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)
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:01.322
Good morning and I declare the planning and environment meeting open. I'd like to begin with a welcome to the people of the gallery. I'd also like to begin with an Acknowledgement to Country. I respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the Traditional Custodians of the land and waters that form the region we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to elders past, present and emerging and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. Attendance. There is one apology. I have an apology from Councillor Tom Wegener who sits on the committee. He can't be with us today. I note we have observers. Councillor Karen Finzel, welcome. And also Councillor Nicola Wilson, you're online. Welcome to the planning and environment. Both Councillors 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 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. So 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 to consider. Report 17.1, MCU 24008.0084 Material Change of Use, function facility at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive, Ringtail Creek. Before commencing discussions, I note that this report will be moved to the General Committee for further consideration. Allow all the Councillors to partake in discussion and debate and ask questions due to the significance of the matter or the decision in front of us. So firstly, conflicts of interest. I want to make a declarable declaration. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers, in a personal capacity for legal advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person 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 03:40.256
Look, I'll move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson. I'll turn to Councillor Lorentson. Participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in public interest. I'll take that.
Amelia Lorentson 03:56.495
Thank you. All in favour? That's carried. Thank you very much. Noting that I can't, clearly I can't vote. So let's go straight to staff members and welcome to the desk our planning staff officers. Can I ask by just requesting an overview of the report in front of us. Thank you.
Matt 04:25.186
Thank you Mayor and Councillors and all in attendance. Like it's been stated the site is 658 Louis Bazzo Drive in Ringtail Creek. And the application before us is a Material Change of Use for function facility. By means of definition a function facility is the use of premises for receptions or functions and includes a preparing and providing of food and liquor for the consumption on the premises as part of a reception or function and this includes examples such as a conference centre or a reception centre. The proposal for a function facility is an impact assessable application and it is a consistent use in the rural zone. The function facility will be purpose of holding small-scale functions, weddings and events of up to 150 guests and the proposed operational hours are between 11:00am. And 10:30pm. Is when all people should be off the site. It's anticipated that a maximum of 96 events will occur per year and 72 of those may be weddings it's also anticipated that 70% to 80% of guests will be chauffeured to the event by a bus and the primary issues that we looked at in our assessment were land use, noise, traffic and the protection of the site's environmental values. So noise, the key part for the assessment there was an environmental noise impact that was submitted and peer-reviewed in support of the proposed development and the recommendations from that report have been conditioned to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the relevant noise criteria. Recommendations from the report include the submission to Council and approval of a noise management plan and the construction of a 1.8 metre high by 30 metre long acoustic barrier parallel to the adjoining house at 642. Louis Bazzo Drive. Basso drive. Noise from the operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels external 20 off-site residents or night or noise sensitive receiver so house essentially yeah as I previously stated all guests are to vacate no later than 10:30pm. And functions must not occur on gazetted Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless by a public holiday the matter of traffic it was addressed through an RPEQ certified traffic engineer engineering report and the State assessment and referral agency, SARA, have conditioned upgrades to the State controlled road and the access has by been conditioned by sealed Council's to engineers. Be sealed to reduce dust and noise recommended that the site's environmental values are protected through environment covenants by environmental covenants so that will protect the significant vegetation in perpetuity and environmental impacts have also been assessed and addressed through a submitted ecological report and Stormwater Management Plan the application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that site can occur with potential amenity impacts being mitigated through the implementation of recommendations of the associated management plans and all conditions and it's recommended that the application be approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions so that's it in a that's it in nutshell a any questions so.
Amelia Lorentson 08:55.771
We might start given any questions so this is the only application in front of us today we just might start discussing and just throwing some questions at stuff. So I'm going to start with the notification process. How were local residents notified about this development and was the notification process compliant with statutory requirements and I'm specifically speaking about whether or not Council received confirmation from Australia Post that each letter sent to adjoining property owners about the proposed development was in fact delivered and it was in fact received.
Richard MacGillivray 09:39.592
Yeah, yeah sure. Yes, 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. We have in the notice of compliance evidence of that. Secondly, the public notification signage. In that evidence there's three photographs of the location of the sign. 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 and from what we've been told by the applicant they checked that each of those being delivered and by the nature of registered post we believe on the postal Australia Post website that includes signature on delivery so that's just what we're that's just what we've seen on their Australia Post website but and in terms of I guess the 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 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 post so they would have received that or they would received a docket that says to come and pick up the letter from the post office if they can't sign for it at the time when it was delivered.
Amelia Lorentson 11:41.644
So my question is that if notifications is not confirmed so we have had some residents who have told us that they have not received any notice what does that mean in terms of process does the process need to restart or this is such a significant development and.
Richard MacGillivray 12:04.269
We will probably take steps to ask questions of Australia Post I guess in terms of whether they actually did receive copies or not we've got confirmation of the receipts and the details each property and the stickers attached that Australia Post provides once those are issued so so we can double check that with the applicant with Australia Post to confirm that all of those were received but from the act's point of view the fact is that they have sent those by registered post as deemed to meet the requirements under the act of actually discharging your obligations under the act to provide that notice so that's obviously more of an issue potentially with Australia Post if haven't been able to effectively deliver under their obligations to provide that noting that the applicants provided us with copies of every single registration of each of those letters that were sent to those parties so we'll probably do a bit of a follow further-up on that. I would appreciate that, thank you.
Patrick Murphy 13:08.077
Can I just ask is the residents who say they didn't receive letters are they residents that should have received letters that they directly joined the property or are they.
