lorentson 11:41.644
So my question is that if notifications is not confirmed so we have had some residents who have told us that they have not received any notice what does that mean in terms of process does the process need to restart or this is such a significant development and Richard MacGillivray 12:04.269
We will probably take steps to ask questions of Australia Post I guess in terms of whether they actually did receive copies or not we've got confirmation of the receipts and the details for each property and the stickers attached that Australia Post provides once those are issued so so we can double check that with the applicant with Australia Post to confirm that all of those were received but from the act's point of view the fact is that they have sent those by registered post as deemed to meet the requirements under the act of actually discharging your obligations under the act to provide that notice so that's obviously more of an issue potentially with Australia Post if they haven't been able to effectively deliver under their obligations to provide that noting that the applicants provided us with copies of every single registration of each of those letters that were sent to those parties so we'll probably do a bit of a further follow-up on that. I would appreciate that, thank you. Patrick Murphy 13:08.066
Can I just ask is the residents who say they didn't receive letters are they residents that should have received letters that they directly joined the property or are they Richard MacGillivray 13:18.030
Across the road because that's not directly joining it must be directly joining the land parcel Patrick Murphy 13:23.472
And part of the land is abutted buttered by a gazetted road so there's some properties that are in proximity to the site which are actually not directly adjoining as well so I Amelia Lorentson 13:36.934
Can reach out to the residents and request where they're located I a I have the list of seven residents um part of the information request I've got those seven residents names in front of me so I can get Richard MacGillivray 13:51.440
That to you we can follow that up with the applicant um after this meeting today in terms Amelia Lorentson 13:55.542
Of terms of details about the nature and scope of the proposed development where the residents provided with enough information what information was given as part of the public notification period Matt 14:10.718
So they're given told where to find the application material on council's website and all the application material that has been submitted and also uploaded through the assessment of the application was there for them to peruse and make informed submissions regarding the application. Richard MacGillivray 14:39.575
It also has the date of you can make a submission, so between the 5th and the 27th of September, the lot and RP, the details, the nature of the approval being sought, the reference number and then also how to make, also make submission how to get a copy of the application as well. And that's all as stated under the Planning Act in terms of those minimum requirements that must be adhered to. Amelia Lorentson 15:10.300
I have a lot of questions so I'll throw it to the Councillors around the table. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, any questions to start? Brian Stockwell 15:19.635
My question is probably something for next Monday. In the acoustic amenity conditions there's a range of requirements. One that I didn't see that we have considered and put in place previously is actually including real-time monitoring as a requirement so that you've got noise limiting devices but sometimes it's also good to the operator can actually have a real-time monitoring so they know what they're Patrick Murphy 15:49.886
Doing. It's included in the operational management plan that requirement that the on-site manager would do that. We could include that as a condition as well if you see if we could work something out for you. Frank Wilkie 16:09.634
Yeah I have a question. One of the conditions is amplified so noise from site operations inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels and there's some abbreviation here which I don't fully understand. External to any off-site residents noise-sensitive receiver. Could you explain what that means and what 39 decibels sounds like? Patrick Murphy 16:34.650
So to go into a bit more technical detail we've asked our acoustic consultant to come to the General Committee Meeting on Monday yes but what I can advise is that with some background monitoring that was done and it was determined that for the evening period that the background noise was 34 decibels the standard used is to apply five decibels above that as being the limit that should not be exceeded there were two testing points done one was to the closest resident near the closest resident and the other was new in proximity of the site there's monitoring also some monitor there was some testing there was some analysis done of noise impacts of trap of traffic along the road exiting the property near the houses in terms 39 decibel requirement and hence why there was a condition in there about an acoustic fence being required near one of the houses so yeah I'm answers your not sure that fully answers your question. That's the reason why the 39 decibel was applied so yeah that noise cannot be exceeded at the nearest property and in terms of the LA EQ adjusted 15 minutes that's probably a technical element that I would bumble my way Frank Wilkie 17:57.788
Through so I'll leave it to the expert to respond. Good to understand. I would too. So it's good to understand that. They say they measured 34 decibels as a background noise. What sounds would. Patrick Murphy 18:10.498
That be made up of it's like a whisper there was it's like a 39 decibels is probably like a washing machine is what I've found in my searches for what 39 decibels is like there's charts that is 39 decibels that's 39 decibels at the source no it that'll be at the um the at the house the nearest house on the outside the house Frank Wilkie 18:36.026
So if they're done testing and they've registered 34 decibels as a standard background noise does that mean sounds of traffic on Louis Bazzo Drive cicadas is it all Patrick Murphy 18:48.910
All those background noises are factored into determining the background level that ambient background level so that testing is done over a extended period of time and what they do look at out is like heavy storms the impact of the noise of heavy storms and yours in the report it actually shows the dates of some significant storms and those date the data from those dates was removed yes so yeah it's 40 decibels is identified as being like a quiet library noise Frank Wilkie 19:18.239
And would it I understand it's a working macadamia nut farm that's right include the sounds of machinery perhaps Patrick Murphy 19:24.532
Yeah well those kind of noises probably occur more during the day yes and so this is a night time yeah that's right it's a night time um restriction around the evening so um and of tunnel. The noise from the at the time would be quite loud would it be louder than 39 decibels yes there's a husking machine on the site which my understanding is very very loud the operator's advisor had no complaints about the husking machine the de-husking machine and that's in close epoxy proximity to the adjoining closest adjoining residents than the actual function facility it Frank Wilkie 20:00.105
