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 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 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. Next presentations and deputations, there are none. We'll go straight to the Reports for consideration of the Committee. And it's all up and running now. So we have two reports 175.1, 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 single occasion. Although I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because. 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 03:40.253
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 of the trust that the final decision is made interest. Amelia Lorentson 03:56.253
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? SPEAKER_02 04:22.575
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 reception a or function, and this includes examples such 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. 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. Is when all people should be off the site it's anticipated that maximum of 96 events will occur per year and 72 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 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 included the submission to Council and approval of 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 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 followed by a public holiday the matter of traffic it was addressed through an RPEQ certified traffic engineer report and the State Assessment and Referral Agency SARA have conditioned upgrades to the State controlled road Richard MacGillivray 07:49.125
And the access has been conditioned by council's engineers be sealed SPEAKER_02 07:55.366
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 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 that's it in a nutshell any questions Amelia Lorentson 08:54.811
So we might start given this is the only application in front of us today we just might start discussing and throw 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 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 and it received. SPEAKER_02 09:41.780
So the three actions that Nate 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. Richard MacGillivray 09:57.437
We have relates in the notice compliance evidence of that. Secondly the public notification signage. SPEAKER_02 10:07.968
In that evidence there's three photographs of location of the sign and 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 Richard MacGillivray 10:45.267
We believe on postal Australia website that includes signature on delivery so that's just what we're we've seen on their Australia post website but and in terms of I guess the applicants 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 Lorentson mentioned that there may be some residents 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 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 11:40.128
So my question is that if notifications is 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 Richard MacGillivray 12:02.663
And 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 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 meet the requirements under the act of actually discharging your obligations 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 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 follow-up on that. I would appreciate that, thank you. Patrick Murphy 13:07.873
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 across Richard MacGillivray 13:17.173
The road because that's not directly joining it must be directly joining the land parcel and part of Patrick Murphy 13:23.873
The land is buttered abutted by 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 13:37.912
Reach out to the residents and request where they're located I have a list of seven part of the information request I've got those seven residents names in front of me so I can get that Richard MacGillivray 13:51.463
To you we can follow that up with the applicant um after this meeting today Amelia Lorentson 13:56.380
In terms of details about the nature and scope of the proposed development where the residents provided with enough information what was given as part of the public notification period SPEAKER_02 14:10.718
So they're given told where find the application material on council's website and all that has been submitted also uploaded through assessment of the application was there for them to peruse and make informed submissions regarding the application. Richard MacGillivray 14:38.797
It also has the date of when you can make a submission so between the 25th 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, get a copy of the application and it. 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 15:08.817
I have a lot of questions so I'll throw it to the Councillors around the table. Councillor Wilkie, Stockwell, any questions to start? Brian Stockwell 15:18.997
My question is probably something for next Monday. I have 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 real-time monitoring so they know what they're doing. Patrick Murphy 15:50.614
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 16:09.932
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 16:34.551
So to go 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 34 decibels and the standard is 5 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 and the other was new in proximity of site there's monitoring also some monitor there was some testing analysis done of noise impacts of trap of traffic along the road exiting the property near the houses in terms 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 not sure that 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 through so I'll leave it Frank Wilkie 17:58.340
To the expert to respond I would too so it's good to understand that they say they measured 34 decibels as a background noise what sounds would that be made a up of it's like a whisper Patrick Murphy 18:11.895
