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 00:00.000
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 of 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 future and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. 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 on line welcome to the planning and environment. Both councillors are observers. Can I please request before the meeting commences that everyone have their phones That everyone had 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? Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. No discussion. You can just bear with me. My computer has just shut down. What does it tell you? Okay, it is. Next, presentations and deputations. There are none, so we'll go straight to the reports for consideration of the committee. And it's all up and running now. And it's all up and running now. So we have two reports to consider. Report 17.1, MCU 24 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 meeting for further discussion 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, informed 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. Frank Wilkie 03:39.765
Look, I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson and determine Councillor Lorentson to participate and vote on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person will trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. I'll second that. Amelia Lorentson 04:01.340
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 Our planning staff offices. Can I ask by just requesting an overview of the report in front of us. Thank you. Sure. Patrick Murphy 04:24.606
Thank you Mayor and Councillors and all in attendance. Like it's been stated the 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 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 Reception or function and this includes examples such as a conference centre or reception centre. The proposal for a function facility is an impact accessible application and it is a consistent use in the rural zone. The function facility will be used for the 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. 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. of those may be weddings. It's also anticipated that 70 to 80 percent of guests will be chauffeured to the event by bus and the primary issues that we looked at in our assessment were land use, noise, traffic and Noise, traffic and the protection of the sites environmental values. So noise the key part for the assessment there was an environmental noise impact assessment and 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 Recommendations from the report included the 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 noise sensitive receiver. Noise from the opera. So a 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 certified traffic engineer has been conditioned by Council's engineers to be sealed to reduce dust and noise. It's recommended that the site's environmental values are protected through environmental environmental covenants so that will protect the significant vegetation in perpetuity and environmental impacts have also been assessed and addressed through a submitted addressed through a submitted ecological report and stormwater management plan. The application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that site can occur with potential amenity impacts being mitigated through the implementation of recommendations of the associated management plans and /or conditions. And it's recommended that the application be approved, subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. So, that's it. Amelia Lorentson 08:55.660
So, we might start, given this is the only application in front of us today, we just might start discussing and just throwing some questions at staff. 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 Council received confirmation from Australia Post that each letter sent to adjoining property owners about the proposed development was in fact delivered. Patrick Murphy 09:41.320
So the three actions that need to be undertaken to ensure that notification is correctly carried out. So the first action is putting the notice 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 in that evidence there's three photographs of the location of the sign and it's a single frontage so a single sign was placed on the frontage. 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 They checked that each of those had been delivered and by the nature of registered post, we believe on the Australia Post website that that includes signature on delivery. that's just what we're, that's just what we've seen on the Australia Post website but... Richard MacGillivray 10:58.440
And in terms of I guess the the applicant's role to discharge their obligations 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 you 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 posts 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 post office if they can't sign for it at the time when it was delivered so my question is that if notification 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 we will probably take steps to ask questions of Australia Post I guess in terms of whether 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 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 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 applicant's provided us with copies of every single... 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. Amelia Lorentson 13:06.394
I would appreciate that, thank you. Patrick Murphy 13:08.074
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 adjoin the property? That is my understanding. Are they across the road because that's not directly adjoining, it must be directly adjoining the land parcel? And part of the land is abutted by a gazetted road, so there's some properties that are in proximity to the site which are actually not directly adjoining as well. No. Sorry. Amelia Lorentson 13:36.678
