Ordinary Meeting, 19 December 2024
Date: Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 10:00AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:24:19
Synopsis: Noosa Springs hotel opposed over odour, bushfire risk and displacement, Function venue approved with conditions and 3-yr reviews, Strategic plan, grants adopted, Pedestrian crossing petition noted.
Meeting Attendees
Councillors
Frank Wilkie Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Deputations
Rhett Duncan Kim Petrovic John Cochrane Apologies (Did Not Attend)
Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Frank Wilkie : Noted apologies (Cr Phillips) and remote attendance (Cr Finzel); petitions accepted incl. 377-signatory call for a safe Eumundi Noosa Rd pedestrian crossing, referred to CEO for action (Item 5; 00:00–01:15). Rhett Duncan (Unitywater) : Urged refusal of Noosa Springs hotel citing odour, State Planning Policy buffers for sewage treatment plants (STPs), and heightened EPA odour liabilities after June 2024 amendments (Items 7.1; 02:09–15:44). Kim Petrovic and John Cochrane : Opposed Noosa Springs hotel, citing outdated expert reports, bushfire evacuation risk via single access, flawed survey/consultation, community facility displacement, and “Trojan horse” for future expansion (Items 7.2; 16:00–22:17, 22:17–30:00). Kristy King : Warned hotel would displace 210 juniors and 140 adults from Noosa Springs Tennis Club plus key gym/pilates community services, with no local capacity to absorb demand (Item 7.3; 30:09–36:04). Trent Grauf : Outlined outsourcing/procurement framework under Local Government Act 2009/Regulation 2012, sound contracting principles, use of LocalBuy and local panels; contracts ≥$200k published; over half spend local in 23/24 (Item 8.1; 37:04–42:45). Richard MacGillivray : Clarified “site cover” exclusions per Planning Regulation 2017; Council practice includes structures >1m above ground; new editor’s note in Noosa Plan 2020 aligns (Item 8.2 Q1; 43:33–44:42). Richard MacGillivray : Declined to detail Noosa Springs hotel waste plan while under assessment; directed to PD Online; later confirmed Parkridge rezoning to High Density Residential does not materially affect hotel’s impact assessment (Items 8.2 Q2, 8.3 Q2; 46:22–46:49; 49:30–50:29). Shaun Walsh : Banksia Ave connection idea for Calile Hotel traffic to be tested in updated Noosa Traffic Study due to potential rat-running and network effects (Item 8.4; 50:29–52:33). Council : Approved MCU24/0084 Function Facility at 658 Louis Bazzo Dr, Ringtail Creek with stringent conditions and added recurring review of the Operational Management Plan (OMP) every three years; several amendments to tighten hours/bus numbers failed (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:08–02:21). Council : Adopted Strategic Asset Management Plan 2024–2030; updated Privacy Policy; approved Mayor’s COM(SE)Q overseas delegation (COM pays); appointed Cr Phillips to Sunshine Coast Transport Security meetings (Item 11.2; 01:01–01:02). Council : Noted Nov 2024 Financial Performance; approved RADF grants $50,585; noted Climate Change Response Plan implementation update (Items 8.1–8.3; 02:21:24–02:22:07, minutes). Council : Approved Other Change to approval at 59 Kabi Rd, Cootharaba to include group farm stay (max 88 beds) with conditions (Item 8.4; minutes). Council : Delegated to CEO resolution of P&E Court Appeal 1219/2020 (27 Attunga Heights) (Item 9.1; minutes). Contentious / Transparency Matters Kim Petrovic : Alleged rolling decision-period extensions for Noosa Springs DA reduced transparency; MacGillivray said extensions are operational under DA Rules; promised timelier PD Online uploads (Item 8.3 Q1; 47:26–49:30). Kim Petrovic : Criticised notification over Christmas and minimised engagement; sought independent survey; raised mental-health/community facility displacement risks (Item 7.2; 16:24–22:17). Unitywater : Warned Council as Unitywater shareholder faces reputational/financial risk from odour complaints despite models meeting 99.5th percentile; model based on 2016 data and sensitive to vegetation/wind (Item 7.1; 02:09–15:44). Council debate : Staff cautioned that reducing hours below recommended conditions could trigger applicant appeal; Council retained staff-recommended hours, added OMP review (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:21–01:26, 01:33–01:36). Nicola Wilson : Flagged code inconsistency: Entertainment Activities Code allows later hours in rural zone than might be expected in sensitive settings; highlighted resident expectations gap (Item 11.3, 7.1; 02:06:30–02:09:57). Legal / Risk Planning Act 2016 : Assessment bound to benchmarks and relevant matters; staff advised recommended hours/conditions meet scheme; tougher limits could be vulnerable on appeal/representations (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:22:19–01:25:16). Environmental Protection Act (June 2024) : Odour now an environmental nuisance potentially constituting serious/material harm; s391 contravention risks penalties/imprisonment; Unitywater cited reverse-amenity exposure if hotel proceeds near STP (Item 7.1; 02:09–15:44). State Planning Policy 2017 : Unitywater argued approval near STP would conflict with policy protecting essential infrastructure from encroachment; odour contour line (2.5 OU) not a “hard” boundary (Item 7.1; 02:09–15:44). Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act : Duty of care applies to road/track upgrades on Ringtail Creek site; cannot be conditioned under Planning Act, but applicants must comply; advisory notes flagged (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:14:32–01:16:10). Traffic/State road : Access upgrades on Louis Bazzo Dr conditioned by SARA for safety; Council cannot regulate State-controlled road operations (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:49:39–01:50:40). Appeal posture : Council delegated CEO for P&E Court Appeal 1219/2020; staff noted “deemed refusal” risk if DA deadlines missed (Items 9.1; 01:26:19–01:26:50, minutes). Conflicts of Interest Amelia Lorentson : Declarable COI (once engaged submitter Pat Rogers for legal advice); Council resolved she could participate; she did not vote on MCU24/0084 (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:02:22–01:04:40, minutes). Tom Wegener : Prescribed COI (RADF item; son connected to project); left chamber; vote carried without him (Item 8.2; 02:21:43–02:22:07). Planning Scheme, Zoning & Development Controls Brian Stockwell : Argued MCU24/0084 complies with benchmarks; noise at boundary below traffic noise; added ecological rehabilitation condition and OMP/noise compliance conditions (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:08:25–01:11:20). Amelia Lorentson : Sought stricter hours (Mon–Thu 7pm close; Fri–Sat 10pm) and weekly cap; both lost; succeeded on triennial OMP review with Council approval and implementation within 30 days (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:16:46–01:43:40; minutes). Nicola Wilson : Highlighted Entertainment Activities Code hours logic in rural context and seasonal wedding peaks; average Richard MacGillivray : Parkridge High Density rezoning does not materially affect hotel assessment; site cover practice and recent Noosa Plan 2020 editor’s note confirmed (Items 8.3 Q2; 49:30–50:29; 8.2 Q1; 43:33–44:42). Council : Approved change to Cootharaba (Kabi Rd) to add group farm-stay (max 88 beds), indicating rural diversification under conditions (Item 8.4; minutes). Environmental & Community Impacts Unitywater : Noted historical odour complaints outside 2.5 OU line; peak odour risk aligns with peak hotel occupancy; vegetation clearing could invalidate modelling (Item 7.1; 02:09–15:44). Kim Petrovic : Cited bushfire evacuation risk via single access and QFES position on creek tracks; questioned staff suggestion of shelter-in-place (Item 7.2; 16:24–22:17). Brian Stockwell : Inserted condition to rehabilitate Vegetation Community 4 per ecological plan and biosecurity weed controls (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:06:50–01:08:22). Kristy King : Loss of tennis/gym/pilates programs would reduce youth sport pathways and seniors’ wellbeing (Item 7.3; 30:09–36:04). Short-Stay/Hotels & Traffic Shaun Walsh : Calile Hotel access via Grant/Katharina acceptable; Banksia Ave link to be tested in the refreshed Traffic Study to avoid induced rat-running (Item 8.4; 50:29–52:33). Patrick Murphy : Ringtail Creek access upgrades mainly via existing internal tracks sealed for buses/fire appliances; SARA conditions govern State road interface (Item 11.3, 7.1; 01:12:35–01:15:32; 01:49:39–01:50:40).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting Thursday, 19 December 2024 10:00 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Brian Stockwell, Tom Wegener, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 10.01pm. 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 COUNCILLORS Cr Frank Wilkie (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Jessica Phillips 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES DATED 21 NOVEMBER 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 21 November2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 4.2. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES DATED 5 DECEMBER (RESUMED 12 DECEMBER) 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 5 December and resumed on 12 December 2024 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PETITIONS 1 PETITION: SAFE PEDETRAIN CROSSING ON EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD Refer to Attachment 1 to the Ordinary Meeting Minutes dated 19 December 2024. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That the petition with 377 signatories submitted by Linda Martin, requesting a safe pedestrian crossing on Eumundi Noosa Road between Beckmans Road roundabout and Rene Street roundabout be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine appropriate action. Carried unanimously. 6. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 7. DEPUTATIONS 7.1. DEPUTATION - MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: RHETT DUNCAN ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN SEQ DISTRIBUTOR-RETAILER AUTHORITY TRADING AS UNITYWATER SPEAKERS: RHETT DUNCAN 7.2. DEPUTATION: MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: KIM PETROVIC SPEAKERS: KIM PETROVIC AND JOHN COCHRANE 7.3. DEPUTATION - MCU21/0110 - NOOSA SPRINGS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT - KRISTY KING ON BEHALF OF NOOSA SPRINGS TENNIS CLUB SPEAKERS - KRISTY KING ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8.1. DEBRA WALZ QUESTION 1 What is Council’s framework for outsourcing work to contractors and consultants, including key criteria such as value for money, contracting practices and policies, alignment with appropriate Council plans, identification of risks, feedback on lessons learned, community engagement and comparison to internal Council employee expertise to undertake the work? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Trent Grauf, Director Corporate Services The framework for outsourcing any goods or services extends to the entire lifecycle of delivering a service or project. Consideration is given to the sourcing at both planning and execution stages. Planning Stage focus on Service Planning, Workforce Planning, Project / Program Planning and also during budget deliberations. During delivery or execution, sourcing is considered in terms of Procurement, Contract Management. In Terms of Service Planning: Council prepares a service plan for each of its services it undertakes. The Service Plan not only articulates aspects such as levels of service/frequency, but also articulate how each of those services are resourced. These are adopted each year with Council’s budget.As any major service contract, such as for example recently for cleaning, security, waste collection or lifeguards, as they reach the end of their contract, they are reviewed to determine whether scope and sourcing model is appropriate. Given this is undertaken on a case by case basis, with a focus on high value outsourcing arrangements, as discussed last month during the November 2024 Ordinary Meeting deliberations, there is opportunity to develop a broader, comprehensive and consistent review model of how council sources resources for its projects and service activities. In Terms of Procurement: The procurement of Goods and Services by Council is carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012. More specifically, when procuring goods and services Council Officers must have regard for the Sound Contracting Principles, as detailed in the Act, noting that Value for Money is one of these principles, in addition to open and effective competition, developing competitive local business, environmental protection and ethical behaviour and fair dealing. In assessing any medium or large size contract, an evaluation matrix is applied that assesses the preferred contractor based on a number of factors - such as Value for Money, Environmental Impact, Experience, Methodology, Safety, Quality, Contribution to the Local Economy. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 QUESTION 2. Does Council keep a register of approved external consultants and contractors and a register of internal expertise of staff and if so, how often are these registers reviewed and updated and the process for undertaking this? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Trent Grauf, Director Corporate Services Council utilises a number of registers related to outsourcing arrangements. In Terms of Panel Arrangements: Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012, Council does rely on panels, or registers of pre-qualified suppliers. Council will utilise these panels to undertake many of its procurement activities. These panels are both established by independent industry bodies, such as LocalBuy, and also specialised Council established registers that specifically focus on ensuring Council utilises and supports local businesses where possible. For interest, it is worth noting that during the 2023/24 financial year over half of the goods and services Council sourced were from local contractors in the Noosa, Gympie and Sunshine Coast region to support the local economy. The pre-qualification process for these panels follows the Act’s requirements for assessing value-for-money, and that the business has sufficient experience, insurance and standards (such as safety, environmental, etc.) before Council engages them for work. These panel arrangements are reviewed and updated annually. For any local business listening online, and interested being listed in these panel arrangements for Noosa Council and our neighbouring Council’s, please visit the Tenders and Procurement page on Council’s website. In Terms of Executed Contracts: Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012, Council reports all large value contracts and tenders valued at $200,000 (ex GST) and above on Council’s website under the Tenders and Procurement page. Note that this does not extend to small to medium sized contracts under $200,000. This register is updated for each new contract. In terms of Workforce: Council’s new corporate plan articulates the need to develop a workforce capability plan. This Plan, once developed across the organisation, will provide a consistent baseline to assist in determining any risks and opportunities associated with the scale and expertise of our workforce, that may currently be supplemented through external arrangements such labour hire, contractors or consultants. 8.2. JOHN COCHRANE QUESTION 1 What is the definition of a "Structure" used in determining Site Cover under the Noosa Plan 2020? How is this definition derived and what guidelines are used to ensure consistency in the application of term? ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Richard MacGillivray, Director Regulation & Development Thank you for your question. The term "structure" is not defined in the Planning Act 2016, Planning Regulations 2017, or the Noosa Plan 2020. However, the definition of "site cover" in the Planning Regulations 2017 specifies certain buildings and structures that are excluded from site cover calculations. These exclusions include: Buildings or structures in landscaped or open space areas, such as gazebos or shade structures. Basements completely below ground level used for car parking. The eaves of a building. Sun shades. As a result, these buildings and structures are not included in the calculation of site cover. To ensure consistency, Council officers have historically included structures greater than 1 metre above ground level in these calculations. Items such as fences, retaining walls, and poles are not included. The recent council endorsed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 include an editor’s note that aligns with this approach to provide greater clarity regarding this provision. QUESTION 2. Can you describe how waste management will be carried out in the Noosa Springs Hotel MCU21-0110? Specifically: 1. Where are bins to be located and what size are they? 2. How is waste transported to the bins? 3. How is noise associated with waste transfer mitigated? 4. Is a glass crusher proposed? 5. Where do garbage trucks access the bins? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Richard MacGillivray, Director Regulation & Development Thank you for your question. Your query seeks specific advice about a development application currently under assessment and maybe subject to further changes from the applicant. We can arrange for a planning officer to assist you with your queries about waste management for the application and can direct you the current relevant application information which is available via Council’s PD Online website. 8.3. KIM PETROVIC QUESTION 1 When does a request to extend the decision period cease to be dealt with by way of a delegated authority and brought to Councillors' attention/information that these have been issued previously including how many? In the case of multiple rolling approvals to extend the decision, at what point does it become the Councillors' decision to determine if these approvals should be issued rather than these being issued by the Development Assessment Manager? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Richard MacGillivray, Director Regulation & Development Thank you for your question. Council officers are responsible for assessing development applications in line with legislative requirements. Extending the decision-making period is an operational decision made during the assessment process, similar to issuing an information request, extending an information response period, or sending a Further Advice ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 letter. Agreeing to extend the decision-making period is part of the assessment process and not a decision on the application itself. Additionally, extensions to the decision-making period are often only requested and agreed to where the applicant has advised they intend to take steps to address or respond to issues raised during the assessment process. Councillors are also briefed from time to time or on request on the status of applications that have significant community interest. QUESTION 2. Does the rezoning of the adjacent Parkridge Estate as High Density Residential materially affect the assessment of the hotel? RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Richard MacGillivray, Director Regulation & Development Thank you for your question. While specific advice cannot be provided about an application currently under assessment, I can confirm that the rezoning of the adjacent Parkridge Estate does not materially affect the assessment of the proposed hotel at Noosa Springs. The application is impact assessable and will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016, Planning Regulations 2017, and the DA Rules. 8.4. MARY NANCE FORSTER QUESTION 1 Can Banksia Avenue and Banksia Avenue North be connected in order to provide a third route from Noosa Junction to the Calile Hotel in Serenity Close in order to alleviate traffic congestion and to provide a third exit in case of emergencies. RESPONSE PROVIDED BY: Shaun Walsh, Director Infrastructure Services Thank you for the question. Council’s traffic engineers have assessed the proposed Calile development application and consider the use of Grant Street and Katharina Street as being appropriate for the traffic generated for the proposal. The proposal to connect Banksia Avenue north and Banksia Avenue needs more consideration as it may have an unintended impact on the network, potentially altering current traffic patterns and increasing demand on surrounding infrastructure. As a result, a comprehensive analysis of the redistribution of traffic flow will need to be conducted to identify and address any potential congestion points, delays, or capacity issues. In particular, rat running in local streets, to avoid traffic congestion in Noosa Junction, needs careful consideration. It is noted that Council has commenced an update of the Noosa Traffic Study, that considers traffic networks and functionality across the shire, using updated traffic figures. Council can commit to raising this proposal to connect Banksia Avenue with Councils Traffic Study consultants, and determine any benefit or impact. Any changes to the local traffic network can then be considered in a wholistic manner, and any changes fully considered by the Council and future community engagement necessitated by any changes. Thank you for raising this possible traffic improvement for our further consideration. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 9. MAYORAL MINUTES Nil. 10. NOTIFIED MOTIONS Nil. Meeting adjourned at 10.54am. Meeting resume at 11.02am 11. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS 11.1. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 10 DECEMBER 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Karen Finzel EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Cr Tom Wegener COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee due to the significance of the issue. 7.2. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OCTOBER 2024 That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 10 December 2024 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for September 2024 as per Attachment 1 to the Report. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That the report of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 10 December 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 11.2. SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 10 DECEMBER 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel (Chair) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Acting Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Community Services Kerri Contini APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. MAYOR'S ATTENDANCE AND REPRESENTATION OF COUNCIL – COUNCIL OF MAYORS SEQ, OVERSEAS DELEGATION 2025 (INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL) That Council A. Note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Services & Organisation Committee dated 10 December 2024 regarding the Mayor’s attendance and representation of Council at the Council of Mayors SEQ, international delegation to Singapore, Manchester and Paris; and B. Approve the Mayor’s attendance at the Council Mayors (SEQ) international delegation in February 2025 (currently earmarked for Tuesday 4 February 2025 to 14 February 2025); and C. Note that all costs will be borne by Council of Mayors (SEQ) with the possible exception of minimal meals/food during transit. 7.2. COUNCILLOR ATTENDANCE AT SUNSHINE COAST PRECINCT TRANSPORT SECURITY MEETING That Council A. Note the report by the Director Infrastructure Services (Acting) to the Services and Organisational Committee dated 10 December 2024; and B. Appoint Cr Phillips to attend the quarterly Sunshine Coast Transport Security Precinct Meetings. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 7.3. STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2024-2030 That Council A. Note the report by the Civil and Asset Operations Manager to the Services and Organisation Committee dated 10 December 2024; and B. Adopt the Strategic Asset Management Plan (as provided as Attachment 1 to the report) in line with the continuous improvement of the asset management functions across Council. 7.4. PRIVACY POLICY REVIEW That Council A. Note the report by the Governance Manager to the Services & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 10 December 2024; and B. Adopt the updated Council Privacy Policy, provided as Attachment 1 to the Report. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That the report of the Services & Organisation Committee meeting dated 10 December 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 11.3. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 16 DECEMBER 2024 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel Cr Amelia Lorentson Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Trent Grauf Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings APOLOGIES Nil. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 7.1. MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Lorentson provided the following declaration to the meeting of a declarable conflict of interest ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 in this matter: I, Cr Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers in a personal capacity for legal advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Cr Lorentson and determine that Cr Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. For: Crs Wilkie, Finzel and Wegener Against: Nil Carried. Cr Lorentson, having declared a conflict of interest, was not eligible to vote. Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Planner, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 December 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0084 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Function facility situated at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive Ringtail Creek Qld 4565 and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in replacement conditions provided in Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee meeting dated 16 December 2024 - Amended Proposed Conditions; and B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Amendment No.1 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Nicola Wilson That Item A, 1 be added: 1. Amend conditions 8 and 9 to read: 8. Functions are limited to the hours of: a. 11.00am to 7:00pm Monday - Thursday, inclusive of provision of amplified music/sound. b. 11.00am to 10:00pm Friday to Saturday and Sundays followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday, inclusive of provision of amplified music/sound. c. A maximum of three (3) events per week d. A maximum of 96 events per year. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 9. All staff and guests must have vacated the premises by a. 8:00pm Monday- Thursday b. 10:30pm Friday to Saturday and Sundays followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday. For: Cr Lorentson Against: Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Stockwell and Wilson Lost. Amendment No. 2 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item A, 1 be added 1. Amend condition 8 to read: 8. Use of the approved Function Facility is limited: a. To the hours of 11.00am to 10:00pm inclusive of provision of amplified music/sound. b. A maximum of three (3) events per week c. A maximum of 96 events per calendar year For: Cr Lorentson Against: Crs Wilkie, Finzel, Wegener, Stockwell and Wilson Lost. Amendment No. 3 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Item A, 1 be added 1. Amend condition 11 to read: 11.A minimum of one bus, with a seating capacity of 20 – 50 persons, must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests and two buses, each with a seating capacity of 30 – 50 persons, must be provided for events which have over 100 guests. Amendment No.3 lapsed for want of a seconder. Amendment No. 4 Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Item A, 1 be added 1. Add new condition 28 which will require the subsequent renumbering of conditions: 28. The Operational Management Plan must be reviewed and updated every three years from the date of this approval. i. The review must: ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 a. assess the effectiveness of the current Operational Management Plan in achieving its objectives. b. consider any changes in operational practices, regulatory requirements, and environmental conditions. ii. The updated Operational Management Plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority for approval within 30 days of the review completion. iii. The submission must include a summary of the review process, key findings, and any proposed changes to the Operational Management Plan. iv. The updated Operational Management Plan must be implemented within 30 days of approval by Council. Carried. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Planner, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 December 2024 regarding Application No. MCU24/0084 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Function facility situated at 658 Louis Bazzo Drive Ringtail Creek Qld 4565 and: A. Approve the application in accordance with the proposed conditions outlined in replacement conditions provided in Attachment 1 to the Minutes of the General Committee meeting dated 16 December 2024 - Amended Proposed Conditions; and 1. Add new condition 28 which will require the subsequent renumbering of conditions: 28. The Operational Management Plan must be reviewed and updated every three years from the date of this approval. i. The review must: a. assess the effectiveness of the current Operational Management Plan in achieving its objectives. b. consider any changes in operational practices, regulatory requirements, and environmental conditions. ii. The updated Operational Management Plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority for approval within 30 days of the review completion. iii. The submission must include a summary of the review process, key findings, and any proposed changes to the Operational Management Plan. iv. The updated Operational Management Plan must be implemented within 30 days of approval by Council. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Wilkie, Wegener, Stockwell, Lorentson, Wilson Against: Crs Finzel Carried. ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 8.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – NOV 2024 Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 outlining the November 2024 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators 8.2. REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND (RADF) - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2024/25 ANNUAL ROUND In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, Cr Wegener provided the following declaration to the meeting of a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter: I, Cr Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to Artist's Residency Noosa Natural Ecology as my son has a connection to this project and may derive a benefit from this grant funding. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Cr Wegener left the meeting. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Arts and Culture Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 regarding applications to the Regional Arts Development Fund 2025 Annual Round; and B. Approve the recommendations of the Assessment Committee to fund projects to the value of $50,585 as outlined in Attachment 1 to the report. Carried. Cr Wegener returned to the meeting. 8.3. CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE That Council note the report by the Sustainability & Climate Change Project Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 providing an update on the implementation of the Noosa Climate Change Response Plan. 8.4. 131998.981211.5 APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (12637DA) INTEGRATED PERMACULTURE DESIGNED ORGANIC ORCHARD AND GOLF COURSE COMPLEX (18 HOLES) TO INCLUDE GROUP FARM STAY ACCOMMODATION & ASSOCIATED SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE AT 59 KABI ROAD, COOTHARABA That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning Assessment to the General Committee Meeting dated 16 December 2024 regarding Application No. 131998.981211.5 for an Other Change to Development Approval (12637DA) Integrated Permaculture Designed Organic Orchard and Golf Course Complex (18 holes) to include Group Farm Stay Accommodation (undefined use) and associated supporting infrastructure (maximum 88 beds), situated at 59 Kabi Rd Cootharaba, and: ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2024 A. Approve the application in accordance with the following additional conditions outlined in Attachment 1. 9.1. CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 1219 OF 2020 – APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, DETACHED HOUSE AND RECONFUGURATION OF A LOT (1 LOT INTO 2 LOTS) AT 27 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA HEADSCLOSURE OF THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC That in respect of Planning and Environment Court Appeal 1219 of 2020, Council delegates to the CEO the power to attend to all matters relating to its resolution. Council Resolution Moved: Cr Nicola Wilson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That the report of the General Committee meeting dated 16 December 2024 be received and the recommendations therein be adopted except where dealt with by separate resolution. Carried unanimously. 12. ORDINARY MEETING REPORTS Nil. 13. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 14. NEXT MEETING The next Ordinary Meeting will be held at Council Chambers, 9 Pelican St, Tewantin on 23 January 2025 at 10.00am. 15. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 12.25pm
Meeting Transcript
Frank Wilkie 00:00.040
People, pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging, and acknowledge their continual request for us to join them as joint custodians, respecting and caring for this place, a beautiful place that we all love, and respecting and caring for each other. I note that all councils are in attendance except for Councillor Jess Phillips, who is an apology due to a family matter, and we have Councillor Finzel online. May we have a move or a second for the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on the 21st of November? Happy to move, Thank you. Councillor Lorentson, who seconded it. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. Thank you, that's carried. Carry can we have a move and second of the Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 5th of December and resumed on 12th of December? So moved. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Next are petitions. Councillor Lorentson, I'll let you have a petition. Amelia Lorentson 00:56.783
I do have a petition. The is for a safe pedestrian crossing. On Eumundi-Noosa Road between Beckmans Road roundabout and Rene Street roundabout. And I would like to present the petition to the CEO and request that he follow up and accept the petition. Frank Wilkie 01:16.279
We have a second for that? Second. Councillor Stockwell, thank you. All in favour? That's carried. Yes. Thank you, Karen. Councillor Finzel. There are no presentations. We have three deputations. These were deputations that are historic. They were lodged in the early part of the year. We've since changed the Standing Orders that deputations cannot be heard on development applications when the matter before us the Council is before the Council. The matter is not. Before us today so we're allowing the deputations to be heard. So, first up, we have the applicant, Rhett Duncan, on behalf of the northern SEQ distributor retailer authority, trading as Unitywater. Welcome to the lectern. Rhett, present your deputation, you have 15 minutes. Thank you. Rhett Duncan 02:09.921
Good morning Mayor Wilkie, Councillors Finzel, Lorentson, Phillips, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Unitywater is the and wastewater services provider in the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan and in my role as executive manager customer delivery, the operation and the maintenance of our network is my responsibility. This is our third deputation relation to the proposed development at Noosa Springs and we remain firm in our opposition to this proposed location of the new hotel development. This deputation is based on the current application however we understand that a further extension of the decision period to the 24th of December 2024 was granted to the applicant on the 18th of October to and I quote "make minor changes to the application and provide updated advice from a number of experts with respect to ecology, odour, noise, visual amenity and bushfire". Unitywater has no visibility of these proposed changes or the potential impact that these may have on planned operations. Once we have an understanding of the impact of these minor changes, we would welcome an opportunity to brief Council on the impacts to operation of the plant prior to the decision being made on this application. Unitywater is an essential services provider, lawfully operating water and wastewater services for the Noosa community. The Noosa sewage treatment plant has been in operation on the