Would be fair to say that the sound of a husking machine in a rural area is an expected Patrick Murphy 20:06.410
Sound certainly during the day at night it would be something that would be unreasonable that's right and trucks coming to from the side as well yes you know Frank Wilkie 20:16.091
The other impact is traffic noise so you've mentioned the acoustic wall were there any other measures intended to be imposed that would help reduce traffic noise we've Patrick Murphy 20:30.004
Put a condition on about the ceiling of the driveway so the yeah that'll be a softer noise and on and crunching out gravel that's correct and that reduce dust as well it will are Frank Wilkie 20:42.963
We able to have a look at what TMR proposed for the entry right, too? Patrick Murphy 20:49.218
Vicky got a um is there concerns about safety at that location yeah it's the word document the SARA document yeah so so this is the treatment that's required so the application has been referred to SARA and they provide their response supporting application based on this treatment they're not turning lanes they're widening of the road facilitate someone to enter the site and I mean it probably is a left turn in lane but the treatment on the opposing side of the road is more just a widening to enable people to go around vehicles that are turning probably not inconsistent with what's happening out at Sunshine butterflies road treatment part there part of the assessment by SARA they give the reasons for their response they say that it complies with the State benchmarks in that the development one of the points is does not adversely impact the safety function efficiency of the State controlled road so that's part of their assessment that road treatment on the opposing side of the road extends I think for a total distance of about a hundred and thirty metres approximately 65 so metres either side and on this on side of road but the facility is on located on it's about 70 metres in total the most of that being to the right as you look out from the site the next diagram down on the next page shows the clearing that's required to provide for sight lines and yeah so to the west it's removal of overgrown vegetation and tree undergrowth. A distance of 240 metres into 160 metres to the east just vegetation on the same side of the road so it's not a significant amount of vegetation semi-trailers leave the site at the moment under the current conditions and it's noted that under the current conditions and they would turn right sort of up the hill which is probably you know quite dangerous. So these works would also help that operation. They'd pull the access in off the boundary of the site to enable trucks to queue internal to the sign. Frank Wilkie 23:18.648
Just talking about clearing, there's been photographs shared caring of clearing on the site. Well, Patrick Murphy 23:27.841
The area where the word access is certainly just at the moment, but going back to the area of that area has been cleared. Richard MacGillivray 23:35.411
It seemed like it might have been stripped of grass, but we've a had a review. There's nothing native in there. They're all going to be some small pine. Patrick Murphy 23:46.801
Well, I think that's on the adjoining property. But yeah, you'll see sort of clearing behind there. But our review of the area is that it's consistent over a period of time. Richard MacGillivray 24:01.252
There's some small pines in there. You can actually see if Councillors wish to jump on street view, you can see clearly sort of between the photos of what's there versus what was there prior to that work. Being done which is small fine trees. We're in that locality there. I don't know if there's a bridge, any renovations? No. I haven't looked into the specifics but I don't believe so because there's non-native vegetation in there. Yeah. So it'll be just property maintenance being able to maintain the land without needing for a Council. Amelia Lorentson 24:43.302
Yeah. Search on skype. So to understand that a little bit more clearly Richard, there is no approval process for removing trees from their own property. Who determines whether or not there's anything of significance? Richard MacGillivray 25:02.211
In terms of the assessment I'm oh, look, I'm test. Only just doing a desktop there, so we can probably look at that a bit further to bring back some more detailed evaluation. We can obviously have some further conversation with the applicant about what happened and who did it. What inspections did they have? Did they, when did it get done? So we can get some further information from the applicant about that. I'm just having a look off what I can see on the versus what the site looks like at the moment now in the front corner of the site. Amelia Lorentson 25:32.975
I I'm going want to finish up the information, thank you. Brian Stockwell 25:39.873
Let's not go back to the condition that Mayor was. Querying out on 15 and talking about where we had the. Background noise. That specific condition doesn't relate to any time period. Is it meant to relate all day and is it meant to only relate to this lane use? As opposed to the agricultural use of the site? Patrick Murphy 26:06.683
That's a good point. I mean it does refer to site operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music. But to, and it relates to an approval for a function facility. Time. Thank you. So that would bound it. Brian Stockwell 26:22.936
We can have a look at yeah, no, to me, I'll take it if that's relevant to that. I need you to sort of fill clarity, it might be best to include that. Amelia Lorentson 26:36.782
Try I'll throw some questions. Is the proposal solely intended to be a wedding venue or are there other intended or implied uses for the site? Residents have spoken to us and they've noted there's a presence at the moment of livestock holding house. Has this been disclosed in the application and if the site were to be further developed for example as an equestrian centre should this not be considered now to comprehensively assess potential impacts? Patrick Murphy 27:14.365
The application is for a function facility and that would include a range of events weddings long lunches as they're pointed out corporate kind of lunches as well there's been no discussion with us around it being used for any other purpose should they wish to use it for another purpose that requires a development approval that would need to come in and probably be another change if this was approved and then that would be assessed at that time Amelia Lorentson 27:40.730
So is it possible Patrick Murphy 27:42.472
It's possible they could do a whole range of other under activities as part of the Matt 27:48.939
Planning scheme and the keeping of animals for example such as horses there are thresholds for accepted development so accepted development is subject to compliance with the benchmarks or codes but still not needing an application to go through Council they just need to comply with any of the relevant and acceptable outcomes of those codes. So the rural zone code for example the rural uses code if they if comply with those um we can certain thresholds they can keep animals without an application to so maybe you're saying keeping animals on a rural property is not going to be expected that's correct it's definitely anticipated degree yeah to a degree there's thresholds that need to be met Patrick Murphy 28:35.828