I can reach out to the residents and request where they're located. I have the list of seven residents, part of the information request. I've got those got those seven residents' names in front of me, so I can get that to you. We can follow that up with the applicant after this meeting today. Excellent. In terms of details about the nature and scope of the proposed development, were the residents provided with enough information? What information was given as part of the public notification period? Patrick Murphy 14:11.963
So they're given, they're told where to find the application material on Council's website and all the application materials. 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 14:39.011
It also has the date of when you can make a submission, so between the 25th and the 27th of September, three weeks. Yep, the lot and RP, the details, the lot and RP, the details, the nature of the approval being sought, the reference number and then also how to make, how to get a copy of the application, also how to make a submission as well. And that's all as stated under the Amelia Lorentson 15:09.316
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 15:18.915
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. you've got noise limiting devices but sometimes it's also good that the operator can actually have a real time monitoring so they know what they're doing. Patrick Murphy 15:50.057
Is that it? It's included in the operational management plan, that requirement that the onsite manager would do that. We could include that as a condition as well if you see fit. Amelia Lorentson 16:08.180
Yeah, Frank Wilkie 16:09.720
I have a question. One of the conditions is amplified, sorry, noise from site operations inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels. And then there's some abbreviations 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 16:34.627
Yeah, so to go into this a bit more technical. to go into a bit more technical detail, we've asked our acoustic consultant to come to the general committee meeting on Monday, but what I can advise is there was some background monitoring that was done and it was determined that for the evening period that the background noise was 34 decibels and the standard is to apply a 5 decibel above as being the 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 about also some monitor there was some testing well there was some analysis done of noise impacts of trap of traffics along the road exiting the property near the houses in terms of that 39 decibel requirement and why there was a condition in there about an acoustic fence being required near one of the houses so yeah I'm not sure that answers your question that's the reason why the 39 decibel was applied so yeah that that noise cannot be exceeded at the nearest property the nearest property and in terms of the LA EQ adjusted terms of the LA EQ adjusted 15 minutes that's probably a technical element that I would bumble my way through so I'll leave it to the expert to respond. Justin. Good to understand, Frank Wilkie 18:00.523
I would too so it's good to understand that. They say it measured 34 decibels is decibels as a background noise. What sounds would that be made up of? It's like a whisper. Patrick Murphy 18:15.650
It's like 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's 39 decibels at the source. No, that'll be at the house. At the house. The nearest house. On the outside of the house. Frank Wilkie 18:36.545
If they've done testing and they've registered 34 decibels as a standard background noise, does that mean sounds of traffic on Louis Bazzo Drive? Is it cicadas? Is it birds? All those background noises are factored into determining the background level. That ambient background level. So that testing's done over an extended period of time, and what they do look at taking out is like heavy storms, the impact of the noise of heavy storms, and you're in the report. actually shows the dates of some significant storms, and the data from those dates is removed, so yeah, 40 decibels is identified as being like a quiet library noise. And would it, I understand it's a working macadamia nut farm, so would it include the sounds of machinery perhaps? Patrick Murphy 19:24.055
Yeah, well, those kind of noises probably occur more during the day. Yes, because this is a night time noise rate. Yeah, that's right, it's right, it's a night time restriction around the evening. And the noise from the operations of the farm would be quite loud. Frank Wilkie 19:41.026
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 closer proximity to the adjoining, closest adjoining residence than the actual function facility. Would it be fair to say that the sound of a husking machine in a rural area is an expected sound? Patrick Murphy 20:06.618
Certainly during the day. At night it would be something that would be unreasonable. That's right. And trucks coming to and from the side as well. Frank Wilkie 20:15.297
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? Patrick Murphy 20:28.817
We've put a condition on about the ceiling of the driveway. So. Frank Wilkie 20:54.367
It's the word document, the SARA document, yeah. Patrick Murphy 21:00.447
So this is the treatment that's required. So the application has been referred to SARA and they've provided their response supporting the application based on this treatment. They're not turning lanes, they're widening of the road that would 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, the road treatment there. Part of the assessment by SARA they give a... 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 and efficiency of the State controlled road so that's part of their assessment. 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 130 metres, approximately 65 or so metres either side. And on the side of the road that 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 The next diagram down on the next page shows the clearing that's required to provide for sightlines and yeah so to the west it's a removal of overgrown vegetation and tree undergrowth for a distance of 240 metres into 160 metres the east just vegetation on the same side of the road so it's not a significant amount of vegetation it's noted that semi trailers leave the site at the moment under the current conditions and they would turn would turn right sort of up the hill which is probably 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 into Frank Wilkie 23:18.200