There was it's like a what 39 decibels is probably like a washing machine it's what I've found in my searches for like there's charts that is 39 decibels that's 39 decibels at the source no that's it that'll be at the house the nearest house on the outside the house 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 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 and would it I understand it's a working macadamia nut farm that's right include the sounds of machinery perhaps 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 um restriction around the evening so um and the noise from the operations of time would be quite loud 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 residents than the actual function facility Frank Wilkie 19:58.414
It would be fair to say that the sound of a husking machine in a rural area is an expected Patrick Murphy 20:05.474
Sound certainly during the day at night it would be something that wouldn't be unreasonable that's right and trucks coming to from the side as well yes you know 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 put a condition on about the ceiling of the driveway so the that'll will be a softer noise and on Frank Wilkie 20:35.910
And crunching out gravel that's correct and that reduce dust as well it will are we able to have a look at what TMR proposed for the entry right, Vicky got a um is there concerns about safety at that Patrick Murphy 20:52.855
Location yeah it's the word document the SARA document yeah so this is the treatment that's required so the application has been referred to SARA and they provide their response supporting the 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, the road treatment 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 the at 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 tree undergrowth for 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 it's noted that semi-trailers leave the site at the moment under the current conditions and they would turn right sort of up the hill which is probably you know quite dangerous or so these works would also help that operation they've pulled access in off the boundary of the site to enable trucks to queue internal to the sign just talking about there's been photographs shared of clearing on the site well the area where the word access is certainly just at the moment but you're going back in the area of that area has been cleared it seemed like the it might have been stripped of grass but yeah we've had a review there's nothing native in there they're all going to be some small pine well that's on I think that's on the adjoining property but yeah you'll see sort of clearing behind there but our review of the areas is that it's consistent over a period of time Richard MacGillivray 23:58.251
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 straight small fine trees emerged. Does the bridge have any renovations? No, I haven't looked into the specifics but I don't believe so because there was non-native vegetation in there. So it would be just property maintenance being able to maintain the land without needing for a benefit from the Council. Amelia Lorentson 24:44.951
So 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 25:01.471
In terms of the assessment, I'm 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, 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 images, versus what the site looks like. At the moment now on the front corner of the site. Amelia Lorentson 25:33.092
Appreciate the information, thank you. Brian Stockwell 25:39.272
Let's go back to the condition that the Mayor was queering ahead on 15 and talking about where we had the five years of background noise that specific condition doesn't relate to any time period is it meant to relate all day and only relate to this lane use. As opposed to the agriculture use of Patrick Murphy 26:05.539
The it's a good point I mean it does refer to site operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music but to and the approval and it relates to an approval for function facility so that would bound it we can have a look at me, I would take it as a problem that I need to sort of fill clarity it might be best to include that. Amelia Lorentson 26:36.250
I'll try 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 know that there's a presence at the moment of livestock holding house. Has this been discussed 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 27:14.784
For a functioned facility and that would include a range of events, weddings, long lunches as they've 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 it would probably be another change if this was approved and then that would be assessed at that time. Amelia Lorentson 27:40.257
So is it possible? Patrick Murphy 27:42.118
It's possible they could do a whole range of other activities under SPEAKER_02 27:45.535
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 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 so the rural zone code for example the rural uses code if they comply with those um we can certain thresholds they can keep animals without good. Frank Wilkie 28:24.358
You're saying keeping animals on rural property is not going to be expected that's SPEAKER_02 28:28.401
No it's definitely anticipated yeah degree to a degree there's thresholds that need to be met Patrick Murphy 28:35.678
Yeah and it's certainly a functioning academic and the conversations that I've been part of with SPEAKER_01 28:42.625
Applicants is amazing. The key that we should go Amelia Lorentson 28:49.365
Um Brian Stockwell 28:57.379
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 an event only for example a single day? Patrick Murphy 29:17.393
Well we've conditioned the types of events and the maximum number that are to occur Richard MacGillivray 29:22.072
As well as weddings to long lunches to wellness to corporate retreats has been what's prescribed in the actual application itself. So I guess if 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 further development application potentially, but there's been no discussion from the applicant that they're seeking a to change from what's being proposed at the Amelia Lorentson 30:01.470