Yeah and it's certainly it's a functioning academic and the conversations that I've been part of with the applicants is amazing. Brian Stockwell 28:58.239
Animal husbandry from the science intensive is likely to be known as the right use as we call it. An equestrian event based on bringing animals to the site, would that fit into a function or he made a would an event follow for example it? Patrick Murphy 29:17.073
Well we've conditioned the types of events and the maximum number that are to occur Richard MacGillivray 29:22.072
And weddings to long lunches to wellness to corporate retreats has been what's been prescribed in the actual application itself yeah yeah so I guess if they the if applicant the is at some stage in the future wants to decide to broaden the scope of what they're offering that may constitute a change of use or a change to the current application or a further development application potentially but there's been no discussion from the applicant that they're seeking to change from what's being proposed at the Amelia Lorentson 30:03.075
I think that's a really good question. Cumulative sort of assessments. Do we look at what potentially are the ecological concerns in a if the proposal was to be expanded and there were additional uses, this and e-commissary, Council in its ecological assessment consider that? Unidentified Speaker 30:36.397
If any change that's put forward, we will look at the ecological impacts in totality on the site. Amelia Lorentson 30:47.523
So the Noosa Plan makes nice. Facilities a consistent use within the rural zone. That was amended, the 2020 plan was amended to allow that change of use. It was prior to 2020 I am my understanding, an inconsistent use. Can I understand why it was changed on an inconsistent use in a rural zone and made a consistent use? Richard MacGillivray 31:24.070
I'm happy to answer that Councillor. So again before my time with the organisation and speaking with the Director Environment and Strategy there was changes made with the Noosa Plan to allow a broader range of use potentially in rural areas to allow for more and also to a bit of diversification and to support economic growth in some of those rural areas as well so it's still impact assessable so it still requires full notification to the community but is identified as a consistent potentially consistent use if those impacts can be mitigated but it requires full notification to residents so it's not code-assessable it's impact assessable. Amelia Lorentson 32:12.226
So it's part of the amendments in 2020 again there was a statutory requirement that residents be notified of any changes that potentially would have an adverse impact on their properties. Can I ask during the amendment process were the residents made aware of a change in the definition of function facilities? Richard MacGillivray 32:40.376
I think we probably have to come back to that. We'll have to come back to you general on that. We'll have to check to see whether there was, I assume there was a definition of function facility prior to Noosa Plan. It was more so that the changed from being, as you said, inconsistent use to a consistent use. Subject impact assessment, but happy to provide you some clarity on that in terms of the notification of the Noosa Plan during that period as well. Amelia Lorentson 33:07.698
Could you also find out if there were any recorded, so submissions were taken for the Noosa Plan 2020, could you also find out if there were any recorded opposition to the changes? Richard MacGillivray 33:26.073
We'll have to speak that. With our strategic planning Patrick Murphy 33:27.999
Team, they've got some time to go back through all those documents. There used to be entertainment and dining business type 2, but a whole raft of definition changes occurred and this would align with the State definition for a function facility. Unidentified Speaker 33:41.926
Yeah, but we can have a. Amelia Lorentson 33:44.251
Sorry, Keith. So again, so in 2020, we changed the definition of a function centre, a function agri-facility to make it a consistent use. So prior to 2020, so all the residents who purchased prior to 2020 purchased on the premise that it was an inconsistent use. Is that correct? Unidentified Speaker 34:08.973
Well, if they'd done their research, they would have seen that it was an inconsistent use in the rules. But notwithstanding, we have to assess it under schema. Richard MacGillivray 34:18.301
The scheme at the moment. Yeah, and like all planning schemes, they go up to public exhibition and there's full engagement with the community around the planning scheme at the time. So it goes through an application period and put it in all the media there's pop-ups and there's a whole range of engagement activities that are undertaken to make the community aware about those changes as well, so there's a lot of opportunity for awareness for people to raise objections or concerns or put in submissions of support for any of those changes. So we'll need to go back and check with tenure. The team around the specific elements going back to 2020 when the Noosa Plan came into effect, regarding its particular use. Frank Wilkie 35:04.636
For Matt. I have a question about potential accommodation on the site. Maybe it's a question you'd be interested to monitor. What form of accommodation is permitted on the site? And what would be the process if the applicant wanted to include guest accommodation on the site? I think if someone wasn't actually concerned, the uses would escalate. Uses will escalate into something gradually functioning. Also, you've mentioned 50 car parks and also two spaces for two coaches. Can you help us understand the rationale for modelling calculations at any level for 50? Matt 35:49.028
Yeah, yeah sure so the there's a minimum amount that was required under the parking and asset access code. They're exceeding that somewhat by about four or so spaces. So, I think that's the kind of thing that we're trying to yeah, so it exceeds the number of car parks based upon the calculation of more than required. Yeah, yeah. And the buses, so that there's no requirement on the planning team to provide buses, but we believe that is something that we do support because yeah, it reduces vehicle trips and we are looking at incorporating a with a condition. Patrick Murphy 36:36.579
We've had some conversations. We've had a feel that this might be something that would be at the meeting. And there's been conversations around for functions over 50 persons that a bus be required, they're agreeable to a condition to that effect. Will that condition requiring be a requirement of the operational management plan? That any function over 50 will require a bus. So that will certainly assist in reducing the number of cars that will attend the site and the potential Richard MacGillivray 37:09.460
Amenity and wealth that thank you very much. May be coming back and forth. Frank Wilkie 37:14.268
But the idea being that the potential will guests would be housed in a resort in Noosa, or bussed up in Brisbane, or some other distant location. That's correct. Patrick Murphy 37:27.894