The site. Just talking about clearing, there's been photographs shared of clearing on the site. Can you just... Well the area where the word access is is certainly just at the moment but you're going back in the area of that area has been cleared. It seemed like it might have been stripped of grass but... might have been stripped of grass, but we've had a review. Richard MacGillivray 23:40.925
There's nothing native in there. There will look to be some small pine. Patrick Murphy 23:46.665
I think that's on the adjoining property. You'll see it sort of here and behind there. Our review of the area is that it's consistent over a period of time. Richard MacGillivray 24:00.831
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 there versus what was there prior to that work being done, which is straight small pine trees. We're in that locality there. We've now been emerged. Frank Wilkie 24:22.024
Does the bridge have any renovations? Richard MacGillivray 24:26.784
No, I haven't looked into the specifics, but I don't believe so because it's non-native vegetation in there. So it would be just property maintenance being able to maintain better land without needing for a... Amelia Lorentson 24:44.745
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 25:01.545
In terms of the assessment, I'm only just doing a desktop there, so we can probably look at that a bit further and bring back some more detailed evaluation. We can obviously have some further conversation with the applicant about what happened, who did it, what inspections did they have. 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 URL images versus what the site looks like at the moment now on the front corner of the site. Brian Stockwell 25:39.240
Go back to the condition that the Mayor was queering at on 15 and talking about where we had the five years old 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 agriculture use and so on? Patrick Murphy 26:06.192
That's a good point. I mean it does refer to site operation including patrons and amplified music and it relates to an approval for a function facility. So So, that would bound it. We can have a look at that. Yeah, no, to me, Brian Stockwell 26:25.004
I'll tell you Amelia Lorentson 26:36.440
Some questions. Is the proposal solely intended to be a wedding venue or are there other intended or what you suspect. use this for the site. Residents have spoken to us and they know that there's a presence at the moment of livestock holding house. Has this been discussed in the application and if the site will to be further developed, for example as an equestrian centre, should this not be considered now to comprehensively assess potential impacts? Patrick Murphy 27:13.572
The application is for a function facility and that would include a range of events, weddings, long lunches, as they've pointed out, corporate kind 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 it could probably be another change if this was approved, and then that would be assessed at that time. Amelia Lorentson 27:40.252
So is it possible? Patrick Murphy 27:42.112
It's possible they could do a whole range of other activities under the plan. And the keeping of animals, for example, such as horses, there are thresholds for accepted development. So accepted development even subject to compliance with the benchmarks or some of the codes, but still not needing an application to go through council. They just need to comply with any of the relevant acceptable outcomes of those codes. The rural uses code. So the rural zone code, for example. If they comply with those, we can certain thresholds, they can keep animals without an application. Frank Wilkie 28:23.612
So you're saying keeping animals on a royal property is not the unexpected? That's correct. It's definitely anticipated. Patrick Murphy 28:32.356
To a degree, there's thresholds that need to be met. And it's certainly, it's a functioning macadamia farm and the conversations that I've been part of with the applicants is that they intend to keep. Brian Stockwell 28:52.720
So I think the question could be posed, animal husbandry from the site 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 would that be a event? Patrick Murphy 29:16.091
Well we've conditioned the types of events and the maximum number that are to occur, as well as weddings to long lunches to wellness to corporate retreats has been what's been prescribed in the actual application itself. So I guess if So I guess if the applicant 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 been proposed at the Amelia Lorentson 30:01.980
So in terms of ecological assessments, cumulative sort of assessments, do we look at what potentially are the ecological concerns if the proposal was to be expanded and there were additional uses? Does Council in its ecological assessment consider that? Patrick Murphy 30:37.866
Any change that's put forward, we will look at the ecological impacts in totality. Amelia Lorentson 30:46.300
So the Noosa Plan makes function facilities a consistent use within the rural zone. That was amended, the 2020 plan. 2020 plan was amended to allow that change of use. It was prior to 2020, my understanding, an inconsistent use. Can I understand why it was Richard MacGillivray 31:23.157