Richard MacGillivray 13:18.026
Across the road because that's not directly joining it must be directly joining the land parcel.
Patrick Murphy 13:23.492
And part of the land is buttered by a gazetted road so there's some properties that are in proximity to the site which are actually not directly adjoining as well so I.
Amelia Lorentson 13:38.173
Reach out to the residents and request where they're located I have the list of seven residents. Um part of the information request I've got those seven residents names in front of me so I can get.
Richard MacGillivray 13:51.456
That to you we can follow that up with the applicant um after this meeting today.
Amelia Lorentson 13:55.440
Um in terms of details about the nature and scope of the proposed development where the residents provided with enough information what information was given as part of the public notification period.
Matt 14:10.718
So they're given told where to find the application material on Council's website and all the application material that has been submitted and also uploaded through the assessment of the application was there for them to peruse and make informed submissions regarding the application.
Richard MacGillivray 14:39.575
It also has the date of you can make a submission, so between the 5th and the 27th of September, the lot and RP, the details, the nature of the approval being sought, the reference number and then also how to make, how to get a copy of the application also how to make a submission as well. And that's all as stated under the Planning Act in terms of those minimum requirements that must be adhered to.
Amelia Lorentson 15:10.299
I have a lot of questions so I'll throw it to the Councillors around the table. Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, any questions to start?
Brian Stockwell 15:19.632
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 a real-time monitoring so they know what they're doing.
Patrick Murphy 15:51.108
It's included in the operational management plan that requirement that the on-site manager would do that. We could include that as a condition as well if you see if we could work something out for you.
Frank Wilkie 16:09.634
Yeah I have a question. One of the conditions is amplified so noise from site operations inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels and there's some 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 16:35.027
So to go into a bit more technical detail we've asked our acoustic consultant to come to the General Committee Meeting on Monday yes but what I can advise is that with some background monitoring that was done and it was determined that for the evening period that the background noise was 34 decibels and the standard is to apply five decibels above that as being the limit that should not be exceeded there were two testing points done one was to the closest resident near closest resident and the other was new in proximity of the site there's also some monitor there was some testing there was some analysis done of noise impacts of trap of traffic along the road exiting the property near the houses in terms 39 decibel requirement and hence why there was a condition in there about an acoustic fence being required near one of the houses so yeah I'm 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.
Frank Wilkie 17:57.788
Through so I'll leave it to the expert to respond. Good to understand. I would too. So it's good to understand that. They say they measured 34 decibels as a background noise. What sounds would.
Patrick Murphy 18:10.498
That be made up of it's like a whisper there was it's like a 39 decibels is probably like a washing machine is what I've found in my searches for what 39 decibels is like there's charts that is that's 39 decibels at the source no that's it that'll be at the um the house at the house the nearest house on the outside the house so.
Frank Wilkie 18:36.667
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 is it cicadas is it all.
Patrick Murphy 18:48.910
All those background noises are factored into determining the background level that ambient background level so that testing is done over a extended period of time and what they do look taking 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 anyway.
Frank Wilkie 19:18.239
And would it I understand it's a working macadamia nut farm that's right include the sounds of machinery perhaps.
Patrick Murphy 19:24.532
Yeah well those kind of noises probably occur more during the day yes and so this is a night time yeah that's right it's a night time um restriction around the evening so um and the noise from the opera of the at the time would be quite loud would it be louder than 39 decibels yes there's a husking machine on the site which my understanding is very very loud the operator's advisor had no complaints about the husking machine the de-husking machine and that's in close epoxy proximity to the adjoining closest adjoining residents than the actual function facility it would be fair to say that.
Frank Wilkie 20:01.963
The sound of a husking machine in a rural area is an expected.
Patrick Murphy 20:06.408
Sound certainly during the day at night it would be something that would be unreasonable that's right and trucks coming to from the side as well yes you know.
Frank Wilkie 20:16.091
The other impact is traffic noise so you've mentioned the acoustic wall were there any other measures intended to be imposed that would help reduce traffic noise we've.
Patrick Murphy 20:30.004
Put a condition on about the ceiling of the driveway so the yeah that'll be a softer noise and on and crunching out gravel that's correct and that reduce dust as well it will are.
Frank Wilkie 20:42.964
We able to have a look at what TMR proposed for the entry right, too?
Unidentified Speaker 20:48.076
Certainly Vicky got a um is there concerns about safety at that location yeah it's the word document the SARA document yeah.
Patrick Murphy 20:58.835
So this is the treatment that's required the application has been referred to SARA and they provide their response supporting application based on this treatment they're not turning lanes they're widening of the road facilitate someone to enter the site and I mean it probably is a left turn in lane but the treatment on the opposing side of the road is more just a widening to enable people to go around vehicles that are turning probably not inconsistent with what's happening out at Sunshine butterflies, 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 of the road but the facility is on located on it's about 70 metres in total the most of that being to the right as you look out from the site the next diagram down on the next page shows the clearing that's required to provide for sight lines and yeah so to the west it's removal of overgrown 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 semi-trailers leave the site at the moment under the current conditions and it's noted that under the current conditions and they would turn right sort of up the hill which is they would turn right sort hill which is probably you know quite dangerous. Works would also help that operation. They'd pull the access in off the boundary of the site to enable trucks to queue internal to the sign.
Frank Wilkie 23:18.648
Just talking about clearing, there's been photographs shared of clearing on the site. Well.
