Ordinary Meeting - 15 August 2024
Date: Thursday, 15 August 2024 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:45:27
Synopsis: Car Wash approved despite traffic concerns, facade condition added, Peak-Period transport measures endorsed incl. Main Beach drop-off, Petition opposing Plan Amendment noted, Three appeals defended.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Strategy & Environment Lynne Banford AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Petition with 1,018 signatures opposing Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment No.2 (protecting Medium Density Residential zones) was received and referred to CEO (Item 4; 00:50). Brian Stockwell: Council adopted Planning & Environment Committee items incl. Noosa Blue approval changes and updated Infrastructure Charges Resolution No.8 (Items 8.1.5.1–5.2; 01:53–03:35). Nicola Wilson: Services & Organisation items adopted incl. FireTech ROPS refresh, Holiday Parks update, Capital Program status, and award of Pathways Package 3 to Integral Concreting (Items 8.2.5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1; 02:30–04:45). Council: Agreed to defend three Planning & Environment Court appeals (two STAs at Cootharaba and Kin Kin; one Childcare Centre at Noosaville) (Items 8.3.6.1–6.3; 03:40–05:35). Council: Adopted Annual Delegations (Council to CEO) under s257 LGA 2009; approved BR1 2024/25; noted July financials and 2023/24 Annual Performance Report (Items 8.3.6.4–6.7; 03:40–05:35). Council: Supported Emu Mountain Rd northern shared path (Option 1b) to be delivered/maintained by Sunshine Coast Council; environmental mitigation/offsets requested (Item 8.3.6.8; 20:48–21:21). Jessica Phillips: “Go Noosa” 2024/25 endorsed; Lions Park overflow parking approved for Dec–Jan and Apr 2025; Main Beach Local Government Reserve approved as temporary Drop-Off Zone over peak two weeks (Item 8.3.6.9; 05:41–07:54). Amelia Lorentson: Amendment to consider alternative drop-off site near Noosa Drive bus stop lost (For: Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel; Against: Wilkie, Stockwell, Wegener, Wilson) (Item 8.3.6.9.F; 08:02–10:06; 17:01). Council: Noted Parking Management Plan and forthcoming Movement & Place study; Local Loop bus-priority concept to workshop (Item 8.3.6.9.G–H; 20:51–26:33). Council: Approved MCU22/0201 for Car Wash and Food & Drink Outlet at 34 Elm St, Cooroy; delegated CEO to issue permit with added condition requiring articulation of east wall; reasons for approval recorded (Item 9.1; 28:32–01:44:22). Vote record: Car wash approved 5–2 (For: Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson, Finzel, Wegener; Against: Wilkie, Stockwell) after failed deferral (For deferral: Wilkie, Wilson) (Item 9.1; 01:07:50–01:10:31; 01:44:22). Contentious / Transparency Matters Frank Wilkie: Noted mixed community views on Main Beach Drop-Off; staff advised bus-station alternative was unviable in timeframe due to TransLink obligations and congestion risks (Item 8.3.6.9; 10:06–13:54). Amelia Lorentson: Cited petition and consultation indicating opposition to using green space for parking; sought options assessment before locking in Surf Club drop-off; amendment lost (Item 8.3.6.9; 15:45–17:01). Patrick Murphy (staff): Traffic consultants did not meet prior to car wash decision; staff had drafted refusal grounds over queuing/laneway operations/refuse collection but councillors proceeded to decide (Item 9.1; 31:34–32:39). Brian Stockwell: Warned approving an inconsistent use in a District Centre without resolving traffic/amenity conflicts departs from scheme intent for active street frontages and articulated facades (Item 9.1; 01:24:34–01:32:23). Frank Wilkie: Emphasized planning scheme as a community “contract” and cautioned against first-time approval where traffic concerns remain untested; deferral failed (Item 9.1; 01:38:32–01:42:22). Legal / Risk Council: Resolved to defend three P&E Court appeals: STA at 428 Cootharaba Rd (D96/2024), STA at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Rd (1997/2024), and Childcare Centre at 28 Eenie Creek Rd (1998/2024) (Items 8.3.6.1–6.3; 03:40–05:35). Planning Act 2016: Car wash approval recorded “relevant matters” to justify approval despite inconsistency, aligning with s60(3) and s63(5) reporting; council tightened reasons to remove assertions about reduced traffic (Item 9.1; 36:50–45:43; 01:05:12–01:06:06). Risk posture: Proceeding without resolving expert traffic disagreement increases litigation exposure; however, detailed reasons and a façade-articulation condition may strengthen defensibility on amenity grounds (Item 9.1; 31:34–32:39; 55:41–56:57). Delegations & Procurement: Annual delegations to CEO adopted (s257 LGA 2009); confidential pathways contract awarded with CEO authorised to finalise contracts, aligning with probity protocols (Items 8.3.6.4; 8.2.7.1; 03:40–05:35; 02:30–04:45). Charges Resolution: Adoption of Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.8) 2024 effective 15 Aug 2024 mitigates infrastructure funding risk for growth (Item 8.1.5.2; 01:53–03:35). Conflicts of Interest Nicola Wilson: Declared a declarable COI for the car wash (partner made a supporting submission); Council resolved she could participate and vote as a reasonable person would trust the decision is in the public interest; she abstained from that eligibility vote (Item 9.1; 28:32–29:57). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Design Brian Stockwell: Argued District Centre intent (active edges, weather protection, non-dominant parking, facade articulation AO15m/0.75m) conflicts with a 19.4m x ~7.5m wall and vacuum bays to Elm St; said industrial character should locate in industrial zones (Item 9.1; 01:24:34–01:31:45). Council: Added condition directing articulation/green elements/awning/timber battening to mitigate wall bulk; CEO to settle detailed conditions with applicant (Item 9.1; 55:32–56:39). Frank Wilkie: Amended reasons to remove unverified claims (no available land; reduced traffic movements), retaining complementary-use rationale only (Item 9.1; 42:55–45:43; 01:05:12–01:06:06). Short-Term Accommodation & Transport Management Council: Firm litigation stance on STA refusals signals continued application of Noosa Plan 2020 STA controls (Items 8.3.6.1–6.2; 03:40–05:35). Jessica Phillips: Peak-period traffic measures advanced: Lions Park overflow parking (with DoR notification, Lions Club delivery), Main Beach Drop-Off Zone, and future Parking Management Plan plus Movement & Place study (Item 8.3.6.9; 05:41–07:54; 20:51–26:33). Environmental Concerns Council: Emu Mountain Rd path approval conditioned on revegetation and offsets; SCC to liaise with environmental agencies (Item 8.3.6.8; 20:48–21:21). Amelia Lorentson: Framed car wash as environmental net benefit via water recycling and improved water quality to Lake Macdonald; these were adopted as reasons (Item 9.1.D.5; 36:50–42:55). Council: Go Noosa measures include facilities for disability access, scooters, lifeguards, emergency services, waste and temporary amenities at Main Beach during peak, reducing unsafe circulation (Item 8.3.6.9.F; 05:41–07:54). Community Engagement & Public Value Council: Will seek community feedback on Lions Park future use; noted historic direction not to use green space for parking but approved limited peak use pending broader engagement (Item 8.3.6.9.E–G; 17:24–21:21). Amelia Lorentson: Highlighted 498 of 520 properly made submissions supporting car wash; noted local business and community endorsements (Item 9.1; 36:50–38:21; 01:34:52). Karen Finzel: Stressed collaborative, staged approach with experts and stakeholders to manage complex overlays in Hastings St precinct (Item 8.3.6.9; 24:51–26:31).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 15 August 2024 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 1. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Strategy & Environment Lynne Banford APOLOGIES Nil. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 2.1. ORDINARY MEETING 18 JULY 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 18 July 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 3. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 4. PETITIONS 1 PETITION: Oppose Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 to Protect Medium Density Residential Zones Refer to Attachment 1 to the Minutes Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the petition with 1018 signatories submitted by Suzie McDonald, requesting that Council oppose Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan to protect medium density ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 residential zones be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 5. NOTIFIED MOTIONS Nil. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 8. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS 8.1. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 8.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Brian Stockwell NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Acting CEO Larry Sengstock Director Strategy & Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1 51998.2462.07 APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE DWELLING (65 UNITS), CONFERENCE FACILITY AND VEHICLE HIRE PREMISES AT 16 NOOSA DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 regarding Application No. 51998.2462.07 for an Other Change to Development Approval for Multiple Dwelling (65 dwelling units), Conference Facility and Vehicle Hire Premises situated at Noosa Blue 501 - 503/16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads and: A. Approve the Other Change application B. Amend the approval type as follows: Development Permit for Material Change of Use for- Multiple Dwelling (65 Units) as defined by the 1990 Schedule to the Planning Scheme Indoor Sport & Recreation (Yoga Studio & Health Spa), Shop, Office and Food & Drink Outlet as defined by the Noosa Plan 2020 C. Amend conditions 1 and 9 as outlined in Attachment 1. D. Include additional conditions 54 to 56 as outlined in Attachment 1. E. Delete conditions 10, 11 and 13 as they are no longer relevant to the proposal. F. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. 5.2 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 and: A. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.8) 2024” provided as Attachment 1 to the report, to replace the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.7) 2022” and take effect on 15 August 2024. 5.3. MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 5.3 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 6.1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - JUNE 2024 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 6 August 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority during the month of June as per Attachment 1 (excluding item MCU16/0070.01). Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the report of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 6 August 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 8.2. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 8.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson (Acting Chair) Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Jessica Phillips NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Tom Wegener Cr Amelia Lorentson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Cr Karen Finzel (Chair) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1 CONTRACT NO. T000078 – REGISTER OF PRE-QUALIFIED SUPPLIERS FOR PROVISION OF FIRETECH SERVICES {REFRESH} That Council note the report by the Director Digital Hub and Innovation to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 and A. Approve the award of Contract No. T000078 for the Register of Prequalified Suppliers for the Provision of Firetech Services {Refresh} for a period of twelve (12) months effective 1 August 2024 to the following suppliers that will be in addition to the existing list of suppliers on this ROPS: Australian Uav Technologies Pty Ltd Covey Associates Pty Ltd Cwift Pty Ltd Fliight Technologies Pty Ltd Kablamo Pty Ltd TTF Richlauren Trust t/as Larnach Ventures (Apac Surveillance) RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd MS&C Group Pty Ltd t/as Watchtowers Networks B. Subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, authorise the CEO to approve the option to extend the contract at the expiry of this term for a further two (2) terms of up to twelve (12) months each ending on 31 July 2027. 6.1. NOOSA HOLIDAY PARKS UPDATE That Council note the report by the Commercial Business Advisor to the Services and Organisation Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 providing an update on operations of the Noosa Holiday Parks Business Activity to 30 June 2024. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 6.2. CAPITAL PROGRAM 2023/24 DELIVERY STATUS That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Planning Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 providing an update on the delivery of the 2023/24 Capital Program as at 30 June 2024. 7.1 CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION - CONTRACT NO. CN00644 – CONSTRUCTION OF PATHWAYS - PACKAGE 3 CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC That Council note the report by the Graduate Engineer to the Services and Organisation Committee dated 6 August 2024 and A. Award Contract No. CN00644 for Construction of Pathways 2023-24 Package 3 to The Trustee for Integral Concreting Services Family Trust as outlined in the report; and B. Authorise the CEO to negotiate and finalise contracts on Council's behalf with The Trustee for Integral Concreting Services Family Trust. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Jessic Phillips That the report of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 6 August 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 8.3. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 15 JULY 2024 8.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 12 August 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Community Services Kerri Contini (via Teams) Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Strategy & Environment Lynne Banford APOLOGIES Nil. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 5.1. MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Nicola Wilson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my partner, Roy Vanderberg, made a submission to this application when it was notified for 15 business days in 2023 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and received 520 properly made submissions. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because this is one submission of 500 and neither Roy nor myself have a financial interest in the outcome. 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. That the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 15 August 2024 to allow the applicant's consultant to discuss traffic issues raised with Council's traffic consultant. 6.1. APPEAL D96 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSUAL OF MCU24/0003 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 428 COOTHARABA ROAD, COOTHARABA That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal D96 of 2024 and agree to defend the appeal. 6.2. APPEAL 1997 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSUAL OF MCU23/0101 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 561 GYMPIE KIN KIN ROAD, KIN KIN That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1997 of 2024 and agree to defend the appeal. 6.3. APPEAL 1998 OF 2024 RELATING TO REFUSUAL OF MCU22/0094 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1998 of 2024 and agree to defend the appeal. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 6.4. ANNUAL REVIEW - REGISTER OF DELEGATIONS - COUNCIL TO CEO That Council A. Note the report by the Governance Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 regarding Council's Annual Delegation Review; and B. Adopt the Register of Delegations – Council to Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to section 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, to delegate the powers of the Local Government outlined in the Register of Delegations provided in Attachment 1, to the Chief Executive Officer of Council. 6.5. BUDGET REVIEW 1 (BR1) FOR THE 2024/25 FINANCIAL YEAR That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 and approve the proposed changes to the Budget and Schedule of Fees and Charges for the 2024/25 financial year as outlined in the Revised Budget Financial Statements provided in Attachments 1 5 to the report. 6.6. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JUL 2024 That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024 outlining July 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. 6.7. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT INCLUDING Q4 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2023-24 PROGRESS REPORT That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 12 August 2024 regarding the Annual Performance Report and: A. Note the progress report outlining Council's performance over 2023-24 financial year and detailing the status of initiatives in the 2023-24 Operational Plan to 30 June 2024 provided as Attachment 1; and B. Note the status of Council's Key Performance Indicators as provided as Attachment 2. C. Note the development of indicators which support the Corporate Plan performance measures as provided as Attachment 3. 6.8. EMU MOUNTAIN ROAD - SHARED PATHWAY That Council A. Note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services to the General Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2024; B. Support a shared path and cycleway along the northern side of Emu Mountain Road described at Option 1b to be funded and constructed by Sunshine Coast Council including the submission of grant applications by Sunshine Coast Council; C. Request Sunshine Coast Council liaise with environmental agencies and stakeholders to mitigate environmental impact of Option 1b including revegetation of batters and consideration of offset planting; ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 D. Note that Noosa Council will refer any ongoing issues or concerns about performance of the crossing on David Low Way and / or vehicular congestion arising from modifications to the David Low Way roundabout to Sunshine Coast Council and TMR for their attention; and E. Authorise the CEO to execute an infrastructure agreement with Sunshine Coast Council for their ongoing maintenance of the proposed shared pathway including pavements, embankments and boardwalks. 6.9. GO NOOSA TRANSPORT INITIATIVES 2023/24 EVALUATION AND 2024/25 IMPLEMENTATION Motion Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Acting Director Infrastructure Services to the General Committee meeting dated 12 August regarding the Go Noosa Initiatives; B. Delegate authority to the CEO to approve the ongoing implementation of the Go Noosa initiatives as outlined in this report, subject to Council’s budget processes; C. Note the proposal for Council Officers to undertake a review of the of the Boreen Point Flexilink and Council Cabs service and report back to Council; D. Note that, as Council has yet to conduct community engagement specifically on the future use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park Reserve during peak periods as per the Motion of March 16, 2023, approve the use of the Noosa Head Lions Park for additional overflow parking in the period from Saturday 14 December 2024 to Tuesday 28 January 2025 and Saturday 2 April 2025 to Monday 21 April 2025 by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club at their discretion and that Council communicate these intentions with the Queensland Department of Resources; and 1. Authorise the CEO to negotiate fees. E. Seek community feedback on the future use of the park; F. Approve the temporary use of the "Main Beach Local Government Reserve”, adjacent to the Noosa Heads Surf Club, as a “Main Beach Drop Off Zone” for the peak Christmas /New Year’s Eve two-week period (with a preference for the dates to be 23 December 2024 to 5 January 2025) including drop-off/pick-up, disability permit holders, scooter/motorbike, Council lifeguards, emergency services vehicles, NYE rapid response area, and additional facilities such as waste collection, temporary toilet block etc; G. Note that a Parking Management Plan, including a Local Parking Plan for Noosa Heads is under preparation and a Movement and Place study is proposed for the 2025/26FY, that closely considers carparking and circulation in the Main Beach locality including future use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park, the Noosa Heads Bus Station, the Maze Carpark and the Main Beach Local Government Reserve which will wholistically consider the uses, design and circulation within these critical spaces for Noosa Heads and will be subject to community engagement; and H. Note that Council’s resolution on 13 September 2021 that allowed the concept of a one-way "Local Loop" with Bus Priority Lane, from Noosa Drive to Noosa Parade be referred to a Councillor workshop to encourage bus usage and frequency. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 Amendment No.1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That item F be amended to read: F. That Council approves the establishment of a drop-off zone for the peak Christmas and New Year period either at Main Beach Reserve adjacent to Noosa Heads Surf Lifesaving Club or to a location behind the carpark such as the area behind the bus stop on Noosa Drive. Staff will assess the options and report back to Council with recommendations by the October meetings, or earlier, to ensure its operational time. For: Crs Lorentson, Phillips, Finzel Against: Crs Wilkie, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilson Lost. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Jessica Phillips Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council A. Note the report by the Acting Director Infrastructure Services to the General Committee meeting dated 12 August regarding the Go Noosa Initiatives; B. Delegate authority to the CEO to approve the ongoing implementation of the Go Noosa initiatives as outlined in this report, subject to Council’s budget processes; C. Note the proposal for Council Officers to undertake a review of the of the Boreen Point Flexilink and Council Cabs service and report back to Council; D. Note that, as Council has yet to conduct community engagement specifically on the future use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park Reserve during peak periods as per the Motion of March 16, 2023, approve the use of the Noosa Head Lions Park for additional overflow parking in the period from Saturday 14 December 2024 to Tuesday 28 January 2025 and Saturday 2 April 2025 to Monday 21 April 2025 by the Tewantin Noosa Lions Club at their discretion and that Council communicate these intentions with the Queensland Department of Resources; and 1. Authorise the CEO to negotiate fees. E. Seek community feedback on the future use of the park; F. Approve the temporary use of the "Main Beach Local Government Reserve”, adjacent to the Noosa Heads Surf Club, as a “Main Beach Drop Off Zone” for the peak Christmas /New Year’s Eve two-week period (with a preference for the dates to be 23 December 2024 to 5 January 2025) including drop-off/pick-up, disability permit holders, scooter/motorbike, Council lifeguards, emergency services vehicles, NYE rapid response area, and additional facilities such as waste collection, temporary toilet block etc; G. Note that a Parking Management Plan, including a Local Parking Plan for Noosa Heads is under preparation and a Movement and Place study is proposed for the 2025/26FY, that closely considers carparking and circulation in the Main Beach locality including future use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park, the Noosa Heads Bus Station, the Maze Carpark and the Main Beach Local Government Reserve which will wholistically consider the uses, design and circulation within these critical spaces for Noosa Heads and will be subject to community engagement; and ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 H. Note that Council’s resolution on 13 September 2021 that allowed the concept of a one-way "Local Loop" with Bus Priority Lane, from Noosa Drive to Noosa Parade be referred to a Councillor workshop to encourage bus usage and frequency. For: Crs Phillips, Wilson, Lorentson, Finzel, Wegener, Wilkie Against: Cr Stockwell Carried. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That the report of the General Committee meeting dated 12 August 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 9. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS 9.1. MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY (DEFERRED FROM GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 12 AUGUST 2024 ITEM 5.1) The following material was presented to the meeting in relation to this item: Cr Stockwell - refer to Attachment 2 to the Minutes In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Nicola Wilson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my partner, Roy Vanderberg, made a submission in favour to this application when it was notified for 15 business days in 2023 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and received 520 properly made submissions. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because this is one submission of 500 and neither Roy nor myself have a financial interest in the outcome. 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. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Wilson and determine that Cr Wilson 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 Wilson did not vote on the above motion. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Co-ordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 regarding MCU22/0201 for a development permit for material change of use for a Car wash and Food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and: A. Approve the application. B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to issue a Development Permit for material change of use for a Car wash and Food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and impose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval. C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application: 1. There is a strong level of economic, community and planning need for the development in this location. 2. There is no car wash currently provided . 3. The proposed development will provide substantial community benefit and will not cause any adverse impacts on the amenity and character of the area. 4. The proposed development accords with reasonable community expectations, given the significant number of submissions in support that have been received. 5. There will be significant environmental benefits for a car wash to be provided in the location, resulting in improved water quality entering local waterways, including Lake Macdonald. 6. A car wash is for the commercial washing of vehicles, which is a complementary use to the existing service stations in this location, which will result in the sharing of facilities and reduced traffic movements. 7. Conditions can be imposed to address any issues raised by submitters about the hours of operation of the development. Amendment No.1 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That item 2 read: 2. There is currently no car wash provided within Cooroy and the Noosa Hinterland. Carried unanimously. Amendment No 2. Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item 3 reads: 3. The proposed development will provide community benefit. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 Amendment No 3. Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Item B be amended to read: B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to issue a Development Permit for material change of use for a Car wash and Food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and impose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval, including conditions which require modification of the east wall to increase its articulation (e.g. awning over walkway, addition of green wall elements, use of timber battening etc.) For: Crs Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegener and Finzel Against: Crs Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips Carried. Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That item 6 read: A car wash is for the commercial washing of vehicles, which is a complementary use to the existing service stations in this location. Carried unanimously. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the matter be deferred to a future Council meeting to allow the applicants consultant to discuss traffic issues raised, with Council's traffic consultant. For: Crs Wilkie and Wilson Against: Crs Phillips, Wegener, Lorentson, Stockwell and Finzel Lost. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Co-ordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 August 2024 regarding MCU22/0201 for a development permit for material change of use for a Car wash and Food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and: A. Approve the application. B. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to issue a Development Permit for ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 15 AUGUST 2024 material change of use for a Car wash and Food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and impose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval, including conditions which require modification of the east wall to increase its articulation (e.g. awning over walkway, addition of green wall elements, use of timber battening etc.) C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application: 1. There is a strong level of economic, community and planning need for the development in this location. 2. There is currently no car wash provided within Cooroy and the Noosa Hinterland. 3. The proposed development will provide community benefit. 4. The proposed development accords with reasonable community expectations, given the significant number of submissions in support that have been received. 5. There will be significant environmental benefits for a car wash to be provided in the location, resulting in improved water quality entering local waterways, including Lake Macdonald. 6. A car wash is for the commercial washing of vehicles, which is a complementary use to the existing service stations in this location. 7. Conditions can be imposed to address any issues raised by submitters about the hours of operation of the development. For: Crs Wilson, Phillips, Lorentson, Finzel and Wegener Against: Crs Wilkie and Stockwell Carried. 10. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 11. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil. 12. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on Thursday 19 September 2024 at 10.00am. 13. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11.45 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:03.000
