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)
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 00:00.701
Okay, online? Good morning everybody. Larry Sengstock 00:05.146
Welcome to the planning environment meeting on the 11th of February. Our Chair of this meeting is overseas at the moment. He's online. We can't have the meeting online, but we decided to I'm starting the meeting as the CEO. We will appoint a Chair in a moment. First I'd just like to acknowledge that we're meeting Kabi Kabi people and pay our respects to the elders of 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. Amelia Lorentson 00:42.638
Yes I can, loud and clear. Good morning. Larry Sengstock 00:45.856
And Mayor Frank Wilkie is overseas as well, but he's gone online, apology for this meeting. So that's our attendance. This is now to, I just need Tom Wegener 00:58.352
To appoint an alternate Chair for this morning so I can hand I'm going I nominate Brian Stockwell. Larry Sengstock 01:06.755
Do you like to be seconded? Amelia Lorentson 01:08.116
Happy to be seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Larry Sengstock 01:12.878
You're accepting that, so put it to the vote. Those in thank all in favour? Brian Stockwell 01:18.230
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the first item on the agenda is confirmation of minutes. Do we have somebody who'd like to move those? Do we have a Councillor? Seconder? Happy to second. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I presume there's no discussion. All in favour? Yes. And that's unanimous. We then have no presentations, no deputations, so we move on to reports for consideration of committee and the first one is a Material Change of Use P10154.2. There'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? Andrew 02:05.039
Yes, that's right, thanks Councillor. The applications application's been received um 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 improved 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 the Patterson Drive crossover to the site. The applicant has is been, is requested 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 and had the 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 and 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 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. Sort of a workload. He is also requesting to extend or he 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 number additional 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 approval. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 04:31.117
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? Unidentified Speaker 04:43.320
Um, would you--- Oh, I can't. Tom Wegener 04:45.014
Okay, yeah. Just had one of my silly ones, which is 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. That's the word I was looking for. Authorised, yeah. Anyway, yeah, there's just a difference between authorised and entitled. Yeah. Just that slight, correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:09.143
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 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 is meat processing facility? From the neighbours' fence or boundary line? From the actual- I think you mentioned it, but you're just a little bit vague. I can't hear you can't very clearly. Andrew 05:49.271
I guess the actual distance between, I guess, the dwelling and the actual meat processing facility would be approximately 50 metres. Would have to probably come back to it with an exact dimension from the boundary of the site to the shed. Amelia Lorentson 06:10.983
I would appreciate that, Andrew, for the General Committee. That would be great. Employees, you mentioned 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 and is that a consideration for this application? Andrew 06:43.229
The- number of car movements would involve, maximum car movements would probably- would involve basically two staff arriving at the site within 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 4pm, they may finish at 2 o'clock, they may finish at 3 o'clock. The idea of having the people of the additional site is to assist him with his business efficiency, so the latest that they would leave the site would be 4pm, so two extra traffic movements from the site in the afternoon, so during the course of a day, four movements. Amelia Lorentson 07:37.016
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 been investigated? Patrick Murphy 08:03.369
Just mindful that complaints are protected under privacy. I'm not sure how I can answer this question. Richard MacGillivray 08:11.391
Yeah, we probably, Councillor, we have to be careful under privacy around details of specific parties and the nature of the complaints raised. Can talk generally around that staff have done audits and investigated a number of complaints over the past two years and have investigated and evidence has been obtained to substantiate those complaints. Recent audits have been undertaken prior to an assessment of this application and found that the Homebased business 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 investigations. And audits undertaken the past over the past two years but we are mindful around the proximity of the Homebased business to surrounding properties and ensuring impacts from this particular operation minimised to the maximum extent so it doesn't cause an adverse impact on amenity. Amelia Lorentson 09:28.984
Does that assist at all without no, I appreciate that do we monitor and enforce the conditions? So, in terms of increased traffic and noise, how will that be managed and how do we, you know, how do we enforce compliance of that condition, that there isn't going to be. Increased traffic and noise? Richard MacGillivray 10:08.240
My comment, Councillor, would be that the Homebased business code provides some tolerances for activities and obviously in the rural and residential zones, the Homebased business code stipulates up to six persons involved with a Homebased business can be supported under the planning scheme. In this case, this will consist 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 those impacts to be minimal but have required 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. 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 manage like all permits that Council issues across the entire region the obligation for compliance rests with the applicant Council does undertake occasionally audits proactive audits however often will respond to concerns or issues raised by the public and will investigate and take appropriate action relation to complaints breaches have been identified or detected Amelia Lorentson 11:34.113
