Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 6 May 2025
Date: Tuesday, 6 May 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:13:16
Synopsis: Housing Incentives adopted: fee waivers, secondary-dwelling charges scrapped, Fiscal Impact limited to infrastructure revenue, Resort Change minor: odour/bushfire addressed, referred, STA Outreach shifts stock.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie: Led adoption of a suite of incentives to catalyse social/affordable housing: rate donations for eligible NFPs, fee waivers for affordable rental components, pre-lodgement concessions, revised infrastructure charge rebates for eligible community orgs, removal of secondary dwelling charges from 1 July 2025, and explanatory guidance (Item 7.1; 05:16–08:29, 16:10–16:58). Rowena Skinner: Clarified private developments providing ≥10% affordable rentals receive pro‑rata DA fee and infrastructure charge waivers for that component; NFPs proposing wholly affordable rentals receive broader fee/charge relief (Item 7.1; 07:26–07:50). Anita: Estimated foregone secondary-dwelling infrastructure charges ~A$300k/yr at ~40 approvals/yr; noted most councils do not levy such charges, and secondary dwellings cannot be strata‑titled, preserving long‑term rental utility (Item 7.1; 08:29–09:21). Larry Sengstock: Stated infrastructure charges are a restricted revenue “bucket,” not usable for wages; waivers reduce future infrastructure funding but not operational budgets (Item 7.1; 12:02–13:51). Amelia Lorentson: Sought assurance that secondary dwellings will meet character, bulk, and parking controls; officers confirmed standard planning and parking parameters apply (Item 7.1; 10:15–11:14). Patrick Murphy: Noosa Springs resort change deemed a “minor change” under Planning Act as it reduces impacts: rooms 106→69, pool 1100→400 m², site cover −12.1%, gross floor area −21.4%, Pavilion 5 deleted (Item 7.2; 28:01–33:15, 56:26–59:00). Patrick Murphy: Odour siting complies with 2.5 odour units (99.5 percentile); separation to STP increased 270→302 m; guest-facing “odour alert” condition removed after discussions with Unitywater/applicant; complaints management to be conditioned (Item 7.2; 49:16–53:51). Will: Bushfire risk reduced: setback extended to achieve radiant heat flux Patrick Murphy: Parking unchanged at 250 formal spaces (+38 overflow) despite room reduction, meeting consultant-calculated demand (Item 7.2; 58:57–59:10). Patrick Murphy: Resort waste collection to continue daily from loading dock; operational works phase to refine volumes and design (Item 7.2; 44:27–47:44). Committee: Referred the resort item to General Committee due to significance (Item 7.2; 27:16–27:59, 01:03:02–01:03:16). Patrick Murphy: Noted 37 delegated decisions in March (35 approvals, 2 refusals), largely residential; a large shed near a boundary was refused (Item 8.1; 01:08:53–01:12:38). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Questioned timing and fiscal prudence of fee waivers amid industrial action risk and tourism funding pressures; CEO confirmed limited operational budget impact but real loss to future infrastructure funding (Item 7.1; 11:14–13:51). Anita: Acknowledged some residents build secondary dwellings “under the radar” to avoid charges; waiving charges expected to improve compliance and transparency (Item 7.1; 14:46–15:10). Patrick Murphy: Removal of guest odour-warning condition may reduce informed consent; offset by complaints management, filtration and siting compliance (Item 7.2; 49:16–53:51). Committee: Chose General Committee referral for the resort given community sensitivity on odour, bushfire, traffic and ecology (Item 7.2; 27:16–27:59). Frank Wilkie: Emphasised incentives deliver on the unanimously adopted Housing Strategy following community consultation (Item 7.1; 20:16–20:40). Legal / Risk Brian Stockwell: Declared a declarable conflict per Local Government Act 2009 Ch 5B and left for Item 7.1; returned post-vote (Item 7.1; 02:00–02:51; minutes 7.1). Patrick Murphy: Minor change test applied per Planning Act/DA Rules; changes reduce impacts, introduce no new uses/referrals, and maintain lawful right for future change applications (Item 7.2; 32:25–35:41, 36:18–36:42). Patrick Murphy: Odour nuisance from STP regulated under Environmental Protection Act; not reasonable or relevant to condition resort to fund STP upgrades; resort to bear filtration/complaints duties (Item 7.2; 49:16–53:51). Richard MacGillivray: Conditions include carbon filtration and operational constraints to meet “reasonable and relevant” test; operational works to finalise technical details (Item 7.2; 52:46–53:51, 46:57–47:44). Patrick Murphy: Zoning not metes-and-bounds; ground‑truthing via odour/biodiversity/bushfire assessments; potential future scheme amendment to align zoning lines with approved footprint (Item 7.2; 37:20–41:18). Short Term Accommodation / Housing Supply Amelia Lorentson: Urged outreach to vacant/STA owners to shift to permanent rentals; staff noted >300 STA approvals relinquished and ongoing monitoring via local law and rates processes; Mayor open to further letters (Item 7.1; 20:40–24:33). Richard MacGillivray: Some properties retain interchangeable use rights; monitoring integrated into housing program; no new/additional STA allowed under current scheme (Item 7.1; 22:31–23:52). Patrick Murphy: High‑end resort supply may reduce reliance on premium holiday homes, potentially freeing residential stock indirectly (Item 7.2; 01:03:41–01:04:49). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Scheme Administration Patrick Murphy: Resort GFA within tourist accommodation zone capacity (~10,000 m² of ~15,000 m² permitted); urban boundary snapped around tourist zone; site within SEQ Urban Footprint (Item 7.2; 56:26–58:57, 01:02:12–01:02:40). Brian Stockwell: Sought intent to amend zoning boundaries to reflect approved footprint; officers can draft wording and address in future scheme reviews (Item 7.2; 39:05–40:04). Patrick Murphy: Biodiversity overlay intrusion reduced 1,562→727 m²; rehabilitation/voluntary offsets retained; tree loss quantification pending (Item 7.2; 41:18–42:04). Environmental & Amenity Concerns Patrick Murphy: Waste collection frequency unchanged but duration slightly longer due to more bins; noise comparable to existing operations and surrounding estate traffic/deliveries (Item 7.2; 47:30–49:04). Amelia Lorentson: Queried construction staging impacts on existing businesses (Pilates, tennis, café); officers to seek applicant detail; tennis to resume when safe and courts delivered (Item 7.2; 54:47–56:21). Kim Rawlings: Rate donation applies only to general rates; levies (e.g., waste/heritage) still payable, preserving service funding lines (Item 7.1; 16:33–16:58). Conflicts of Interest Brian Stockwell: Declared a declarable conflict due to an outstanding infrastructure charge on his dwelling related to a potential secondary dwelling; exited before discussion/vote and returned post‑decision (Item 7.1; minutes 7.1; 02:00–02:51, 09:58).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 6 May 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 6 MAY 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.30 AM. 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 Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Nil. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegner The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 8 April 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 MAY 2025 7. REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1. HOUSING STRATEGY - FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR SOCIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Stockwell provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Stockwell, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I am currently constructing a dwelling house and have been issued with an Infrastructure Charges Notice, as a component of the structure has been deemed to be capable of being used as a secondary dwelling. As this payment is outstanding, awaiting an imminent final inspection, it may be perceived that I have a potential bias. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. At 9.33 AM Cr Brian Stockwell left the meeting. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 May 2025 regarding financial incentives for development of social and affordable housing, and A. At Council's next review, clarify in the General Rate Donation Policy that notfor-profit organisations providing crisis or emergency transitional housing or affordable rental premises are eligible to apply for up to 100% donation on general rates on such accommodation; B. For private residential developments that include a component of affordable rental premises, waive the development application fee for Material Change of Use applications for the component of affordable rental premises as defined in the proposed amendments to Noosa Plan 2020; C. Waive the pre-lodgement meeting administration fee for not-for-profit community housing providers and allow for reimbursement of up to 50% of the pre-lodgement administrative fee where other applicants proceed to formally apply for a development permit for a proposal including affordable rental premises; D. Adopt the revised Council Policy on Infrastructure Charges Rebates for Eligible Community Organisations provided as Attachment 1; E. Remove reference to secondary dwellings from Council's Charges Resolution and cease issuing charge notices for secondary dwellings from 1 July 2025; and F. Prepare explanatory material which will guide applications on the changes outlined in recommendations A-E above. Carried unanimously. At 9.58 AM Cr Brian Stockwell returned to the meeting. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 6 MAY 2025 7.2. FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - RESORT COMPLEX AND ANICILLARY BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, AND CLUB (MINOR EXTENSION TO EXISTING CLUBHOUSE) AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.2 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 – MARCH 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 May 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for March 2025 as per Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.44 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.080
Everyone to the planning and environment meeting. I declare the meeting now open at 9:30. I'd like to begin firstly with an Acknowledgement to Country. I respectfully acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people as the Traditional Custodians of the waters that formed the region that we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to elders, past, present and emerging and welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. Attendance and Apologies. Welcome Mayor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Tom Wegener. I've got to remember your surname. Welcome. I note there are no apologies. And we have. Councillor Finzel online. She's joining us as an observer. My first request before the meeting starts is that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off and I also would like to obligations under the Local Government Act. She talked respectfully to staff and each other. We'll start with a confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder, please? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, seconder, Councillor Wegener. No discussion. Will win over, thank you. Presentations and deputations. There are none, so we'll go straight to item seven, reports for consideration of the meeting, and we'll start with item 7.1, Housing Strategy. Financial Incentives for Social and Affordable Housing. Welcome Anita and Rowena Skinner. To the desk. It's a long weekend. Can I ask if you can just give us a summation of the report? Before we- do, I've got a conflict. Brian Stockwell 02:00.699
Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I declare a conflict of interest in this matter as I am currently constructing a dwelling house and have been issued with an infrastructure charge notice as a component of the structure has been deemed to be capable of being used as a secondary dwelling. As this painting is outstanding, awaiting an imminent final inspection, it may be perceived that I have a potential bias, therefore I will choose to as a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered at that time. Amelia Lorentson 02:52.203
I'll now ask for estimations as to the reporting on us. Anita Lakeland 02:56.841
Three years ago, this Council channelled the significant unanimous concern about the housing crisis into the preparation and adoption of the Housing Strategy, stating council's commitment to ensuring there is the right amount of housing of the right type and size in the right place and with the right tenure for our community. Since 2022 the housing crisis has only worsened both locally and nationwide. Noosa Shire has a limited amount of developable land unlike local governments with significant expansion areas. Noosa must achieve optimum outcomes from properties already within the urban boundaries, close to existing services, employment and transport. Amendments to the planning scheme to facilitate a greater number of smaller dwellings while protecting the environment and residential amenity the community values have been proposed and modified following community consultation. They await ministerial approval. Local developers and builders are encouraged to partner with the not-for-profit sector and develop and deliver a portion of affordable rental housing. They will not do this if it does not stack up financially and land costs and building costs are already very high exclusive of Fees and Charges. It is preferable to see applicants follow the normal local development assessment process and abide by the planning scheme rather than bypass local government in favour of a cheaper state facilitated assessment with reduced community input small secondary small dwellings provide permanent rental accommodation or the means for extended families to stay together they are probably the most sustainable form of development and removing the infrastructure charge will increase their popularity and improve transparency this report may makes recommendations around Council development application fees, infrastructure charges and rates for social and affordable housing as well as secondary dwellings in line with the Housing Strategy. Amelia Lorentson 05:11.278
Thank you. Questions from the Councillors or the Mayor? Frank Wilkie 05:17.321
Thank you very much. Report. Could you expand on some of the concessions being proposed to be given to applications that contain components of affordable housing? Anita Lakeland 05:33.938
Yes. We are proposing that when a not-for-profit community housing proposes a multiple dwelling development or a housing development which is entirely affordable rental premises that there would be there would be a waiving of the development application fees and that infrastructure charges would be postponed for indefinitely as long as the resultant housing remain affordable rental premises. We're also proposing to remove the infrastructure charges payable on a compliant secondary dwelling and we are moving forward looking to recommending that a rates donation also be provided to not-for-profit or organisations that are providing affordable rental premises. Frank Wilkie 06:49.267
Just on that, are there already rates donations being applied to some of these organisations? Anita Lakeland 06:55.582
There are. It is a little inconsistent at the moment and part of this process would involve communication which makes it clearer for eligible organisations for what they could and not apply for. Frank Wilkie 07:23.041
Proposing developments in the emergent time and compounded with the rule of the hand. Anita Lakeland 07:27.439
So for developers who, for-profit developers who are interested in doing a component of affordable rental 10 premises such% of their development or the Fees and Charges and infrastructure charges would be waived for that component of the proposal. Frank Wilkie 07:51.685
A pro rata concession. That's right. And judging you by said it this morning-- secondary lines play a significant part in addressing housing liability in fort bloom. Certainly. And it's proposed that we waive the infrastructure charges on that. How significant are the infrastructure charges for a single there day are Anita Lakeland 08:13.109
Several thousand on a secondary dwelling and secondary dwellings are small, they're typically no more than 65 square metres and they remain as either rental premises or as extended family members because they can't be separately titled, so they'll never be cut off and sold, so they are perpetually available as rental accommodation. If we're working on the figures we have at the moment, which is somewhere around 40 a year, maybe a bit more, then that amounts to around the $300,000 of infrastructure charges. Frank Wilkie 09:00.912
Infrastructure yeah, that's a happy guy, going pretty previously, that would do it or go in the interest of providing incentives for more secondary dwellings. Anita Lakeland 09:14.153
I can't find another Council that's charging infrastructure charges on secondary dwellings at the moment. Frank Wilkie 09:22.943
Some sense, a secondary dwelling can be perceived to be an extension of an existing house. Amelia Lorentson 09:28.441
Correct, yeah. Frank Wilkie 09:29.561
Yeah. Thank you. That'll do it for the time being. Thank you, Chair. Amelia Lorentson 09:35.001