Good night. 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, does Council in its ecological assessment consider that? SPEAKER_01 30:36.370
Any it's change that's put forward we will look at the ecological impacts in totality on the site. Amelia Lorentson 30:47.034
So the Noosa Plan makes function 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 my understanding an inconsistent use. Can I understand why it was changed on in a rural zone and made a consistent use? Richard MacGillivray 31:23.333
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 also to 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 use if those impacts can be mitigated but it residents so it's not code-assessable it's impact assessable. Amelia Lorentson 32:13.160
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 change in the definition of function facilities? Richard MacGillivray 32:39.753
I think we probably have to come back to that. We'll you general on check to see whether there was, I assume there was a definition of function facility construction prior to Noosa plan, it was more so that the uses were 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 2020 plan, any recorded opposition to the changes? Richard MacGillivray 33:25.611
We'll have to speak with our strategic planning Patrick Murphy 33:27.791
Team, they've got some time to go back through all those documents. 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 SPEAKER_01 33:40.811
A function facility. Yeah, but we can have a. Amelia Lorentson 33:44.766
Again, sorry, tweeting. 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 on the premise that it was an inconsistent use. Is that correct? SPEAKER_01 34:08.659
Well, if they'd done their research, they would have seen that it was an inconsistent use the rules. But notwithstanding, we have to assess it under the scheme at the moment. Richard MacGillivray 34:19.090
I see. 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 and all these pop-ups and this 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 the team around the specific elements going back 2020 when this plan came into effect, regarding its particular use. Frank Wilkie 35:02.100
I have a question about potential accommodation on the site. For Monday. What form of accommodation is permitted And what would be the process if the applicant wanted to include guest think some of us are sort of concerned the uses 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? SPEAKER_02 35:48.698
Yeah, sure. So 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 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 Richard MacGillivray 36:32.876
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 persons that a bus be required, they're agreeable to condition to that effect or that condition requiring a requirement of the operational management plan. SPEAKER_01 37:00.745
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 amenity Richard MacGillivray 37:09.725
And wealth that may be coming Frank Wilkie 37:13.665
But the idea of being the potential guests gifts powers that have resolved at a resort in Noosa, that's right, or a bus stop in Brisbane or somewhere, a distant location. That's correct, yeah. Patrick Murphy 37:27.230
And some would come by Uber, some would drive themselves, weddings and you'll often find one person will drive with a number that will 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 wind visage coming back to the General Committee Meeting with an amended recommendation to the court. Amelia Lorentson 37:56.842
In terms of bushfire hazards, is this facility located in a bushfire prone area? Patrick Murphy 38:08.528
There's a, 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 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 38:53.211
In terms of vulnerable uses, so is a wedding facility considered a or classified as a vulnerable use and given that the presence of you know individuals under the influence of alcohol poses higher risk than those not intoxicated? I think check to see whether it's actually defined as a vulnerable use. It's not. So who is responsible for determining whether a proposed development involves a vulnerable group? Patrick Murphy 39:41.361
Well it's defined through the SPP, the estate planning provisions. Amelia Lorentson 39:46.061
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 they'll delete people. Patrick Murphy 40:00.741
How is that determined? 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 requirements. Amelia Lorentson 40:17.581
That would be great. Thank you Patrick. If I can I have I go into that. Richard MacGillivray 40:34.058
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 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 necessary commercial activities like function facilities and the like that's being defined but SPEAKER_07_b 41:14.946
The team will come back to you with a bit more clarity in terms of what that specific Amelia Lorentson 41:24.866
What is the official definition 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 assigned to person's well-being and what value right of quiet enjoyment Patrick Murphy 42:24.906
I think this process our assessment has been about amenity our engagement of the acoustic consultant to review applicants 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 the amenity immunity. Richard MacGillivray 42:50.670
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 the document 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 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 installed in place, such as mounds and fences and changes to ceiling with access ways and the like. Further proposed that functions would go to 10:30 and guess we'd need to be off site by 11 Patrick Murphy 44:27.263
: 00, Through our review, it's come forward that the event should 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 44:41.523
In terms of submissions, they there were, I think, 60 61 submissions. Can I ask how many were made in support and opposition? And of those supporting the application, how many are from residents living adjoining or near the site? Patrick Murphy 45:02.503