And some would come by Uber, some would drive themselves, weddings, and you'll often find you one person will drive another other people that'll be in the car certainly they comply with the car parking requirements. But we're seeking to mitigate potential amenity impacts by requiring a bus for those larger events. And again, they've said that they're agreeable to that. So wind visage coming back to the General Committee Meeting was an amended recommendation to incorporate that. Amelia Lorentson 37:57.813
In terms of bushfire hazards, is this facility located in a bushfire prone area? Patrick Murphy 38:09.150
There's some vegetation on the side which presents bushfire risk. The building is sited in an area which provides sufficient separation to achieve 29 kilowatts. Gradient heat flux so it can be compliant in that regard. They have a evacuation management plan which they have an evacuation point and then they've got a part of the site that they can take guests to which is certainly a safe place for them to seek refuge on site and again comply with requirements. Amelia Lorentson 38:53.907
In terms of vulnerable uses, so is a wedding facility considered a or classified as a vulnerable use and given that presence of you know individuals under the influence of alcohol poses a higher risk than those not intoxicated? Unidentified Speaker 39:29.876
I think check to see whether it's actually defined as a vulnerable use. It's not. Amelia Lorentson 39:34.380
So who is responsible for determining whether a proposed development involves a vulnerable group? Well it's defined through the SPP, the State planning provisions. So what factors determine the classification of vulnerable use? I know that we looked at an application recently with groups of school children and we know in retirement village people. Patrick Murphy 40:01.284
I think that people sleeping overnight I think will be part of it but we'd have to bring in our environment officer who will be able to talk you through how the definition has been determined or how the specific uses have been determined through the State. Amelia Lorentson 40:17.979
That would be great. Thank you Patrick. If I can I have I go into that. Richard MacGillivray 40:34.664
Just as a bit of information Councillor about the vulnerable use just while you're gathering some notes there. So under the State planning policy uses are those that particularly sensitive to certain risks such as flooding and natural hazards so the examples referenced in the policy are hospitals and health care facilities, schools and child care centres aged care facilities and obviously it's got emergency services in there obviously for the reason that they can't get stuck in an event of a hazard so they need to be in suitably located areas so it doesn't necessarily include activities commercial activities like function facilities and the likes being defined but the team will come back to you with a bit more clarity in terms of what that specific threshold is a bit just Amelia Lorentson 41:26.882
What is the definition of rural amenity and I raised this we met with some of the residents yesterday and their question and it was a really good question was most of them purchased before the 2020 amendment and they purchased for purposes because they wanted a quiet rural setting they loved the wildlife some actually bought in this precinct to escape from Kin Kin quarry impacts how does the proposal detract from the rural amenity of adjoining and nearby properties and how is this is evaluated, how is the, what value? Is assigned to a person's well-being and what value is assigned to a person's right of quiet enjoyment Patrick Murphy 42:26.598
I think this process our assessment has been about amenity our engagement of the acoustic consultant to review the applicant's submission is all about making sure that the residents amenity is protected and that review has determined that this facility can operate in a manner that won't actually impact upon immunity. Richard MacGillivray 42:49.411
The amenity and further to that I guess the you know the planning scheme sets out the requirements for how that assessment of amenity is assessed and evaluated as well so it's articulated in the planning scheme around you know things like noise traffic impacts so all of that is required to be thoroughly assessed as part of the work the team have done to assess to get to this point as well so it's not just one element just noise there's other elements to it you've touched few of them around even bushfire hazard and other risks that are posed from natural constraints as well dust obviously the team's required the sealing of the internal access the whole way to minimise impacts of dust and sediment and the like but the scheme is ultimately document that sets out the performance requirements that must be met for development to be able to be supported so it's the reference document I guess around how staff must assist assess must an application against those relevant provisions and need to ensure that the amenity elements that are prescribed in the scheme are minimised minimum. Or reduced to a point where they can be accepted I guess with conditions or mitigation installed in place such as mounds and fences and changes to ceiling with access ways and the like. Patrick Murphy 44:20.929
And further to that the this way applicant actually proposed that functions would go to 10:30 and guess we need to be offside by 11:00. Through our review it's come forward that the event should finish at 10:00 and everyone should be offside by 10:30. So there's been a modification to what they've actually proposed to ensure that amenity has been protected. Amelia Lorentson 44:42.162
In terms of submissions they there were, I think, 60, 61 submissions. Can I ask how many were made in support and how many were made in opposition? And of those supporting the application, how many are from residents living adjoining or near the site? Unidentified Speaker 45:03.084
Got dog. Document that PDF could be worth bringing up. Matt 45:07.285
Yeah, so in terms of numbers there, we'll see spatially where they're located. The people that made submissions and the ones that are shown on as objectors, as in the red dots, they're all objectors. So there were a total of 30 objectors. Not all of them are shown on here because they were not in the immediate locality, but that's the majority of them as they are spatially located. So 30 objectors, 30 people supported, and there was one not properly made. Submission that received outside of the notification period. Richard MacGillivray 45:49.944
So the breakdown of those in support and those objecting is outlined in the report as well. Amelia Lorentson 45:55.986
So I'll be adjoining all of those close to the actual facility. Were there any that there any that actually supported the application? Be at the pension? No. Patrick Murphy 46:08.071
We did receive a letter, which we can share with you, from someone who lives in close proximity to their operation in the Scenic Rim. Amelia Lorentson 46:16.434
From the Gold Coast, I read that it's relevant in the fact that it's the same operation operator and it shows a history of good operational management. But the Gold Coast and Noosa, we have very different values. Well, Scenic Rim, it's not so much the Gold Coast, but yeah, I understand what you're saying. Unidentified Speaker 46:37.275