Just a follow-up in terms of the secondary dwellings. Concerns. Been have raised just in terms of potential long-term impacts in terms of character, um, on in terms of character impacts living in some of the regions. There's also questions on whether or not they're truly going to be used for affordable housing. How are we proposing to regulate secondary dwellings? A, so they don't impact on character and B, to ensure they're actually used for their intended purpose. Anita Lakeland 10:17.142
Okay, they have to, in terms of built form, they still have to abide by site cover, GFA, height, setbacks, or all the normal parameters that a house would have to abide volleyball, by. Um, cow car parking has to be provided that is sufficient for both dwellings on site, so there needs to be at least two car parks there. In terms of their use, they are only approved just permanent residential. It's not allowed to be short-term let for instance. It's not allowed to be Airbnb Council is policing that. And regulating that through Richard's area and through the local law. Amelia Lorentson 11:15.453
So, in the report on the finance, you've given an estimate of what the may cost Council. $203,520 annually. A few questions on that. You made a question for given the potential impact of strike action and our upcoming tourism funding decision, is now the right time to be waiving fees and providing financial initiatives? Do we understand in terms of impacts on rates? Rights, what impact these will have compounded with all the other challenges that we have? Larry Sengstock 12:03.206
Okay, so my understanding is that the money is not, is actually foregone, such as rather than be an goes to infrastructure charges, which is a separate, I think it's not used for our normal operations of running our business, so it won't necessarily affect those parts of it, but certainly in terms of future infrastructure works that need to be done across the site, then that's buck of money will have less in it, there's no question about that, but that's a decision that we're putting to the Council to decide upon as to whether the incentive is enough that we can forego that money into our infrastructure charges. To the incentive for further secondary dwellings and further social housing, you know, it's just something that obviously is a strong demand at the moment, something that we're very conscious of trying to provide and it's our part that we can play in I guess this is what we're proposing, but again, it comes down to the decision, but in terms of the actual $300,000, it goes into our infrastructure charges, which is a separate bucket, doesn't necessarily affect our ongoing operations and business. Amelia Lorentson 13:19.658
So it comes out of not insuring? Larry Sengstock 13:23.437
No, it just doesn't go into it. It's just foregone revenue. From infrastructure charges. Money is used for, you know, and roads and that sort of thing. Frank Wilkie 13:38.676
Just a qualifying question by my Chair. So it's important to note that infrastructure charges cannot be used for. Wages. That's right. And so it really has very little bearing the on. System. Larry Sengstock 13:48.945
It in terms of other motions, it's not bearing on the system. A cost to Council. It is a foregone cost. So it's money that we just don't. We're not taking in to deliver our infrastructure in the future. But it does. Our infrastructure charges never do cover all of our infrastructure needs, to be honest with you. They're a top up, but they're never. Substantial enough to actually do the full. Amelia Lorentson 14:19.751
The full plan of there's so many good Tom Wegener 14:25.680
Questions A right off the top of my head, but we have the infrastructure charges, but there's quite a few other charges involved, like if you're on a rural block, if you're going to put in a second septic tank, and there's plumbing charges. Those aren't wrapped up in the infrastructure charges. Those are separate charges. Electricity charges and so forth. But still, $7,000 is a. 7,333 is a substantial amount of savings for somebody putting in a second well. Anita Lakeland 14:56.303
It could be cost prohibitive for them to do that. Particularly as that is an affordable extension of an existing home that arguably has already paid infrastructure charges. So it could be cost prohibitive and we're finding that some of them are going under the radar because of that. A transparency that they're actually doing a secondary dwelling to avoid the cost and that in itself takes Council resources to chase up and check and confirm. I think additionally in relation to your question tourism and hospitality of the tourism and hospitality sector as well as Council employees will all benefit from additional affordable rental prices. Amelia Lorentson 15:43.123
The nature of them at 65 square metres that in itself means how much you can actually rent a what's happening so, in terms of actually achieving our intended purpose, which is affordable counselling, I think I agree with the secondary problems. We've got our best chance with secondary problems. Further questions? Are on the table. Frank Wilkie 16:11.286
Just for the benefit of those who may be listening, the donations policy is quite an interesting take on paying breaks. Could you talk about how that works, please? It's essentially the waiving of breaks for not-for-profits. Correct. It's seen as a donation by the government to those organisations. That's correct, isn't it? Amelia Lorentson 16:32.369
That's correct. But it's effectively a waiving of that. Yeah. The rate is still noted. Anita Lakeland 16:42.235
Still noted and allocated, but then a matching donation is made to the organisation. And it is only the general rate, so any levies, waste levies, heritage levies, anything else that's applicable is still paid. Frank Wilkie 16:57.507
Yeah. Madam Chair, unless anyone wants to move to general. Amelia Lorentson 17:01.670
I have a few more questions if that's okay. My next question is have we done enough to address financial barriers for affordable and social housing and are we looking at perhaps streamlining processes to make package more, encouraging for, any developers? Anita Lakeland 17:25.320
That's something we can look at down the track at the moment. It's, a difficult thing to restore. And I couldn't, it's out of my area to make a commitment to resource streamlining of development assessment. But, you know, stay 12 months down the track if, uh, the relevant Director has, looked at their resources and thinks it's possible we might look at that as well. Amelia Lorentson 18:00.569
And in terms of consultation, um, have we consulted or will we consult if we're looking at streamlining processes? Will we engage with our, um, businesses and town planners, um, and community? Anita Lakeland 18:15.611
Yeah, we will do that. Um, we putting the Housing Strategy forward three years ago, um, we already said we were going to. Consider all these Fees and Charges and rates, and that went out to community engagement and, um, prior to the Housing Strategy. Being adopted. If we, look at, um, at further modifications to the development assessment process, that again would be something that we do in collaboration. The faith and the ministry. Amelia Lorentson 18:54.819
One of the recommendations here is that we do a communications package. Guidelines and fact sheets to accompany any of the changes that are made and discuss that to the relevant industry groups. Anita Lakeland 19:08.537
We're doing-- the Council will be remember that just a matter of two days ago or something, they looked at the monitoring of the housing situation and if we regularly monitor the situation and nothing is improving, then we will have to look at all of the latest housing cancer stuff. Tom Wegener 19:32.050
Will you be referring to the State, just if the state's looking at our housing, you know, going up, because they're demanding that population goes up, housing goes up. Is that what you were just referring to? Anita Lakeland 19:44.921
Referring to? I wasn't directly, but that is something that we have. Targets that the State applies in terms of our, the number of dwellings that need to be achieved. So we are monitoring yearly every year. Or every two years we'll probably be reporting to Council on how those dwelling targets are going. Tom Wegener 20:12.779
So this is a step in that direction? That's right. Frank Wilkie 20:17.156
So just to clarify what you said before, we're going to have to shy away from consultation on the Housing Strategy because the community said all levels of government fought to play a part in addressing the housing availability and affordability crisis. These actions were clearly articulated in the Housing Strategy and this is delivering on the Housing Strategy which was unanimously adopted by this Council. So thank you for the work. Thanks for pushing on with it. It's important. Amelia Lorentson 20:40.857