Okay you're good to go okay well good morning and welcome everybody to the Ordinary Meeting of 15th of August declare the meeting open I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the land on which were gathered which is the Kabi Kabi People pay our respects to elders past present and emerging and again reiterate their continual invitation for us to join them as joint custodians on the place that we all love caring for the place we love and caring for each other all councils are in attendance item two is the confirmation of the Minutes so can I have a move and a seconder for the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on the 18th of July thank you Councillor Lorentson seconder Councillor Wegener we're gonna all in favour. There are no Mayoral minutes there are petitions I have a petition from Suzie McDonald with one thousand and eighteen signatures opposing the Amendment No. 2 to the Noosa Plan 2020 to protect medium density residential zones I ask that this petition be received and referred to and received by the CEO for an appropriate response. Can I have a seconder please? I'll be just second. Councillor Lorentson and Councillors just reminded this is a formal meeting so when we ask questions or speak to the motion we are standing and that questions are to elicit answers not to further your debate. So there are no Mayoral minutes of the petition. Any other petitions? Yes I don't think we voted on the all in favour of the petition be received. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Experience does count, thank you. Frank? There are no notified, yes? You did? Yes. Thank you. I'm glad it was so memorable. I'll speak louder next time. Motions, no presentations and no deputations. Brings us to item eight which is consideration of committee reports. These are items that were discussed at the previous Planning & Environment Committee report and have gone through to the Ordinary Meeting with the recommendations unchanged. And the first one is an application for another change to a town planning consent permit for multiple dwellings, 65 units, conference facility and.vehicle hire premises at 16 Noosa Drive, heads. 5.2 is an update to the infrastructure charges resolution. 5.3 is an MCU 22-0201 application for Material Change of Use a car wash, Food & Drink Outlet, 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, and that was referred to the general committee. The planning applications decided by delegated authority June 2024. So can I have a movement the a seconder Planning & Environment Committee recommendations to be adopted, please? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We have a seconder, Wegener. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. The Services & Organisation Committee report, on the 6th of August, had number of items referred straight through to without change. They are contract number T000078, registered 000078, which is a Register of Pre-qualified Suppliers for provision of fire tech services. 6.1 is the Noosa Holiday Parks update. 6.2 is the capital program-24 2324 delivery status. And 7.1 was a confidential item. Contract number CN00644, construction of pathways. Package 3, closure of, and it was to closed to them the public to the public because it had some sensitive sort commercial of incompetence confidence information. So may I have a mover and a seconder for the service of an organisation committee of recommendations to be adopted please. Councillor Wilson, quick to a feed. Moved. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Now have items that were dealt with at the General Committee report. 5.1 which is the item the car wash was deferred to this Ordinary Meeting and that'll come up for discussion later in this meeting. We have appeal D96 of 2024 relating to refusal MCU 24 0003 240003 Material Change of Use for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, 6.2 appeal 1997 of MCU 20 230101 0101 at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, 6.3 is appeal 1998 of MCU 22/0094 childcare centre at 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville. 6.4 annual review register of delegations Council to financial Performance Report July 2024.6.7 annual performance report including Q4 operational plan 2023/24 progress report. 6.8 an Emu Mountain Road shared pathway. The next item Councillor Jess Phillips would like to pull out and move a motion and that is for the go Noosa transport initiatives 2023-24 evaluation Jessica Phillips 05:41.232
Thank you Mr Mayor I'd like to move a motion in relation to this and I just would like to request some dates in section F of the motion. Frank Wilkie 05:54.677
Are you clarifying? No, you don't need to read the whole thing but you just you ready to change, the dates that you'll Jessica Phillips 06:02.136
So, now I'd with section F, I'd like the dates clarified and clearly articulated in the motion, thank you, with the preference for the dates to be the 23rd of December to the 5th of January 2011. Frank Wilkie 06:16.052
Okay. Did you wish to ask any questions about those dates, Councillor Phillips? No, I don't, thank you. May I have a seconder for the motion? I'll second. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Phillips, speak to motion about the dates or any aspect of the you. I'll keep it quite short. Jessica Phillips 06:33.167
There's a mixed feeling in the community about this drop-off zone at the surf club. And firstly, I'd like to acknowledge that there is mixed opinions in the community. When I'm looking at things, I often try and put a lens, is it effective? Is it efficient? And with that in mind, I think the community would probably like to see some clear dates. Not to affect operationally, though, I've asked for preference of dates, knowing that sometimes our weather and different reasons can affect that. But I think it gives an opportunity to tell our community we're listening. There are people out there that haven't been overwhelmingly supportive of this and then there are. Is feedback that it was successful and so with that I'd like some more clearer dates. So then we've got some preparation around a busy period in our community. I'd also like to specifically acknowledge that this covers a time of 31st of December for new year's Eve and this car park was very effective for the emergency services response on new year's Eve so I do think that it requires some consideration and that's why I just ask that specifically we have those dates so community can be prepared for those dates to see the car park used in a different way to what we're used to seeing it. Frank Wilkie 07:54.916
Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Any other Councillors which would speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson. I'd like to move an amendment. Amelia Lorentson 08:05.771
F, that Council approves the establishment of a drop off sale for the peak Christmas and new year period. Either at Main Beach reserve adjacent to Noosa Heads Surf Lifesaving Club or to a location behind the car park such as the area behind the bus stop on Noosa Drive. Staff will assess the options. And report back Council with recommendations by the October meetings or earlier to ensure its operational time. Frank Wilkie 08:42.966
Anyone willing to second that for the purpose of debate? I'll all set. Second. The original motion. Sorry, I'm happy to second. Thanks Councillor Finzel. Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 08:55.080
The primary goal of establishing a designated drop-off zone is to reduce the number of cars entering Hastings Street, which is a key contributor to congestion during the peak Christmas and new year period. I'm concerned. That allowing cars to drive into Hastings Street or drop-offs may worsen the traffic situation, creating unnecessary delays and frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike. I would like consideration of a drop-off area to location behind the car park such as the area behind the bus stop on Noosa Drive to divert traffic away from haston Hastings Street. This congestion but also provides an opportunity to better understand the traffic impacts of moving the drop-off zone to a less congested area. Also concerned that, you know, there were no options provided to Council that we were given. The surf club as the only option. Frank Wilkie 09:57.342
The amendment provides Council and community with consideration of question of staff. Acting Director Infrastructure Services, Shaun Walsh. Thank you, Shaun. Has advice been provided about the viability of using the bus stop as a drop-off zone during this period and everything else that's associated with Shaun Walsh 10:24.969
The emergency services area? Yeah, so I've conferred with the traffic engineer and the team. So there's concerns for, you know, jumping to using the drop-off zone in the bus stop because our primary obligation in that location is to save transit passengers under the transit program. I've also noted in that location, this is key a congestion one. Location due to the entry to the Noosa Heads Lions Park, and the congestion that we experience is, you know, over Noosa Drive and all the way along Noosa Parade. The benefits of the Main Beach, you know, drop-off zone is it results in one congestion point, which is hasting hastening street. Stream. This is by congestion, by preventing. Traffic queuing up the entry car park and provides a much safer interface. Now, longer term, as referenced in discussions in the General Committee, a master planning exercise to look at the Noosa Heads Lions Park, the Noosa bus station, the Maze Carpark and the Main Beach, you know, reserve, would provide a better integrated design outcome. But at this point, for this season, we don't think that an alternative location is available which actually would assist congestion and also we'd be very concerned about compromising public transport safety. Amelia Lorentson 11:32.930
Can I ask a question? So has the bus stop, the area behind has that been considered in terms of benefits, traffic assessment, et cetera? And has that been brought to Councillors for consideration? Shaun Walsh 11:51.480
Yes, so last year we actually had workshop with Councillors where we actually presented the outcomes of the Noosa Shire's bus station design process, and they indicated that there is opportunity to improve circulation and efficacy of that bus station, but it requires significant redesign of all of those spaces to meet both trans TransLink requirements as well as, you know, make available drop-off sites. So it's a viable solution in the longer term to actually arrange drop-off area there, but within the timeframes available for Christmas. And the budget available and liaising with TransLink and the engineering requirements, we don't think it's a viable option. Frank Wilkie 12:42.942
Councillor, is there any Councillors wish to speak to that? Brian Stockwell 12:47.222
I'm just thinking, is there an opportunity to do bus? Is there another, whether it's this location or another, create drop off one, I'll be looking through the maps, I can't show you, but you know, a range of car parks that could be used for a drop off, so that we actually have two, so people don't have to enter Hastings Street. Shaun Walsh 13:14.977
Mr Chair, cheers. So, without an appropriate detailed entire assessment, initially, our concerns would be that we already have traffic congestion at the location going into Noosa Headlands car park, knowing that it will also cause another 300 vehicle spaces, so by actually promoting another drop off zone in that location, we actually, you know, create a further congestion on that location, and more moves around that particular roundabout. So, again, I think it gets back to the desirability of a properly integrated design approach. Which we will pass for 2025-26, but I would be hesitant or reluctant to actually suggest that it be achieved by police service. Frank Wilkie 13:54.303