I'm happy to answer that, Councillor. So, again, before my time with the organisation, and speaking with the Director of Environment and Strategy, there was changes made with the Noosa Plan to allow a broader range of use, potentially in the rural areas, to allow for more activation, and also to a bit diversification and to support economic growth in some of those rural areas as well, so it's still impact accessible, 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 accessible, so it's not accessible. Amelia Lorentson 32:12.384
So as part of the amendments in 2020, again, there 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? Patrick Murphy 32:39.793
I think we probably don't have to come back to that. We'll have to come back to you, Richard MacGillivray 32:42.793
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 uses... were changed from being, as you said, inconsistent use to a consistent use subject impact assessment, but happy to provide you some clarity on that. And in terms of the notification of the... Could you also find out if there were any recorded, so submissions were taken for the Noosa 2020 plan, could you also find out if there were any recorded opposition to the... We'll have to speak with our strategic planning team where they've got some time to go back through all those documents. Patrick Murphy 33:31.400
The use 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. Amelia Lorentson 33:43.960
Sorry. 2020.2020, we changed the definition of function centre, function aggregate 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? Patrick Murphy 34:08.661
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. notwithstanding, we have to assess it under the scheme at the moment. Richard MacGillivray 34:19.788
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 when it is, you goes through an allocation period and put in all the media and obviously 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. 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 the team around the specific elements going back to 2020 when the Noosa Plan came into effect regarding its particular use. Frank Wilkie 35:03.782
I have a question about potential accommodation on the site. Thank you very much for your What form of accommodation is permitted on site? And what would be the process in order to include guest accommodation on site? Patrick Murphy 35:51.038
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 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 scheme to provide buses but we believe that is something that we do support. that this is something that we do support because it reduces vehicle trips and we are looking at incorporating a condition. We've had some conversations. We've had a feel that this might be something that would be pursued at the meeting and there's been conversations around for functions over 50 For functions over 50 persons that a bus be required, they're agreeable to a condition to that effect or a condition requiring a requirement of the operational management plan. Any function over 50. function over 50 will be required by us. So that will certainly assist in reducing the number of cars that will attend the site and the potential amenity impact and less airfares coming back and forth. Frank Wilkie 37:13.747
The idea being that the potential guests will be housed in a resort. That's right. Passed up from Brisbane or some other distant location. That's correct. And some would come by Uber, some would drive themselves. Weddings and you often find one person will drive will drive a number of other people that'll be in the car. But 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 we envisage coming back to the general committee meeting with an amended recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 37:56.520
In terms of bushfire hazards, is this facility located in a bushfire prone area? Patrick Murphy 38:08.360
There's some vegetation on the site 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 comply in that regard. They have an evacuation management plan which they have an evacuation 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 38:53.140
In terms of vulnerable uses, so is uses. So is a wedding facility considered or classified as a vulnerable use given that the presence of individuals under the influence of alcohol poses a higher risk than those not intoxicated? Patrick Murphy 39:29.160
I think check to see whether it's actually defined as a vulnerable use. It's not. It's not, is it? Amelia Lorentson 39:34.360
No. So who is responsible for determining whether a proposed development involves a vulnerable group? Patrick Murphy 39:40.968
Well, it's defined through the SPP. Yeah, the State planning provisions. Amelia Lorentson 39:46.148
Yeah, that's right. So what factors determine the classification of vulnerable use? I know that we looked at an application recently with groups of school children. we know in retirement village elderly people. Patrick Murphy 40:00.676
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's been determined or how the specific uses have been determined through the State. Amelia Lorentson 40:17.596
That'd be great. Thank you, Patrick. I can, I have... Before I go into that... Richard MacGillivray 40:33.040
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, sensitive 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... 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 and they've been 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 like that's being defined but the team will come back to you with a bit more clarity in terms of what that is. Amelia Lorentson 41:25.660
Just, what is the official 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, does the proposal detract from the rural amenity of adjoining and nearby properties? And how is this 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 42:25.635
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 resident's amenity is protected. And that review has determined that this facility can operate in a manner that won't actually impact upon the amenity. Richard MacGillivray 42:50.639