Patrick Murphy 23:27.841
The area where the word access is certainly just at the moment, but going back to the area of that area has been cleared.
Richard MacGillivray 23:35.411
It seemed like it might have been stripped of grass, but we've a had a review. There's nothing native in there. They're all going to be some small pine.
Patrick Murphy 23:46.801
Well, I think that's on the adjoining property. But yeah, you'll see sort of clearing behind there. But our review of the area is that it's consistent over a period of time.
Richard MacGillivray 24:00.811
There's some small pines in there. You can actually see if Councillors wish to jump on street view, you can see clearly sort of between the photos of what's there versus what was there prior to that work. Being done which is small fine trees. We're in that locality there.
Frank Wilkie 24:22.344
I don't know if there's a bridge, any renovations?
Richard MacGillivray 24:27.023
No. I haven't looked into the specifics but I don't believe so because there's non-native vegetation in there. Yeah. So it'll be just property maintenance being able to maintain the land without needing for a Council. Yeah.
Amelia Lorentson 24:45.692
So to understand that a little bit more clearly Richard, there is no approval process for removing trees from their own property. Who determines whether or not there's anything of significance?
Richard MacGillivray 25:02.211
In terms of the assessment I'm only just doing a desktop there, so we can probably look at that a bit further to bring back some more detailed evaluation. We can obviously have some further conversation with the applicant about what happened and who did it. What inspections did they have? Did they, when did it get done? So we can get some further information from the applicant about that. I'm just having a look off what I can see on the images versus what. The site looks like at the moment now in the front corner of the site. I want to finish up the information, thank you.
Brian Stockwell 25:39.873
Let's not go back to the condition that Mayor was. Talking about where we had the. Background noise. That specific condition doesn't relate to any time period. Is it meant to relate all day and is it meant to only relate to this lane use? As opposed to the agricultural use of the site?
Patrick Murphy 26:06.682
That's a good point. I mean it does refer to site operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music. But to, and it relates to an approval for a function facility. Time. Thank you. So that would bound it. We can have a look at that. No, to me, I'll take it if that's relevant to that. I need you to sort of fill clarity, it might be best to include that.
Amelia Lorentson 26:36.571
I'll throw some questions. Is the proposal solely intended to be a wedding venue or are there other intended or implied uses for the site? Residents have spoken to us and they've noted there's a presence at the moment of livestock holding house. Has this been disclosed in the application and if the site were to be further developed for example as an equestrian centre should this not be considered now to comprehensively assess potential impacts?
Patrick Murphy 27:14.363
The application is for a function facility and that would include a range of events weddings long lunches as they're pointed out corporate kind of lunches as well there's been no discussion with us around it being used for any other purpose should they wish to use it for another purpose that requires a development approval that would need to come in and probably be another change if this was approved and then that would be assessed at that time.
Amelia Lorentson 27:40.730
So is it possible.
Patrick Murphy 27:42.472
It's possible they could do a whole range of other under activities part of the Planning Scheme.
Matt 27:47.017
Of the Planning Scheme and the keeping of animals for example such as horses there are thresholds for accepted development so accepted development is subject to compliance with the benchmarks or codes but still not needing an application to go through Council they just need to comply with any of the relevant and acceptable outcomes of those codes so the rural zone code for example the rural uses code if they comply with those um we can certain thresholds they can keep animals without an application to.
Frank Wilkie 28:23.481
You're saying keeping animals on a rural property is be going unexpected to be that's degree correct.
Matt 28:28.318
It's definitely anticipated to a there's thresholds that need to be met.
Patrick Murphy 28:35.678
Yeah and it's certainly it's a functioning academic and the conversations that I've been part of with the is that they intend to keep going.
Amelia Lorentson 28:46.705
Gone. That pursuit going um.
Brian Stockwell 28:54.985
So I think the question could be posed animal husbandry from the science intensive is likely to be known as the right use as we call it. An equestrian event based on bringing animals to the site, would that fit into a function or would an event follow it?
Richard MacGillivray 29:14.612
For example.
Patrick Murphy 29:17.073
Well we've conditioned the types of events and the maximum number that are to occur.
Richard MacGillivray 29:22.072
And weddings to long lunches to wellness to corporate retreats has been what's been prescribed in the actual application itself yeah 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 applicant that they're seeking to change from what's being proposed at the point in time. So in terms of ecological.
Amelia Lorentson 30:11.296
Cumulative sort of assessments. Do we look at what potentially are the ecological concerns I in a if the proposal was to be expanded and there were additional uses, Council in its ecological assessment consider that?
Patrick Murphy 30:36.397
If any change that's put forward, we will look at the ecological impacts in totality on the site.
Amelia Lorentson 30:47.519
So the Noosa Plan this nice. 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 an inconsistent use in a rural zone and made a consistent use?
Richard MacGillivray 31:24.070
I'm happy to answer that Councillor. So again before my time before my time with the organisation and speaking with the Director Environment and Strategy there was changes made with the Noosa Plan to allow a broader range of use potentially in rural areas to allow for more and also to a bit of diversification and to support economic growth in some of those rural areas as well so it's still impact assessable so it still requires full notification to the community but is identified as a consistent potentially consistent use if those impacts can be mitigated but it requires full notification to residents so it's not code-assessable it's impact assessable.
Amelia Lorentson 32:12.956
So it's of part of the amendments in 2020 again there was a statutory requirement that residents be notified of any changes that potentially would have an adverse impact on their properties. Can I ask during the amendment process were the residents made aware of a change in the definition of function facilities?
