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 Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt AI-Generated 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
SPEAKER_01 00:00.000
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 lands and waters that formed the region that we call Noosa. Council pays its respect to Elders past, present and future. And welcomes the ongoing role that Indigenous people play within the Noosa community. Attendance and apology. Welcome Mayor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Tom Wegener. 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 remind councillors of their obligations under the Local Government Act to talk respectfully to staff and each other. confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder please? Thank you Councillor Stockwell, seconder Councillor Wegener. No discussion all in favour? Thank you. Presentations and deputations. There are none so we'll go straight to item 7 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 day after a long weekend. Can I ask if you can just give us a summation of the report. Before we do I've got a comment. Brian Stockwell 02:00.045
Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I declare all confidence in this matter as I'm 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 result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room. Amelia Lorentson 02:51.560
I'll now ask for estimation based on the reporting from us. Rowena Skinner 02:56.200
Three years ago, this council channelled the significant unanimous concern about the housing crisis into the preparation and adoption... 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 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 is critical 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 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. Peace. This report makes recommendations around council development application fees, infrastructure charges and rates for social and affordable housing as well as secondary dwellings. housing, as well as secondary dwellings, in line with the housing strategy. Amelia Lorentson 05:11.721
Thank you. Questions from councillors or the mayor? Frank Wilkie 05:16.121
Thank you. for the report. Could you expand on some of the concessions being proposed to be given to applications that contain components of affordable housing? Rowena Skinner 05:33.155
Yes. We are proposing that when a not-for-profit community housing provider proposes a model multiple dwelling development or a housing development which is entirely affordable rental premises that there would be a waiving of the development application fees and that infrastructure charges would be postponed or indefinitely as long as the resultant housing remain affordable rental premises. We are proposing... We're also proposing to remove the infrastructure charges payable on a compliant secondary line plan and and we are looking to, recommending that a rates donation also be provided to, to not not-for-profit organisations that are providing affordable rental premises. Frank Wilkie 06:48.984
Just on that, are there already wage donations being applied to some of these organisations? There are. Rowena Skinner 06:56.826
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 could not apply for. Yes. Frank Wilkie 07:15.066
And could you also explain the incentives for... explain the incentives for private industry applicants who are proposing developments that might contain a component of... Rowena Skinner 07:26.194
So for developers who... for profit developers who are interested in doing... in doing a component of affordable rental premises, such as 10% of their development or more, the fees and charges and infrastructure charges would be waived for that component. Frank Wilkie 07:50.642
A pro rata concession. And judging by the report, and you said it this morning, the segmented lines by a significant part. in addressing housing availability in Port Blue. And it's proposed that we waive the infrastructure charges on that. How significant are the infrastructure charges for a segmented line? Rowena Skinner 08:12.644
There are several thousand on a segmented And secondary dwellings are small. They're typically no more than 65 square metres and they remain as either rental premises. Anita 08:29.260
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. So 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 09:05.719
Previously that we're doing to forego in the interest of providing incentives for more central areas. Anita 09:13.999
I can't find another council that's charging infrastructure charges. Frank Wilkie 09:21.733
In some sense the secondary groin can be perceived to be an extension of the existing house. SPEAKER_05 09:28.693
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 09:34.127
Just a follow-up in terms of the secondary groins. Concerns have been raised just in terms of potential long-term impacts in terms of the character. In terms of character impacts 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 groins? A, so they don't impact on character, and B, to ensure they're actually used for their intended purpose. Rowena Skinner 10:15.059
Councillor, they have to, in terms of built form, they still have to abide by site cover, Anita 10:23.539
GFA, height, setbacks, or all the normal parameters that a house would have to abide by. Car parking has to be provided that is sufficient for... Amelia Lorentson 11:14.500