Thank you. Other people wish to speak to the amendment? I'll look on. I'll speak. Thank you very much for your expert advice, Shaun. The expert advice is that it's not feasible to have a drop-off zone at the bus stop. It's untested whether it would stop cars from it would increase the amount of cars entering Hastings Street. The purpose of the trial at the Main Beach precinct is that it's been improve the flow of traffic around the Hastings Street roundabout. You don't have cars backing down the entrance ramp there. And to allow vehicles to safely unload their passengers six or more and gear right at the doorstep of Main Beach is a safer, very effective way to help people move around Noosa Heads during the peak period. And it's untested and certainly the advice is to drop off zone in an area where buses are operating as well. I appreciate there was some talk about this on Facebook this morning and it's good that these ideas are tested but clear at this late stage we need, as Councillor Phillips says, we need to signal to the community what's going to happen and when let's not confuse the community or ourselves by muddying the waters with these other mixes but it's good that the idea has been tested in the public forum here this morning. For that reason I appreciate the intent. I appreciate but. I cannot be supporting the amendment. Amelia Lorentson 15:44.621
So the amendment in front of us is not a decision. The made, in fact, to approve the surf club as a land drop-off area. Consideration of options. That we as a Council and community haven't had an opportunity to explore. We have a petition of 1,022 people opposing the People's Park. Our own consultation and it's reported in the report in one of us is that 60% did not approve the car park, the interdental park that they value our car parking spaces. So the motion not only considers options, it also respects the community that we serve and what they've made really clear. That they would like to be consulted in this process. So I ask that the amendment be approved and again it's consideration. The outcome or the recommendation may come forward that main bench drop off area is for the reasons that. Have already been spoken around this table be preferred location. Frank Wilkie 17:01.102
Thank you. Put the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Finzel and Phillips against. That's Stockwell, Wilson, Wegener and Wilkie amendments lost. We go back to the original motion to which Councillor Phillips has spoken. Anyone else wish to speak Brian Stockwell 17:23.845
Councillor Stockwell. I'll just restate my position. It has just been said that the community want consultation. I'll just reflect that when we did the liveability survey, we asked the question and got very clearly back from the community that we asked, it was very clear it's a priority not to use green space for car parking. When we asked in the discussion page related to the Destination Management Plan, less than five percent of the people thought we should do nothing and the vast majority thought that not having car parking and there was just status quo and we should and that the vast majority wanted to do more. We know there is more planning to do before we can more, I but I see this as a retrograde step that isn't listening to the community. Frank Wilkie 18:10.375
Question? Amelia Lorentson 18:12.695
In terms of the consultation and the question directed to the CEO, how many responses did we get for the Destination Management Plan? Recollections about 400. Larry Sengstock 18:29.730
I'm not sure on that one, particularly because the Destination Management Plan was much broader than that. It was so much broader. Yeah, so to actually follow it into that, and we're still working through those responses as we speak. I'm looking at our Acting Director there as well, and I think that's the case. Brian Stockwell 18:46.750
Yeah. Thank you. Oh, another question. Number was given for an online petition. Interview. My experience with online petitions is generally 50 above having an address of Brisbane. Have we been able to assess how many were local residents in the petition that the number was given? SPEAKER_04 19:04.165
Which petition? Sorry, the petition regarding the Noosa Heads car park. Brian Stockwell 19:15.160
Sorry, I'll be more specific. The petition about not doing what is proposed in terms of the surf lifesaving car park, about not using, not closing down that car SPEAKER_04 19:23.700
Park? No, I don't know the answer to that one, sorry. I'll have to come back to you with that. Amelia Lorentson 19:30.104
Question? I'll speak to the motion. I think we've spoken enough, so I'm going to make this really brief, and I actually want to direct this to Noosa Lions Club. We've got the president, Michael Roach, today, here and the next president in blue in front of us. I want to extend on behalf of Council and this community my thanks to the dedicated volunteers for their remarkable service to our community. The lions are the face of Noosa. They warmly welcome our residents, workers and visitors at the Lions Club. They put in long, hours managing the car park, not for personal gain but with the knowledge that the funds they raise will be reinvested back into the community. It's been a true pleasure to advocate over the years for what is the lions club's most significant fundraising activity, managing the parking at Lions Park for 30 days out of 365 days a year. In particular, I want to acknowledge the past president. Ian gloop, who was not prepared to ever take no for an answer. Your perseverance and commitment to service and the club are truly commendable and inspiring. Frank Wilkie 20:51.258
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 20:52.438
Yes, thank you. I just wanted to point out part G, which is our commitment to a parking management plan that is already underway and a movement in place study that's proposed for 2025-26. So I think that parking plan will capture all of those different options that we do want to look at. I that's and I think I just want commitment to resources being used for that purpose rather than trying to address short-term options. Frank Wilkie 21:21.434
Yeah, and in response to Councillor Stockwell, yes, there is strong community feedback that our green spaces ought not to be used as car parks. It's not the Noosa-looking field. And there's the question that's all of us as a community is, long-term, as we head down Noosaville and look to the left during the peak period, do we want to see the entry statement to Noosa be a sea of cars or a green space where families can. Are recreating? That's the long-term question and the question about the legacy that we want to leave our children and our children's. But we did say when we passed the motion in March 2023 about not continuing the use of the Lions Park for car parking during the school holidays. And long weekends. We allowed that during the COVID declaration and this was holding fast to our commitment to the community that it would be returned as a community green space once the COVID declaration was over. We also committed to determining the long term future of the Noosa Heads Lions Park after community consultation specifically about the use and that's the reason why I'm supporting for overflow parking this Christmas and Easter as per this motion and also use of the surf club car park because it's the right we know thing to do because it does increase the flow of traffic and makes it easy to get around to drop off right directly at Main Beach we know the police and emergency services have requested use of this area during new year's Eve and it makes it safer for everyone so we know it's the right thing to do I hope you support this motion Council we're gonna Tom Wegener 23:22.348
Just put my little two cents in we have found through our public consultation over and again that constant that congestion is a big issue for Noosa residents down through the Hastings Street area, the peak seasons we also know that through consultation doing nothing is supported by about five percent of the people so we have to do something and this plan is actually doing something putting the weather rubber hits the road we are actually doing things making haste slowly but I thoroughly support this and our actions going forward to addressing the congestion problem because it is a big one it's the most beautiful place on earth going back to that Main Beach news ahead Hastings Street the whole national park down to the river mouth it is such a small chunk of area and it is so breathtakingly beautiful that we need to make it can maintain its beauty not destroy that which works we're trying to protect and it brings you back to waikiki where I spent a lot of time and that was you know generally considered one of the most beautiful places in the world and they did some things to make it keep it nice but it's lost its soul and that's not going to happen in a new set. While we're on that the on watch so thank you we are we actually are addressing the problem and we want to do our best for Noosa thank you Karen Finzel 24:46.951
Yes so following along I support the motion I think this provides a great opportunity to bring everyone along with us these are complex issues that involve many overlays and I want to support this motion and we're going to move forward slowly and hopefully bring everyone with us we've got staff we've got experts we've got external transport providers we've got our retail operators general residents and people that enjoy this place and our businesses so we want to go cautiously and move forward and bring everyone on the journey acknowledging the past the present and the future and I think as a Council everyone around the table is clearly hearing from every entity that has a voice in the space and we want to acknowledge each one of those voices and give them the due respect that their expertise commitment or volunteering in the space is acknowledged so I support this it might not be to everyone's pleasure what we're doing that these are difficult decisions but I trust that the leg around this table and the intentions of community and the expertise that comes before us is being taken into consideration and collectively I hope that we can protect the crown and the jewel and that beautiful space that comes to enjoy will be celebrated and we're at a speed bump we're at that most difficult part where we've got to bring it to the pointy edge of challenging decision-making but I believe together we can collaborate and bring about the best solutions. Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Phillips, would you wish to close? Jessica Phillips 26:33.580
Very shortly please. And sweet. Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm just going to say a big thank you to the Lions Club as well, to the Noosa Lions Club for their many years of commitment to our community also get really excited when I read SIG community feedback on the future of the park number E and I'm very excited to see note that council's resolution on the 13th of September 2021 that allowed the concept of a one-way loop local with bus a priority lane from for Noosa Noosa Drive to Noosa Parade be referred to a Council workshop so I look forward to that because as some of the Councillors have pointed out we have to do something we're here community but we've got to meet somewhere in the middle with them so I'm looking forward to seeing what the future holds as a new Councillor Thank you. Councillor Phillips. We'll put the motion. Those in favour? Frank Wilkie 27:21.836
That's Councillor Phillips, Finzel, Wilson, Wegener, Lorentson and Wilkie. Against? Councillor Stockwell. The motion is carried. We're now on to the Ordinary Meeting reports have one item that was referred from the General Committee which is Amelia Lorentson 27:43.324
The MCU220201 application. Frank Wilkie 27:51.470
Oh, sorry. Now, we also need to have a move and in a second for all the General Committee recommendations. I move. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Second. Councillor Finzel, all in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Now, the item that was referred to the ordinary which is the application for Material Change of Use for a car wash and Food & Drink Outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, which was deferred from the General Committee Meeting due to a request that they allow time for traffic consultants to meet and for us to get feedback for that today. Councillor Wilson, do you have a declaration? Nicola Wilson 28:34.110
I do. I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter. My partner, Roy Vanderberg, made a submission to this application when it was notified for 15 business days in 2023 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and received 520 properly made submissions. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because this is one submission of 500 in support and neither Roy nor myself have a financial interest in the outcome, 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 29:15.642
Just a question, Councillor Wilson. Second line, you've mentioned informed the meeting, you have a declarable conflict of interest. My partner Roy Vanderberg made a submission. Was it in favour or. Against this application? I believe it was in favour. Nicola Wilson 29:34.102
I haven't seen it but. Frank Wilkie 29:35.542
Are you happy to have that added to your declaration just in the interest of so we have the submission, the declaration changed. Second line, made a submission in favour of this application. So maybe, sorry, take the other one out. Yeah, I kind of meant to say it further up. Just to clarify I'll move that Councillor Wilson be allowed to stay in the room second Councillor Stockwell I'll read out the full motion if I can. The Council note the declarable conflict of interest for Councillor Wilson and in turn the Council of Wilson participates and votes on this matter because the Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All in favour? That's unanimous, except for Council that note that Councillor Wilson did not vote. Okay, staff have you back here. Can you give us an update on what has happened since? Patrick Murphy 30:43.945
Certainly. There's two matters to provide an update on. The first is the officer recommendation has been amended to include further grounds of refusal related to the traffic issues. When the report was first prepared, as we discussed, that matter hadn't been unfortunately fully flushed out. And so now that we've prepared grounds of refusal include the traffic matters. So I believe it's at point four, at The traffic issues associated with the proposed car wash have not been satisfactorily resolved. Specifically with regards Frank Wilkie 31:47.384
To be collected? Patrick Murphy 31:48.384