Richard MacGillivray 32:40.376
I think we probably have to come back to that. We'll have to come back to you general on that. We'll have to check to see whether there was, I assume there was a definition of function facility prior to Noosa Plan. It was more so that the 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 in terms of the notification of the Noosa Plan during that period as could well.
Amelia Lorentson 33:08.038
You also find out if there were any recorded, so submissions were taken for the Noosa Plan 2020, could you also find out if there were any recorded opposition to the changes?
Richard MacGillivray 33:26.073
We'll have to speak with our strategic planning.
Unidentified Speaker 33:27.999
Team, they've got some time to go back through all those documents.
Patrick Murphy 33:31.551
There used to be entertainment and dining business type 2, but a whole raft of definition changes occurred and this would align with the State definition for a function facility. Yeah, but we can have a.
Amelia Lorentson 33:44.190
Sorry, so again, so in 2020, we changed the definition of a function centre, a function agri-facility to make it a consistent use. So prior to 2020, so all the residents who purchased prior to 2020 purchased on the premise that it was an inconsistent use. Is that correct?
Patrick Murphy 34:08.973
Well, if they'd done their research, they would have seen that it was an inconsistent use in the rules. But notwithstanding, we have to assess it under the schema.
Richard MacGillivray 34:18.234
Scheme at the moment. Yeah, and like all planning schemes, they go up to public exhibition and there's full engagement with the community around the Planning Scheme at the time. So it goes through an application period and put it in all the media and all these there's pop-ups and there's a whole range of engagement activities that are undertaken to make the community aware about those changes as well, so there's a lot of opportunity for awareness for people to raise objections or concerns or put in submissions of support for any of those changes. So we'll need to go back and check with the team around the specific elements going back to 2020 when the Noosa Plan came into effect, regarding its particular use.
Frank Wilkie 35:04.503
I have a question about potential accommodation on the site. I'm having it's a question you'd be interested to monitor. What form of accommodation is permitted on the site? And what would be the process if the applicant wanted to include guest accommodation on the site? Uses will escalate into something gradually functioning. Also, you've mentioned 50 car parks and also two spaces for two coaches. Can you help us understand the rationale for modelling calculations at any level for 50?
Matt 35:49.389
Yeah, sure. So the there's a minimum amount that was required under the parking and asset access code. They're exceeding that somewhat by about four or so spaces. Trying to 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 scheme to provide buses, but we believe that is something that we do support because yeah, it reduces vehicle trips and we are looking at incorporating a condition.
Patrick Murphy 36:36.560
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 a condition to that effect. Will that condition requiring be a requirement of the operational management plan? That any function over 50 will require a bus. So that will certainly assist in reducing the number of cars that will attend the site and the potential amenity.
Richard MacGillivray 37:09.800
And wealth that may be coming back and forth. Much.
Frank Wilkie 37:14.268
But the idea potential being that the potential guests would will be housed in a resort in Noosa, or bussed up in Brisbane, or some other distant location. That's correct.
Patrick Murphy 37:27.894
And some would come by Uber, some would drive themselves, weddings, and you'll often find one person will drive another 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 wind visage coming back to the General Committee Meeting was an amended recommendation to incorporate that.
Amelia Lorentson 37:57.813
In terms of bushfire hazards, is this facility located in a bushfire prone area?
Patrick Murphy 38:09.150
There's some vegetation on the side which presents bushfire risk. The building is sited in an area which provides sufficient separation to achieve 29 kilowatts gradient heat flux so it can be compliant in that regard. They have a evacuation management plan which they have an evacuation point and then they've got a part of the site that they can take guests to which is certainly a safe place for them to seek refuge on site and again comply with requirements.
Amelia Lorentson 38:53.907
In terms of vulnerable uses, so is a wedding facility considered a or classified as a vulnerable use and given that presence of you know individuals under the influence of alcohol poses a higher risk than those not intoxicated?
Patrick Murphy 39:29.876
I think check to see whether it's actually defined as a vulnerable use. It's not.
Amelia Lorentson 39:34.380
So who is responsible for determining whether a proposed development involves a vulnerable group?
Patrick Murphy 39:41.806
Well it's defined through the SPP, the State planning provisions.
Unidentified Speaker 39:47.251
So what factors determine the classification of vulnerable use? I know that we looked at an.
Amelia Lorentson 39:53.316
Application recently with groups of school children and we know in retirement village people.
Patrick Murphy 40:01.283
I think that people sleeping overnight I think will be part of it but we'd have to bring in our Environmental officer who will be able to talk you through how the definition has been determined or how the specific uses have been determined through the State.
Amelia Lorentson 40:17.979
That would be great. Thank you Patrick. If I can I have, I go into that.
Richard MacGillivray 40:34.664
Just as a bit of information Councillor about the vulnerable use just while you're gathering some notes there. So so under the State planning policy uses are those that particularly sensitive to certain risks such as flooding and natural hazards so the examples referenced in the policy are hospitals and health care facilities, schools and child care centres aged care facilities and obviously it's got emergency services in there obviously for the reason that they can't get stuck in an event of a hazard so they need to be in suitably located areas so it doesn't necessarily include activities commercial activities. Like function facilities and the likes being defined but the team will come back to you with a bit more clarity in terms of what that specific threshold is.