And further too, that I guess the, you know, the planning scheme sets out the requirements for how that is 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 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 and you've touched on a few of them around even bushfire hazard and other risks that The performance requirements that must be met for a development to be able to be supported, so it's the reference document I guess around how staff must assess an application against those relevant provisions and need to ensure that the amenity elements that are prescribed in the scheme are minimised. or reduced to a point where they can be accepted I guess with conditions or mitigation in place such as mounds and fences and changes to ceiling with access ways and the like. Patrick Murphy 44:20.170
And further to that the applicant actually proposed that functions would go to 10:30 and guess would need to be off site by 11:00. Through our review it's come forward that you eventually finish at 10:00 and everyone should be off site by 10:30. So there's been a modification to what they've actually proposed to ensure that amenity has been protected. Amelia Lorentson 44:41.074
In terms of submissions, 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? Patrick Murphy 45:02.482
You've got another document, a PDF, that could be worth bringing up. Yes, so in terms of numbers there, we'll see the 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 they're 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 was received outside of the notification period. So the breakdown of those in support and those objecting is outlined in the report as well. Amelia Lorentson 45:55.253
So of the adjoining or those close to the actual facility, were there any that actually supported the application? Patrick Murphy 46:04.193
No. No. No. We did receive a letter which we can share From someone who lives in close proximity to their operation in the scenic realm. Amelia Lorentson 46:16.225
On the Gold Coast, I read that signature. Is that relevant? Patrick Murphy 46:21.285
It's relevant in the fact that it's the same operator and it shows a history of good operational management. Amelia Lorentson 46:28.265
But the Gold Coast and Noosa, we have very different. Well, scenic rim, it's not so much the Gold Coast, but yeah, I understand what you're saying. Patrick Murphy 46:37.165
It hasn't influenced our decision, our decision making has been made up by the facts and the review of the reports. Frank Wilkie 46:43.505
Just on that impact on nearby residents. There's a big concern here. What is the distance from the function centre of the nearest residents? Patrick Murphy 46:54.553
I'm going to point it out. So the facility, the function facility is about here. The nearest house, that's 750 metres away. 750? 750. Yeah, approximately. And then other houses might be around, you know, other houses Frank Wilkie 47:23.484
Who lived in proximity to the rosewood estate actual i think they were function about 100 or 200 metres facility and what did what did they say yeah they basically said they um thought that it was operating well um the managers of the facility had a great relationship with them like a great working relationship Relationship um there there wasn't was a any denny anything negative in in the in the letter and did they talk about noise impacts no nothing like that they weren't saying they were being impacted by noise yeah yeah and we did 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 yeah we would certainly always encourage that. Brian Stockwell 48:22.100
Yes. It's interesting information, but we Is that correct? 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, or road 62, or road 63, you're not an adjoining landholder? Amelia Lorentson 48:48.960
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... Patrick Murphy 49:01.480
The seven listed got a letter, and then there was a sign out the front. leave his head in the paper. That's the response, yeah. Which is a digital complication. Frank Wilkie 49:12.244
So, just to clarify, for all intents and purposes, it appears by every indication that... that the requirements under the Act will follow in terms of public notification? Correct Richard MacGillivray 49:22.296
Yeah. And we have received a notice of confirmation, but we will take that extra step of checking with Australia Post and the applicant around the signed signatures for those letters, just to confirm that. But from the Act's point of view, they've discharged their obligations, yeah. Patrick Murphy 49:36.288
And you can see, there's a number of submitters that come from quite a distance from the property that have either been informed by the sign out the front, or the notice in the paper, word of mouth. Frank Wilkie 49:52.976
The 130-metre long acoustic barrier, will that... 30-metre long- 30-metre long, which properties will that protect from? the one at the very front? Yes. 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? Patrick Murphy 50:14.044
Yeah, according to the acoustic consultants. That's right, according to the... Frank Wilkie 50:17.544
And the ceiling of the road was intended to assist with that? Well, yeah, the acoustic consultants didn't recommend the ceiling 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. Dust. Dust and all that sort of... Amelia Lorentson 50:42.300
In terms of economic impact, the report references and I think has support or aligns with our economic strategy to diversify our economy. In terms of 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, that would not be a relevant planning consideration. 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 the planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 51:40.980
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. 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 52:11.312