You. Be a little bit off track but I'm going to throw it in here as part of the Housing Strategy report. I'm just wondering have we gone out and written to all our STA and NT holiday. Empty holiday homes. Owners and ask whether or not they would consider going into the permanent rental pool given our affordable housing crisis. I know that last term, formerly, the clear right to. All the vacant and S.T.A. Home owners and I think within a period of 60 days or some short time frame, there were 60 homes that were brought into the permanent rental home pool. So has that been considered or have we gone back out? Anita Lakeland 21:31.246
We haven't gone out again, but we do monitoring. We monitor. There are always houses going, coming off the short stay sector are always and becoming permanent homes or becoming permanent renters. Obviously they're not going the other way now because that's not allowable under the planning scheme, but it's property to sell. The new owners have different intentions with the properties. Our messaging has been quite consistent for the last few years about no new or additional short-stay letting being supported. My I'm not sure that there would be value in writing to them again at this point, but individually, but certainly with the messaging that we put out. Amelia Lorentson 22:30.858
Through Patrick and richard's team as well and the local law, that's a really good monitoring process because as properties change ownership, we do, I guess, through the rates process, ask what their intention is and many are of coming off the STA that's the intention of the new owner either to give in it permanently or branch so that's one of the monitoring so it's kind of already happening but it also happens back the other way because you know there are those properties that have those interchangeable use rights as well but through the local process is one mechanism we're monitoring that and that Anita Lakeland 23:08.084
Will be brought into our Housing Monitoring Program as well. Amelia Lorentson 23:11.844
I'm probably thinking more of vacant homes so maybe some consideration for new Mayor Wilkie, maybe consider writing. The vacant homeowners. Frank Wilkie 23:20.828
Well I was going to say that as we heard as part of the operational review of the Local Law, over 300 short stay approvals have been relinquished by the owners for a variety of reasons. There's going to be a report to Council come on fines of the review if I understand correctly and I'm happy to write to again to any STA owners seeing what their intentions are to back up the work the staff are already doing. Anything they require me to do I'm happy to do in that regard. Richard MacGillivray 23:52.789
Certainly we're just noting in addition to that and to Neil walker's points about the number of more than 300 that have pulled out of STA since the recent work from the team, we also still have a number of those properties that we referred to previously that are still captured obviously from those original. Exemptions that they sort of applied for where we would involve a fee on the basis that they would be maintained for long term residential occupation. So there's still a number of still opted to pull out of allow people to confirm that they reside in those properties. Frank Wilkie 24:33.259
A letter is a light touch compared to the regulatory approach but I'm prepared to do what it takes. Yeah, I'm just saying that I letter is a light touch asking owners to consider doing that to help the greater good as opposed to a regulatory approach which has seen over 300 owners relinquish their approvals but I'm happy to write a letter. The thank you, any further comments from Council week 9? Happy to move it Madam Chair. I'm happy to second, thank you. As I said before, thank you for reporting the work that staff have done on this. You are doing the hard work in helping us deliver on the actions from the Housing Strategy which was unanimously endorsed by this Council. After shiawatra community consultation and it the weighting of these infrastructure charges, in particular the secondary dwellings, will help a great deal because you have responded to a lot of feedback that we have received about the nature of the infrastructure charges and how they see that as an obstacle to secondary dwellings, so thank you for your work. Amelia Lorentson 25:49.467
We keep saying this over and again, the housing crisis isn't going to fix itself, and doing nothing is not an option, so thank you to this Council for just keeping up the good fight. Thanks. Any further questions? Tom Wegener 26:06.279
Yeah I can answer that. When I bought my house, my first house, my only house, my gosh, that's $7,000. Grant from the government to the first home buyers grant, you know, actually may just swung the dial completely in favour of buying a house for us. So cash incentives do absolutely work. And I'm proud of our Council and good work for marching down this path with the Housing Strategy. And you've chosen the strategy of second houses and smaller dwelling houses and we're just following that path, aren't we? It's a really strong way to go and I'm just glad that we're sticking to that. You know, you take your course of action and you stick to it and March along and keep going. So this is great. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 27:00.228
No further discussion. All in favour please. Thank you. Thanks very much. Now go to item 7.2. Further report MCU21/0110 application for material change of this resort complex and ancillary bar, food and drink outlet. Outdoor sport and recreation and club. Minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads. Welcome back Councillor Stockwell. And welcome the desk, our planning staff. I will note that this report has been referred to the General Committee because of the significance of the matter. But I will just open it up to discussion and questions. You, Patrick, if you could give us a summary. Patrick Murphy 28:01.926
Thank you, Councillor. Mindful that it has been referred to the General Committee Meeting. I will provide an overview, but probably a bit more higher level than what I'll provide at the General Committee Meeting, if that's okay. This is a matter owing that's being on for a number of years now. The application received in 2021 and first reported to Council in July of 2023. At that time, the report addressed a range of issues including the site split zoning, the potential outer impacts of the nearby sewage treatment plant, bushfire risk ecology, car parking and built form. The officer recommendation was to approve the application. That wasn't supported by Council. There were some deputations that were made at that time by both residents and Unitywater. The matter was referred to the General Committee Meeting at which time a motion was put forward to refuse the application. As we got to the Ordinary Meeting, the clock was stopped. Again a decision that was not able to be made on the application at that time. It was again reported to Council in November of 2020-2023, a report. Again, recommending approval of the application. The matters that were proposed as grounds for refusal were further refined. There was no amended layout that was put forward at that time, and when it went to the meeting in November, the applicant actually made another change prior to Councillor deciding it. So again, Council wasn't able to decide the application because the other change application was made. So it reverted to the start of the process. A further report was put to Council in June of 2024, and that was considering the other change at that time, Council discussed the application. It was evident that there was still a lack of support for the proposal, is what it would appear, and then the applicant sought that the matter actually be deferred to a future Council meeting to enable them to consult with both Unitywater and the community members, which was undertaken and then in February of this year, February 27th of this year, a minor change application was made and that's the application that is now before you. That minor change has removed pavilion 5 which is the pavilion adjacent Resort Drive, made changes to the size of the swimming pool and some other sort of minor changes throughout the site and increasing one of the tennis court sizes, tennis courts is included. A reduction in height of the structures above the car park. There were further reports and addendums to reports that were provided by the applicant. So the report that's before you doesn't finalise the assessment of the other change because that was never determined by Council and that other change was an extension to the club building and the inclusion of the club use. It's the officers position officer's position that a rather inconsequential change to the development and is supported. The current minor change involving the deletion of the pavilion five, again supported by the noting the improved outcomes in terms of ecology, in terms of bushfire, in terms of impacts I suppose on the surrounding area in terms of the built form. So yeah in summary that's the nature of the report and how we've got there. Sorry importantly the change has reduced the scale of the development from a hundred and six bedrooms to sixty nine. Amelia Lorentson 32:03.374