Amelia Lorentson 41:26.882
What is the definition of rural amenity and I raised this we met with some of the residents yesterday and their question and it was a really good question was most of them purchased before the 2020 amendment and they purchased for purposes because they wanted a quiet rural setting they loved the wildlife some actually bought in this precinct to escape from Kin Kin quarry impacts how does the proposal detract from the rural amenity of adjoining and nearby properties and how is the how is evaluated, how is the, what value? Is assigned to a person's well-being and what value is assigned to a person's right of quiet enjoyment.
Patrick Murphy 42:26.598
I think this process our assessment has been about amenity our engagement of the acoustic consultant review. To 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 and.
Richard MacGillivray 42:51.652
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 that sets out the performance requirements that must be met for development to be able to be supported so it's the reference document I guess 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 minimum. Or reduced to a point where they can be accepted I guess with conditions or mitigation installed in place such as mounds and fences and changes to ceiling with access ways and the like.
Patrick Murphy 44:20.929
And further to that the applicant actually proposed that functions would go to 10:30 and guess we need to be offside by 11:00. Through our review it's come forward that the event should finish at 10:00 and everyone should be offside by 10:30. So there's been a modification to what they've actually proposed to ensure that amenity has been protected.
Amelia Lorentson 44:42.162
In terms of submissions they there were, in 60 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 45:02.889
You've got another dog. Document that PDF could be worth.
Matt 45:06.223
Yeah, so in terms of numbers there, we'll see spatially where they're located. The people that made submissions and the ones that are shown on as objectors, as in the red dots, they're all objectors. So total were a total 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.
Richard MacGillivray 45:49.944
So the breakdown of those in support and those objecting is outlined in the report as well.
Amelia Lorentson 45:55.986
So I'll be adjoining all of those close to the actual facility. Were there any that actually supported the application? Pension? Function? No.
Patrick Murphy 46:08.071
We did receive a letter, which we can share with you, from someone who lives in close proximity to their operation in the Scenic Rim.
Amelia Lorentson 46:16.434
From the Gold Coast, I read that submission. Yeah. Yeah is that relevant it's 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. Well, Scenic Rim, it's not so much the Gold Coast, but yeah, I understand what you're saying.
Patrick Murphy 46:37.275
It hasn't influenced our decision, making has been made up by the facts and the review of the reports.
Frank Wilkie 46:44.056
Just on that impact on nearby residences is a big concern here. What is the distance from the function centre of the nearest residence?
Patrick Murphy 46:53.875
I'm going to point it out. So the facility, the function of the facility is to be about here. Yeah. The nearest house that's 750 metres away. Yeah. 750? 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.
Frank Wilkie 47:17.551
Yeah. And the letter received from Rosewood Estate, was it?
Patrick Murphy 47:23.117
From someone who lived in proximity to the Rosewood Estate. I think they were about 100 or 200 metres from the actual function facility. And what did they say?
Matt 47:32.706
Yeah, they basically said they thought that it was operating well. The managers of the facility had a great relationship with them, like a great working relationship. There wasn't any, anything negative in the, letter.
Frank Wilkie 47:51.397
Did they talk about noise impacts?
Patrick Murphy 47:55.581
No, nothing like that. They weren't saying they were being impacted. By noise.
Frank Wilkie 47:59.255
Yeah. 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?
Richard MacGillivray 48:12.465
As with the. Well, would certainly always encourage. Mayor's names. Absolutely.
Amelia Lorentson 48:19.817
Can you say Stockwell?
Brian Stockwell 48:21.479
So, yes. It's interesting information but we can't take the nature of the applicant into consideration. Is that correct? While that maps up. It may help to that earlier question about adjoining landholders. So, if you're on the other side of 62, road 62 or road 63, you're not an adjoining landholder? That is correct, yeah.
Amelia Lorentson 48:49.750
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 49:03.487
Got a letter and then there was a sign out the front. Ad in the paper. That's the response on the ad.
Matt 49:10.861
Which is a digital publication.
Frank Wilkie 49:12.703
So just to clarify, for all intents and purposes it appears by every indication that the requirements under the act were.
Richard MacGillivray 49:20.589
Followed in terms of public notification? Correct. And we have received a notice of confirmation but we will take that extra step of checking with Australia Post and the act and around the signed signatures for those letters just to confirm that. But from the act's point of view, they've discharged their obligations.
Patrick Murphy 49:36.355
And you can see there's a number of submitters that come from quite a distance from the property that have either informed by the sign out the front or the notice in the paper, word of mouth.
Frank Wilkie 49:53.648
The 130 metre long acoustic barrier, will that. 30 metre long. Which properties will that protect from? So the one at the very front? To the left. Just 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? That's right, according to the acoustic consultant's assessment. And the sealing of the road was intended to assist with that?
Patrick Murphy 50:22.545
Well, the acoustic consultants didn't recommend the sealing of the road. That was an additional measure which was required by officers, in part because we thought it would assist with noise, but also because of dust. And all that sort of mischarge.
Amelia Lorentson 50:43.395
In terms of economic impact, the report references and I think has support or aligns with our economic strategy to diversify. Our economy. Yes. Economic impacts, was it considered, was any consideration given to the economic implications of this function facility on the adjoining and nearby residents in terms of property values.
Patrick Murphy 51:14.784
That would not be a relevant planning consideration.
Amelia Lorentson 51:18.867
In terms of adverse impact consequences of changes made to a Planning Scheme, and I'm referencing 2020, is there any statute of limitation when residents can bring, for example, compensation claims for adverse impacts made by changes in a Planning Scheme?
