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 00:05.040
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 00:43.195
Yes I can, loud and clear. Good morning. Larry Sengstock 00:45.695
And Mayor Frank Wilkie is overseas as well, but he's gone online, so he's an authority. For this meeting. So that's our attendance. This is now to, I just need to appoint an alternate Chair for this morning so I can hand I nominate Brian Stockwell. Do you like to be seconded? Amelia Lorentson 01:07.973
Happy to be seconded. Larry Sengstock 01:10.013
Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Lorentson, you you're you very much, Mr. President. Favour? Thank all in favour? Thank you, Mr. Brian Stockwell 01:20.232
CEO. So, the first item on the agenda is confirmation of minutes. Do we have somebody who'd like to move those? 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 MCU21/0154.02. There's an application for 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, Andrew 02:05.643
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 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 facade. 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 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 involves collecting harvesting deer bringing that back to the 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 change to, a deletion of one of the conditions which limits no employees at the site such that he can employ up to habit an additional two persons at the site to assist him with that yeah that's sort of a workload he is also requesting to extend or he had requested to delete 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 additional number of people site have been assessed to be considered to be manageable in accordance with the Home-based business tolerances for a number of people involved within the rural residential zone and is recommended for approval. Brian Stockwell 04:30.076
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? Amelia Lorentson 04:42.996
Um, would you-- Oh, I can't. Okay, yeah. Tom Wegener 04:46.240
A just had quick question, one my 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, there's just a difference between authorised and entitled. Yeah. Just that slight, correct. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 05:08.422
Just a few questions, and mainly arising from 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 meat processing facility from the neighbour's fence or boundary line from uh the actual I think you've you mentioned it but you're just a little bit vague, I can't hear you very clearly. Andrew 05:48.328
I guess the actual distance between dwelling and the actual meat processing facility would be approximately 50 metres. I would have to probably come back it with an exact dimension from the boundary of the site to the shed. Amelia Lorentson 06:10.390
That's I would appreciate that Andrew for the General Committee. That would be great. In terms of the extra to 2 employees, you mentioned that 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 And is that a consideration for this application? Andrew 06:41.358
The number of car movements would involve, maximum basically two staff arriving at site the in the morning within the permitted hours of operation of the Home-based business which is between 8:00 and 5:00pm. So that 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 o'clock 3 o'clock the idea of having the people of 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 course of a day four movements. Amelia Lorentson 07:35.096
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 been investigated? Patrick Murphy 08:02.327
Mind just that complaints are protected under privacy. I'm not sure how I can answer this question. Richard MacGillivray 08:10.525
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 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 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 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 this particular operation minimised to the maximum extent so it doesn't cause an adverse impact on amenity. Does that assist at all without Amelia Lorentson 09:30.166
No, I appreciate it does. Again, I'm just referencing an email sent to all the Councillors. Again, it goes back to just how do we monitor and 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 trafficking traffic and noise? Richard MacGillivray 10:06.953
My comment, Councillor, would be that the Home-based business code provides some tolerances for activities and obviously in the rural and residential zones. 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, 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 assessed have considered those impacts to be minimal, but have required some conditions there to ensure that 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 however often will respond to concerns or issues raised by the public and investigate and take appropriate action in relation to complaints breached of breaches that have been identified or detected. That's Amelia Lorentson 11:36.689
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 11:59.024
Councillor, the approval allows the owner to harvest deers once uh a week um I've been that from discussions with the owner the areas which in the deer is collected is west of Gympie and 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 1:00am. Patrick Murphy 12:41.445
Processing it's a little bit uncertain to confirm exactly when that can happen so there is a condition on the approval that authorised the process the 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 12:55.130
I just have one with the suggestion that I'll go with sunset. 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? Is that too far? Patrick Murphy 13:14.620
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. You 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 13:44.616
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. 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. Yes, I believe that was. The neighbour Councillor, not the applicant, for this application. Oh excuse me. No, excuse me, you're correct, yes. Andrew 14:42.781
That's right. I mean, there's an existing sort of buffer landscaping area on the southern side of the driveway, I believe there's some additional landscaping within the neighbours' side. Neighbour's property along that sort of. That driveway boundary. There has been some planting added to that landscape buffer by the owner, which was 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 might assist with thickening up and making that completely sort of visually separate. Amelia Lorentson 15:45.825
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? Monitored? And is that considered I once again, Councillor Lorentson, you may have meant to say the neighbour had written to us excuse me, the neighbour. Apologies, the neighbour. Richard MacGillivray 16:27.676