current site since the 1970s where it was operated by Council. The Noosa sewage entire network consists of 418 kilometres of sewer mains, 10,319 maintenance holes and 114 pump stations all configured to transport sewage to this specific location. Has been operating successfully for over 50 years. The plant can't be picked up and relocated without enormous cost and years of disruption to all sewage services for the Noosa residents, the community and its hundreds of thousands of annual visitors. When to help. The plant needed upgrading in 1995, Council made a conscious decision to shift the plant closer to the southern and the western property boundaries, maximising the distance to the existing residential developments. This is consistent with the recommendations in the environmental impact assessment commissioned by Noosa Council to keep sensitive receptors more than 400 metres away from the treatment plant. There doesn't seem to be any reason to change this and increase the risk of odour impact by introducing more sensitive receptors within the 400 metre distance from the plant. However, the current development locates the swimming pool and the outdoor amenities approximately 150 metres from the sewage treatment plant site boundary and approximately 200 metres from existing odour generating processes. Plant operations haven't changed. In fact, there's greater treatment occurring today as the Noosa community population grows and visitor numbers continue to increase year on The Noosa treatment plant operates within its licensed capacity however is subject to significant peak loading during holiday periods meaning the highest risk of odour is during peak holiday occupancy at the proposed development. Approval of the proposed Noosa Springs development could also put Council in direct conflict with the State planning policy July 2017 which seeks to protect STPs from encroachment by incompatible development. So what's this 2.50 unit five odour unit contour line and what does it actually mean? Well there's been a lot of discussion and a lot of focus on this 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling. Much of it being with our proper context and understanding of what it actually means. Firstly the applicant would like you to think that the 2.5 odour unit contour is a hard and fast line beyond which there are no odour issues. This is not the case. The odour modelling exercise and the 2.5 odour unit contour are simply scientific means of assessing the risk. It's not the law and it does not release Unitywater from its obligations under the law. The Environmental Protection Act and the June 2024 legislative changes specifically focus on odour, meaning odour is now treated as an environmental nuisance and may constitute. Serious or material environmental harm. This is the law and it carries both financial penalties and potential imprisonment, but I'll come back to the law in a bit more detail shortly. Secondly, a crucial point to note is the 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling is a modelling estimate based on a point in time when data was captured nine years ago in 2016. It's not a single hard line it's not a single hard line where people experience odour on one side of the line and no odour on the other side. In fact, think of the contour like a windsock, not an impenetrable barrier. The modelling outcome will shift with prevailing weather conditions like wind direction and velocity. Shaun Walsh 07:20.318
It's sensitive to the density of surrounding vegetation and impacted by the operational conditions of the plant which change throughout any given day. The 2.5 odour unit contour you see is therefore an average of all the modelling predictions on the data used. In some scenarios, the 2.5 odour unit contour will be closer to the treatment plant. And in other scenarios, it will be further from and potentially beyond the proposed development. Recent information received from the previous plant operator confirmed that since the upgrade was completed in 1997, there have been 12. Odour complaints from neighbouring residences recorded by the plant, all of which stem from beyond the 2.5 odour unit contour line. In fact, six of those are from the 1.25 odour unit contour line based the 2016 odour modelling provided to Noosa Council as part of this application. Another consideration is if vegetation densities change over time, such as clearing prior to construction. This may render the modelling invalid as one of the core variables used in the modelling has now significantly changed. Our climate is also changing, bringing into question the validity of nine-year-old data collected in 2016. Now, odour modelling only considers the quantifiable experience being something people might. Smell, but does not distinguish the type of odour or take into account how different people. Might react and respond to the smell. Importantly, the contour line modelling. Does not take into account or consider in any way what is unquantifiable. Line modelling and by this I mean the variations in daily planned operations, changes in daily weather and individual sensitivities to smell. The actual lived experience of being close to an operational sewage treatment plant. Thirdly, the odour modelling is based on the predicted 1 hour 99.5th percentile ground level concentration of odour. We do not know what the 100th percentile contours look like. By using the 99.5th percentile, the model is saying that odour will be experienced for 44 hours in a year. Now this may not a lot, however I refer to my earlier comment about the greatest risk of odour occurring during peak holiday season. Imagine a fully booked hotel in peak summer holiday season, guests sitting by the pool, the hotel pool smelling the odour for eight hours as they're trying to enjoy their relaxing holiday. Although by modelling the 99.5th percentile, the developers have met the 2013 DETSI modelling guidelines Council. The Noosa community and Unitywater should also be presented with the case at the 100th percentile, which is the actual worst case scenario as this may present a very different picture and true risk of odour impact. This would allow an assessment of operational risks in a worst case scenario event. If the frequency of issues is low, an odour event