That is a matter which has been an issue and conveyed to the applicants at the time that the so is that a change to the reasons for refusal? So point four, A, B and C are all changes to the grounds of refusal. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. The second matter to provide you with an update on is the, unfortunately the traffic consultants haven't been able to have a discussion at this point. They're both very busy, it was a public holiday in Brisbane yesterday, so there was an inability for them to make contact with one another at this stage, so those matters remain unresolved. That in our opinion so we have suggested that, or we do suggest that it might be an opportunity for Councillors to defer the matter to a future round of meetings to enable further time for the traffic consultants to Resolve these matters. Frank Wilkie 32:39.103
Thank you Patrick. Questions of staff? Amelia Lorentson 32:44.387
I'd like to move an alternate motion and before I make a request to the Chair. I want to request that the Chair or other Councillors if possible. Setting a loud five-minute alarm when councils are speaking as happened during monday's General Committee. The loud alarm that went off at five minutes. Um, it was myself, actually. It disrupted my train of thought and broke the concentration of Councillors who were listening. Traditionally, this Council has allowed a little bit of. Pregnancy, one to two minutes, I have about five minutes speaking time. I'm making a request Through the Chair that this leniency is Frank Wilkie 33:32.470
In answer to your question, leniency. Was and always has been applied, and I take your point about loud alarms. I never use one. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else care to move on? I wasn't aware of any alarms. I certainly didn't set one. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll take that. Amelia Lorentson 33:54.142
I'd like to move an alternate motion. Just give us one minute. Second, I think. Oh. Okay. Thank you. That Council notes the report by the coordinator of planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6th of August 2024. Regarding MCU22/0201 for a development permit for Material Change of Use for a car wash and Food & Drink Outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy and A B delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to issue post reasonable and relevant conditions on approval. Note the report is provided in accordance with section 63.5 of the Planning Act 2016. D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application. 1. There is a strong level of economic, community and planning need for the development in this location. 2. There is no car wash currently provided within Cooroy and Noosa hinterland and no other suitable land available for that purpose. 3. The proposed development will provide substantial community benefit and will not cause any adverse impacts on the humanity and in character of the area. 4. The proposed development accords with reasonable community expectations given the significant number of submissions in support that have been received. 5. There will be significant environmental benefits for a car wash to be provided in the location resulting in improving water quality entering local waterways, including Lake Macdonald. A car wash is for commercial washing vehicles which is a complimentary use to the existing service stations in this location, which will result in ensuring the facilities and reduce traffic movements. Conditions can be imposed to address any issues raised by slivers about the hours of operation of the development. Frank Wilkie 36:38.692
Right, can we have a seconder for that please? Councillor Phillips? Thank you. Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 36:50.200
Despite presenting a zoning conflict and non-compliance with the planning scheme, the proposed car wash warrants approval if it can be demonstrated that the public interest is better served by approving the application. In making this decision, we as Councillors need to consider the following: 1. Is there an economic community or that planning has a need for a the proposed proposal? Development? Two, are there relevant factors that support approving the development? And three, should the application be approved or refused in the exercise of planning discretion? The car wash project offers significant environmental, economic, community and social benefits which when waived against the planning scheme non-compliance justifies its approval. I urge Councillors I to consider urge Councillors these to consider these benefits and the need outlined in the motion. To exercise your planning discretion under the Planning Act 2016 to approve the car wash. Its service meets community needs, it supports the local economy and offers environmental benefits, making non-compliance less significant in light of the overall cause positive impact on the community. Relevant matters are relied upon to support the approval. Planning and economic need. The proposed car wash addresses a clear economic and community need at the Cooroy district centre. There are over 10,000 vehicles in Cooroy Cooroy that currently lack access to commercial car wash without travelling to either Noosa or Gympie. National statistics show an average of 7,411 registered vehicles per car wash across Australia. Indicating that Cooroy requires at least one car wash to meet local demand. The site's proximity to chitoo petrol station enhances convenience, making it an ideal location that complements existing benefits. Businesses and builds a gap in the market. An economic needs assessment report commissioned by the applicant confirms strong community and economic demand for the car wash in Cooroy. It highlights unique features such as super base and an undercarriage wash. That will attract business, benefit local businesses and stimulate the economy. Additionally, the car wash will create local jobs contributing to the community's economic growth. Community and public interest. The proposed car wash has received overwhelming community support, highlighting its importance in fulfilling local needs and enhancing the Cooroy district centre. Of the 520 submissions, there were 498 in support, with letters of endorsement from the local chambers of commerce, residents and businesses. This strong community the car wash's role in serving the public interest, which is a critical factor in planning decisions. The applicant also plans to contribute to the community by facilitating fundraising opportunities for local schools and clubs, offering discounted wash rates for senior citizens and implementing environmentally friendly initiatives. These include using advertising space for local environmental education, providing a notice board for community events and installing a reverse vending machine for recycling. Environmental benefits the car wash is designed with sustainability in mind, aligning with the community's environmental values. It will recycle water, use solar power, and harvest rainwater, significantly reducing its environmental impact. The facility also aims to achieve carbon neutral status, protecting the unique ecosystems of the Cooroy and Noosa regions. Eastern design and build form, wash design meets the highest building standards and car wash best practices, featuring architectural elements that enhance the Cooroy Local Plan. It is designed by Tracey michaels from TMC building design, one of the most respected experts the industry, with over 20 years of experience, designing over 300 car washes across Australia and New Zealand. The design includes overhanging roofs, timber panel features, shaded seating areas, adding aesthetic value to the area, while minimising crime risk and integrating with the surrounding environment. Location suitability. The site's location between two petrol stations ensures visibility and accessibility, which are essential, crucial for a car wash's success. Although the site's current zoning as a district centre may not fully align with the car wash use, its specific circumstances make it a practical choice. The site is also removed from residential areas, minimising potential impacts on residential amenities. Addressing the current human concerns to mitigate concerns about potential queuing, the applicant has consulted with existing car washes of similar scale like in tamunda superwash in tamworth. Team wash Director and do his car wash owner. All have provided feedback and see no issue with QE. Queuing. They have all stated that proposed car wash layout should effectively manage traffic flow without issues. Additionally, the applicant is willing to include an onsite manager to address any queuing concerns as a condition of approval. I also want to note that the applicant's traffic consultant has also sent an email to all the Councillors and he stated that there is more than adequate onsite queuing to accommodate any risk without any material risk of overflow into Opal Street. In conclusion, I urge Councillors to approve the car wash development because it serves a greater public interest than strict adherence to the planning scheme. The car wash will meet community needs, it will support the local economy and it offers significant environmental benefits, making it a valuable. Addition to the Cooroy district area and it gives, most importantly, the residents of Cooroy and the Noosa hinterland a much needed car wash. Frank Wilkie 42:55.871
I'd like to move an amendment. Point 2, just to read, there is no car wash currently provided within Cooroy and the Noosa hinterland, full stop. That's item 2, read, there is no car wash currently provided within Cooroy and the Noosa hinterland, full stop. Currently provided in the Noosa within Cooroy. So just the way 2 reads, just end the sentence after hinterland. You can cut and paste as true as is. By the amara provided. Full stop after hinterland thank you, may I have a seconder for that please. Thank you, Councillors I'm moving this there may be a majority of Councillors who wish to approve this development it's there's no doubt that there is it'll be very well used and successful but if you're wishing to approve let's not have a statement that is easily factually not right. A simple search this morning revealed that there is industrial land immediately available for sale out of holt's entire court so for us to say that there is no that purpose is just not right. By all means if you want to support this let's just stick to statements that can be supported. Amelia Lorentson 45:22.610
I'm happy to support the amendment. I concur can carry with what Councillor Mayor Wilkie has said. It's arguably Frank Wilkie 45:43.133
It's arguably there's no other available land for a car wash so He has wished to speak to the motion to the amendment that the amendment favour that's unanimous I also like to move a second amendment that is can I see the original motion please Vicky that it'll be section 3 so if you cut and paste section 3 and proposed development will provide take out substantial and full stop after benefit. I have a seconder to test this one. Please? I'll take second. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. I do this because if you wish to approve it, yes, please. This. Arguably, there's community benefit for a car wash. The location is the issue, and this whole substance of the refusal, the recommendation for a refusal, is that there will be a previous community. In terms of 19 metre long concrete block wall 7.5 metres high facing towards the bowls club and the residents at the end of that is, that has an impact on amenity. We've also not tested the consultants claim that there won't be queuing. Staff say there is concerns about queuing. If there is queuing that's going to have an impact on the amenity of that particular neighbourhood, by all means, if you want to support it, do it. But let's not make statements that are. Cannot be supported. A 19 metre long rock wall, 7.5 metres high, will have an impact on amenity. And I think without. Having the consultants meet to test the ideas against each other, it's very unwise to say there'd be no impact on resident amenity. So for that reason, take a proportionary approach. Stick to statements that are supported. That's why I'm suggesting this change to the wording. Amelia Lorentson 48:25.117
I've asked questions to Annis, in terms majority of neighbours, they've got two service stations and they're obviously have they made any submissions in support the proposed development. Through the Chair, I'm uncertain about the search stations, but I understand the bowls club did put a submission in support of the application. I can quickly check if you'd like on the other two. That would be great, thank you. And my other question is confirmation. My understanding is that the intentions are for it to have a Mayoral, which will possibly, you know, tell the story, the Cooroy history. Are you aware of that, Patrick? Patrick Murphy 49:18.447
Certainly there is a proposal to have a Mayoral on the wall. Notwithstanding, it's my opinion that it still will have an appearance of significant bulk, considering its height and length. Just maybe go back to the before point with Nadine, the name. The service station certainly did not object to the application. Amelia Lorentson 49:36.120
Thank you, so no objections from by the service stations who will be adjoining that is correct. Frank Wilkie 49:41.878
Thank question, you did show us a map which showed some of the submissions that we were against. It seemed to be in the same. Around the same street to the east of development? That's correct. We had some in Diamond Lane and Opal Street, so further the bowls club. Thank you. I have a another question? Yes. About the. Yes, of course. Jessica Phillips 50:08.781
The submissions that were against, when did that happen? Come through? SPEAKER_11_b 50:16.009
So there was a public notification period. As part of the process, there's They were submitted during that period. So in terms of timeframe, I'm not quite sure of your question Jessica Phillips 50:32.097
So. Well, my understanding is the people that submitted against, some of them have actually supported the application now. So I'm wanting to know when that occurred, just to know if they've changed their mind. SPEAKER_11_b 50:48.549
I haven't checked that, I'm sorry. So when a submission comes in, it's logged in our system, and it's identified as properly made, and also whether it's a for or against. So I've that on the analysis of how it's been put in. So I haven't gone through to see if any of those people have since put in a further submission to say that they've withdrawn their previous objection. So I'm sorry, I can't really answer that. Jessica Phillips 51:18.143