Richard MacGillivray 51:41.656
There's a 12-month process for superseded applications to be lodged, and that's where an applicant has the ability to lodge an application under the previous scheme, but once that period has passed, there's no ability to seek the scheme to be changed as part of a previous year change to a Planning Scheme, I guess, unless they utilise those provisions under the superseded Planning Scheme, there's no ability for them to challenge that decision once it's ratified.
Amelia Lorentson 52:11.853
When was this property purchased what year in this 2023 for my reasons is that correct?
Brian Stockwell 52:18.617
Can I say we're looking at the nature of the applicant which is outside the scope of the planning?
Amelia Lorentson 52:24.685
My question is when was the application lodged and how long did it take before it came to Council?
Richard MacGillivray 52:32.065
The application lodged? Yes, so that's in the report that you have. So June 24th it was properly made. 28th of June this year. 28th of June? Yep. And processed? And information requests? It's July, yep, and they responded in August with public notification and the decision date is due on the 20th of this month.
Amelia Lorentson 52:55.645
So four months. I'm happy to against move a general manager. Second. I have a list of questions that were emailed to me this morning. I'm happy to keep those questions for the General Committee. I have also some questions from Councillor Finzel. I think she has raised her hand. I will allow the question today. Councillor Finzel, it's your question first.
Karen Finzel 53:29.904
Thank you. I just have a question. Firstly, the SARA report with regards to the. Roadworks. Can that please be included in the report? Yeah, we can. Or why was the attachment not included in the report for easy access?
Richard MacGillivray 53:54.979
It is all available online at the moment, that's so it's publicly accessible through the, yeah, take yeah. To get that to the TMR site? Oh no, no, on our public Council's website. With all the other application material including submissions and everything is all the application material. This is just the officers report and relevant material in terms of their assessment recommendation but we can possibly include it as a further attachment.
Amelia Lorentson 54:21.701
Would appreciate that. If that could just be circulated to all the Councillors, that would be excellent. Thank you.
Karen Finzel 54:28.641
Second question, thank you Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if we had the residents come in yesterday for a meeting. There's great concern around the amenity, the wildlife, the ecosystem. The amenity that hasn't been discussed today about who protects that, where that voice has come from. I'm just wondering, was there any native title PBC involvement or? No, the slot's not subject 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 55:15.722
From, are you talking about First Nations people?
Karen Finzel 55:18.965
Yes. I'm not too sure how. Then it comes back onto Ringtail State Forest. Yes. And the, you know, effects of possible development that will affect that environment.
Richard MacGillivray 55:30.417
Yeah, there's no requirement. In the scheme for there to be any engagement with First Nations in relation to that. They're entitled to make a submission. There's no requirement for the applicant to engage with them as part of their development proposal.
Brian Stockwell 55:44.783
Just to follow up on that one, clarifying that the consideration of cultural heritage, cultural heritage comes under the cultural heritage act rather than under the Planning Act, so it's not something that, you know, if the developer comes across something of significance in the development process, it's their responsibility. Thanks, to refer them in. To refer, absolutely. Through the outcast crisis, correct.
Amelia Lorentson 56:07.698
Councillor Wilson, line, you're on the line, Councillor Wilson, online. Please ask your question. Thank you.
Nicola Wilson 56:18.069
I may have missed this because the sound's dropping in and out a little bit, but just going back to the map with the submissions and the objectives, so I may have missed, were the supporting submissions plotted on the map at all, or was it that they weren't in the area of the map?
Matt 56:36.521
They 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 where were the closest to have been? I think Karen, no sorry.
Unidentified Speaker 56:57.809
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.
Matt 57:11.459
Yeah there was a bit of both. There was mention of the flow-on effects and the benefits to businesses that would provide flowers. Or celebrants, those types of things. So there was some comment made about that.
Patrick Murphy 57:29.030
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 57:43.450
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. A question so, a question on that one.
Brian Stockwell 58:05.156
If we're not allowed to take the nature of the applicant into consideration, are we allowed to take the residence of a person submitting into consideration, or do we have to actually just review the grounds of the submission?
Richard MacGillivray 58:18.857
It's just the grounds, but it's more so for awareness for the Councillors are making a decision to understand the spatial location of those making submissions. It would be true to say that the local opposition do it and the support came in from those with a less direct relationship in a play place-based context. Yes.
Amelia Lorentson 58:40.138
Thank you.
Karen Finzel 58:42.497
I just have a question. I note in response to a question that the Council suggested conditioning the new system of buses. It just poses a question. If that condition was removed, would that then negate the need for all this road work and the big impacts the amenity if the condition for using coaches was actually removed?
Patrick Murphy 59:15.763
No. We still would need the vehicles. Just for the cars. But the road, it's sealing the existing road network internal to the site.
Karen Finzel 59:28.002
Are you talking about the widening?
Patrick Murphy 59:29.963
Oh sorry, the TMR. In regards to the impact on the amenity due to the widening of that road due to the use of buses and coaches being conditioned as part of the applicants.
Richard MacGillivray 59:45.498
I would say yes in the sense that the, um, the SARA have been made aware of the applicants proposal to include buses as part of their primary mode of transport for bringing people to and from the site. Obviously there's a requirement there will be some small cars that attend the site as well but they've factored be a combination of both potentially noting that the applicant specified a maximum limitation of the number of events and the number of maximum people that can attend a particular event so whilst we're requiring for the operational plans and further changes to limit the number of vehicles and require 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 01:00:44.276
So clarify because it's the intensification of the use of the road and just to clarify it was the staff that suggested.