When was this property purchased? What year? In 2023 for my reasons, is that correct? Brian Stockwell 52:18.828
Can I say we're looking at the nature of the applicant which is outside the scope of the planning agreement? Amelia Lorentson 52:24.028
No, my question is when was the application lodged and how long did it take before it came to council? Richard MacGillivray 52:31.748
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. Amelia Lorentson 52:40.504
28Th of June? Yep. And processed? An information request is July, yep, and they responded in August with public notification and the decision date is due on the 20th of this month. 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 meeting. Thank you. I have also some questions from Councillor Finzel. I think she has raised her hand. I will allow the question today. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 53:30.100
I just have a question. Firstly, the SARA report with regards to the roadworks, can that please be included in the report? Patrick Murphy 53:44.330
Or why was the attachment not included? I'd like to see it in the report for easy access and transparency if people want to get online and identify the wrong information. Richard MacGillivray 53:54.119
It is all available online at the moment, so it's publicly accessible through the, yeah, on our public council's website, yeah, with all the other application material including the cost of submissions and everything is all, all the application material. This is just the office's report and relevant material in terms of their assessment recommendation. recommendation. But we can possibly include it as a further attachment. Amelia Lorentson 54:21.043
I would appreciate that. If that could just be circulated to all the councillors, that would be excellent. Thank you. Karen Finzel 54:28.709
Question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if we had the residents come in yesterday for a meeting. There was great concern around the amenity, the wildlife, the ecosystem, the amenity that hasn't I understand that, but in terms of trying to protect the amenity that hasn't been raised around these constraints today, is there opportunity to invite their comment? Are you talking about First Nations people? Yes. I'm not too sure how... Forest? Yes. And the, you know, effects of possible development that will affect that environment? Richard MacGillivray 55:30.076
Yeah, there's no requirement in the scheme for there to be any engagement with First Nations in relation to that. They're entitled relation to that, they're entitled to make a submission. There's no requirement for the applicant to engage with them as part of the development proposal as such. Brian Stockwell 55:44.226
Just to follow up on that one, clarifying that the consideration of cultural images, 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... not something that, you know, if the developer comes across something of significance in the development process, it's their responsibility to refer them in. Correct, to refer, absolutely, through the application process, correct. Nicola Wilson 56:14.352
Thank you, I may have missed this because the sounds dropping in and out a little bit but just going back to the map with the submissions and the objectives so I made this worthy supporting submissions plotted on the map at all or was it that they they weren't in the area of the map yeah they weren't in the area and it just would have been too much of a what you wouldn't red have seen dots if I'd zoomed out to where the other submissions had come from and I didn't see it as relevant I think Koran I think Koran no sorry and just in general were those supported submissions were they local residents or were they businesses that would maybe have a benefit from 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 Richard MacGillivray 57:43.041
Councillor, we... So a question on that one. 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? It's just the grounds but more so for awareness for the councillors are making the 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 of us with less direct relationship in a Amelia Lorentson 58:39.684
Thank you. Karen Finzel 58:42.544
I just have a question I note in response to a question that the council suggested conditioning the uses of the buses. Just posing a question, if that condition was removed would that then negate the need for all this road work and big impacts on the amenity if the condition for using coaches was actually removed? Patrick Murphy 59:15.112
No, it still was needed, the vehicles. Just for the cars? Yeah, but the road, it's sealing the existing road network internal to the site. Karen Finzel 59:27.271
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 applicant's... Richard MacGillivray 59:42.971
I would say yes in the sense that the site Now I'm talking about... That the SARA have been made aware of the applicant's 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. cars that attend the site as well but they've factored in there will 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 require the operational plans and further changes to limit the number of vehicles and require the 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 to have sufficient space to be able to So to clarify, because it's the intensification of the use of the road, and just to clarify that it was the council staff that suggested that the coaches... Frank Wilkie 01:00:57.492
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. It's not a condition of approval that coaches be used, is it? Patrick Murphy 01:01:05.112
No. So the CSARA's response is in response to the application material submitted by and that 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 they're agreeable to that, so it doesn't form part of a condition of the recommendation at this point. Frank Wilkie 01:01:38.602