Okay so my question is potentially could they have put in the submission against prior to some of the changes that the applicant made? SPEAKER_11_b 51:25.659
Yes. So can we accurately use those were submissions that against in our argument? Through the Chair, yes. So when as part of the public notification period, there's a specific time, 15 business days, and those people submitted against the proposal. I haven't seen anyone coming back and formally withdrawing those letters of objection, so I haven't received any letters, I don't know, I'd have to do a further analysis to identify whether they have so a name has been put in as an objection either later on outside that public notification period if they've later on made a further submission but noting the period that I deal with are generally the properly made submissions so if they've objected formally have to withdraw it and I haven't received any of those thank you. Amelia Lorentson 52:24.965
I'm happy to support the recommendation in front of us with the amended wording that the proposed development will provide community vendor again arguably the original wording can be argued, I believe. Karen Finzel 52:43.084
Thank you. I just have a question. Councillor Phillips. Yeah, just a question, through the staff. With regards to the comments made by. Councillor Frank, in regards to amenity and the brick wall, I know there's been discussion around a Mayoral. I'm just wondering, it seems the applicants are open to reasonable conditions. Is there an opportunity for, like, a living fence or, you know. Vegetation to be grown on the fence that softens that through vegetation? Is that an option? Patrick Murphy 53:15.600
Truth is, yeah. It would be possible to include conditions to alter the appearance of the wall. The Mayoral, it could include some features to change its appearance. Noting it still will be a significant style as well. Amelia Lorentson 53:32.275
Thank you. Question. The motion, the alternate motion delegates to the CEO the quality to impartiality a small amount and reasonable conditions so that in that way forward, that's captured in motion. Patrick Murphy 53:56.694
That's correct, we can put conditions on to address. Yeah, Frank Wilkie 54:06.090
Thank you. Council's just asked to support this amendment. If approved, this will become a resolution of the local government, so it's just about not making promises that will be contested, that we can't necessarily and the nature of the submissions against this proposal was saying it's a development better suited to an industrial area, because of the size and scale of it, and features such as a 19-metre long, 7.5-metre high brick wall. Not brick wall, concrete which will have impacts on amenity. And also we've we still have the untested situation about traffic, the impacts of traffic and the potential queuing because the consultants have not yet met. Yeah, I'll leave it at that. Put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? That's unanimous. We go back to the original motion. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 55:04.192
I have an amendment too, Vicky, and it's just dealing with the matter that was just raised and it's suggesting there's an additional wording on B and that additional word says that including conditions which require the modification of the east wall to increase its articulation, example, oiling over walkway, addition of green wall elements or use of timber battening. Frank Wilkie 55:30.521
Do we have a seconder for the amendment, please? Tom Wegener 55:33.340
I think I can do it. Yes, you can. Yes, I did I your first amendment. Frank Wilkie 55:37.970
Yeah, yes, you can do it. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 55:42.011
This addition here is just to do what Councillor Lorentson was just suggesting, that it gives Council staff the ability to consider those issues and it does give them some direction that we would like to see some improvement to achieve some of the potential improvements that are included as a good go towards potentially achieving an outcome in the scheme. Nicola Wilson 56:02.327
I want to talk to the amendment I think that's far too specific to put into a motion if we're the purpose of the other amendments was to take a subjective language and be clearer and tighter I think this thing goes too far away I think the CEO can I impose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval and they should be discussed outside of this meeting Frank Wilkie 56:23.889
Just a question to staff some of these conditions mentioned in the amendment are they unusual or unreasonable? No I would consider them to be reasonable and type of conditions that we would readily apply if we have design concerns. It has happened before in other developments? Certainly. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Amelia Lorentson 56:57.828
I think that the wording is redundant and concur with Councillor Wilson. I think as Patrick has already stated that the wording as it stands captures conclusions, what Councillor Stockwell has put before us. Again I don't think we need to be specific and I would also like the conditions to be not negotiated but discussed at a minimum with the applicant. Jessica Phillips 57:31.660
I might just quickly reaffirm that because I'd like to see the delegation to our CEO and empower him to be able to make these decisions and trust his decisions in that process. Thank you. Karen Finzel 57:44.480
Yes, also I'd like to concur with Councillor Phillips also I the opportunity to have those discussions that are, you know, free flowing without us imposing conditions on how we believe around the table we think this should go. I think it's been clearly articulated by the staff and what we've heard this is, you know, something that can be undertaken, but I would prefer to leave the applicant than the CEO to work it out between themselves. Frank Wilkie 58:22.308
Councillors, Councillors, what's been asked here is not unusual. In fact, it's part of our job. If we're dedicated to ensuring the Noosa look and feel, mitigating against negative amenity impacts, this is part and parcel of what Councillors can and do. I respect the majority decision, but the decision that we make here will have an impact on the look and feel of the entryway to the lord. So all Councillor Stockwell is trying to do is make that as pleasant as possible. The benefit, not only of the applicant, but also the customers and also the Cooroy community. So I'm going to be supporting the amendment. Okay. Councillor Stockwell, just to close. Brian Stockwell 59:12.877
Couple of new Councillors. The motion before us is highly, unusual. It's the first time I can remember in the last eight years and potentially the 12 years that I've been a Councillor where a matter for development approvals come to Council and the recommendation was to get the staff to approve. With decisions so what we're saying here is very unusual so the fact that we should leave it to the CEO who was a delegate decision yes but this is a highly controversial development and you think that a few words around the tables enough to guide staff you're wrong if you want improvements to a key bit of green space in Cooroy then you have to tell someone you think that's an issue that's all it does we're increasing articulation I'll wait till I debate a substantive motion to tell you why that's important and why staff are recommended refusal but be misled this is not an unusual way of dealing with development applications around this table we normally go through every condition and then if I was to do this I would move an additional condition but the way it's worked can't so this that this just tells that we think an issue if you don't think it's an issue don't vote against the amendment don't just hope that staff will listen to what's around the table the only thing staff can listen to is a motion of Council. Frank Wilkie 01:00:32.694
Thank you I'll put the amendment Wegener and Wilkie. Wilkie and Councillor thank you. Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie. Those against? That's Councillor Lorentson, Wilson and Phillips. The amendment is carried which takes us back to the original motion to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken and no one else has. Tom Wegener 01:00:56.738
I'll it's going to be a full five minutes. I live in Cooroy and I have tank water and I live near the Bruce highway so I get a lot of oil and grit. I've got fruit trees and I have bats making a mess in my car many mornings of the year. A car wash should be a definite benefit to me and to many people that live near me and are on tank water. Totally understand the staff recommendation as it is in an industrial use a Cooroy district centre and they're bound by the planning schemes very very black and white reading. However, I've stood atop Cooroy Cooroy pedestrian crossing with staff and with the residents when we were looking at traffic in Cooroy and the future of Cooroy and it is an enormously difficult situation. From up at the top there you look down you have the rail corridor the giant rail easement splitting the two sides of the town. Then you have a splitting the town in half. And nearly an impossibility of safely crossing that road. So the two district centres are not really connected in any way shape or form. Plus you have two petrol stations next to each other and this going in between the two. So in my opinion it's zoned district centre but it is at that name only. Is not an ideal it's still right next to a very beautiful community. The hill above the petrol stations is a gorgeous wonderful place to live with fantastic residents and the question is if big we go with an approval are we cementing into place this sort of dystopian this not fit for perfect district centre and I don't think so because I don't really think it's much of a district centre at all. Embracing a green innovative business which is a clear benefit to the community? Yes we are. Definitely doing that will it compromise the amenity? I think not. I don't think it will. It's a car wash, especially this car wash, the way it's designed. They're happy places. You go into the car wash with a dirty car like I my car regularly and you clean it and you come out with a clean car. It's a fantastic thing and you're not using your own tank water. You're not polluting, putting pollutants as my water does go into the. You're Mary. Lake Macdonald catchment. There's been enormous support from the community for it. When push comes to shove, will a refusal stand in court? And I am of the opinion it would not. I think we would lose that one on appeal. The to approve the car wash. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:07.681
Question from the audience: was looking, thinking about the amendments to Councillor Wilkie made and I was looking at item 6 and the car wash is for a commercial washing of vehicles which is complementary use to existing service stations in this location. Yes, accepted. Can you tell me if there's any evidence within the application or anything that you can think of which would suggest the development of a car wash on vacant block land would result in sharing of facilities and a reduction of traffic movements. I would have thought that the application would have actually given us evidence that there would be an increase Patrick Murphy 01:04:50.960
Well certainly, the is expected to be many tens of thousands of car washes occur at this site throughout the course of the year through the traffic. In terms of the split of people using the service station and going to the car wash I couldn't tell you what that percentage would be but there certainly will be bringing more traffic to the area. Frank Wilkie 01:05:12.795
Do you wish to move an amendment Councillor I think we've had enough of those, I'm just pointing out just another. I feel duty bound to take off which will result in sharing facilities and reduce traffic movements because if this is going to be a resolution of this Council it has to make sense. Be things that are truthful and accurate. Full stop after location. And then just delete it? Yeah, just delete the rest. Okay. Look, arguably, it is a complementary use to the existing service stations in the location. I can see and support that. But to say it will, or even infer that it will result in a reduction of traffic movements, I don't think any of us can hand on heart say that will be the case. So I hope you will support this change, please. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? I'll put it to the vote and those in favour that's unanimous thank you um we go back to the original motion only Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wegener have spoken to that. Councillors, I might try a procedural motion please. And the procedural motion being that the matter be deferred to a future Council meeting to consultant do you want me to slide it down? To allow the applicant's consultant to discuss raised with councils. Council's traffic consultant okay, conversation. Yeah. So I'll move that. For the purpose of testing this procedural motion, can I have a second at least? After- I've stopped. After you've stopped? Yeah. Councillors, it would be very unusual for Council to approve a development that's so much-- so many inconsistencies with the planning scheme, with the potential for there to be traffic impacts, and not have the traffic consultants meet to fully thrash out the issues. Also, would find it hard to defend the application should it be approved. The question, well, will the consultants-- at the pelvic with it the applicants tested by the we can take that at face value but I think that would be unwise to do it and only then make your decision eyes wide open and that'll be something we could all better defend because it's controversial as it is no one I think is arguing that this wouldn't be a great addition to the township locality of Cooroy. The question is the location and its impact on that in that current location rather than in an industrial estate. Please just do your due diligence, allow the traffic consultants to meet, take on board what we hear back, then eyes wide open, make your decision regardless of what that might be in a better position to defend it regardless. Jessica Phillips 01:10:31.316