The first question that's been asked or so from the community. How is the application today considered minor given the substantial or significant changes in terms of room sizes, scale and appearance of the project. Patrick Murphy 32:25.903
So a minor change is a term that's defined in the Planning Act and it sets out a number of elements to be considered. One of those is that it does not result in a substantially different development. There's other elements around that it doesn't include prohibited development or require referral for new ground. Or referral to extra referral agencies or require public notification if public notification wasn't previously required. I think the most relevant the aspect of those elements is the substantially different development and the DA rules prescribe those matters that may constitute a substantially different development. There needs to be consideration because as I said the definition refers to may be considered to be a substantially different development they are that involves a new use which this minor change does not reply results in the application applying to a new parcel of land which it does not dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale bulk and appearance now I think importantly when you're dealing with it a minor change or another change you're with a change it's not that it's not going to be the same there's going to be some difference about what is previously proposed and what's currently proposed and often that is in terms of built form it's not considered that this is a dramatic change in built form noting at that looking at just the resort element, that is the new structures that are proposed to be built, the reduction results in a 12.1% reduction in site cover. It's not a substantial change. And furthermore, a 21.4% reduction in gross floor area. It's acknowledged that it's a change, but it's not considered to be a dramatic change. It doesn't remove a component that is integral to the operation yes, it removes a wing, it rooms, but it's still operating as a resort, providing accommodation and ancillary facilities. Does it significantly impact on traffic flow in the transport network, such as increasing traffic well, it's actually reducing the impact of traffic to the site. Does it introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts? Again, the modification, the reduction does not do that. If anything, it reduces the impacts. Removes an incentive or offset component that would have balanced the negative impact of the development? No, it does not do that. And it impacts on infrastructure provisions. Again, the scaling back of the development does not do that. So in summary, they're looking through the criteria that's required to determine whether it's a minor change or another change. We're satisfied that it is a minor change. Amelia Lorentson 35:41.790
I'm just raising some issues raised in community. There's been a reduction of cruise numbers that the communal facilities have not decreased in size. The question I want to ask is can the applicant guarantee that there will be no further expansion beyond the current proposal and are there any legal and binding mechanism to enforce this guarantee? Patrick Murphy 36:18.889
I've not had those discussions with the applicant as to whether they intend to expand it in the future. We need to assess what's in front of us at this point in time, I'd suggest that there's no binding mechanism. To stop someone from their lawful right to seek a change to a development approval. Questions? Brian Stockwell 36:43.802
Yes, in the initial report we had the discussion around the impact of the mapped areas and the fact that they haven't been mentioned. Or haven't got any mentioned down descriptions around them. And the consequence of that, if it was ever going to appear, etc. in terms of how A planner should weigh that up with the intent of those zones. Patrick Murphy 37:21.205
It's a good question. And certainly the current planning scheme does not apply metes and bounds to the zoning. So the planning team acknowledges that the site is suitable for development and it acknowledges those uses that are preferred to occur. There needs to be an element of ground truthing that is applied in determining where those areas should be. That is what has happened the instance. It's my understanding that the zoning was applied initially to provide a separation between the sewage treatment plant and where the tourist accommodation use would occur. A significant aspect of the assessment of this development has involved ground truth in that regard in terms of odour modelling and as we've discussed at previous Council meetings the 2.5 odour unit line has been considered to be the line that is suitable for where development should occur. Notably the existing zoning protrudes outside that line. This development does not propose built form outside of the 2.5 odour unit line, it's brought it back inside the odour unit line. Importantly there's other aspects that also need to be considered around biodiversity, bushfire, yeah, those sort of matters also will determine where the footprint should be and we've also undertaken those assessments through this application. Brian Stockwell 38:49.213
And you A future amendment of designing map to reflect the approval. Would that be one way to achieve more certainty in terms of future uses as was the case? Patrick Murphy 39:05.922
That's again a good point. That is true. That could occur. And that actually occurred at a site such as karamar. Royal on Cooroy Noosa Road. I'm not sure if you remember when we did an addition to that site. That resulted in some modification of the zoning to align with where the uses were approved and also where those environmental values were identified in assessment. That. Brian Stockwell 39:30.965
Conditions brought out of that change? Or was that something we could have considered on the committee? Patrick Murphy 39:39.192
When you mean existing conditions? Brian Stockwell 39:40.965
Could we put in, well it wouldn't be conditions, sorry, it would be in the motion rather than the conditions. Intent to future members of the planning scheme to consider the desirable footprint and therefore the zoning boundaries which may then be able to be met and described? Patrick Murphy 39:59.374
That could be done and I could provide some draft wording if Councillors would like. Richard MacGillivray 40:05.420
I mean I would what say is that we with any review of our planning scheme and updates to our planning scheme we would be looking at any of those situations where there's no alignment I guess with particular you know boundaries between what's been approved or constructed in a period of time so obviously through the periodic scheme reviews they do look at the zoning line and make sure it's consistent with what's already approved or established whether that be a decision of Council or a decision of the court so there's an opportunity to do that with any of our future sort of planning scheme reviews to acknowledge that. Brian Stockwell 40:43.503
Now with the new design the final thing's been taken up so this is sort of like a triangular projection in the areas where the tennis courts goes a little bit further than where the tennis courts are already disturbed. Have you had a look at I think in the initial report there was some quantification of how many trees would have to go. Re-tuned that in terms of the new proposal as to what might be the impact? I know that you may have taken a small corner of a biodiversity overlay. Patrick Murphy 41:19.115
What we've been able to determine at this point is that the level intrusion in the biodiversity overlay has decreased from 1562 square metres to 727 square metres. Within that reduction, there are some paths that are still proposed, but the vegetation is. Be retained. I have sought further information from the applicant in terms of the specific number of trees. I'm just waiting for that further information. And just on that those elements of so rehabilitation and offset planting, voluntary offsets, is to remain as was originally proposed. That's all for me. Tom Wegener 42:07.979
To add to go on from brian's questions. So historically that there was an overall master plan for the springs area and then a chunk of it was sold off and I believe it was to alstom or parkridge, park ridge? Which one of the names is right? Well it's the park ridge development. Yeah the park ridge development and you just mentioned that the meats and bounds was in consideration of the smell line and the sewage treatment plant did and that sell-off of the other estate change the master plan thinking and then all of a sudden sort of forced the five-star hotel development to be closer to the sewage treatment plant? Patrick Murphy 42:54.726