It hasn't influenced our decision, making has been made up by the facts and the review of the reports. Frank Wilkie 46:44.056
Just on that impact on nearby residences is a big concern here. What is the distance from the function centre of the nearest residence? Unidentified Speaker 46:53.996
I'm going to point it out. So the facility, the function of the facility is to be here. Yeah. The nearest house that's 750 metres away. Yeah. 750? Yeah, approximately. And then other houses might be around, you know, other houses in this sort of area might be 800,850 metres Frank Wilkie 47:18.713
Letter away. Yeah. And the received from Rosewood Estate, was it? Unidentified Speaker 47:23.118
From someone who lived in proximity to the Rosewood Estate. I think they were about 100 or 200 metres from the actual function facility. And what did they say? Matt 47:32.709
Yeah, they basically said they thought that it was operating well. The managers of the facility had a great relationship with them, like a great working relationship. There wasn't any, anything negative in the, letter. Frank Wilkie 47:51.397
Did they talk about noise impacts? No, nothing like that. They weren't saying they were being impacted. By noise. Is there a willingness of the operator to work with the residents? I would anticipate so. If this were to be approved to have a similar relationship? As with the. Richard MacGillivray 48:13.015
Well, it's would certainly always encourage. Mayor's names. Absolutely. Amelia Lorentson 48:19.781
Can you say Brian Stockwell 48:20.501
Stockwell? So, yes. It's interesting information but we can't take the nature of the applicant into consideration. Is that correct? While that maps up. It may help to clarify that earlier question about adjoining landholders. So, if you're on the other side of 62, road 62 or road 63, you're not an adjoining landholder? That is correct, yeah. Amelia Lorentson 48:49.764
Subway. So were those living in close vicinity of the proposed development, were they notified of this development or was it simply only the seven listed? Unidentified Speaker 49:02.820
Seven listed got a letter and then there was a sign out the front and it was added in back. The paper. That's the response on the ad. Matt 49:10.861
Which is a digital publication. Frank Wilkie 49:12.703
So just to clarify, for all intents and purposes it appears by every indication that the requirements under the act were Richard MacGillivray 49:20.589
Followed in terms of public notification? Correct. And we have received a notice of confirmation but we will take that extra step of checking with Australia Post and the act and around the signed signatures for those letters just to confirm that. But from the act's point of view, they've discharged their obligations. Patrick Murphy 49:36.354
And you can see there's a number of submitters that come from quite a distance from the property that have either informed by the sign out the front or the notice in the paper, word of mouth. Frank Wilkie 49:53.648
The 130 metre long acoustic barrier, will that. 30 Metre long. Which properties will that protect from? So the one at the very yeah, to the left. Just the one at the front? Yeah. So the other ones are deemed to be suitably removed far back from the road to not be impacted by traffic noise? Matt 50:14.552
That's right, according to the acoustic consultant's assessment. Frank Wilkie 50:18.347
And the sealing of the road was intended to assist with that? Patrick Murphy 50:22.545
Well, the acoustic consultants didn't recommend the sealing of the road. That was an additional measure which was required by officers, in part because we thought it would assist with noise, but also because of dust. And all that sort of mischarge. Amelia Lorentson 50:43.395
In terms economics, of impact, the report references and I think has support or aligns with our economic strategy to diversify our economy. Yes. Economic impacts, was it considered, was any consideration given to the economic implications of this function facility on the adjoining and nearby residents in terms of property values. Unidentified Speaker 51:14.764
That would not be a relevant planning consideration. Amelia Lorentson 51:18.868
In terms of adverse impact consequences of changes made to a planning scheme, and I'm referencing 2020, is there any statute of limitation when residents can bring, for example, compensation claims for adverse impacts made by changes in a planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 51:41.656
There's a 12-month process for superseded applications to be lodged, and that's where an applicant has the ability to lodge an application under the previous scheme, but once that period has passed, there's no ability to seek the scheme to be changed as part of a previous year change to a planning scheme, I guess, unless they utilise those provisions under the superseded planning scheme, there's no ability for them to challenge that decision once it's ratified. Amelia Lorentson 52:10.868
When was this property purchased what year in 2023 for my reasons is that correct? Brian Stockwell 52:18.617
Can I say we're looking at the nature of the applicant which is outside the scope of the planning? Amelia Lorentson 52:24.685
My question is when was the application lodged and how long did it take before it came to Council? Richard MacGillivray 52:32.065
The application lodged? Yes, so that's in the report that you have. So June 24th it was properly made. 28th of June this year. 28th of June? Yep. And processed? And information requests? It's July, yep, and they responded in August with public notification and the decision date is due on the 20th of this month. Amelia Lorentson 52:55.645
So four months. I'm happy to move it against the general manager. Second. I have a list of questions that were emailed to me this morning. I'm happy to keep those questions for the General Committee. I have also some questions from Councillor Finzel. I think she has raised her hand. I will allow the question today. Councillor Finzel, it's your question first. Karen Finzel 53:29.904
Thank you. I just have a question. Firstly, the SARA report with regards to the. Roadworks. Can that please be included in the report? Could yeah, we can. Or why was the attachment not included in the report for easy access? Richard MacGillivray 53:54.176
It is all available online at the moment, that's so it's publicly accessible through the take to get that to the TMR site? Oh no, no, on our public council's website. With all the other application material including submissions and everything is all the application material. This is just the officers report and relevant material in terms of their assessment recommendation but we can possibly include it as a further attachment. Amelia Lorentson 54:21.570
I would appreciate that. If that could just be circulated to all the Councillors, that would be excellent. Thank you. Second question, Karen Finzel 54:29.248
Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if we had the residents come in yesterday for a meeting. There's great concern around the amenity, wildlife, ecosystem, the amenity that hasn't been discussed today about who protects that, where that voice has come from. I'm just wondering, was there any native title PBC involvement or? No, the slot is not subject to native file. That's a privately owned lot. I understand that but in terms of trying to like protect the amenity that hasn't been raised around these constraints today, is there opportunity to invite their comment around. Accolades around the effects of the amenity in this area? Richard MacGillivray 55:15.722
From, are you talking about First Nations people? Karen Finzel 55:18.965
Yes. I'm not too sure how. Then it comes back onto Ringtail State Forest. Yes. And the, you know, effects of possible development that will affect that environment. Richard MacGillivray 55:30.417
Yeah, there's no no requirement in the scheme for a B2B. Bit there of to an be any engagement with First Nations in relation to that. They're entitled to make a submission. There's no requirement for the applicant to engage with them as part of their development proposal. Brian Stockwell 55:44.783
Just to follow up on that one, clarifying the consideration of cultural heritage, cultural heritage comes under the cultural heritage act rather than under the Planning Act, so it's not something that, you know, if the developer comes across something of significance in the development process, it's their responsibility. Thanks, to refer them in. To refer, absolutely. Through the outcast crisis, correct. Amelia Lorentson 56:07.698
Councillor Wilson, you're if you go. Let's ask you a question, thank you. Nicola Wilson 56:16.432
Thank you. I may have missed this because the sound's dropping in and out a little bit, but just going back to the map with the submissions and the objectives, so I may have missed, were the supporting submissions plotted on the map at all, or was it that they weren't in the area of the map? Matt 56:35.768
Yeah, they weren't in area. The and it just would have been too much of a, like you wouldn't have seen the red dots if I'd zoomed out to where the other submissions had come from, and I didn't see it so where were the closest to have been? I think Karen, no sorry. And just in general were those supported submissions? Supportive submissions, were they local residents or were they businesses that would maybe have a benefit from there being a function there. Yeah there was a bit of both. There was mention of the flow-on effects and the benefits to businesses that would provide flowers or celebrants, those types of things. So there was some comment made about that. Patrick Murphy 57:29.639
I think, yeah, I think we know. The sort of the thrust of their submission, but whether they were actually a business operator or a resident would be hard for us to determine based on the information that they've given us. Richard MacGillivray 57:42.172
Yes. Councillor, we can provide you maybe with a table of the postcodes for the objectors and those supporting. That might be useful, just postcodes. It won't probably have, you know, all the properties, but it might just give you a bit of an indication of local locality. So, a question on that one. Brian Stockwell 58:05.434
If we're not allowed to take the nature of the applicant into consideration, are we allowed to take the residence of a person submitting into consideration, or do we have to actually just review the grounds of the submission? Richard MacGillivray 58:19.215
Just the grounds, but it's more so for awareness for the councils are making a decision to understand the spatial location of those making submissions. It would be true to say that the local opposition do it and the support came in from those with a less direct relationship in a play place-based context. Amelia Lorentson 58:40.138
Thank you. Karen Finzel 58:42.497
I just have a question. I note in response to a question that Council suggested conditioning the new system of the buses. It just poses a question. If that condition was removed, would that then negate the need for all this road work and big the amenity if the condition for using coaches was actually removed? Patrick Murphy 59:15.763
No. We still would need the vehicles. Just for the cars. But the road, it's sealing the existing road network internal to the site. Karen Finzel 59:28.002
Are you talking about the widening? Oh sorry, the TMR. In regards to the impact on the amenity due to the widening of that road due to the use of buses and coaches being conditioned as part of the applicants. Richard MacGillivray 59:45.498
I would say yes in the sense that the um, the SARA have been made aware of the applicants proposal to include buses as part of their primary mode of transport for bringing people to and from the site. Obviously there's a requirement there will be some small cars that attend the site as well but they've factored be a combination of both potentially noting that the applicant specified a maximum limitation of the number of events and the number of maximum people that can attend a particular event so whilst we're requiring for the operational plans and further changes to limit the number of vehicles and require use of buses for events over 50 people to be included that wouldn't necessarily change SARA's position in requiring those works which are for safety largely for safety reasons for vehicles maybe following those vehicles that have sufficient space to be able to move around those vehicles. Karen Finzel 01:00:44.275
So clarify because it's the intensification of the use of the road and just to clarify it was the staff that suggested Frank Wilkie 01:00:58.423
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. It's not a condition of approval that coaches be used is it? Patrick Murphy 01:01:05.068
No, no, no. So the CSIRO's response is in response to the application material submitted by the applicant and that might have may have included information around coaches being used but this treatment is not in response to any requirement of councils it's only been in the last few days that we've had conversations with them around providing coaches for events over 50 people and they said that they're agreeable to that so it doesn't form part of a condition of the recommendation at this point. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:39.217
So the upgrade to the entryway is a condition? Richard MacGillivray 01:01:42.562
Yes by the SARA state. By the correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:47.329
And who pays for that? The applicant. So in terms of alternate transport modes you mentioned before taxis and ubers is that correct? Practical given it's nearly impossible to get an Uber or a taxi on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday at 10 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock? Is that actually feasible? We're not requiring them. To do that? Patrick Murphy 01:02:19.352
Is that their discretion as to, as a guest, how they choose to arrive and depart the site? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:25.761
But in terms of impacts, is it not part of our consideration to ensure that there are not people at risk at 10, 11 o'clock walking dark, unlit roads of Louis Bazzo trying to find a cab or trying to walk home? Richard MacGillivray 01:02:43.117