So, in the report, under finance, you've given an estimate of what the business may cost Council: $233,520 annually. I've got a few questions on that. You made a question for the CEO. 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 rights, what impact this will have compounded with all the other challenges that we have? Larry Sengstock 12:02.674
Okay, so my understanding is that the money is not easy is not, is actually foregone as such as rather than be an income it 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 done across the Shire, then that bucket 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 provide... to provide the incentive for further secondary drawings and further social housing, which is something that obviously is a strong demand at the moment, something that we're very conscious trying to provide and it's our part that we can play in and 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, separate bucket, doesn't necessarily... So it comes out of... No, it just doesn't go into it. It's just, it's just foregone, foregone revenue. Infrastructure charges is used for... Just a qualifying question by my chair. So it's important to note that infrastructure charges cannot important to note that infrastructure charges cannot be used for wages, and so it really has very little bearing on the CRO. In terms of other issues we've got on the table, there's no bearing on the CRO. But it is a cost to Council. It is a foregone cost. It's still a cost. 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. Tom Wegener 14:25.700
A question right off the top of my head, but when 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 little, then we're just at $7,300. Rowena Skinner 14:46.142
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. SPEAKER_05 15:10.688
Like 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 that additionally in relation to your question of tourism and hospitality, the tourism hospitality sector as well as counselling. Amelia Lorentson 15:43.890
At 65 square metres, that in itself means how much you can actually rent a property for. So, in terms of actually achieving our intended purpose, which is affordable counselling, I think I agree with the secondary drawings. We've got our best chance with secondary drawings. Further questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 16:10.780
Just for the benefit of those who might be listening, the donations policy is quite an interesting take on paying rates. Could you talk about how that works, please? It's essentially the waiving of rates, not the profits. Correct. It's seen as a donation by the local government to those organisations. That's correct, isn't it? That's correct. Kim Rawlings 16:33.144
But it's effectively a waiving of that. Yeah. Yeah. It's still... Anita 16:39.147
The rate is 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 deprived. Frank Wilkie 16:58.391
Madam Chair, unless anyone wants to move to the general... Amelia Lorentson 17:01.371
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... Anita 17:24.946
That's something we can look at down the track at the moment. It's a difficult thing to do. It's a difficult thing to resource and I couldn't, it's out of my area to make a commitment to resource through my development assessment. assessment. But, you know, stay 12 months down the track if the development director has looked at their resources and thinks it's possible we might look at that as well. Amelia Lorentson 17:59.360
And in terms of consultation, have we consulted or will we consult if we're looking at streamlining processes? Will we engage with our businesses and town planners and community? Anita 18:15.360
Yeah, we will do that. We're already inputting the housing strategy forward three years ago. We already said we were going to, we were going to consider all these fees and charges and rates and that went out to community engagement and prior to the housing strategy being adopted. If we, if we look at, at further modifications to the development assessment process that again would be something that we do in collaboration with the development industry. Kim Rawlings 18:54.170
One of the recommended additions here is that we do a communications package, guidelines and fact sheets to accompany any of the changes that are made and kind of disperse that to the relevant industry groups. Anita 19:07.953
We're doing, Council will 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 in Peruvia, then we will have to look at our latest in Kansas. Tom Wegener 19:31.476
We were referring to the State, just that if the State's looking at our housing going up, because they're demanding that population goes up, housing goes up. Is that what you were just referring to? SPEAKER_05 19:45.724
I wasn't directly, but that is something that we have. have targets that the State applies in terms of the number of dwellings that need to be achieved. they have So we are monitoring yearly or every two years we'll probably be reporting to council on how those dwelling targets are going. Tom Wegener 20:12.392
So this step in that direction. That's right. Frank Wilkie 20:16.671
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 ought to play a part in addressing the housing 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 20:40.678
It might 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 empty holiday home owners and asked whether or not they would consider going into the permanent rental. considered going into the permanent rental pool given our affordable housing crisis. I know that last term, formerly, we brought to all the vacant and STA homeowners and I think within a period of six 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 you gone back out? SPEAKER_05 21:31.080