Can I speak against your procedural motion, Mr Mayor? This applicant has spent four years jumping through hoops and it is costing approximately $8,000 a week or a month, I might get that wrong. Money that I certainly don't have in my back pocket and I just think we have an obligation today to make this decision. Amelia Lorentson 01:10:53.812
Can I ask a couple of questions? To Patrick and Nadine, my understanding that a report has been available since 2022 and that she's with Sarah. Can I ask. This new information that was just presented a couple of weeks ago, why was that not sort of addressed in 2022? And why wasn't RTI being, wasn't the applicant given the opportunity of a request for more information? I'm just sort of dumbfounded by 2022. We accepted the traffic report and said there was no impacts on traffics and now in 2024 it's Patrick Murphy 01:11:43.462
Um. The traffic report was submitted with an application in 2022 and then an information request was made. That would have been made within four to five weeks of the application being lodged and that did include some traffic matters. The applicant took I think it was about nine months to respond to the information request. So there was a lot of time where we weren't looking at it, we were waiting for this information to come back. That came back I believe in September of 2023. There has been a substantial period of time since then to this point in time we accept that. When Nadine wrote the report she had verbal advice from the traffic consultant and unfortunately there was further advice that was provided after that time, which raised issues with the queuing, the day before the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting and we accept that it's not acceptable to have that late response to the applicant and hence why we're supportive of a deferral to enable these matters to be resolved. Frank Wilkie 01:12:58.100
Council meeting. Tom Wegener 01:12:59.140
Yeah well I'll speak to that question. We got to get on with the job. My experience of living on this earth for nearly 60 years is we know how traffic flows. You have a this particular application. There's lots I mean, I think it's oversized. Is plenty of room for cars to go through. They're state-of-the-art. When one of the letters that came back that Tracy sent talking with was from some other people that own big car washes. And they say, well, you know, you have all these bays. And if it's if ever did actually happen to get crowded, well, then the smaller cars can go through the bigger bays, the caravan bays. And that's what they he said. What happens is he in his. But he says he's never seen more than four caravans ever at a caravan washing bay. And there's two of them in this instance. So just don't I think we need a further report on this. Common sense. It's our own knowledge. We're Councillors. We've been voted in to represent the community. It's kind of an obvious thing that we could make a judgment call on that. Just like the petrol stations. If had a study saying well, you know, what is the traffic situation at the petrol station? Well, people will drive past and go to the next one if it's queued up all the way. I've never seen cars actually queued out onto Elm Street or down Diamond Lane or anywhere. I've never seen that because you just drive past. If there's a long line, then I think this will even be more the case, especially for the community that it is to serve us. Service. So I don't there's think that actually a traffic issue here in this, from my experience. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:41.014
So I won't be supporting the amendment I'll speak to this also, and I'm going to reference the Taminda superwash, which 2022 on a major arterial road in tamworth, New South Wales. Tamworth has a population, Brian Stockwell 01:15:02.337
We're debating our emotional disorder, we're not debating anything to do with the content of the application. Frank Wilkie 01:15:09.255
That's quite correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:15:12.695
Oh, wait, okay. I am, I'm, giving my reasons, why I don't support the application in front of us, and my reasons are because car washes of similar scale to the one that we've got specifically the tamanda superwash, which opened in May 2022 in have provided valuable feedback in terms of queuing and traffic issues, have served with us no issues, and it's of particular interest because it's got a similar population of 65,000 to Noosa, it's also the largest and busiest car wash in north west New South Wales, and it's also got super bay car wash. It handles significant traffic, including the traffic during the 10-way country music festival with thousands and of caravans. The area, and they have provided a letter, a statement, and it's been offered, but provided to all the Councillors that there are no issues. Also, want to that the proposed car wash has the capacity to queue up to 16 six people. Vehicles. It's also faster service time, and we had a traffic control report from 2022 which says there are no issues with overflow as Councillor Wegener stated. The car wash is busy. We move on. We come another day. So I will not be supporting the amendment in front of us. Frank Wilkie 01:16:49.073
Question. The issue of impact on adjoining streets. We're talking about Opal Street and Diamond Lane, not a major arterial road. Is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:17:01.518
That is correct. And I'm just aware, the applicants through their economic needs report, they're advising approximately 68,000 car washes per that's 136,000 vehicle movements, 68,000 in and 68,000 out. So we're talking a very significant number, I mean and you know this situation is very different to other situations. You've got to look at them individually and that's what our traffic consultant has done here. They've picked up the nuances new of this site and the access from Diamond Lane and the adjoining service station and some of the conflict that might be provided there and so you can't just have a broad brush approach and say there's another busy service station elsewhere and it's not causing traffic issues we've got a respected traffic consultant that's raised concerns and Nadine just pointed out to me that the car wash, the taminda car wash in New South Wales is actually in an industrial area so, you know, very, very different circumstances Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:18:11.553
I just have a question Sarah said there was no concerns they were happy to support any reasonable conditions I'm just wondering when issue was first raised back they used to say there was concerns around the initial traffic report that was put in by the applicant can you tell me in that the concerns raised was the queuing raised from that initial report as a concern? Patrick Murphy 01:18:45.909
My reading of the traffic report that was provided in response to the information request it was significantly around the viewing lines. From cars that were parked in Opal Street and the availability of car parking on the site so I don't believe that it was raised as the initial information request item. Frank Wilkie 01:19:17.000
Do the Councillors wish to speak to the procedural motion? Can I ask a question? Yes. Thank you. If the site was developed for Shops & Offices what would be the estimated throughput of vehicles? For that purpose. Point of order again. I'll allow it because we've had a discussion on that. Patrick Murphy 01:19:41.501
Again the traffic report that's been provided asserts that there's more vehicles that would be associated with the shopping centre then would be with the car wash, but again very different circumstances because you go into a shopping centre and you park your car in an allocated bay you're away from the aisle which people would be manoeuvreing around. In this instance the use itself occupies the queuing areas as well and has the potential to movement with Nicola Wilson 01:20:18.261
Design of the car wash wouldn't the flow actually be more easy because it's a one-way system so that it comes up Opal Street goes through the car wash and then out onto diamond which lane would actually have been extended two metres in width as well rather than people reversing and coming back out into Opal Street. Would that seem a more faster flow? Patrick Murphy 01:20:39.190
The issue I think that our traffic consultants raise is that flow has the impact there's the potential to be impacted by the queueing. Amelia Lorentson 01:20:49.268
Just confirmation, I remember reading the traffic report actually assessed the impact of traffic if the nine retail stores were built and my recollection in the traffic report. I'm asking for confirmation if I've read correctly it was that it actually stated that there was less impact proposed, less SPEAKER_05_b 01:21:15.341
Impact of a car wash as compared to the existing development site with non-retire stores. Is that correct? I'm very clear that I've read that Patrick Murphy 01:21:26.454
Somewhere. Yes, the traffic report asserts that there's less vehicles that will attend the site. However, this one, again, there's differences between the two applications in that the retail approval required all vehicles to exit via eiffel straight, whereas in this instance, all vehicles will be exiting via Diamond Lane, and it was only service vehicles that would have been using Diamond Lane on the retail approval. Brian Stockwell 01:21:56.464
I'm going to speak to the deferral motion. A deferral motion, you either agree with the deferral or not. You don't talk about the substance of Councillors in this room that don't want to decide the matter, so I won't support the amendment to defer. Frank Wilkie 01:22:17.246
Any other Councillors wish to speak to the deferral motion? Councillors, I'll close by saying, judging by the comments and questions, clearly none of us are traffic examples cited are about the large-scale car wash on a major arterial road in an industrial estate. If this was we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason why I've called for it to be deferred to allow traffic consultants to meet and to discuss is because a respected traffic consultant has raised concerns. And if this is approved without allowing that to happen, to my mind this might be the first time in Noosa Council's history where an application has been approved where traffic consultants' concerns have not been properly addressed or discussed with an applicant, consultant to said the. Tom community voted us in to get on with things and make decisions, that's true, but it also do our due diligence before we make those decisions. It's likely, judging by the comments, it's likely to be approved, but let's, all I'm saying is defer it to next month, allow the consultants to meet and then rest easy with whatever is built there, you can rest easy and you'll be able to defend any impacts that may or not occur on Diamond Lane and Opal Street, which are two small streets, not a major arterial road in an industrial if it wasn't an industrial estate, like Hobbs Road and tyler's court, where there is land, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll put the deferral motion. Those in favour? Councillor Wilson. Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Phillips, Finzel, Stockwell, Wegener and Lorentson. The motion is lost. We go back to the original motion to which only two Councillors have spoken. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:24:27.556
I'll speak to the motion. And, Vicki, if you can, get that attached to the going to invite it ready, good. Please. So, firstly, I'm going to talk about the obvious and the uncontested. The obvious is a commercial need has been established for a car washing in Cooroy. The other obvious is there's a range of community support for it. That applicants have done their best to try and design a car that's environmentally sensitive and a car wash that addresses the street in a way that takes some elements of the vernacular architecture but my view is that to assess this application you're going to come up with a different outcome in your mind depending on the time frame of which you are thinking about it. So there we have the planning scheme. Now remember Councillors, our job here is not to critique the planning scheme, to implement and interpret it. So we don't have the luxury of making policy on for underdevelopment trial. Here's the character, the framework and character plan. It clearly identifies this site as a key development site in the Cooroy business centre. And immediately behind it is a piece of green space in middle of the business centre. And the pedestrianisation. You can see there that is a lot of pedestrian, the green arrow is showing movements and the intent. We've made near this site to have a better crossing across the railway and we've heard that it's a transit centre. So if you go to the next slide. A lot has been made that currently there's two service stations and that's right, and it is consistent with that blocking lock deal. Field. And feel. But is that the look and the feel that we should be assessing this development application against? And my argument is no. The planning scheme doesn't place weight on the current look and feel, it places desired outcomes. We know that corner in historical times was an unknown hotel, unlikely to go back to that. But we know that Cooroy is ever changing. My first job was across the street. And I was providing fertilisers to the range of dairies and pineapple farms that no longer exist so Cooroy will transition. So next one please. We did over this site previously consider, just a little bit higher please, look development and you can see there in bottom of the black and white pictures we actually spent lot of time working with that applicant to get a look and feel to Elm Street and to Opal Street that was consistent with the desired outcomes, the overall outcomes and the performance outcomes of the planning scheme. You can see that the frontage in the proposed has attempted in the main building to reflect some of that but you have got things like the vacuuming bay facing Elm Street which is less than I suppose what we would hope for a streetscape in Cooroy if we are like the staff have suggested the proposal is not sympathetic to the intended development form of the district centre zone which is for buildings that address the street create vibrant and active spaces continuous weather protection with parking car not dominating dominated the street and e creates so we can see that previously we had achieved that the current proposal doesn't we go to the next and there's been a lot of talk this morning and about this wall okay I did this on Sunday so we now know it is 19.4 metres and it is two stories high. In 3.35 of the scheme under the centre's hierarchy each centre's characterised by its scale and its function and avoiding incompatible uses within the centre. And so here's the debate. You might not consider it incompatible with the existing neighbouring development but is what's proposed in the planning scheme? Yes. And that wall all is a classic. Example. If that was in industrial zone we wouldn't blink an eye because that's probably the reason the look and the feel of car washes is why our planning scheme says it's an industrial activity and should be located in an industrial zone. There's clear logic. It does have that industrial feel. This morning I went again and said well here's the balancing act. Can I find any other support in the planning scheme? And I could. If we look at the particular one about this, the acceptable outcome we know is elevations are no longer than 15 metres without articulation of at least 0.75 metres and presents subtle changes in textures and materials to break up the building. Facade so it can't meet that so then you go to the performance outcomes that can't be acceptable the solution that talks about buildings and other structures present a high level of architectural building with form elements and forms that are consistent with the balkan scale of buildings on adjoining a nearby land that is in no way consistent with the bowls or the houses or the single story commercial developments that are there. Break down the scale down the facade in finer scale components, provide strong visual relationships to the landscape. Natural features not relevant but highly relevant to recreation areas in the vicinity. That is not providing strong visual relationships with the recreation areas. It presents subtle changes in colours, textures, materials to break up the building facade. So the amendment I moved earlier was to try and do some retrofit if it's to be approved to achieve these. It's well articulated with strong horizontal and vertical design elements providing an interesting street scape. Now, I will take a long-term view, because you can buy petrol in Opal Street. When I first moved to motion to approve the development of trolltown for Cooroy, which first brought in these character protections and the vision for Cooroy. It was a gun barrel street, a long street, with no trees, no furniture, and they were taking out the varandas off the footpath because they hadn't been backing until. Now you think about what Opal Street looks like today. It's taken 35 years to get there or so. What we're not doing in so far is thinking about with the projected 3,000 extra people already in our planning scheme for the hintland, what it should be on the eastern side of the highway. So I can't go there because I can't find any support in the planning scheme that would warrant the level of difference from what the scheme requires to what is proposed because an inconsistent application should be able to demonstrate that there is an overriding need in this particular location. I understand the motion. It talks about a planning need. Our expert staff don't believe a planning needs to be justified and that's something is. Argued in the court. To me, if the situation was reversed, where the amount of commercial land was equivalent to industrial land and committed to the commercial, then you could probably argue it. But what we've found is that there is no shortage of supply of industrial land that would warrant planning deed in my opinion. So to me, while I understand the great lengths that have gone to try and fit the codes and to fit the scheme, to me the development doesn't retain and maintain the country town feel, the traditional good form, the heritage and street track character of the town as is the desired outcome in the Cooroy local planning code. Frank Wilkie 01:32:23.412
Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Phillips. Jessica Phillips 01:32:28.554
Thank you. I'm going to keep it pretty short and sweet if that's okay. So Councillor Stockwell likes to point out sometimes that I'm a new Councillor or the new Councillors. I may be new very and I don't know the standing order still and I'm getting there so I think the general public can forgive me when I stand and speak at the wrong time but for 15 years I was a highly regarded police officer which meant I had some public trust. So to reaffirm Councillor Lorentson's initial opening was around discretion and public interest. Those things I can speak very clearly on. A flawless career in policing. No one questioned whether I had public interest. And the ability to use discretion which is when we're talking about a situation like this it's not black and white very grey we've all heard around the table extremely grey area but I want to make this very clear statement it doesn't matter who's right. Let's do what's right is listen to the hundreds of community members that have put in an application in favour of this application more than people that put in submissions for the DMP what's right is support our local economy and our local businesses understanding and some of the questions that I alluded to was that submissions that were against this application have since changed upon hearing from the applicant and their willingness to move and work with their community that they love I can't also forget very to mention a important part around the transport conversation that we've had clearly heard from staff that we have if we have nine retail stores there will be more cars for those shops than a car wash so I'd like to support this application and get on with the job. SPEAKER_05_b 01:34:38.287
Just in regards to objections. There were 500 internet solutions received. Can I ask for the number of objections? SPEAKER_11_b 01:34:50.098
In there were 19 in the report. It said against, 3 impartial, and 23 not properly made, so that's 498 in support. Thank you. Oh, sorry. SPEAKER_05_b 01:35:07.809
Any other Frank Wilkie 01:35:14.229
Councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:35:17.292
As a resident of Cooroy kilroy last year when this consultation period was happening, I'm actually really surprised how much support there was for this application. I probably expected there to be a lot more objections but clearly haven't they been haven't submitted so, um, so we do have to listen to the community. We can, and again, as new Councillor, I may not be quite as au fait with the, town plan and the planning zones and all of those things, but I am used to taking a lot of information analysing it, weighing up all the different viewpoints and perspectives and then making, and going for an outcome that I think is fair. So there is a lot of support from residents and local businesses. And when those people were making submissions, I don't know if they were aware of zoning issues and inconsistent use different zones. I think as they have become more aware of that in the last few days, I don't know whether they really still see very much difference between an or a commercial use or a district centre use. Those are still blurry to me and I think they are to general community members and especially when we have a legacy of the service stations and it used to be a highway, even what we desire to see as a district centre probably is always going be compromised by the existence of those service stations and they're probably going to be around for long time. So residents see this as a service area, they see it as an area you only access by car, albeit there will be a food and beverage outlet. They will be able to walk or use their bikes. So there is a sense in the community that this is a logical place for a car wash and while the land use plan doesn't support that, I can see where the community is coming from. Currently the land is not producing those employment opportunities that we're looking for. It's been vacant for six years, it will be vacant for the foreseeable future if no one wants to develop shopping or offices in that space. While it won't be a big employer, will at least make sure that land is being used for some sort of economic use. In the pre-lodgement meeting, the applicant was told it's inconsistent use, so then you must demonstrate relevant grounds for it to be approved and were things like the roof structure, the trees, traffic reports, water management plans, and the applicant has done all of those things and spent money and time over the years to do that. We were always going to revert to its inconsistent use that zone then they've been led on in that process and I don't think that's fair if the outcome was always going to rely on the zone. So I think in that we've case given the applicant over time the impression that zoning issue can be overcome and so they've put in a lot of work to be able to do that and so that's why I support the motion. Frank Wilkie 01:38:21.380
Anybody else wish I don't wish to speak to the motion. I'll close. This has been a really difficult decision. If it were simple, it would have been decided. On Monday and earlier the overwhelming thrust of the submissions received in favour is that Cooroy needs a car wash and I don't think anyone around this table disagrees with that. It comes down to the classic question that often happens here is, it place? And that's the essence of town planning, so that the developments are in the right place where there's no adverse impact on amenity or the look and feel. By agreeing to this, we're agreeing that to a development that will have an impact on of the entry statement to Cooroy. There are two service stations there. I can entirely see how it's perceived to be a consistent use but just because there are two industrial type uses there doesn't mean we can't mitigate that if there was a different use, shops, properly designed, in the middle, long term. What do we want that to look long term? And we've had discussions as a Councillor group and the right point, the right thing to do is. Best long term interests of the Shire, not what we think is immediately needed. So the question for me is this, ultimately, is this in the right location? It's not. What's right also is not always a matter of high numbers or popular. What's right. And there are 19 submitters against and they raise very valid points that this has an industrial look and feel and ought to be an industrial estate. They've come to expect something different at the end of their street. Of the assurances that planning scheme does give. Is some form of a contract with the community based on community consultation about what sort of uses our residents can expect or take place in their neighbourhoods. So I'm acknowledging and also. This will be the first application. I really had hoped there would be time to have traffic consultants meet to discuss because the issues we the table, we're not traffic engineers. We heard our respective traffic engineer had raised significant concerns and I didn't want this to be the first decision made by Noosa Council where a traffic consultant's concerns had not been tested before we made the final decision. I accept that if this is approved, this will become a decision of the Noosa Council and we all will be resolved to ensuring it is as successful as possible and I commit to that. But I am duty bound to raise these issues. I thank for your support for the amendments which makes the motion, in my opinion, even better and more defensible to the community but I really, I will find myself in a minority on this one. I wish the applicant well with the business. But I feel that I have to be among one of the few voices that will speak up for the submitters in the minority who had hoped that the Noosa planning scheme would be respected and adhered to but I will respect the majority decision on this and ensure that the resolution and the development is as successful as possible should it go ahead. Councillor Councillor Lorentson, would you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 01:42:22.760
I will, Councillors this project is unlike any other car wash. It's the result of four and a half years of dedication and passion. The owners who are local to the area, they walk down the streets of Cooroy, they work, they shop mission to create a business that not only meets but exceeds the community's expectations and environmental values. They sought out Tracy michaels from TBC building design, one of the most respected experts in the industry. Her expertise is in high demand and she brought her exceptional knowledge to this project, ensuring the high building standards and best car wash practices were followed meticulously. Tracy michaels has spoken highly of the king's kinship. Group owners, praising their unrelenting passion and commitment to environmental sustainability. The owners have prioritised sustainability over profit, which sets them apart. Tracy has never seen a project with such a high level of specialist consultant design, documentation and review in her 20-year career. She plans to use this car wash as a benchmark for environmental excellence, calling some of the documentations produced for this solution game-challenging and worthy of commendation. Councillors, this the kind of business Noosa seeks and the type of people we value. Those who care deeply about their legacy and the future they are building for their children and for our children. This project will set a benchmark for other car washes and businesses in the area. I ask that we approve the development of an ECU for a car washing Food & Drink Outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy because it is in the public interest and serves a greater purpose and strict adherence to the planning scheme. I put the motion vote in favour. Frank Wilkie 01:44:25.330
That's Councillors Phillips, Finzel, Wilson, Wegener and Lorentson against. Councillor Stockwell and Wilkie and the motion is carried. And that brings us to the, we have no confidential items, no submissions to public question time. Thank you everyone that brings us the end of the agenda. Next thank you, staff. Thank you, Patrick and Paul and Richard. And meeting will be at 5:00pm. On Thursday 15th August at 10:00 a 2024 Council chambers in Tewantin. We declare the meeting closed at 11:45. Thank you everyone. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