And that's why we've got those requirements in the operational plan around the use buses of and other modes. Of transport to say ensure that people can safely get to and from the site as opposed to using other mechanisms noting it'll be relatively challenging to probably get the likes of an Uber or a taxi in a rural area but that's a choice I guess for particular people to make I guess in terms of the mode but certainly we'll be seeking that the use of buses to get some people safely to and from the site we've got more than 50 guests attending Amelia Lorentson 01:03:16.437
In terms of toilet facilities I've got the operation managing that plan in front of me can you explain how many toilets or portable powder rooms will be provided and is it sufficient for 150 guests or staff Matt 01:03:36.413
Yes, yeah, so the number of toilets is based upon it's more of a building regulation matter but they've estimated that it'll be to like a male and a female building with two toilets each so yeah that's what's currently Patrick Murphy 01:03:54.973
Being used I think had them. They've made reference in the operational management plan that one toilet per 60 guests for a function facility is considered by industry standards so it's certainly above that how Amelia Lorentson 01:04:06.982
Does that compare to what's required say for a restaurant that seats 150 people. Patrick Murphy 01:04:14.531
It's based my understanding the toilets which is a building requirements not a planning requirement we don't condition the number of toilets to be provided we never have it's done on four area. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:28.985
Again I've got questions for residents but I'm happy if Councillors agree we might leave further discussion to the General Committee again to allow the ARB Councillors not present. Participate in this discussion. Frank Wilkie 01:04:42.668
And Madam Chair it would probably be a proper process for those questions to be forwarded to staff and the general until they can come fully armed with the answers and we can have Matt 01:04:51.723
A discussion. Absolutely. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:56.340
Any further discussion? Before Council thinks so Karen Finzel 01:05:00.128
A question for the Chair to Richard. Do you think we'll have confirmation of receipt of those letters from Australia Post by the general? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:12.081
We're going to work to do that. We'll try and get that done as soon as possible. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:05:16.859
Just confirming, Australia Post have confirmed the registration numbers of the letters that were sent? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:22.313
Correct and we have received a copy of each of those. We have received barcode numbers that were attached to every single letter, so yeah, we've got the physical copies of those. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:33.938
Sorry, question. In terms of conditions, who determines what's reasonable, what's not reasonable? For example, is it reasonable to allow or to reduce the operating hours for the facility if we do reach, say, for instance, middle ground arrive at a mediated position between, say, adjoining landowners and the faculty? Is it reasonable to reduce the hours, say, to 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock or just allow it during the day? Who determines that? Richard MacGillivray 01:06:10.549
The Council will make the decision over the onus application. So if you seek to vary or change the proposal and the conditions as then you're able to make the decision on this, we're putting up our recommendation based on detailed assessment against the planning scheme. The one thing I would just point out around the legal test under Planning Act around them to be reasonable and relevant conditions so there must be some sort of technical assessment around the changes or why they've been made that can be substantiated if challenged. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:48.030
Is it reasonable and relevant to condition buses only transport guests to a leading venue if it's over 50 people? Richard MacGillivray 01:07:01.277
Can say yes yep and the applicant has agreed that they think that's reasonable as well. Patrick Murphy 01:07:05.766
So only buses? Well they're not agreeable to only buses. Sorry. They're agreeable to a bus being provided for a function of more than 50 people and I think that's reasonable in terms of giving people the option as to how it's best for them to get there and where they live, where they're coming from. Noting the ample provision of car parking on the site in comparison to the scheme requirements and the fact that the QC consultants have reviewed the impacts of vehicles attending the site and are satisfied with the current proposal in terms of amenity Amelia Lorentson 01:07:46.889
My last question before we close discussions is, and I know Councillor Finzel also, is would you consider this a significant development proposal? Significant that it's not a Richard MacGillivray 01:08:06.743
Defined definition of what's a significant. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:09.046
That's probably the question under the planning scheme. We reference small scale in the report. Is it in fact small or is it to the residents Patrick Murphy 01:08:19.420
When context of the site is taking up a very small percentage of the site, it's providing significant separation to adjoining land users. It's a consistent use. It requires impact assessment. We've had a look at those impacts and are satisfied that it can operate in its current form. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:37.006
Kind of interesting that either. Just centres like this in the hinterland? Yes, there is. Palm Creek Estate in Yandina. Richard MacGillivray 01:08:45.303
There are a number of them, particularly in Sunshine Coast hinterland. We're reading venues are to get from not many as such in this particular locality that I'm aware of. Patrick Murphy 01:08:59.226
My time of account and my time at Council nearly eight years, this is the first one that I've seen come through to this point. And I think that's been facilitated by the change in the scheme. When the scheme came in, we certainly had a lot of inquiries from people in the hinterland looking to do commercial activities which they couldn't otherwise do, primarily around accommodation. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:21.085
Thank you. Gansalohala. Councillor Finzel, I'll lay a last question before we close. Karen Finzel 01:09:26.121
Thank you Madam Chair. Just coming back to the, I understand the applicant has established their legislative requirements to give you the numbers with the letters that are sent out. So are we seeking that the people who are meant to receive them, their signatures? To prove that they collected them Richard MacGillivray 01:09:46.254
We'll follow that up with the applicant in Australia Post in terms of the requirements under the act and ensure that the registered post dockets have been received. But there's two parts of it. Has the applicant discharged their obligations under the act and did people actually receive something in their post box and sign for that you want. We'll come back and clarify those two elements to Councillors before the General Committee Meeting next week. Thank you. And I'll probably just close by saying thank you to the planning officers. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:25.120