You've another that PDF could be worth bringing up. SPEAKER_02 45:06.484
Yeah so in terms of numbers there, we'll see spatially where they're located. People that made submissions and the ones that are shown on as objectors, as in the red dots, they're all objectors. So there total of 30 objectors. Not all of them are showing 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. That submission received outside of the notification period. Richard MacGillivray 45:49.563
So the breakdown of those in support and those objecting is outlined in the report as well. Amelia Lorentson 45:55.263
So I'll be adjoining all of those close to the actual facility. Were there any that actually. Acupuncture? No. Patrick Murphy 46:07.489
We did receive a letter, which we can share with you, from someone who lives in close proximity to their operation in the scenic realm. Amelia Lorentson 46:15.949
From the Gold Coast, I read that signature, yeah. Is that relevant? In the fact that it's the same operator and it shows a history of good operational management. But the Gold Coast and Noosa, we have very different values. Patrick Murphy 46:33.615
Well, scenic realm, it's not so much the Gold Coast, but yeah, I understand what you're saying. Frank Wilkie 46:37.175
It hasn't influenced our decision, making has been made up by the facts and the just on that impact on nearby residences is a big concern here. What is the distance from the function centre of the nearest residence? Patrick Murphy 46:54.195
I'm going to point it out. So the facility, the function of the facility is to be here. The nearest house, that's 750 metres away. 750? Yeah, approximately. And then other houses might be around, you know, other houses in this sort of area might be 800,850 metres away. Yeah. And the letter received. From someone who lived in proximity to the rosewood estate, I think they were about 100 or 200 metres from the actual function facility. Frank Wilkie 47:29.213
And what did they say? SPEAKER_02 47:32.273
Yeah, they basically said 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 47:50.623
Um and did they talk about noise impacts nothing like that they weren't saying they were being impacted by yeah yeah and we did is there a willingness of the operator to work with the residents I would anticipate so they haven't expressed if this were to be approved to have a similar relationship yeah as Richard MacGillivray 48:12.450
We would certainly always encouraged there's nine Brian Stockwell 48:22.429
It's interesting information but we can't take the nature of the applicant into consideration is that correct um 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 63 you're not an adjoining landholder? That is correct. Yeah Amelia Lorentson 48:48.729
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 Patrick Murphy 49:01.329
The seven got a letter and then there was a sign out the front and then an ad in the paper and then that's response and yeah yeah which SPEAKER_02 49:10.978
A digital complication Richard MacGillivray 49:11.915
So to just to clarify it for all intents and purposes it appears by every indication that the requirements under the act were followed in terms of public notification 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 sign signatures for those letters just to confirm that. But from the act's point of view, they've discharged their obligations. Patrick Murphy 49:35.783
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, yeah. Frank Wilkie 49:53.117
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 front? Yeah. So the other ones are deemed to be suitably removed far back from the road to not be impacted by traffic noise? SPEAKER_02 50:14.351
That's right, according to the acoustic consultant's assessment. Frank Wilkie 50:17.911
And the ceiling of road was intended to assist with that? Patrick Murphy 50:22.025
Well, 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. And all that sort of mischarge. Amelia Lorentson 50:42.288
In terms of economic impact, the report references and I think has support or aligns with our economic strategy to diversify our economy. 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 for example, compensation claims for adverse impacts made by changes in the planning scheme? Richard MacGillivray 51:40.948
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 scheme to be changed as part of a pre- the 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 Amelia Lorentson 52:11.588
Was this property purchased what year in 2023 for my reasons is that correct? Brian Stockwell 52:20.112
Can I say we're looking at the nature of the applicant which is outside the scope of the planning? Amelia Lorentson 52:23.992
My question is when was the application lodged and how long did it take before it came to Council? Richard MacGillivray 52:31.742
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. 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. So four months. Frank Wilkie 53:00.152
I'm happy to move the general manager. Amelia Lorentson 53:02.924
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. Thank you. How would it be? 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 53:29.230
Thank you. I just have a question. Firstly, the SARA report with regards to the roadworks, can that please be included in the report why was the attachment not for easy access? Richard MacGillivray 53:49.162
And transparency it is all available on online at the moment that's publicly accessible through the yeah yes oh no no on our public council's website yeah 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 54:20.389
I would appreciate that if that could just be circulated to all the Councillors that would be excellent thank you Karen Finzel 54:26.734
Thank you just wondering if we had the residents come in yesterday for a meeting there's great concern around the amenity that hasn't been discussed today that he protects that where that voice has come from I'm just wondering was there any native title PBC involvement or no the slots not subject to native title 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 the effects of the amenity in this area? Richard MacGillivray 55:14.958