So doesn't really come back to land ownership it was essentially what it was approved for that dictated how that was to be used and the there was two stages of that development two different approvals and the main element was done under a planning scheme which to allowed by the definition of multiple dwelling for those dwellings to be used for either permanent or short-term accommodation there was no limitation placed within conditions to only require it to be used for short-term accommodation and hence when it was developed it enabled you know the purchasers to use it for either permanent or short-term and as we found out it's been predominantly permanently occupied so so when the Noosa 2020 was developed it was identified that there was still a need for further resort accommodation within that location and the lot that we're currently reviewing as part of this assessment prior to the Noosa Plan 2020 it was all like a recreation and open space zoning and the Noosa Plan 2020 at that time was changed to bring in the tourist accommodation zoning to bring effect to a resort being provided within this location. Tom Wegener 44:14.212
Okay, so needs isn't reliant upon the former master plan it was always a remastered plan. That's correct. Patrick Murphy 44:25.589
That's correct. Amelia Lorentson 44:26.510
The waste management plan question is was there a discrepancy in the original application? The amended plan includes a waste management provision that seems a lot more than was contained in the original submission. Is that correct Patrick? Patrick Murphy 44:49.748
When the management waste was considered initially, it didn't drill down to the volumes of waste that would be generated. This is an application for a resort, it's not an application to dispose of waste. Think it's important to understand that. These land uses generate waste. We have resorts all throughout the Shire and what they're proposing here in terms of waste generation is not controversial. So, there was some discussion at a Council meeting. I was asked questions by a community member and provided some information which I sought from the applicant. It wasn't something that was readily provided as part of the application. Material again because we don't normally drill down into the details of waste generation what we're more concerned of is where is it to be provided where is that facility to be provided on site and is that is it functional can the trucks get in can they get out in a safe manner and are there going to be any amenity impacts resulting from that waste collection we've always been satisfied that is the case, that both those elements have been satisfied I did provide a response to a community member based on some advice I was provided by the applicant as an aside to a Council meeting the and did I suggest to the applicant when they made this further change to the application they should provide further detail about waste management and hence we've got a lot more detail and I suppose a lot more robust assessment of the waste generation the report that's been provided does note that it I wish I could find the exact wording it does it um that it supports the um the findings of the initial report that were provided that gave me the information to applicant but it's now used updated modelling from the Sunshine Coast Council for waste generation so I think that's part of the reason why there might be a discrepancy but notwithstanding it it's not controversial um and again we're satisfied with the methodologies and the location of waste collection. Richard MacGillivray 47:02.933
Collection and further details can be worked through operational work stage which is where the team focus on the detailed engineering and the elements of how to make that work at a detailed design phase so this is just as Patrick alluded to making sure it can work got sufficient space those impacts are managed appropriately and then the detailed work can be dealt with through the operational work stage. Amelia Lorentson 47:30.334
Will that also include garbage truck deliveries? Patrick Murphy 47:35.238
Yeah, so we've looked at where garbage trucks are to access the site and where to pick up the waste from. There's no change with this proposal. The waste collection is currently from the loading dock of the resort building that's on site and that's where it's going to continue. To occur from. So the applicant advises that there's waste collection every day. There would be no need to, currently occurring every day, there would be no need to increase the frequency of collections. There'll just be more bins that are collected at the times that they're there. So if there's more bins, is there more noise? It'll be the same level of noise, but it would occur for a slightly longer period of time. Noting that it's an existing activity that takes place, but it's also, you know, properties nearby also have other noise generating activities that occur around them in terms of vehicles that access along Resort Drive to, you know, to access the 140 odd dwellings that are within the park ridge estate and also activities of deliveries. Amelia Lorentson 48:54.214
Don't odour concerns. Complaints. If an odour complaint does arise, who's responsible for addressing them? Unitywater Council or the developer? Patrick Murphy 49:16.022
Well, if there's an odour complaint, it'll be in relation to the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant has a duty to not cause odour nuisance. It would be regulated under the EPA, the Environmental Protection Act. Notwithstanding, it is proposed to include a condition that has a complaints management procedure for the resort to deal with complaints from guests. So the idea would be that guests would first liaise with the hotel to manage those complaints. It was previously proposed to have a condition that alerted guests to the fact that they were near a sewerage treatment plant but with discussions with Unitywater and with the applicant was determined that condition should be removed to not alert guests to the fact that there might be some odour in the area. Again noting that the odour consultants have looked at this and determined that the building is sited in a manner that it achieves compliance with 2.5 odour units at the 99.5 percentile, which means that in our intervals 99.5 percent of the times from modelling that they've undertaken that the odour will not exceed that 2.5 odour unit measurement which is considered to be a tolerable level so 0.5 percent I think it equates to across a whole year potentially 40 hours while some of the facilities such as the pools and the tennis courts are outside and the tennis courts are outside that 2.5 odour unit line there have been conditions applied to limit the hours which they're used so that the level the time when that 2.5 odour unit concentration may be exceeded they're not being used and my understanding is the times when you're going to have a an odour impact is likely very early in the morning when I think that it's very still and low temperature and probably unlikely that people would be outdoors. Amelia Lorentson 51:34.045
So given that there's so much modelling done around this and 99.5% you know it'll be at a tolerable level is there an ability that we can condition the application requires the developer then to bear any risk or cost if there is a complaint and it does require future upgrades if we're so certain that it's not going to be an issue can that condition be included or a noting report? Patrick Murphy 52:06.237
I don't think it'd be reasonable to include it as a condition to require them to upgrade infrastructure for a sewage treatment plant the yes I'm not sure if I can get much touch me on beyond that. Amelia Lorentson 52:23.768
That probably and look and I don't disagree with that but I keep coming back to the question that keeps getting asked in community is who will bear the cost if on that 0.5% chance there is an issue. Our ratepayers bear the cost? Unitywater, just throwing that out. Richard MacGillivray 52:46.744
Well as technologies evolve even with wastewater treatment plants they're obviously getting more and efficient over time with the way that they operate. Obviously our experts have been looking at the odour and applied as Patrick mentioned a number of conditions which the applicant is required to include which includes things like a restriction of hours filtration must be installed so there's higher levels of filtration and the actual buildings required as part of it so there's a number of elements that have been included as conditions to ensure that the developer takes on a significant obligation to manage the likelihood of risk and then also the complaint management process as well that the resort would need to take people using the facilities to make them aware of that process if they do have any issues or pick up any odour at all so there's pretty good mechanisms in place that have been designed to meet the reasonable and relevant test conditions. Patrick Murphy 53:51.942