So the upgrade to the entryway is a condition? Richard MacGillivray 01:01:42.162
Yes, by the SARA, by the State. Frank Wilkie 01:01:45.742
Correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:46.662
And who pays for that? The applicant. So in terms of alternate transport modes, you mentioned before taxis and Ubers. Is that practical given it's nearly impossible to get an Uber or a taxi at, you know, on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday at 10 o 'clock, 9 o 'clock, 11 o 'clock? Is that actually feasible? Patrick Murphy 01:02:16.257
We're not requiring them to do that. Their discretion is to ask. that their discretion as to, as a guest, how they choose to arrive and depart the site? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:25.569
But in terms of impacts, is it not part of our consideration to ensure that there are not people at risk? at risk at 10, 11 o 'clock walking dark, unlit roads of Louis Bazzo Drive, trying to find a cab or trying to walk home. Richard MacGillivray 01:02:42.615
And that's why we've got those requirements in the operational plan around the use of buses and other motor vehicles. Transport to 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 people safely to and from the site. got more than 50 guests attending. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:15.764
In terms of toilet facilities, I've got the operation management plan in front of me. Can you explain how many toilets or portable powder rooms will be provided? will be provided and is it sufficient for one hundred and fifty guests or staff? Patrick Murphy 01:03:36.134
Yes, so the number of toilets is based upon it's more of a building regulation matter but they've estimated that it'll be two like a male and a female building with up to two toilets in each so yeah that's what's currently being used. I think they've made reference in the operational management plan that one toilet per sixty guests for a function facility is considered like industry so it's certainly above that. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:06.242
How does that compare to what's required say for a restaurant that seats 150 people. Patrick Murphy 01:04:13.982
It's based, my understanding is a toilet which is a building requirement, it's not a planning requirement. We don't condition the number of toilets to be provided, we never have. It's Amelia Lorentson 01:04:28.520
Again, I've got questions for residents, but I'm happy if councillors agree we might leave further discussion to the general meeting again to allow the councillors not present to participate Frank Wilkie 01:04:42.423
In And Madam Chair, it would probably be a proper process for those questions to be forwarded to staff and the general, so they can come fully armed with the answers. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:55.546
Any further discussion before Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:04:59.526
Just a question, Madam Chair, to Richard. Do you think we'll have confirmation of receipt of those letters? llow the councillors Letters from Australia Post by the general meeting? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:11.488
Yes. We're going to work to do that. We'll try and get that done as soon as possible. Frank Wilkie 01:05:16.508
Just confirming, Australia Post have confirmed the registration numbers of the letters that were sent? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:21.991
Of each of those barcode numbers that were attached to every single letter. Correct, and we have received a copy. So yeah, we've got the physical copies of those. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:33.291
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 to allow or to reduce the operating hours for the facility if we to reach say for instance middle ground with the to 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 01:06:08.894
The council will make the decision ultimately on this 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 Is it reasonable and relevant to condition buses only transport guests to a living venue if it's over 50 people? Amelia Lorentson 01:06:57.281
It's over 50 people you can say yes yep and the applicant has agreed that they think that's reasonable as Patrick Murphy 01:07:05.541
Well. So only buses? Well they're not agreeable to only buses. They're agreeable to a bus being provided for a function of more than 50 people and I think that's reasonable. 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 KUSI consultants have reviewed the impacts of vehicles attending the site and are satisfied with the current proposal in terms of the amenity impacts. Thanks. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:46.040
My last question before we close discussions is, and I know Councillor Finzel also, is would you consider this a significant development? Richard MacGillivray 01:08:03.200
It's not a defined definition of what's a significant. That's probably the question under the planning scheme. Yeah, I guess. We reference small scale in the report. Is it, in fact, small or is it, to the residents, it's significant? Patrick Murphy 01:08:19.149
Well, in context of the site, when it's 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 perception. We've had a look at those those impacts and are satisfied that it can operate in its current form. Amelia Lorentson 01:08:35.757
Just out of interest, are there other dysfunction centres like this in the hinterland? Yes, there is. Palm Creek Estate in Yandina. Richard MacGillivray 01:08:44.818
There are a number of them, particularly in Sunshine Coast hinterland. We're reading venues have a fairly common gap in the range. Not many as such in this particular locality that I'm aware of, but yeah. Patrick Murphy 01:09:00.127
And my time at council, nearly eight years, this is the first one that I've seen come through. 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. actually, you Amelia Lorentson 01:09:23.156