From, are you talking about First Nations people? Yes. I'm not too sure. It comes back onto ringtail state forest. Yes. And the, you know, effects of possible development that will affect that environment. Yeah, there's no requirement. In the scheme for a bit of any engagement with First Nations in relation to that they entitled to make a submission there's no requirement for the applicant to engage with them as part of their development proposals Brian Stockwell 55:42.124
Just to follow up on that one clarifying the consideration of cultural images, 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 through the out-cash crisis. Richard MacGillivray 56:05.838
Correct. Amelia Lorentson 56:10.898
Councillor Wilson you're online, please ask your question, thank you. Nicola Wilson 56:15.898
Thank you, I may have missed this because the sound in and out a little bit but just going back to the map with the submissions and the objectives, so were the supporting submissions plotted on the map at all or was it that they weren't in the area of the map? SPEAKER_02 56:35.780
Yeah, weren't in the area 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 SPEAKER_04 56:50.434
The closest to have been? I think Karen, 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 there being a function there? SPEAKER_02 57:10.969
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 Patrick Murphy 57:29.833
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
And 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 58:05.153
We're not allowed to take the nature of the applicant into consideration, are we residence of a person submitting into consideration, or do we have to actually just review the grounds Richard MacGillivray 58:16.713
Of the submission? 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. Brian Stockwell 58:26.635
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 place based context. Amelia Lorentson 58:36.958
On this thank you. Karen Finzel 58:42.497
I just have a question. I note in response to a question that the Council suggested conditioning the uses of classes the buses. It just poses a question. If that condition was removed, would that then negate need for all this road work and the big impacts on the amenity, if the condition for using coaches was actually removed? Patrick Murphy 59:15.415
No, we still would need the vehicles. Just for the cars? Yeah, but the road, it's sealing the existing road network internal to the site. Karen Finzel 59:25.396
Are you talking about the widening? Oh, sorry, the TMR, oh, my apologies. In regards to the impact on the amenity energy. Due to the widening of that road, use of buses and coaches being conditioned as part of the applicants? Richard MacGillivray 59:45.442
I would say yes, in the sense that the SARA have been applicants. 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 that attend the site as well, but they've factored in a combination of both, potentially noting that the applicant specified maximum limitation of the number of events and 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 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 that have sufficient space to be able to move around those vehicles. Karen Finzel 01:00:43.270
So, to clarify, because it's the intensification of the use of the road, and just to clarify that it was the Council staff as a staff that suggested the repercussions of application. Of the conditions. Frank Wilkie 01:00:58.113
Sorry, I'm bit confused. It's not a condition of approval that coaches be used, is it? Patrick Murphy 01:01:05.127
No. So the CSIRO's response is in response to the application material submitted by the applicant and that might 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've said that they're agreeable to that. So it doesn't form part of a condition of the recommendation at this point. Frank Wilkie 01:01:38.663
So the upgrade to the entryway is a condition? Richard MacGillivray 01:01:41.265
Yes, by the SARA, by the State. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:46.525
And who pays for that? The applicant? Yes. So in terms of alternate transport port 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? SPEAKER_01_b 01:02:16.190
We're not requiring them to do is that their Patrick Murphy 01:02:19.829
Discretion as to, as a guest, how they choose to arrive and depart the site? Amelia Lorentson 01:02:25.529
But in terms of impacts, is it not part of our consideration to ensure that there are not people at risk at 10:00, 11:00 o'clock walking dark, unlit roads, trying to find a cab or trying to walk home. Richard MacGillivray 01:02:46.983
And that's why we've got those requirements in the operational plan around the use of buses and other modes of transport 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. We've got more than 50 guests attending. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:15.841
In terms of toilet facilities, I've got the operation management 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? SPEAKER_02 01:03:36.293
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 two toilets in each. So yeah, that's what's currently being Patrick Murphy 01:03:54.933
Used. Think they've made reference in their operational management plan that one toilet per 60 guests for a function facility is considered by industry standards, so it's certainly above that. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:07.007
How does that compete with what's required? To say, for a restaurant, that seats 150 people. Patrick Murphy 01:04:14.084
It's based, my understanding is that toilets, 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 done on four area. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:27.542
Um 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 Councillors not present to participate in this discussion. Frank Wilkie 01:04:42.404
And Madam Chair probably the proper process for those questions to be forwarded to staff and the general, so they can come fully armed with the answers Amelia Lorentson 01:04:53.534