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 for what time and frequency how often and what time does that happen? Andrew 11:59.455
Councillor the approval allows the owner to harvest deers once a week I that from discussions with the owner the areas which in the deer is collected is west of Gympie and they he his times of leaving the property and coming back from the property varies. He could be back at the property 11:00pm. He might be back at 1:00am. It's a little bit uncertain to confirm exactly when that can happen. Patrick Murphy 12:33.963
So there is a condition on the approval that authorise the process the processing of 10 carcasses per week with harvesting to occur a maximum of one evening per week. So alliance with what Andrew said there. Brian Stockwell 12:57.865
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? Is that required? Patrick Murphy 13:15.624
It would be a change to the condition, so 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 seek for us to modify that. This as minimum you could 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. Amelia Lorentson 13:42.276
Okay. Councillor Finzel's also doing an online review. I have some further questions, thank you. Okay. 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 lanced. Landscaped and we've been provided with pitches. The applicant has requested a seven foot or a nine foot fence along the boundary and I think we've had some discussions and 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 14:33.902
Yes I believe that was the neighbour Councillor, not the applicant for this application excuse me you're correct yes that's right I mean there's an existing sort of buffer landscaping area on the southern side of the driveway and I believe some there's some additional landscaping within the neighbours property along that sort of that driveway boundary there has been 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 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 may assist with them thickening up and making that completely sort of visually separate Amelia Lorentson 15:44.306
And my last question is impacts such as just mental stress anxiety the and 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 considered Brian Stockwell 16:10.741
I think once again Councillor Lorentson you may have meant to say the neighbour has written to us Richard MacGillivray 16:28.669
I'll respond to that Councillor. So staff will assess the application under against the planning scheme because this is a minor change 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 application and also make sure that those impacts are managed appropriately and in accordance with what 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. It can be difficult in certain situations where the relationship between parties is not able to work through any of their concerns or differences. Amelia Lorentson 17:40.933
I have got I'm just referencing the original permit. And the original permit, we've got conditions that says very quite clearly that the approved use and must be conducted by. Permanent resident or and no employees are committed. Can I ask why, given that the, our own Noosa Plan, home based definition includes three, actually three employees, why was that condition put in, if it can be overridden by the Noosa Plan? Patrick Murphy 18:20.657
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 community interest into the potential impacts of this use. So at that time that condition was included. It's noteworthy that the applicant didn't seek to appeal that condition in light of the allowances within the scheme. Amelia Lorentson 19:07.554
Thank you. Thanks for all my questions. My recollection was that was all that was applied for at the time. Brian Stockwell 19:14.489
As I mentioned, Councillor Finzel has joined us online, although not part of the committee. You can ask questions and you have your virtual hands up, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 19:24.102
You, Mr Chair, the for 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 the impact 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 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. Amelia Lorentson 20:18.073
How do we go do about looking Karen Finzel 20:19.734
At the possibilities of the fence to mitigate impacts? Richard MacGillivray 20:27.327
Councillor, there is an existing fence that exists at the moment. The employees will be coming 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 and confirmed it's not audible from outside the building so it's extremely 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 driveways. 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 a fence replacing an existing fence will address a anything apart from cost of a lot of money without any additional added benefit I Karen Finzel 22:05.884
Think Thank you. For your response um just on the matter though it could despite what you've answered the question around vegetation um could that condition be put forward under the planning Richard MacGillivray 22:21.783
Scheme the condition for a fence a new fence 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 existing fence and replace with a new fence and that that's our responsibility from an assessment point of view to make sure conditions are reasonable and relevant in relation to the proposals being considered so yes so be our advice to Council to consider. Karen Finzel 22:58.933
Thank you to 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 23:10.886
Yes civil arrangements with neighbours exist at all times regarding boundary fences and party fences and walls and things like that absolutely. Karen Finzel 23:21.254
Thank you and if I may Through the Chair just one last question please. Thank you just to clarify all home base from a state perspective is now code-assessable. Can you talk to me a bit about what that means in terms of staff eligibility on site for home-based business? Patrick Murphy 23:48.936
There was a recent amendment. To the planning regulations late last year which prescribed that all home base businesses will be code-assessable. There's also a provision within the regulations that says a planning scheme can't limit the number less of people on than two. So they set up an outcome saying that two is the minimum number, 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 allow for more. Does that answer the question? Karen Finzel 24:39.005
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. Amelia Lorentson 24:50.001
Thank you. Brian Stockwell 24:51.285
If there's no further questions, Councillor Lorentson, you indicated you'd like to move this item to General Committee. General, please, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 25:00.099
Yes. Due to the significance, of the matter. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 25:06.327
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. We now move 8, which is reports for noting, and it is just the one. Our planning application was decided by delegated authority. Patrick, can you run through a review on this one? Patrick Murphy 25:33.499
Yes, I can do. Thank you, Councillor. So the report details those applications that were decided under delegated authority for December 2024. You'll note there were 39 under delegation. 38 of those were in approval. There's one application decided by Council which was approved. And then there's an addendum to the report which details all the relevant applications. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 26:03.371
I do. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Yes, go on. Exemption certificates. Richard, can you explain, I've done a little bit of research on it, but I don't think I've ever seen Exemption certificates appear under our delegated authority, decisions by delegated authority. Can you explain exemption certificate and what circumstances or under what conditions were they released? Patrick Murphy 26:36.271
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 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, that there were of changes to the scheme which were 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 landslide hazard overlays for requiring an 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 to be issued. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 28:16.965
I noticed the one refusal for a land variety, Mr heads, was amending the number of bedrooms to existing value in SDPA. Patrick Murphy 28:28.046
Stan joom problem area. So material change use was original. Brian Stockwell 28:32.752
Is that? Was it just increasing the size of the house or was it something else that was refused? Patrick Murphy 28:38.808
That house had quite a history. It was approved, significant size house, and after they got an approval for the Material Change of Use in the Stan joom problem area, they put an application in for multiple dwellings which was refused. Subsequent to that there appears to be conversion of the dwelling into multiple dwellings. There was some compliance history going back quite a number of years. This appears to have raised its head again more recently. The applicant sought to Resolve the matter by doing some works to the dwelling to change it from a six bedroom to nine bedroom dwelling. But review of the plans still identified that it was multiple dwellings. So that application has been refused and we'll be undertaking communication with. Them about converting the dwelling back to a dwelling, noting that it has recently sold and there is an owner likely to make modifications to the dwelling. Has there been any short-term levy approvals over that site? No, there was a short-term levy application made, and that's been refused. Brian Stockwell 29:51.570
And the last one for me was the change to the Kabi road application. Other changes include an undefined use? Patrick Murphy 30:02.102
Which page? The very last one. That was the one. That actually should not be on the report, so I hadn't picked that up. That's the. Decision we made that's the Council decision so apologies decisions. For that. Should not be on the report. Brian Stockwell 30:21.426
So, does it make any difference to the recommendation? It probably doesn't, does it? Unidentified Speaker 30:30.030
That's was the name and title of the report, wasn't it? Patrick Murphy 30:35.096
That's right. From the original, because it was a change. But I think Stockwell is saying the Councillor report is featuring a list of delegated. Unidentified Speaker 30:43.094
Oh, yeah, it wasn't delegated, yeah. It needs to be removed. Brian Stockwell 30:48.542
So I'll move an amended. Amelia Lorentson 30:56.510
Resolution? I'm sorry to say, yeah. I'm not sure I'll be able to do this for you. Is this something you'd like to talk about? Brian Stockwell 31:10.103
And as written, Patrick went to the report with the deletion of MP20MCU, other changes. To approval impact. Yes. Of MP20MCU. And NP20. Sorry yeah yeah, 20MCU. Actually, just say, rather than want to tell you to come up, 12637DA-59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba. Not there. Is that OK? Yeah, OK. And do I have a second for that? Councillor Wegener, does anyone else wish to discuss the resolution? Do you have a question? No. OK, I've put the resolution. Those in favour? Unidentified Speaker 32:19.600
We do second it. Yes. Are you seeing that? Amelia Lorentson 32:23.104
Sorry. Yeah, no, you were saying that I was listening. Cancel Stockwell meeting. Thank me too, yeah. You. Yes. That's unanimous. Brian Stockwell 32:35.921
OK. So the next item on the agenda is a matter report for consideration. In, get the right words, in confidential session. It's about a Environment Levy proposed land purchase. So can I have someone to move that we close the meeting to the public. That motion moved, thank you. I'll go to Councillor Lorentson and second to Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Karen Finzel 33:09.413
Yes. That's unanimous and we'll just wait for the. Brian Stockwell 01:02:17.740
Okay, welcome back. The meeting is now reopened to the public and I will move the staff recommendation that Council note the report that the development assessment managers are planning in the borough committee meeting 11 February 2025 regarding. That's the wrong recommendation. That's the wrong oh, sorry. 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 & Environment Committee dated the 11th of 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 by Council place purchased a nature refuge over the property and manage the property to maintain and enhance its environmental values. Do I have a seconder? I'll be to second, thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I think all the discussions will help me. I don't need to talk to the motion. Does anyone else wish to talk to the motion? No? I put the vote. All those in favour? Amelia Lorentson 01:03:31.318
Yes, thank you. That is unanimous. Larry Sengstock 01:03:34.433
Okay, thank you Dave, thank you Ben. And Brian Stockwell 01:03:39.164
That brings us to the end of brings us to the close of the meeting, so at 10:33 we close the plan and grant meeting for this month. Thank you all. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