Frank Wilkie 01:00:59.408
Bit confused. It's not a condition of approval that coaches be used is it?
Patrick Murphy 01:01:05.368
No. So the CSIRO's response is in response to the application material submitted by the applicant that and 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 around providing coaches for events over 50 people and they said that they're agreeable to that so it doesn't form part of a condition of the recommendation at this point.
Frank Wilkie 01:01:39.218
So the upgrade to the entryway is a condition?
Richard MacGillivray 01:01:42.562
Yes by the SARA state. By the correct.
Amelia Lorentson 01:01:47.310
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 on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday at 10 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock? Is that actually feasible? We're not requiring them. To do that?
Patrick Murphy 01:02:19.354
Is that their discretion as to, as a guest, how they choose to arrive and depart the site?
Amelia Lorentson 01:02:25.762
But in terms of impacts, is it not part of our consideration to ensure that there are not people at risk at 10, 11 o'clock walking dark, unlit roads of Louis Bazzo trying to find a cab or trying to walk home?
Richard MacGillivray 01:02:43.117
And that's why we've got those requirements in the operational plan around the use buses of and other modes. Of transport to 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 of the mode but certainly we'll be seeking that the use of buses to get some people safely to and from the site we've got more than 50 guests attending.
Amelia Lorentson 01:03:16.437
In terms of toilet facilities I've got the operation managing that plan in front of me can you explain how many toilets or portable powder rooms will be provided and is it sufficient for 150 guests or.
Matt 01:03:33.944
Staff yes, the number of toilets is based upon it's more of a building regulation matter but they've estimated that it'll be to like a male and a female building with two toilets each so yeah that's what's currently.
Patrick Murphy 01:03:54.973
Being used I they've made reference in the operational management plan that one toilet per 60 guests for a function facility is considered by industry standards so it's certainly above that how.
Amelia Lorentson 01:04:06.982
Does that compare to what's required say for a restaurant that seats 150 people.
Patrick Murphy 01:04:14.531
It's based my understanding the toilets which is a building requirements not a planning requirement we don't condition the number of toilets to be provided we never have it's done on four area.
Amelia Lorentson 01:04:28.985
Again I've got questions for residents but I'm happy if Councillors agree we might leave further discussion to the General Committee again to allow the Councillors not present. Participate in this discussion.
Frank Wilkie 01:04:42.668
And Madam Chair it would probably be a proper process for those questions to be forwarded to staff and the general until they can come fully armed with the answers and we can have a discussion.
Matt 01:04:52.584
Absolutely.
Amelia Lorentson 01:04:56.340
Any further discussion? Before Council thinks so.
Karen Finzel 01:04:59.908
Just a question for the Chair to Richard. Do you think we'll have confirmation of receipt of those letters from Australia Post by the general?
Richard MacGillivray 01:05:11.652
Yes, we're going to work do that. We'll try and get that done as soon as possible. Thank you.
Frank Wilkie 01:05:16.859
Just confirming, Australia Post have confirmed the registration numbers of the letters that were sent?
Richard MacGillivray 01:05:22.313
Correct and we have received a copy of each of those. We have received barcode numbers that were attached to every single letter, so yeah, we've got the physical copies of those.
Amelia Lorentson 01:05:33.938
Sorry, question. In terms of conditions, who determines what's reasonable, 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 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 01:06:08.995
The Council will make the decision on over 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.
Amelia Lorentson 01:06:48.030
Is it reasonable and relevant to condition buses only transport guests to a leading venue if it's over 50 people? You can say yes.
Richard MacGillivray 01:07:02.311
Yep. And the applicant has agreed that they think that's reasonable as well.
Patrick Murphy 01:07:05.786
So only buses? Well they're not agreeable to only buses. Sorry. They're agreeable to a bus being provided for a function of more than 50 people. And I think that's reasonable in terms of giving people the option as to how it's best for them to get there and where they live, where they're coming from. Noting the ample provision of car parking on the site in comparison to the scheme requirements and the fact that the QC consultants have reviewed the impacts of vehicles attending the site and are satisfied with the current proposal in terms of the amenity impacts.
Amelia Lorentson 01:07:46.889
My last question before we close discussions is, and I know Councillor Finzel also, is would you consider this a significant development proposal? It's significant that it's not a.
Richard MacGillivray 01:08:06.743
Defined definition of what's a significant.
Amelia Lorentson 01:08:09.046
That's probably the question under the Planning Scheme. We reference small scale in the report. Is it in fact small or is it to the residents.
Patrick Murphy 01:08:19.647
Context of the site is taking up a very small percentage of the site, it's providing significant separation to adjoining land users. It's a consistent use. It requires impact assessment. We've had a look at those impacts and are satisfied that it can operate in its current form. Just out just of interest function kind of on interesting that, I don't centres know. Like this in the hinterland?
Amelia Lorentson 01:08:40.876
Yes, there is. Palm Creek Estate in Yandina.
Richard MacGillivray 01:08:45.281
There are a number of them, particularly in Sunshine Coast hinterland. We're reading venues are fairly common, particularly up in the range. Not many as such in this particular locality that I'm aware of.