We haven't gone out again, but we do monitor. We monitor. There are always houses going, coming off the short stay sector and becoming permanent homes or becoming permanent rentals. Obviously they're not going the other way now because that's not allowable under the planning Allowable into a planning scheme, but it's properties still. 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 I don't, I'm not sure that there would be value in writing to them again at this point, I don't think that individually, but certainly-- Kim Rawlings 22:31.358
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 of them what their intention is and many of them aren't coming off the STA or that's the intention of the new owner either to live in it permanently or permanently rent 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 law process is one mechanism we're monitoring that and that'll be brought into our And that will be brought into our housing monitoring program as Amelia Lorentson 23:11.755
Well. I'm probably thinking more of vacant homes. There may be some consideration for Newmere, Wilkie. Maybe consider writing to the vacant home owners. Well I was going to say that as we heard as part of the operational review of the local law, we have over 300 short stay They've been relinquished by their owners for a variety of reasons. There's going to be a report to Council come on the findings of the operational review, if I understand correctly, and I'm happy to write again to any SBA 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. to do, I'm happy to do, in that regard. Richard MacGillivray 23:52.433
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 SDAs 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 Captions, 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. I don't know, there's some numbers to it. opted to for our VCA to allow people on the firm to reside in those properties. Frank Wilkie 24:33.371
A letter is a light touch compared to the regulatory approach, but I'm prepared to do what it takes to... I'm just saying that a letter is a light touch asking owners to consider doing that to help the greater good, as opposed to a regulatory approach which is seen... I'm sorry? Yeah. has seen over 300 owners relinquish their approvals, but I'm happy to write the letter. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 25:01.407
Any further comments, Councillor Wegener? Frank Wilkie 25:04.687
Happy to move it Madam Chair. I'm happy to second, thank you. As I said before, thank you for the report and the work the staff have done on this, who are doing the hard work in helping us deliver on the actions from the housing strategy, which was unanimously endorsed by this councillor after a show of life community consultation, and the weighting of these infrastructure charges weighting of these infrastructure charges, in particular the secondary drawings, will help a great deal because you have responded to a lot of feedback that we've received about the nature of the infrastructure charges and how they see that as an obstacle to secondary drawings, so thank you for your work. Amelia Lorentson 25:47.141
And I'll just add, we keep saying this over and over 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 26:08.706
When I bought my house, my first house, my only house, my boss had a $7,000 grant from the government to the first homebuyers grant, you know, actually just swung the dial completely in favour of buying the 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, the smaller dwelling Amelia Lorentson 27:16.960
Now go to item 7.2, further report NCNU 210110, application for material change of this resort complex. Outdoor sport and recreation and club, minor extension to existing clubhouse at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads. And welcome to the desk, our planning staff. Welcome back Councillor Stockwell. I will note that this report has been referred to the general meeting because of the significance of the matter. But today we'll just open it up to discussion and questions. Thank you, Patrick, for giving us a summary. Patrick Murphy 28:01.028
Thank you, Councillor. Mindful that it has been referred to the general committee meeting, I will provide an overview at probably a bit more higher level than what I'll provide at the general committee meeting, if that's okay. This is a matter that's been going on for a number of years now. The application received in 2021 and first reported to Council in July of 2023. At that time, At that time the report addressed a range of issues including the site split zoning, the potential outer impacts of the nearby series 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 Unity Water. The matter was referred at which time a motion was put forward to refuse the application. As we got to the ordinary meeting, the clock was stopped, so a decision a decision wasn't able to be made on the application at that time. It was again reported to council in November of 2020-23. 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 so when it went to the meeting in November 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. that time, Council discussed the application. Council discussed I remember It was evident that there was still a lack of support for the proposal is what it would appear. And then the applicant saw that the matter actually be deferred to a future Council meeting to enable them to consult with both Unity Water and the community members, which was undertaken. And then in February of this year, February 27 of this year, a minor change application was discussed. Made and that's the application that is now before you. That minor change has removed Pavilion 5, which is the pavilion adjacent to a 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 finalises 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 officer's It's the officer's position that that's a rather inconsequential change to the development and is supported. The current minor change involving the deletion of the VIN 5, again supported by the officers noting the improved outcomes in terms of ecology, in terms of bushfire. 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 106 bedrooms to 69. Amelia Lorentson 32:00.870