And I really want to acknowledge you guys do your job and you do it well. So if any of the questioning doesn't come across as that, I'd like to just acknowledge. Respect your job and know that you're in a really difficult position and wanted just want to put that on the table. Frank Wilkie 01:10:44.757
I'd like to say the staff's position is pretty clear actually. They are executing their responsibilities under the act to apply the planning scheme as it sits. I would say the councils are in a difficult position. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:58.678
We have a very difficult position, absolutely, I agree with you. Mayor Wilkie. No further discussion, and I'll move that consultation. Oh, excuse me. It's been moved and seconded. No further discussion. All in favour? Thank you. So, there's no no confidential reports for noting by the committee. Oh, excuse me. I'm already closing this meeting shortly. Excuse me. Okay. So, we'll now move to report for consideration of the committee 7.2, planning applications decided by delegated authority. And again, I'll ask Richard or Patrick if they want to give us an overview of what's in front of us. Patrick Murphy 01:11:56.621
You. Just a very quick overview. This is the applications that were decided by delegated authority for the month of October. A very busy month. As you see, there was 50 decisions that were made, reflective of the busy period that we're entering into coming into Christmas. Yeah, again, a range of applications across, uh, OPWs, MCUs, and changes, DBWs. I'm not sure if you have any questions. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:24.617
Only my question, only question, Patrick. Is planning decisions made by Council, um, that's brought to Council, not delegated, uh, approved under delegation. Um, is it just my observation that I feel this start of this term, it's been quite light, and I remember the start of last term, um, it'd be up to. Six, seven, eight, um, planning decisions that were made by Council, um, am I correct, or. Ah, it'd be. Some, months were. Heavy. I just remember just reading just heaps and of reports, and I've never seen one or two reports, um, come through in planning and environment. Patrick Murphy 01:13:08.287
Yeah. Um, we've got some big applications that are taking some time to get through. Um, there was. A report that is coming. We've been coming to General Committee Meeting next week for a significant application, um, but we certainly have enough that of that'll applications be coming in the future. We've obviously met with the delegations and you've probably received notification from us on a few matters recently which we've been able to decide under the delegation because there have been minor changes or the like, so that might have also had an impact. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:37.171
Thank you very much. Any further questions by Councillors, observers? Frank Wilkie 01:13:42.436
Just for example, could you, the last item was 223 Cooroy, Bella, cliff, grove, Cooroy, exemption from code assessment for additions to dwelling and landslide overlay. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:53.268
Can you just give us an idea? Unidentified Speaker 01:13:56.712
Yeah. So, with the motion of what's involved in something like that, is it obviously not major? No. So, it's an exemption certificate. So, risk assessment has got to be done about landslide potential. Patrick Murphy 01:14:07.024
Yeah. So, the scheme allows for an exemption certificate to be issued, which is saying we're not requiring you to have a development approval in circumstances where there's like a minor error, or there's an error in the planning scheme, or it's so inconsequential in terms of the assessment that would be required. The previous planning scheme allowed for development to be accepted development where a geotechnical report was provided for a site that was in the landslide hazard overlay and that the recommendations of that report were implemented in the construction of the development. There was an error in the 2020 scheme in terms of that allowance was removed and so anything that was in the landslide hazard overlay was triggering. So a decision was made to allow for exemption certificates on the basis that a geotechnical report was provided to show that the investigation had been done and that we have the confidence of the development we've undertaken in accordance with that technical report. Instance, a geotechnical report would have been provided showing what developments took with the issue of the exemption certificate. Frank Wilkie 01:15:12.118
If there was an application for a house that was seeking a relaxation in the front setback that was potentially impacting on neighbours' views, what assurance do we have that would come before us for a decision? So it's not just to agree to on a delegated authority to the detriment of a neighbouring property and then Council as councils are dragged in after the fact. Patrick Murphy 01:15:39.399
A setback variation only will be assessed by our building department for dwelling houses that have setback and other variations that will come through planning. But they're assessed under delegation. We've not brought bought a house, many houses up to Council and the primary reasons we have done them is because of significant geotechnical issues on places like CB Terrace. So we rely on the expertise of the planners to be making those decisions on Richard MacGillivray 01:16:09.146
The delegations. And obviously, you know, maps such as height, so over-height buildings are generally not supported by staff. So, you know, we start to be that. On applicants so if there's a situation where they wanted to significantly exceed the height limits, you know, you wouldn't likely see it because it would likely to I get to my meeting. Be knocked back before it got much momentum. Frank Wilkie 01:16:32.247
Perhaps it's a discussion for another time, but for inclusion in the list of exceptions where they are brought before Council. Just like to say, one of the most traumatic things drawn I've brought been drawing into was where neighbours who did the right thing when they did their renovations were adversely affected by a decision made under delegated authority to grant a relaxation which totally blocked their coastal views, it yes. And it was something we couldn't fix retrospectively. I'd just like to fade that potential and it's probably a discussion for another time. We'd hate to see it slip through and- Yes. No one's like that slip through. I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:21.876
Happy to second. No questions, no further discussion. All in favour, please. Thank you. We are now up to either make reports for meeting by the committee. There are none, no confidential session. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10:48pm and I thank these officers here today for patience and acknowledge and thank the Councillors online and in the gallery and around this table. Good discussion and lots to think about before General Committee. Thank you. Madam Chair. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