Councillor Finzel, I'll allow the last question before we close. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Madam Chair. Karen Finzel 01:09:27.036
Just coming back to the, I understand the applicant has established their, you know, legislative requirements to give you the numbers. 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 01:09:45.137
What are you actually-- We'll follow that up with the applicant in the 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. Yeah, that's right. Has the applicant discharged their obligations under the Act, and did people actually receive something in their post box and sign for that requirement? We'll come back and clarify those two elements to councillors before they add them. Thank you and I'll probably just close by saying thank you to the planning officers 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 we respect your job and know that you're in a really difficult position and just wanted to put I'd like to say that 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 councillors are in a very difficult position. Amelia Lorentson 01:11:00.045
Absolutely. Agree with you Mayor Wilkie. No further discussion and I'll move. It's been moved and seconded. No further discussion. All in favour? Thank you. So there's no confidential reports. Frank Wilkie 01:11:24.338
Oh, excuse me, Amelia Lorentson 01:11:24.978
I'm already closing this meeting chair. 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. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 01:11:56.760
Just a very quick overview. This is the applications 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. Again, a range of applications across OPWs, MCUs and changes, DBWs. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:19.336
My only question, Patrick, is planning decisions made by council, but sports council not delegated. Patrick Murphy 01:12:20.120
I'm not sure if you have any questions. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:33.216
Delegated, approved under delegation. 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, it'd be up to. It'd be up to six, seven, eight planning decisions that were made by council. Am I correct or? Patrick Murphy 01:12:56.776
Some months were heavy. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:59.976
I just remember just reading just heaps and heaps of reports. I've never seen one or two reports come through in planning an environment. Patrick Murphy 01:13:08.256
Yeah. We've got some big applications that are taking some time to get through. It's a report There's a report that is coming, we've been coming to general committee meeting next week for a significant application, but we certainly have enough of applications that will be coming in the future. We've obviously amended 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 Thank you very much. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:38.888
Any further questions by councillors? Frank Wilkie 01:13:41.488
Just for example, could you... the last item was 223... Exemption from code assessment for additions to dwelling landslide overlay. Can you just give us an explanation of what's involved in something like that? It's obviously not major. Patrick Murphy 01:14:06.552
So the scheme allows for an exemption certificate to be issued which is saying actually we're not requiring you to have a development development approval in circumstances where there's like a minor error, where 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 but 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. 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'd have the confidence that the development would be undertaken in accordance with that geotechnical report. So in this instance, a geotechnical report would have been provided showing what developments took with the issue of an exemption certificate. Frank Wilkie 01:15:11.492
If there was an application for a house that was seeking a relaxation... that was potentially impacting on the neighbours' views, what assurance do we have that that would come before us for a decision? it's not just to agree to on a delegated authority to the detection of a neighbouring property and then councillors are dragged in after the fact? Patrick Murphy 01:15:38.880
Well, a setback variation only will be assessed by our building department for work... houses that have setback and other variations that will come through planning. But they're assessed under delegation. We've not brought 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... we rely on the expertise of the planners to be making those decisions on the delegations. And obviously, you know, matters such as height, so over-height buildings are generally not supported by staff. So, you know, we would start to be pushing back on applicants. So there's again a situation where they wanted to significantly exceed the height limits. You know, you would likely see it because it would likely be knocked back before it got much more mental. Frank Wilkie 01:16:31.992
Perhaps it's a discussion for another time, but for inclusion in the list of exceptions where they are booked for council. Just like to say, one of the most traumatic things I've been drawn into... was where neighbours who did the wrong 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. And it was, yeah, it was something we it was, yeah, 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 no one would like that to slip through. I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:21.908
Happy to second. No questions, no further discussion. 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 you. And I thank these officers here today for your patience and acknowledge and thank the councillors online and in the gallery and around this table. A good discussion and lots to think about before general meeting. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