I'm going to kick off and ask the first question that's been asked or so in 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 32:25.052
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 include you know that it doesn't include prohibited development or require referral for new grounds or referral to extra referral agencies or require public notification if public notification wasn't previously required. I think the most relevant aspect of those elements is the substantially different development. And the DA rules prescribe those matters that may constitute a substantially different development. So there needs to be consideration because as I said the definition refers to may be considered to be a substantially They are that it involves a new use, which this minor change does not. 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 a minor change or you're dealing with a minor change or another change, you're dealing with a change. 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 that Noting 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 growth. 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 of the development. Yes, it removes a wing, it removes some rooms, but it's still operating as a resort, providing and ancillary facilities. Does it significantly impact on traffic flow in the transport network, such as increasing traffic to the site? 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 impact. 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. Amelia Lorentson 35:41.020
I'm just raising some issues raised in community. There's been a reduction of cruise numbers from 160 to 69, the reduction is 35%, and concerns have been that the community facilities have not decreased in size. One of the questions 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 binding mechanisms to enforce this guarantee? Patrick Murphy 36:18.672
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. Amelia Lorentson 36:42.240
Questions? Brian Stockwell 36:43.160
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 descriptions around them. and the consequence of that in terms of how a planner should weigh that up with the intent of those zones. Patrick Murphy 37:20.580
It's a good question and certainly the current planning scheme does not apply meets and bounds to the zoning. So the planning scheme 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 in this 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 the ground truthing 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 38:46.461
And also in the initial report you talked to you foreshadowed that if this was to be approved it's likely that it would lead to a future amendment of the zoning map to reflect the Would that be one way to achieve more certainty in terms of future uses as was the case? Patrick Murphy 39:05.569
That's again a good point. That is true, that could occur, and that actually occurred at a site such as Karamar. I'm not sure if you remember when we did an addition to that site, that resulted in some modification of the zoning sort of line with where the uses were approved, and also where those environmental values were identified in that. Are there any existing conditions for terror that time or Or is is that that something something we we could could have have considered on the term of meeting? When you mean existing conditions? Brian Stockwell 39:40.532
Could we put in the, well it wouldn't be conditions, sorry, it would be in the motion rather than the conditions. The intent to feature a member of the planning scheme to consider the desirable footprint and therefore the zoning boundaries which may then be able to be meets and down described. Patrick Murphy 39:57.251
I could provide some draft wording if councillors would like. That could be done. Richard MacGillivray 40:04.811
I mean, what I would say is that we, with any review of our planning scheme and updates to our planning scheme, we would be looking at any of 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 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. Now with the new design, the final thing's been taken up so there's sort of like a triangular projection. In area where the tennis court goes a little bit further than where the tennis court's 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, have we read... re-tuned that in terms of the new proposal as to what might be the impact on it, which may take a small corner of a biodiversity overlay? Patrick Murphy 41:18.513
What we've been able to determine at this point is that the level we can determine at this point is that the level of intrusion in the biodiversity overlay has decreased from 1,562 square metres to 727 square metres. Within that reduction there are some paths that are still proposed, but the vegetation is... is to 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 rehabilitation and offset planting, voluntary offsets, is to remain as was originally proposed. Brian Stockwell 42:04.531
I think that's all for me. Tom Wegener 42:08.391
Go on from Brian's question. So historically, there was an overall master plan for the And Springs area, I and then believe a chunk it was of it was to sold Alstom or Parkridge, that which one of the names is right, it's the Parkridge development. Yeah, the Parkridge development. And you just mentioned that the Meats and Bounds was in consideration of the Smell Line and the sewage treatment plant. And did that sell off of the other estate? The other estate changed the master plan thinking and all of a sudden sort of forced the five-star hotel development to be closer to the sewage treatment plant. Patrick Murphy 42:54.638
So it 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 allowed by the definition of multiple dwelling for those dwellings to be used for either permanent or short-term accommodation there was no limitation that was 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 short term. And as we found out, it's been predominantly permanently occupied. So when the Noosa Plan 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 Tom Wegener 44:13.700
Okay, so the Noosa Plan 2020, she, you know, isn't reliant upon the former master plan, it was a re-master plan. That's correct, that's correct. Amelia Lorentson 44:27.295
The waste management plan, question is, is there, 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 44:49.489
When the waste management 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. 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 not controversial. So there was some discussion at a council meeting. I was asked questions by a community member who provided some information which I sought from the applicant. It wasn't something that was readily provided as 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 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. And I did suggest to the applicant when they made this further change 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, that it supports the findings of the findings of the initial report that were provided that gave me the information to provide to the 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's not controversial. Richard MacGillivray 46:57.702
And again, we're satisfied with the methodologies and the location of the waste collection and further details can be worked through at the operational work stage, which is where the team focus on the detailed engineering and the elements. 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, it's got sufficient space, those impacts are managed appropriately, and then the detail. And then the detailed work can be dealt with through the operational work stage. Amelia Lorentson 47:30.087
Will that also include garbage truck deliveries? Patrick Murphy 47:34.427
Yeah, so we've looked at where garbage trucks are to access. 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. Amelia Lorentson 48:14.020
So there's more bins, is there more noise? Patrick Murphy 48:18.080
It'll be the same level of noise but it would occur for a slightly longer period of time. And 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 that are occurring to Amelia Lorentson 49:04.440
Complaints. If an odour complaint does arise, who's responsible for addressing them? Community Water Council or the developer? Patrick Murphy 49:16.780
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 Environment Protection Act. Notwithstanding, it is proposed to include a condition that has a complaints management... 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 Unity Water and with the applicant it was determined that that condition should be removed to not alert guests to 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 their 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 a whole year, potentially 40 hours, and while some of the facilities such as the pools and the tennis courts are outside that 2.5 odour unit line, there have been conditions applied Amelia Lorentson 51:44.482
An ability that we can condition the application that requires the developer then to bear any risk or costs if there is a complaint and it does require future upgrades if we're so certain that there's not going to be an issue? Can that condition be included on the noting report? Patrick Murphy 52:05.564
I don't think it would be reasonable to include it as a condition to require them to upgrade infrastructure for a sewage treatment plant. I'm not sure if I can go too much beyond that. 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. Where does the onus fall? Will our rate payers bear the cost? Unity Water, just throwing that out. Richard MacGillivray 52:46.032
Well as technologies evolve, even with whitewater, with whitewater treatment plants, they're obviously getting more and more 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, carbon filtration must be installed, so there's higher levels of filtration in 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 up with 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 designed to meet the reasonable and relevant test conditions. Patrick Murphy 53:51.639
Also noting that the current proposal by the deletion of BBB and 5 has increased the separation from the sewerage treatment plant infrastructure from 270 metres to 302 metres. And there are other dwellings within proximity of the sewerage treatment plant existing at the moment which would be within a similar radius from the infrastructure. Frank Wilkie 54:15.105
Are there any average drugs? Patrick Murphy 54:18.590
Park Ridge, since Odeonut Line, it's not like a straight line, and depending on the topography, further separation might actually be worse off, depending. So I know that there are a part, I think, is it the fairways, not the ones that are near the loading dock, but there's some other ones that are near one of the golf course, they're within quite--- They're within the--- No, they're within a similar distance. Frank Wilkie 54:47.805
I'm not sure if you can answer this question, but again, I'm just sort of resurfacing a lot that has come to me through community. In terms of construction, 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? Or is that a question I can just ask you offline? Patrick Murphy 55:33.050
Yeah, I'd probably need to get some details around that. I mean, the advice I've received from the applicant through the process is that... the tennis court patrons will be able to come back to the tennis courts and continue their lessons once it's, you know, 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 that is to... any advice from the applicant that that is to be changed in any way. That's on a separate title of land adjacent to where the double, sorry, car park is proposed. But I could seek further information around that. Again, noting we need to be mindful of those aspects that we're assessing the application under. Which is quite separate, I expect it. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 56:21.982
Further questions? Yeah, thank you. Frank Wilkie 56:26.527
I think a lot of my questions have been answered just listening to the councillor's questions. But just to clarify, the report says the zoning's not cadastral. I think that relates to So it would need to determine, say if it's a rectangle, the points of each element of that rectangle, so it's fixed in terms of the survey. Yes. As to where the boundaries of the zoning are. Again, in this instance, that hasn't occurred. Intention was when the tourist accommodation zone was added, that the open space rec zone was always to be on the SGP side of the ODA line. Patrick Murphy 57:17.895
As a buffer. Frank Wilkie 57:18.677
And everything beyond that was meant to be a tourist accommodation? It had to be ground truth? 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 tourist accommodation zone. And this proposal does not exceed that GFA. It's substantial. I think it's about 15,000 square metres that would be permitted 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. To make sure i understand correctly it is considered a minor change even even though though as as you said said there were some changes significant changes made a reduction of rooms from 106 to 69 reduction in pool size from 1100 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 of the case were six improves drastically increase the massage from 411 then that would not be considered a monogen that's correct because the reverse that's right and a number of those elements that are read out talked about increasing the impacts and that would certainly be the case by increasing from 69 to 106 in terms of car parking and noise and car parking And car parking on site, even 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 58:57.951
That's correct. 250 bio-formalised car parks, which has been determined by our consultant to be the suitable number. I think it was 246 that were required. There's also 38 additional car spaces provided by two overflow car space areas of 19. And since 2019 there is genuine concern in the community about fire risk. Some people are genuinely triggered by the thought of being trapped. Again, issues of fire safety have been raised by members of the community through emails from all councillors that we've received. Can you explain how that's managed in this application? 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 I might have failed on my x-ray hazardous vegetation has been increased. But Will can talk to us in a bit more detail about... Will 59:58.410
Yeah, I can 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 Now extended that into an addition of 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 01:00:46.169
There's also concern about the road network and its capacity to handle people wanting Absolutely. Will 01:00:56.772
So there's, in relation to Noosa Springs, there's a procedure in place to provide alternative evacuation routes from the State, if required. One of those routes would take vehicles out onto Eenie Creek Road. The other would take traffic by Geroene Sports track and out to Eenie Creek Road from there. Both routes would only be implemented under the direction... under the direction of Queensland Police Services or QAES. Frank Wilkie 01:01:19.588
So these egresses exist currently or they're just gated off? Correct, correct. And they will be open in the instance? It need be. It needs to be. Patrick Murphy 01:01:27.948
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. 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. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:02:12.920
You mentioned the GFA grass 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 GFA from memory. Is this well within that? Patrick Murphy 01:02:33.971
This is actually in the SEQ urban footprint, the same It's our urban boundary that's within. Ah Brian Stockwell 01:02:40.962
Okay, I knew there was something there in that deal. Yeah, and it's our urban boundary that's within, snapped around the tourist accommodation zone. And again, that was something that I, in my initial report, suggested that could be modified subject to assessment. Frank Wilkie 01:03:02.200
Happy to move it goes to General Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:03:04.240
Thank you. Second. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell, we'll move it to General. Oh. Sorry, Karen's here. I'm going to end it. Karen, you've got a question. Karen Finzel 01:03:16.640
Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. And for the feedback this morning. Thank you, everyone, for the report. It's providing 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 I I have raised this question previously around the capacity for any on-site staff to come and visit. Patrick Murphy 01:03:41.141
Has that come on board with any discussion or consideration? No, it hasn't formed part of the assessment of this application. No, it hasn't come on board. 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 tourist accommodation zone, which does not seat for permanent residents. So that could be problematic. But I might just send you an email if that's okay. I might just send you an email if that's okay. Clarifying that point. I can send that to all councillors. 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 a... supply for high-end tourists to accommodate in, which potentially then could 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 Thank you. available SPEAKER_06 01:04:49.761
Just following on for that, can I just ask one more question, and I have raised it before. the disposal of organic waste from the site. It's around... Just wondering, is that, would that be part of the detailed design phase for the waste management plan, or how would that be addressed? Patrick Murphy 01:05:08.109
Yes, it would generally be something that something that would be 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 01:05:27.868
Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:05:31.888
The question, just what you said there, Richard, about perhaps there won't be such a demand on the high-end SDAs 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 down in price because it's a house where this is a very expensive, you know, very expensive resort. Are there any other levers that that council can pull to try to support people using this this high-end resort and not using high-end houses in low residential neighborhoods, low density neighborhoods? Just very close to being not on topic. Yeah, very close. Amelia Lorentson 01:06:18.840
I will allow, as the Chair, I will allow the question just for discussion. Richard MacGillivray 01:06:24.280
Yeah, look, 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 the surrounding facilities 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 activity. And opportunities and transport that can be provided by an integrated resort. So that would I guess be probably the strongest lever. There are other levers that council is aware of around things like rates and other levies and things like that that can apply. But I would say in this particular case the draw is the fact that this is a very tailored, customised resort. 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 01:07:36.340
Make a good golf tee time along with the package. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:41.130
So can I ask, we have got confirmation it is the boutique as well. Do we know the star rating? Is it going to be topped? Patrick Murphy 01:07:51.030
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 01:07:59.710
Can we get confirmation please before general meeting? I 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 it at the general meeting 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 01:08:53.040
Thank you. It's a monthly report detailing those applications that have been determined under that have been determined under delegation. As you'll see there's 37 decisions that were made, 35 approvals and 2 refusals, with 2 applications to be decided by council. 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. Brian Stockwell 01:09:27.000
I've got one question. The two refusals are both one side of the proposal and it was refused by the referral agency at Coroiba. I'm just interested... Was that, for example, trying to move something closer to a national park where there's bushfire hazards? Patrick Murphy 01:09:46.837
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? Amelia Lorentson 01:10:09.411
Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:10:11.951
We have that 170 Umundi Road, Umundi-Noosa Road, Noosaville, reconfiguring of a lot one into seven lots and I see that on Patrick Murphy 01:11:08.585
Buildings within it, and each of those buildings is now a separate lot through a building format plan. Tom Wegener 01:11:15.725
This seems very small, a small property for that. Richard MacGillivray 01:11:18.825
Yeah, it would not be uncommon in the industrial areas to have multiple lots with common property, ranging from 100 odd square metres up to 1,000 square It just, yeah, it just allows each tenancy to be freehold owned, so different business owners can hold their particular lot, whereas generally if it's not titled at It's all one large lot, so obviously one person would have to own all of it, so this just allows small businesses to own those tenancies and freehold, but yet they... common property, car parking areas and the like where they share the costs 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 01:12:12.198
Just to go back to your question, Councillor, that window... when it's on the report it says referral agency response but council was the 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 Frank Wilkie 01:12:38.480
To hear that's happening. Thank you. I'm happy to hear that. Amelia Lorentson 01:12:42.920
Thank you, seconder, Councillor Wegener. 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 meeting, next Monday. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