Patrick Murphy 01:08:59.064
And my time of and my time at Council nearly eight years, this is the first one that I've seen come through to this point. And I think that's been facilitated by the change in the scheme. When the scheme came in, we certainly had a lot of inquiries from people in the hinterland looking to do commercial activities which they couldn't otherwise do, primarily around accommodation.
Amelia Lorentson 01:09:21.085
Thank you. Councillor Finzel, I'll lay a last question before we close.
Karen Finzel 01:09:26.121
Thank you Madam Chair. Just coming back to the, I understand the applicant has established their legislative requirements to give you the numbers with the letters that are sent out. So are we seeking that the people who are meant to receive them, their signatures? To prove that they collected them.
Richard MacGillivray 01:09:46.255
We'll follow that up with the applicant in Australia Post in terms of the requirements under the act and ensure that the registered post dockets have been received. But there's two parts of it. Has the applicant discharged their obligations under the act and did people actually receive something in their post box and sign for that you want. We'll come back and clarify those two elements to Councillors before the General Committee Meeting next week. Thank you. And I'll probably just close by saying thank you to the planning officers. Thank you.
Amelia Lorentson 01:10:25.120
And I really want to acknowledge you guys do your job and you do it well. So if any of the questioning doesn't come across as that, I'd like to just acknowledge. Respect your job and know that you're in a really difficult position and wanted to put that on the table.
Frank Wilkie 01:10:44.757
I'd like to say the staff's position is pretty clear actually. They are executing their responsibilities under the act to apply the Planning Scheme as it sits. I would say the Councillors are in a difficult position.
Amelia Lorentson 01:10:59.037
We are in a very difficult position, absolutely. 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, 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 01:11:56.539
You. Just a very quick overview. This is the applications that were decided by delegated authority for the month of October. A very busy month. As you see, there was 50 decisions that were made, reflective of the busy period that we're entering into coming into Christmas. Yeah, again, a range of applications OPW. Across, uh, across OPWs, MCUs, and changes, DBWs. I'm not sure if you have any questions.
Amelia Lorentson 01:12:25.400
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 just reading just heaps and of reports, and I've never one or two reports, um, come through in planning and environment.
Patrick Murphy 01:13:08.287
Yeah. Um, we've got some big applications that are taking some time to get through. Um, there was. A report that is coming. We've been coming to General Committee Meeting next week for a but significant application, um, but we certainly have enough of applications that'll be coming in the future. We've obviously met with the delegations and you've probably received notification from us on a few matters recently which we've been able to decide under the delegation because there have been minor changes or the like, so that might have also had an impact.
Amelia Lorentson 01:13:37.170
Thank you very much. Any further questions by Councillors, observers?
Frank Wilkie 01:13:42.436
Just for example, could you, the last item was 223 Cooroy, Bella, cliff, grove, Cooroy, exemption from code assessment for additions to dwelling and landslide overlay. Can you just give us that? You yeah. So, the motion of what's involved in something like that, is it obviously not major? No. So, it's an exemption certificate. So, risk assessment has got to be done about landslide potential.
Patrick Murphy 01:14:07.024
Yeah. So, the scheme allows for an exemption certificate to be issued, which is saying we're not requiring you to have a development approval in circumstances where there's like a minor error, or there's an error in the Planning Scheme, or it's so inconsequential in terms of the assessment that would be required. The previous Planning Scheme allowed for development to be accepted. Development where a geotechnical report was provided for a site that was in the landslide hazard overlay and that the recommendations of that report were implemented in the construction of the development. There was an error in the 2020 scheme in terms of that allowance. Was removed and so anything that was in the landslide hazard overlay was triggering. So a decision was made to allow for exemption certificates on the basis that a geotechnical report was provided to show that the investigation had been done and that we have the confidence of the development we've undertaken in accordance so, with that instance, this that technical report. Instance, a geotechnical report would have been provided showing what developments took with the issue of the exemption certificate.
Frank Wilkie 01:15:12.118
If there was an application for a house that was seeking a relaxation in the front setback. That was potentially impacting on neighbours' views, what assurance do we have that would come before us for a decision? So it's not just to agree to on a delegated authority to the detriment of a neighbouring property and then Council as are dragged in after the fact.
Patrick Murphy 01:15:39.179
Well a setback variation only will be assessed by our building department for dwelling houses that have setback and other variations that will come through planning. But they're assessed under delegation. We've not brought bought a house, many houses up to Council and the primary reasons we have done them is because of significant geotechnical issues on places like CB Terrace. So we rely on the expertise of the planners to be making those decisions on the delegations.
Richard MacGillivray 01:16:10.287
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 pushing back 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.
Frank Wilkie 01:16:32.247
Perhaps it's a discussion for another time, but for inclusion in the list of exceptions where they are brought before Council. Just like to say, one of the most traumatic things I've been drawing brought into was where neighbours who did the right thing when they did their renovations were adversely affected by a decision made under delegated authority to grant a relaxation which totally blocked their coastal totally blocked their coastal views. Yes. And it was. Something we couldn't fix retrospectively. I'd just like to fade that potential and it's probably a discussion for another time. We'd hate to see it slip through and- Yes. No one's like that slip through. Yeah. I'm happy to move it.
Amelia Lorentson 01:17:21.876
Happy to second. No questions, no further discussion. All in favour, please. Thank you. We are now up to either make reports for meeting by the committee. There are none. No confidential session. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10:48pm and I thank these officers here today for patience and acknowledge and thank the Councillors online and in the gallery and around this table. Good discussion and lots to think about before General Committee. Thank you.
Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts