Planning & Environment Committee Agenda - 11 February 2025
Date: Tuesday, 11 February 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:04:00
Synopsis: Home-Based Business MCU referred; approval conditions incl two employees, Compliance confirmed, Delegations corrected; Kabi Rd removed, Environment levy purchase, Coastal STA, dwellings refused.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Amelia Lorentson Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Brian Stockwell: Appointed Acting Chair with unanimous support as the usual Chair attended remotely; procedural compliance maintained (00:05–01:20; Attendance & Apologies). Brian Stockwell: Minutes of 10 Dec 2024 confirmed unanimously, no debate (01:20–01:38; Item 4). Brian Stockwell: MCU21/0154.02 (minor change) for Home-Based Business meat processing at 82 Patterson Dr, Tinbeerwah referred to General Committee due to significance; carried unanimously (04:45–05:04, 24:50–25:15; Item 7.1). Andrew (Planner): Applicant seeks to allow up to two employees (currently none) and remove the 2‑year lapsing condition; officers consider impacts manageable within Home-Based Business tolerances and recommend approval with conditions (03:10–04:45, 06:41–07:34; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Sought exact setback of processing shed to boundary; officer to return with dimensions for General Committee (05:40–06:10; Item 7.1). Andrew (Planner): Additional traffic from two staff is four movements/day within approved hours (arrive after 8:00, depart by 16:00) (06:41–07:34; Item 7.1). Andrew (Planner): Operations include weekly deer harvesting and processing up to 10 carcasses/week; return to site may occur late night/early morning for harvesting only, with processing authorised under limits (11:19–12:55; Item 7.1). Kim Rawlings: Recent audits found operation compliant and tidy; multiple complaints investigated with no substantiated breaches (08:10–09:44; Item 7.1). Kim Rawlings: Officers support landscaping enhancements over costly new fencing; plantings can further screen driveway to mitigate visual impacts (14:32–15:46, 21:50–22:58; Item 7.1). Planning Delegations Report: 39 delegated decisions in Dec 2024 (38 approvals; 1 to Council); error identified—Kabi Rd item not delegated and deleted from report (25:33–30:48; Item 8.1). Council: Resolved to remove 12637DA-59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba from the delegated list; unanimous (30:48–32:35; Item 8.1). Confidential Land Purchase: Meeting closed under s254J(3)(g) LGR 2012 to discuss Environment Levy proposed acquisition; later reopened and CEO authorised to negotiate purchase, register Nature Refuge, and manage for environmental values; unanimous (CLOSURE/REOPEN; Item 9.1). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Pressed on neighbour’s concerns (noise, traffic, mental stress); officers emphasised bounded assessment and scheme tolerances, not subjective health impacts (15:46–17:39; Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Cautioned on complaint privacy; only general findings provided, aligning with privacy obligations (08:02–08:10; Item 7.1). Karen Finzel: Advocated for neighbour’s fencing request; officers deemed mandatory replacement unreasonable but encouraged civil boundary arrangements between parties (21:23–23:20; Item 7.1). Brian Stockwell: Detected and corrected inclusion error in delegated report (Kabi Rd), demonstrating procedural vigilance (29:50–32:35; Item 8.1). Legal / Risk Larry Sengstock: Closure relied on Local Government Regulation 2012 s254J(3)(g) (land acquisitions); process followed, then resolution read publicly on reopening (CLOSURE/REOPEN; Item 9.1). Kim Rawlings: Enforcement approach: proactive audits and response to complaints; compliance rests with permit holder; conditions tweaked and sunset clause extended to enable review (09:44–11:19; Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Minor change to remove/extend sunset clause would be via minor change application; indicative fee about $2,000, with possible review (13:13–13:45; Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Exemption certificates issued under Planning Act to correct unintended triggers from Noosa Plan 2020 overlay wording (landslide/flood), ensuring lawful pathway without full approvals (26:36–28:15; Item 8.1). Officers: Acoustic containment verified onsite; staff vehicles limited to daylight hours; mitigations reduce nuisance risk consistent with Home-Based Business Code (21:23–22:58; Item 7.1). Planning Scheme & Home-Based Business Framework Kim Rawlings: Home-Based Business Code in rural/rural residential supports up to six persons; proposal for two employees sits well within scheme tolerances (10:07–11:19; Item 7.1). Richard MacGillivray: Late‑2024 Planning Regulation amendments: all home-based businesses are code-assessable; schemes cannot cap persons on site below two (23:48–24:38; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Queried why original permit banned employees despite scheme allowances; officers noted it was a contentious approval and the applicant did not appeal that condition (17:39–19:06; Item 7.1). Andrew (Planner): Landscaping conditions 19–20 already implemented; potential for added low-level planting to close residual visual gaps (14:32–15:46; Item 7.1). Environmental Concerns Council: Empowered CEO to negotiate Environment Levy land purchase; if acquired, Nature Refuge declaration and active management to enhance environmental values (REOPEN; Item 9.1). Officers: Nature Refuge overlay post‑acquisition aligns with Queensland conservation mechanisms to lock in ecological protection (REOPEN; Item 9.1). Short Term Accommodation / Sand Dune Area Brian Stockwell: Queried a complex dwelling history in Sand Dune Problem Area; officer confirmed a multiple dwellings application was refused and a short‑term letting application also refused (28:15–29:50; Item 8.1). Officers: Highlights sustained application of coastal hazard controls and STA regulation in sensitive dunes (28:15–29:50; Item 8.1). Delegated Authority Oversight Richard MacGillivray: Reported 39 delegated decisions for Dec 2024 with detailed addendum; transparent publication maintained (25:33–25:58; Item 8.1). Council: Removal of non‑delegated Kabi Rd item from the list corrected public record; underscores need for diligence in delegations reporting (30:08–32:35; Item 8.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 11 February 2025 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.30AM. 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Tom Wegener Cr Amelia Lorentson (via Microsoft Teams) NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Cr Stockwell be appointed as Acting Chairperson of the meeting for this meeting as Cr Lorentson is attending via Microsoft Teams. Carried unanimously. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 10 December 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2025 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1. MCU21/0154.02 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS (MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY) AT 82 PATTERSON DRIVE, TINBEERWAH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. Carried unanimously. 8. REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - DECEMBER 2024 . Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 11 February 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for December 2024 as per Attachment 1 to the Report with the deletion of NP20MCU 12637DA-59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION CLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 254J(3)(g) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing Item 9.1 Environment Levy Proposed Land Purchase. Carried unanimously. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2025 RE-OPENING OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That the meeting be re-opened to the public. Carried unanimously. 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - ENVIRONMENT LEVY PROPOSED LAND PURCHASE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Senior Conservation Partnerships Officer to the Planning and Environment Committee dated February 11 2025 and authorise the CEO to: A. Commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding purchase of the property as detailed in the report; B. If purchased by Council, place a Nature Refuge over the property; and C. Manage the property to maintain/enhance its environmental values. Carried unanimously. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.33 AM
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
Okay, online? Good morning everybody. Larry Sengstock 00:05.060
Welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting on the 11th of February. Our chair of this meeting is overseas at the moment, he's online, and we can't have the meeting online, but we, so I'm starting the meeting as the CEO, we will appoint a chair at the moment. First I'd just like to acknowledge that we're meeting the Kabi Kabi people and pay our respects to the elders of the Kabi Kabi past, present and emerging. Attendance's apologies, I believe Councillor Lorentson, who's the normal chair, is overseas but he's online. Councillor Lorentson, can you hear us? Good morning. Yes I can, loud and clear, good morning. And Mayor Frank Wilkie is overseas as well but he's not online so he's an apology for this meeting. And Mayor Frank Wilkie is overseas. so that's how it came to a point an alternative alternative chair for this morning so I can hand that off. I nominate Brian Stockwell. Would you like to be second? Hackett's a second. Hackett's a second. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. You're accepting that, so put it to the vote. All in favour. All in favour? Thank you. Mr Brian Stockwell 01:20.091
CEO. So we first item on the agenda is confirmation of minutes. Do we have somebody who'd like to move those? Councillor Wegener? Seconded? Hackett's a second. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson? I presume there's no discussion. All in favour? Amelia Lorentson 01:37.271
Yes. Brian Stockwell 01:38.151
And that's unanimous. We then have no presentations, no deputations, so we move on to reports for consideration of the committee. And the first one is a material change of use, MCU21/0154.02. And it's an application for a minor change to the development approval for home-based business, meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. And Andrew, are you going to give us that update? Yes, that's right. Thanks, Councillor. The application has been received to make a minor change to the home-based business use, which is currently approved to the property. The site's contained within the rural residential zone and is approximately 7,800 square metres in area. So it's currently approved with a large dwelling house and an existing shed at the property, which is used for the home-based business, which is located in the northwestern corner of the property, about probably 70 metres from property, about probably 70 metres from the Patterson Drive cross over to the site. The applicant has been, is requesting the change to the approval because the existing approval requires that he is the only person to be involved within the home-based business and at the moment he is finding it, I guess, difficult to manage the, I guess, the workload involved with running the home-based business. additional staff, up to two persons at the property, would assist him with the actual, I guess, the processing of his business which involved which involves collecting, harvesting deer, bringing that back to the property. processing the carcasses. He's entitled to process up to 10 carcasses per week and basically that physical extent of work he is finding difficult to do. So he has applied So he has applied for a change to a deletion of one of the conditions which limits no employees at the site such that he can employ up to or have an additional two persons at the site to assist him with that. That's sort of a workload. He is also requesting to extend, he had requested to delete the other condition which was a lapsing time period for the use of two years. So they are the two sort of elements which he has requested to amend with the approval and basically at this stage the impacts of the actual the additional number of people at the site have been assessed to be considered to be manageable in accordance with the home-based business tolerances for a number of people involved with the home-based business within the rural residential zone and is recommended for... residential zone and is recommended for approval. Thank you. Now this item has been requested to go to the General Committee, but do we have any questions that would help councillors in terms of getting their head around the issues for next Monday's General Committee? Richard MacGillivray 04:45.661
Could I ask you a quick question? What are my silly ones? The word entitled, so they're entitled to these things, is that actually the proper word? Because they have a condition which allows them... Authorised. Authorised, that's the word I was looking for. Anyway, yeah, there's just a difference between authorised and entitled. Just that slight, correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:08.444
Just a few questions, and mainly arising from a letter that was sent to all councillors recently from the neighbour. I just wanted to run through some of the issues in there, Andrew. And I'll start with, and you're a little bit blurry, so first of all, and I know that you spoke about the distance, how close is the Processing facility for the neighbours fence or boundary line. Andrew 05:40.740
From the actual, I think you've mentioned it, but you're, you're just a little bit vague. I can't hear you very clearly. I guess the actual distance between, I guess the dwelling and the actual meat processing facility would be approximately 50. I would have to probably come back to it with an exact dimension from the boundary of the site to the shed. Amelia Lorentson 06:10.360
I would appreciate that Andrew for the general meeting, that would be great. In terms of the extra two employees, you mentioned In terms of the that that's within the criteria of a home-based business. Can you tell me how many car movements per day, how does that change the number of car movements per day? And is that a consideration for this application? Andrew 06:41.720
Yes. The number of car movements would involve, maximum car movements would involve basically two staff arriving at the site in the morning within the permitted hours of operation of the home-based business, which is between 8:00 and 5:00pm. So they would arrive after 8:00am. So two car movements to the site for the two employees, they would work up until, I have verbally been told by the owner of the site that they may not need to work till 4:00pm, they may finish at 2:00 o 'clock, they may finish at may finish at three o 'clock. The idea of having the people of the additional staff at the site is to assist him with his business efficiency so he the latest that they would leave the site would be 4:00pm. so two extra traffic movements from the site in the afternoon so during the Amelia Lorentson 07:34.640
The applicant has asked how will council prevent non-compliance and enforced conditions and I've understood there has been a number of complaints in the last say nine months and can you maybe explain how they've Patrick Murphy 08:02.700
Addressed? Just mindful that complaints are protected under privacy. I'm not sure how I can answer this question. Richard MacGillivray 08:10.800
Yeah we probably, councillor, we have to be careful under privacy around details of specific parties and the nature of the complaints raised. We can talk generally around that staff have done audits and investigated a number of complaints. Over the past two years and have investigated and no evidence has been obtained to substantiate those complaints. Recent audits have been undertaken prior to an assessment of this application and found that the home based was operating in accordance with its approval and was in a very tidy and appropriate state in terms of the inspection so we haven't found any substantiated breaches despite multiple investigations and audits undertaken over the past two years but we are mindful around the proximity of the home based business to surrounding properties and ensuring that the impacts from Amelia Lorentson 09:44.448
Again, it goes back to just how do we monitor and enforce the conditions? So in terms of increased traffic and noise, how will that be managed and how do we enforce compliance of that condition that there isn't going to be increased traffic and noise? Richard MacGillivray 10:07.137
My comment, Councillor, would be that the Home Based Business Code provides some tolerances for activities and obviously in the rural and rural residential zones The home-based business code stipulates up to six persons involved with a home-based business can be supported under the planning scheme. In this case this will consist of half of that and look of half of that. And look, the fact is there's an existing approval. This is including two additional employees driving to the site and from the site within daylight hours. The impacts that officers have assessed have have considered those impacts to be minimal but have required some, tweaked some conditions there to ensure that that's managed and there is also an extension of a sunset clause on that so Council can review clause on that so council can review during the next four-year period in terms of evaluating whether that should be continued to a later date as well so there's sufficient measures in place to to manage. Like all permits that council issues across the entire region the obligation for compliance rests with the applicant. Andrew 11:19.034
Council does undertake occasionally audits, proactive audits, however often will respond to concerns or issues raised by the public and will investigate and take action in relation to complaints breaches have been identified or detected thank you this is a question just out of curiosity a question that i'd like to ask is in terms of harvesting of the deer when does that occur and and for what time in frequency how often in what time does that happen uh councillor the the approval allows the owner to harvest deers once a week um i believe that from discussions with the owner the areas which in which which the deer is collected is uh west of Gympie um and they he his times of of leaving the property and coming back from the property varies um he could be back at the property 11pm he might be back at 1am um it's a little bit uncertain to confirm exactly when when that can happen yeah so there is a a condition on the approval that authorise um the processing of 10 carcasses per week with harvesting to occur a maximum of one evening per week so alliance with with Brian Stockwell 12:55.260
I just have one with the suggestion of an ongoing sunset clause. I've noted in the report that one of the reasons they didn't want that to continue was the cost of application. To remove the sunset clause in this next suggested period of lapses, is that another minor change in use? Patrick Murphy 13:13.155
It would be a change to the condition, so it would involve a minor change. it would involve a minor change application. At that time we can assess the application fee that is paid. There is a prescribed fee, but the applicant can seek for us to modify that. You Brian Stockwell 13:29.270
Can. I'd like to prescribe a minimum of $1,300. Is that right? Patrick Murphy 13:33.790
For a minor change, I think it's about $2,000. But yeah, they could certainly request us to review that fee at the time if there was a limited assessment required. Brian Stockwell 13:45.513
I have some further questions, Thank you. Also, a request has been made by the applicant in terms of the access handle, so the condition at the moment reads that it must be densely landscaped and we've been provided with pictures. Is there- the applicant has requested a seven-foot or a nine-foot fence along the boundary and I think we've had some discussions about whether that is considered a reasonable condition or not and what is a more reasonable option to be included as part of a condition package. Andrew 14:32.889
Yes, I believe that was the neighbour councillor, not the applicant for this application. Oh, excuse me. No, excuse me. You're correct. Yes, that's all right. That's right. I mean, there's an existing sort of buffer landscaping area on the southern side of the driveway, and I believe there's some additional landscaping within the neighbour's property along that sort of that driveway boundary. There has been some some planting added to that landscape buffer by the owner which was a to satisfy conditions of the approval, conditions 19 and 20. That has occurred already. There may be some areas within that sort of within that sort of existing buffer landscaping, which could be improved to assist with providing a visual separation of the driveway more successfully. Not that it's not already screened. It's already heavily screened. But maybe there are some areas, you know, at the lower level, which could be screened with some lower level planting, which might assist with thickening up and making that completely sort of visually... Amelia Lorentson 15:46.720
And my last question is impacts such as just mental stress, anxiety, the applicant has written to us and their mental impacts are real. Is that a, how is that measured, how is that monitored and is that Brian Stockwell 16:14.920
I think, once again, Councillor Lorentson, you may have meant to say the neighbour had written to us, or... Oh, excuse me, the neighbour. Apologies, the neighbour. Richard MacGillivray 16:27.580
Well, I'll respond to that, Councillor. So, staff assessed the application under... against the planning scheme. Because this is a minor it's a bounded assessment in relation to the extent of what the changes are. Staff do assess very thoroughly and diligently the nature of the impacts and whether they fall within the tolerances I guess set by the planning scheme. So they seek to ensure that a fair decision is made to manage and balance the assessment of the... the assessment of the application and also make sure that those impacts are managed appropriately and in accordance with what the scheme is seeking to achieve in terms of desired outcomes. But certainly you know if there's an opportunity for parties to seek to resolve those differences Council will always encourage that but it can be difficult in certain situations where... difficult in certain situations where the relationship between parties is not able to work through any of their concerns or differences. Amelia Lorentson 17:39.716
I have got one more question and I'm just referencing the original permit. and the original permit. We've got conditions that says very quite clearly that the approved use must be operated and conducted by permanent resident or resident and no employees are permitted. Can I ask why given that the home based definition includes three up to three employees, why was that condition put in if it can be overridden by the Noosa Plan? Patrick Murphy 18:20.314
That's a good question Councillor. At the time that this application was originally assessed I wasn't I'm not too sure if that condition was included as part of the officer recommendation I'll probably have to come back to you on that but it certainly was a hotly debated application amongst the councillors and there was considerable considerable community interest into the potential impacts of this use so at that time that condition was included it's it's noteworthy that the applicant didn't seek to appeal that condition in light of the allowance allowed Amelia Lorentson 19:06.800
Thank you, thanks for all my questions. Brian Stockwell 19:19.941
You have your virtual hands up Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 19:23.381
Thank you Mr Chair for the acknowledgement and thank you to the staff for the report. Thank you for the questions that have been brought to the staff they have made things a little clearer. Just with Just with the impacts to ensure they're managed appropriately in terms of the neighbour sending the email to all councillors which I've said I'd advocate on behalf of the neighbour with regards to the request from the neighbour around the possibilities of a fence around the boundary. to mitigate all the impacts that have been discussed in the report and today we've talked about increasing vegetation which was conditioned on the last application and approved I do wonder if the neighbour feels that is not sufficient not sure how we measure those impacts How how do do we we go go about about looking at the possibilities of of the fence to mitigate impacts and councillor there there is an existing fence that exists at the moment the the employees employees will will be be coming coming during during daylight, so light is unlikely to be an issue at all. Really, it appears the nature of the concerns being raised are about visibility of vehicles attending the site. And as our assessment planner has been to site when the equipment and machinery has been on operation, it's been confirmed it's not audible from outside the building, so it's extremely acoustically sort of Acoustically sort of treated and the noise from the operation does not emit beyond the building itself so what we've discussed or what's been discussed and assessed is that some further screening to increase the ability for there to be limited visibility of the adjoining the subject sites Are we joining the subject site's driveway at all to limit the visibility of actual vehicles arriving to the site we believe will help address some of the concerns raised around activities happening on the site. Even though there are only two vehicle movements arriving additionally in the morning and in the afternoon we consider that to be reasonable to assist in trying to minimise those impacts to the maximum extent possible but do not believe that But do not believe that a fence replacing an existing fence will address anything apart from cost a lot of money without any additional added benefit. Thank you for your response. Just on the matter though, it could, despite what you've answered the question around vegetation, could that Richard MacGillivray 22:22.758
The condition for a fence, a new fence? Yes, yes. It could be but our advice from an officer level would be that it would be unreasonable to require an owner to remove the fence and replace it with a new fence. And that's our responsibility from an assessment point of view to make sure conditions are reasonable and relevant in relation to the proposal being considered. So yes, that would be our advice to Council to consider. Karen Finzel 22:58.612
Thank you for that. However, there is room if the neighbour and the applicant choose to negotiate an outcome around a fence, that process is available to be followed. Richard MacGillivray 23:11.083
Civil arrangements with neighbours exist at all times regarding boundary fences and party fences and walls and things like that, absolutely. Karen Finzel 23:20.863
Thank you. And if I may, through the Chair, just one last question please. Sure. Thank you. Just to clarify, all home based from a state perspective is now code-accessible. Can you talk to me a bit about what that means in terms of staff eligibility on based business? Patrick Murphy 23:48.138
There was a recent amendment to the planning regulations late last year which prescribed that all home based businesses will be code-accessible. There's also a provision within the regulations that says a planning scheme can't limit the number of people on site to less than two. So they set up an outcome saying that two is the minimum number or sorry that two is an acceptable number but they also say that a planning scheme can't contravene that by having less, by having one. However a planning scheme can be more effective. Does that answer the question? Karen Finzel 24:38.460
Yes thank you. I was just seeking clarification to see how this decision we make will affect this application now into the future. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 24:50.640
If there's no further questions Councillor Lorentson you indicated you'd like to move this item to general committee. General, please, thank you. General please thank you. Yes. Due to the significance of the matter, thank you, Councillor Stockwell. And Councillor Wegener, would you like to second it? And Councillor Wegener has seconded it. And I don't believe we'll need any discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, sir. you, sir. We now move on to item eight, which is reports for noting, and it is just the one, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Patrick, can you run through overview on this one? Patrick Murphy 25:33.436
Yeah, I can do. Thank you, Councillor. So the report details those applications that were decided under delegated authority for December 2024. You'll note that we were 39 decisions that were made by officers under delegation 38 of those were in approval. There's one application to the side of our council which was approved. And then there's an addendum to the report which details all the relevant applications. Brian Stockwell 25:58.962
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 26:02.702
I do. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Extension certificates. Extension certificate. Richard, can you explain? I've done a little bit of research on it, but I don't think I've ever seen extension certificates appear under our delegated authority. Decisions by delegated authority. Can you explain extension certificates? you explain exemption certificate and what circumstances or under what conditions were they released? Patrick Murphy 26:36.095
Yeah, so we actually have been identifying exemption certificates for an extended period of time on this report. So what you'll see in this report is there's three exemption certificates that were issued. There is an allowance under the Planning Act for Council to issue what is called an exemption certificate, which means that proposed development, which technically requires an approval, is given an exemption from requiring that approval. So what happens is they provide us with plans of what's proposed and we'll do an assessment. The applications that we're getting have related to some changes when the Noosa Plan 2020 first came into effect. There were a couple of changes to the scheme which we say were errors. One being that the old scheme allowed for land that was in the landslide. hazard overlay to be accepted development in circumstances where a geotechnical report was provided and that the recommendations of the report were undertaken there was just a change to the wording and I think an and was removed so it triggered the geotechnical it triggered the geotechnical landslide hazard overlays for requiring approval. Also, some of the flood, similar with the flood overlay, it was triggering under the new scheme where it wasn't in the past. So, in circumstances like that, the Planning Act allows for an exception certificate. Planning Act allows for an exception certificate to be issued. Brian Stockwell 28:15.231
Thank you. I noticed the one refusal for a land right, Mr Heads, was amending the number of bedrooms to existing value in SDPA. Stand room, problem area. So, material change of use was original. Was it just increasing the size of the house or was it something else that... What if that was... Patrick Murphy 28:37.397
That house had quite a history. It was approved for significant size house and after they got an approval for the material change of use in the Sand Dune problem area, they put an application in for multiple dwellings which was refused. Subsequent to that, their... Brian Stockwell 29:37.527
Has it got any short-term letting approvals on that side? Patrick Murphy 29:41.047
No, there was a short-term letting application made and that's been refused. Brian Stockwell 29:50.427
And the last time for me was the change to the Kabi Road application. Other changes included an undefined use. What was the undefined use? Richard MacGillivray 30:08.260
That actually should not be on the report. So I hadn't picked that up. That's the council decision. So apologies for that. That should not be on the report. Brian Stockwell 30:21.340
So does it make any difference to the recommendation? Richard MacGillivray 30:29.740
That was the name of the title of the report wasn't it? Patrick Murphy 30:34.720
That's right. From the original because it was a change. But I think Councillor Stockwell is saying the report is betraying a list of delegated. Richard MacGillivray 30:43.120
Oh yeah it wasn't delegated. Yeah it needs to be removed. Brian Stockwell 30:48.000
So I'll move a Of NP20MCU. Other change to approval impact. Larry Sengstock 31:27.940
Sorry, MP20? Brian Stockwell 31:30.140
Yeah, 20MCU. Actually, just say rather than want to attend, 12637DA-59, Kabi Road, Cootharaba. Is that OK? Yeah, Larry Sengstock 32:02.040
OK. And do I have a second for that? Councillor Wegener, does anyone else wish to discuss the resolution? Do you have a question? Patrick Murphy 32:14.340
I put the resolution. Those in favour? Brian Stockwell 32:20.480
Oh, you didn't second it? Amelia Lorentson 32:22.720
Sorry. Yeah, no, you were the second. I was the second. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Yes. Brian Stockwell 32:35.880
Okay. So the next item on the agenda is a matter report for consideration in confidential session. It's about an Environment Levy proposed land purchase. purchase. So can I have someone to... So can I have someone to move that we close the meeting to the public. I'll go with Councillor Lorentson and seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous and we'll just wait. Okay, welcome back. The meeting is now reopened to the public and I will move the staff recommendation that Council note the report to the Government... There we go. Has that been published in the agenda? The recommendation? I don't think it would have. No. So I will read it out. The Council note the report by the Senior Conservation Partnerships Officer to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 11 February... 2025 and authorise the CEO to a commence negotiations with the owners or their agent regarding purchase of the property as detailed in the report, b if purchased by Council place a nature refuge over the property and c manage the property to Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