I'll respond to that, Councillor. So staff will assess the application 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 they within fall the. Tolerances, is, 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 the scheme is seeking to achieve in terms of desired outcomes. 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 17:40.040
I have got one more question. I'm just referencing the original permit. And we've got conditions that says very quite clearly that the approved use must be operated and conducted. By permanent resident or and no employees are committed. Can I ask why given that the our own Noosa Plan home base definition includes three up to three why was that condition put in if it can be overridden by the Noosa Plan? Patrick Murphy 18:20.355
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 and 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 19:06.969
Thank you thanks all my questions my recollection was because that was all that was applied for at the time Brian Stockwell 19:12.869
Yeah um as I mentioned Councillor Finzel has joined us online although not part of the committee can ask questions and you have your virtual Karen Finzel 19:23.840
You Mr Chair for the acknowledgement indictment 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 the request from the around the possibilities possible 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 it's not sufficient, not sure how we measure those impacts. Do we go about looking at the possible. Richard MacGillivray 20:26.485
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 operations 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 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 anything apart from cost a lot of money without any additional added benefit I think Karen Finzel 22:05.777
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 Richard MacGillivray 22:23.317
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 and replace with a new fence and that 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. That's Karen Finzel 22:58.147
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 23:10.466
Yes, a civil arrangements with neighbours exist at all times regarding boundary fences and party fences and walls and things like that absolutely. Karen Finzel 23:20.586
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 23:47.890
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 of people on less than two. So they set up an outcome saying that two is the minimum number, sorry 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 24:38.500
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 24:49.480
Thank you. If there's no further questions, Councillor Lorentson, you indicated you'd like to move this item to General Committee. January. Please, thank general, yes. To the significance, of the matter. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. And Councillor Wegener, would you like to second it? Has seconded it. And I don't believe we'll need any discussion. All those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, Sarah. 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 25:33.419
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 that there we 39 decisions that were made by officers 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. Brian Stockwell 25:58.908
Thank you. Do we have any questions? Amelia Lorentson 26:03.449
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 26:35.987
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 an allowance under the Planning Act 2016 for to Council to issue what 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 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 that there were a couple 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 end 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 2016 allows for an exception certificate to be issued I noticed the one refusal for a land variety which it is was amending the number of bedrooms to existing value in SDPA stand room problem area okay so Material Change of Use and what is that? Was it just increasing the size of the house or was it something else that led to this review? 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 sand room 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 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 about converting the dwelling back to a dwelling noting that it has recently sold and there is a owner likely to make modifications to the dwelling no there was a short-term letting application made and that's been refused Brian Stockwell 29:48.728
Okay and the last time for me was the change to the Kabi Rd application other changes include an undefined what was the underpined use? Which page? The very last one. Patrick Murphy 30:08.316
Which that's actually should not be on the report so I hadn't picked that up that's the Council it's a decision so apologies for that and that Brian Stockwell 30:20.105
So does it make any difference to the recommendation? It probably doesn't, does it? Richard MacGillivray 30:26.006
That's how it stands that was the name of the title of the report wasn't it? Patrick Murphy 30:34.766
That's right. From the original because it was a change. But I think Councillor Council Stockwell stop we're is saying the report stockworth's that's proof is be charring a list of delegated. Richard MacGillivray 30:43.006
Oh I'll yeah it wasn't delegated yeah it needs to be removed. Brian Stockwell 30:47.886
So I'll move an amended done. And as written, packet one for the report, with the deletion of NP20MCU, other changes. To approval impact. Yes. Sorry, MP20? Yeah, N, T. Of MP? Yeah, 20MCU, actually just rather more a 10, comma, 12637DA, 59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba. Not there. And do I have a second for that? Councillor Wegener, does anyone else wish to discuss the resolution? Do you have a question? No, I'm not. Okay, I've put the resolution. Those in favour? SPEAKER_04 32:19.111
We do second it. Yes. Oh, you didn't second Amelia Lorentson 32:22.891
Sorry. Yeah, no, you were saying that I was listening. Councillor Stockwell mentioned, yeah. Thank you, yes. Brian Stockwell 32:30.941
That's unanimous. Okay, so the next item on the agenda is 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 seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous and we'll just wait for the. Brian Stockwell 01:02:17.500
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 recommendation. 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 by report by the senior conservation partnerships officer to the Planning & Environment Committee dated the 11th of February 2025 and authorised the CEO to a commence negotiations with owners or their agent regarding purchase of the property as detailed B, if purchased by a Council place a Nature Refuge over the property and c manage the property to maintain and enhance its environmental values. Thank you very much. I'll be to second. Thank you. I think all the discussions will help me. I don't need to talk to the motion. Does anyone else wish No? I put the vote. All those in favour? Yes, thank you. That is unanimous. Okay, thank you Dave, thank you Ben. And that brings us to the end 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