Absolutely. Any further discussion before Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:04:59.506
Just a question to Richard. Do you think we'll have confirmation of receipt of those letters from Australia post by the general? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:11.046
Yes. We're going to work with to do that. We'll try and get that done as soon as possible. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:05:16.258
Just confirming, Australia post have confirmed the registration numbers of the letters that were sent? Richard MacGillivray 01:05:22.098
Correct and we have received a copy of each of those. Barcode numbers that were attached to every single letter, so yeah, we've got the physical copies of those. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:33.356
Sorry, question. In terms of conditions, who determines what's reasonable, not 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 mediated position between, say, adjoining landowners and the faculty? Is it reasonable to reduce the hours, say, to 7 o'clock or 8 just allow it during the day? Who determines that? Richard MacGillivray 01:06:09.614
Council will make 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 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 01:06:46.568
Is it reasonable and relevant to condition buses only transport guests to a leading venue if it's over 50 people? Richard MacGillivray 01:06:59.866
You can say yes yep and the applicant has agreed that they think that's reasonable as Patrick Murphy 01:07:05.226
Well. So only buses? Well they're not agreeable to only buses. Sorry. They're agreeable to 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 are satisfied with the current proposal in terms of the amenity amended impacts. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:45.346
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 defined definition of what's a significant. That's probably the question under the planning scheme. We reference small scale in the report. Patrick Murphy 01:08:16.678
Is it in fact small or is it to the residents when context of the site is taking up a very small percentage 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 01:08:35.940
Out of interest of your honour, this function. Just like this in the hinterland? Yes, there is. Palm creek estate in Yandina. Richard MacGillivray 01:08:44.870
There are a number of them, particularly in Sunshine Coast hinterland. We're reading venues are fairly common down in the range. From millennium, yeah, not many as such. Locality. That I'm aware of. One place where they can. 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 primarily around accommodation. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:23.041
Councillor Finzel, I'll lay a last question before we close. Karen Finzel 01:09:26.041
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? Richard MacGillivray 01:09:43.860
Prove that they collected them we'll 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 did people actually receive something in their post box and sign for that 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 01:10:24.758
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 just wanted to put that on the table. Frank Wilkie 01:10:44.677
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 Amelia Lorentson 01:10:57.297
Position. 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 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 01:11:56.501
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 Christmas. Yeah, again, a range of applications across, IPWs, MCUs and changes. DBWs. I'm not sure if you have any questions. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:24.697
My 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 reading just heaps and of reports, and I've never or two reports, um, come through in planning and environment. Patrick Murphy 01:13:08.142
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 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 have also had an impact. Amelia Lorentson 01:13:37.252
Thank you very much. Further questions by Councillors, observers? Frank Wilkie 01:13:54.390
Give us a yeah so it's emotional of what's involved in something like that, it's obviously not major, so the risk assessment has got to be done about landslide potential. Patrick Murphy 01:14:06.470
Yeah, so the scheme allows for an exemption certificate to be issued, which saying actually, 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. So in this instance, a geotechnical report would have been provided showing what developments took with the issue of the exemption certificate. Frank Wilkie 01:15:11.476
If there was an application for 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 after the fact. Patrick Murphy 01:15:39.297
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 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 the delegations. Richard MacGillivray 01:16:09.981
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 back 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 be knocked back before it got much momentum. Absolutely. Frank Wilkie 01:16:32.374
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 is where. Now I'm just here with people laughing. Did the wrong thing when they did their renovations were adversely affected by decision made under delegated authority to grant a relaxation which totally blocked their coastal views. Yes. Yeah, it was something we couldn't fix retrospectively. I'd just like to fade that potential and it's probably a discussion for a long time. We'd hate to see it slip through and I don't want to see that slip through. I'm happy to move it. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:21.816
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. I now declare the meeting closed at 10:48pm. And I thank these officers here today for your patients, um. 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. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