Also noting that the current proposal by the deletion of pavilion 5 has increased the separation from the sewage treatment plant infrastructure from 270 metres to 302 metres and there are other dwellings within proximity of the sewage treatment plant existing at the moment which would be within a similar radius from the infrastructure. Parkridge, since odeonotwine, line odour unit line, not like a straight line and depending on topography it further separation might actually be worse off depending so I know that there are a part of thinking is it the fairways not the ones that not the are near the loading dock with there's some other ones that are near on the golf course there we think what they're within the no they're within a similar distance not that I'm aware of Amelia Lorentson 54:53.402
I'm not sure if you can answer this question but again I'm just sort of researching a lot that has come to me through community. In terms of construction stage, if approval goes ahead, what does construction look like? And I say this in reference to the existing businesses, the pilates, the harry's. Tennis, etc. Will it be staged and will they be given the ability to continue with their business? Or is that a question I can just ask you offline? Patrick Murphy 55:33.352
Yeah, I'd probably need to get some details around that. I mean, the advice I've received from the applicant through the process that the to get in touch court patrons will be able to come back to the tennis courts and continue their lessons once it's safe to do so and once the new tennis courts have been constructed. The pilates studio, I've not received any advice from the applicant that is to be changed in any way. That's on a separate title of land adjacent to where the double story car park is proposed, but I could seek further information around that. Again, noting need to mindful of what we're doing. Of those aspects that we're assessing the application under. That is quite separate, I expect it. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 56:21.082
Thank further questions? You. Frank Wilkie 56:24.502
I a lot of my questions have been answered just listening to the councillors' questions. But just to clarify, the report says the zoning is not cadastral. I think that relates to what the questions that Councillor Stockwell was asking. Could you just clarify what you mean by 'not cadastral'? Patrick Murphy 56:43.393
So it would need to determine, say if it's a rectangle, the points of each element that rectangle. Of so it's fixed in terms of the survey as to where the boundaries of the zoning are. Again, in this instance, that hasn't occurred. So as you said before, the intention was when Tourism Accommodation Zone was added, that the open space rec zone was always to be on the STP side of the odour line. Frank Wilkie 57:19.349
And everything beyond that was meant to be tourist accommodation. And be ground-tripped. Patrick Murphy 57:23.792
It needed to be ground truth. And I think what the zoning has done and what we're hooked at is the amount of, say, GFA that should be provided through the extent of area that is currently Tourism Accommodation Zone. And this proposal does not exceed that GFA. It's I substantially think it's about 15,000 square metres that would be committed of GFA under the zoning, but currently it's around 10,000 that's been provided and that's not just the new resort building, that's all the existing facilities included within that as well. Frank Wilkie 57:55.234
Just to make sure I understand correctly, it is considered a minor change even though as you said there were some changes, significant changes made, a reduction of rooms from 106 to 69, reduction in pool size from 1,100 square metres down to 400 square metres. That's correct. So the impact is lessened. That's correct. So therefore it meets the definitions of minor change. And if the opposite were the case, were the rooms to be increased from the previous approved application from 69 to 106 and the pools drastically increased the in massage size. From 400 to 100, then that would not be considered a minor change. Patrick Murphy 58:35.040
That's correct. That's right and a number of those elements that are read out talked about increasing the impact and that would certainly be the case by increasing from 69 to 106 in terms of car parking and noise. Frank Wilkie 58:48.118
And car parking on site B, though the number of rooms have been reduced by 47, the number of car parks to be provided on site has remained the same, is that correct? Patrick Murphy 58:58.464
That's correct. 250 be formalised car parks which has been determined by our consultant to be the suitable number. I think it was 246 that was 246 that were required. There's also 38 additional car spaces provided by two overflow car spaces, areas yeah, of 19 car spaces each. Frank Wilkie 59:14.167
And since 2019 there is genuine concern in the community about fire risk. Some people are genuinely triggered by the thought of being trapped and again issues of fire safety have been raised by members of the community through emails from all Councillors at the seat. Can you explain how that's managed in this application? Patrick Murphy 59:37.819
I might defer to my expert here but just as an opening point noting that the impact or the potential impact of bushfires is reduced through the current proposal because the separation distance from the buildings to the hazardous vegetation has been increased but will can talk to us in a bit more detail about. Unidentified Speaker 59:58.274
Yeah, I'll just give you some more detail about that. So the original design needed to meet a minimum setback requirement to achieve a radiant heat flux of less than 29 kilowatts. That's the standard requirement. Which is a heat breaking is it? Correct. And that equates to a separate distance of 15.7 metres from the hazardous vegetation which is to the north of the site. The design exceeded this requirement by providing 21.9 metres and in its current form, the latest design, we've now extended that into an addition of. So 38.4 metres. So we've now increased the separation distance and now achieve a radiant heat flux of less than 10 kilowatts per square metre. So a significant benefit for the people using the sites. Frank Wilkie 01:00:46.424
There's also concern about the road network and its capacity to handle people wanting to locate in the instance of a fire. Can you talk us through what that is? Absolutely. Unidentified Speaker 01:00:56.906
So there's, in relation to Noosa Springs, there's a procedure in place to provide alternative evacuation routes from the estate, if required. One of those routes would take vehicles out onto Eenie Creek Road, the other would take traffic via Girraween Sports Complex and out to Eenie Creek Road from there, road both routes. For outs would only be implemented under the direction of Queensland police services or QPS. Frank Wilkie 01:01:19.851
So these egresses exist currently or they're just gated off? Correct. Patrick Murphy 01:01:24.490
And they will be open in the instance? It need be. It needs to be. And in terms of the hotel occupants, if there was a fire, there is, so they're now only subject to a heat rating, heat flux rating of 10 kilowatts, which is quite low. They could evacuate into the, their evacuation plan is to go into the existing resort building, which is further away from the fire risk. So they wouldn't be needing to leave the site. And if things got completely, you know, diabolical, they can go out onto the golf course as well. There's an area that's efficient for the residents to go to there. So, yeah. Thank you. Unknown 01:02:10.943
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:02:13.737
You mentioned your paper as law area. It just reminded me that the current SEQ Urban Footprint follows the map boundaries. But there is an allowance for resorts to be outside the urban footprint up to a certain DFA. From memory, is this well within that? Patrick Murphy 01:02:34.256
This is actually in the State urban footprint, the State map. It's our urban boundary that's within. Ah, okay. I knew there was something there within that then. Yeah, and it's our urban boundary that's within, stacked around the Tourism Accommodation Zone. And again, that was something that I, in my initial report, suggested that could be modified. Subject to assessment of this application. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:59.739
Any further questions? I'm happy to move it goes to general membership. Thank you. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. We'll move it to general. Oh, yes, Karen. Sorry, karen's here. Hey, Karen. You've got a question. Karen Finzel 01:03:16.979
Yes, good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, everyone, for the report and for the feedback this morning. It's provided a lot of clarity. I just have a question around, you know, the concerns of the community and the focus on affordable housing. Anywhere through the process, and I have raised this question previously, around the capacity for any on-site staff accommodation. Patrick Murphy 01:03:42.040
Up for any discussion? No, it hasn't formed part of the assessment of this application. I might need to come back to you, Councillor, just to get a clarity around where that would sit in terms of the table of assessment for Tourism Accommodation Zone, which does not seat for permanent residents. Residence, so that could be problematic. But I might just send you an email if that's okay, clarifying that point. I can send that to all Councillors. Richard MacGillivray 01:04:10.751
Councillor, one point that's of relevance, and probably doesn't directly answer your question, but as part of the resort, what it would do is generate additional supply for high-end tourists to accommodate in, which potentially then would lead to less reliance on high-end holiday homes, so you might find that you might get more housing available. As a result. Of tourist accommodation being taken up by a new resort, so there's a potential sort of overarching net benefit possible in that regard. Karen Finzel 01:04:49.362
Thank you. Just following on for that, could I just ask one more question, and I have raised it before. It's around the um disposable organic waste from the site um just wondering, would that be part of the detailed design phase of the waste management plan, or how would that be addressed? Patrick Murphy 01:05:08.706
Yes, it would generally be something that pursued through the operational works, more detailed design. I have raised it with the applicant, and so I would be seeking some feedback, and again, a General Committee Meeting may be able to provide you with some more specific details of their intent. In that regard. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:28.337
Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener? Tom Wegener 01:05:32.373
The question, just what you said there, Richard, about perhaps there won't be such a demand on the high-end STAs because you'll have this as a. Resort. And I've always worried about the airbnbs being able to lower their price just to absolutely keep going down and in price because it's a house where this is a very expensive, you know, very expensive resort. Are there any other levers that Council can pull to try to support people using this high-end resort and not using high-end houses in low residential neighbourhoods, low density neighbourhoods? Brian Stockwell 01:06:13.810
Just very close to being not on topic. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:17.549
Yeah very close. I will allow as the Chair I will allow the question just for discussion. Richard MacGillivray 01:06:24.697
Yeah look Councillor there are a number of different levers I guess in this regard and again trying to stay on topic the benefit of having specific tailored resort is it's zoned appropriately so zoned for the particular activity and the offering for guests and tourists is specific to what they're seeking as part of that holiday vacation so obviously all of that they provide is probably what the larger draw is to pull people out from say a residential area where there is less of the ancillary activities and opportunities and transport that can be provided by an integrated resort so that would I guess be the property strongest. Lever. There are other levers that Council is aware of around things like rates and other levies and things like that can apply but I would say in this particular case the draw is the fact is this is a very tailored customised resort designed to provide an overarching experience for guests which is really why it would draw people to the facilities and there may be a premium but as we know people are prepared to pay that if they get the particular experience they're looking for. Tom Wegener 01:07:35.078
You might include good golf tee times along with the package. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:41.794
So can I ask, we have got confirmation it is the boutique as well. Do we know the style rating? Is it going to be topped? Patrick Murphy 01:07:51.037
Yes. The initial report spoke about it being a 106-feet-and-5-star resort. I haven't received any advice that that's changing. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:59.413
Can we get confirmation, please, that we're generally meeting? Thank you. Don't think any further questions. We might. We've already moved it. No more discussion. All in favour, please. Thank you, will. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Richard. And we'll further discuss at General Committee next Monday. That brings us to reports for noting by the committee. Item 8.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Again, back at the desk, Richard and Patrick, if you can just run through the report in front of us. Patrick Murphy 01:08:53.373
Thank you. It's a monthly report detailing those applications that have been determined under delegation. As you'll see, there's 37 decisions there's 37 decisions that were made, 35 approvals and two refusals, with two applications decided by Council. Yeah, primarily applications relating to residential-type development. This month, additions to dwellings and new dwelling houses primarily being the form of development that was decided under delegation. Brian Stockwell 01:09:26.974
I've got one question. The two refusals are on one side of the proposal and it was refused by the referral agency at Cooroibah. I'm just interested, was that, for example, trying to move something closer to a national park where there's bushfire hazards at the end of period? Patrick Murphy 01:09:47.865
I actually can't answer you that question off the top of my head. It might have been, we did have something that had issues with access. Do you know what it was? 50 devenston rough drive? No. I'll find it. Out. Brian Stockwell 01:10:04.348
It's unusual for a setback to be returned by a referral agency. Tom Wegener 01:10:09.303
We have that 170 Eumundi road, Eumundi-Noosa Road, Noosaville, reconfiguring of a lot one into seven lots. And that's it. Patrick Murphy 01:10:24.383
On the google maps, that looks like a self storage. It's an industrial building. That's correct. That was constructed some time ago. And they never tie never titled it at that point in time. And the current application sought to title the different tenancies within it. Tom Wegener 01:10:42.438
So there's different, it's still one lot, but different tenancies. It's not going to turn into seven lots. Patrick Murphy 01:10:47.786
No, there'll be seven separate titles with common property. Titles, but it's not seven different lots. Is it? Well, each lot could be sold separately. So it's an existing building with, you know, that's got separate sort of buildings within it and each of those buildings is now a separate lot through a building format plan. This seems very small, a for that. Yeah, it would not be uncommon in industrial areas to have multiple lots with common property ranging from you know hundred odd square metres up to thousand square metres if not more Richard MacGillivray 01:11:34.164
It just yeah allows each tenancy to be freehold owned so different business owners can hold their particular lot whereas generally if it's not titled at all it's all one large lot so obviously person would have to own all of it so this just allows small businesses to own those tenancies and freehold but yet they have common property car parking areas and the like where they share the cost of maintenance of those things quite common in industrial states to have sort of a titling arrangement like this okay so it's not that unusual so thank you Patrick Murphy 01:12:12.623
Just to go back to your question Councillor that when it's on the report it says referral agency response but Council referral agency in that instance so we were both assessment manager and referral agency that's why there's two different ones on the list and it was a development for a very large shed on a property boundary and it was refused due to amenity impacts good to hear that it's happening Frank Wilkie 01:12:40.285
Thank you. I'm happy to move the matter. Thank you. Second by Councillor Wegener. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:46.196
No further discussion. All in favour? Thank you. And we have no confidential session which means the meeting is now closed at 9:45 10:45 excuse me at 10:45. I should take my glasses off alongside and I'd like to just thank everyone present in the gallery and we meet again General Committee next Monday. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