can still exist and any exposure may be considered unacceptable. This the unquantifiable. There must be a balanced approach to risk that looks at both the quantifiable and/or the modelling and the unquantifiable which is the lived experience of visitors and guests. So as I mentioned the earlier changes to the Environmental Protection Act passed in June 2024 now mean that odour is treated even more significantly under the act and environmental nuisance may now constitute serious material environmental harm a new offence in fact has been created under section 391 of the act in relation to contravention of general environmental duty while undertaking an activity where the contravention causes or is likely to cause serious or material specifically odour. Penalties related to this offence include financial penalties and even up to two years in prison. If this development is improved Council is putting sensitive receptors back into the frame on the doorstep of the modelled odour contour line. Council is placing the reverse amenity risk back onto Unitywater and therefore back onto our customers. Even worse than this, unity could be faced with a civil suit from Noosa Springs if odour causes an impact on their hotel business and forecast occupancy rates. Remember my point about modelling versus lived experience. It only takes one individual to complain about their lived experience of staying at the hotel during an odourous event and the regulator will have cause to investigate. At that point it won't matter what any modelling at the 99.5th percentile says because the lived experience of that complainant dictates what happens next. Unitywater knows this first hand from experience at one of our sewage pump station sites. Have one complainant new to the adjacent property in 2020 resulted in an over one million dollar upgrade and the subsequent legal matter that remains ongoing today. The pump station in question have operated without complaint in the middle suburbia surrounded by three of properties for over 40 years. The operational and financial implications of one person's lived experience and the reaction to odour can have far-reaching impacts on our business. And we all know the power of social media today where a single complaint can quickly escalate into a do not stay at the stinky hotel. Message. I cannot more firmly put on the record that the combination of enforced reverse amenity, the unknown lived experience, could result in action against Unitywater that may lead to prosecution, costly planned modifications and financial loss resulting from /or potentially settling a civil case. Noosa Council, as a shareholder in Unitywater, would also be directly impacted by this outcome. We don't have a blank cheque for upgrades or for defending legal actions that are preventable. In our last two deputations, I referred. Referenced the cost of new odour control equipment at the Murrumba Downs treatment plant in 2010 as a direct result of urban encroachment and that cost was $38 million in 2010. What that cost would amount to today, I can't hazard a guess. So in closing, Unitywater is an essential services provider. We operate responsibly and lawfully for the benefit of Noosa residents and community. We support development that promotes sustainable and responsible economic growth but we oppose the proposed location of this development because it locates new sensitive receptors closer to sewage sewerage existing treatment operations. The assertion that odour contour modelling at the 99.5th percentile is justifiable as a balanced approach to risk assessment is misleading. It only takes one complainant a negative lived experience at the new hotel to expose Unitywater to the potential for enormous reputational and financial risk and serious legal ramifications. These can be prevented by Council backing its 1995 decision to establish a 400 metre buffer zone and to also comply with state planning policy regarding encroachment by incompatible development. The proposed development would impose reverse amenity obligations on Unitywater that cannot be transferred and would unnecessarily cost unity water's Noosa customers, Noosa Council Unitywater the shareholder, tens of millions of dollars can severely limit our ability to meet future growth. The conditions proposed to be applied in approval, although with good intent, actually further increase the very serious risks to Unitywater. Noosa Council as a shareholder and to our customers, these risks can be avoided if the proposed development is not approved in its current location in the first place. Unitywater are asking Noosa Council to not approve this development in this location. Again, I ask Council if the scenario was reversed, would Council approve a new sewage treatment plant with a 99.5th percentile odour contour right on the doorstep of existing luxury accommodation where the outdoor recreation facilities for that luxury accommodation fell well within that contour line? Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Frank Wilkie 15:45.802
Next deputation we have Kim Petrovic and John Cochrane with another welcome. Thank you. And John, you have 15 minutes. Kim Petrovic 16:00.184
Thank you. Mayor, CEO, and Councillors for allowing us the opportunity to speak at the final Ordinary Meeting of 2024. My name is Kim Petrovic, a resident of Noosa Springs, and I represent numerous residents who have submitted concerns. Regarding the hotel development of Noosa Springs in its current and previous formats. We've got seven basic concerns. The first one: outdated reports. Many consultant reports, for example the odour, traffic, noise, fire evacuation, relied upon the applicant are outdated, with some dating back to 2016 and 2017. These reports. Failed to account for significant developments such as the construction of Parkridge Estate and Elysium. Which together represent over 50% of the properties directly affected by the proposed hotel. We urge the Council to mandate updated independent reports that reflect current realities, including increased population, amplified events and council's proposed rezoning of the Parkridge Estate from tourist accommodation to high density residential. The MCU application has been prepared on the basis that Parkridge Estate was already zoned as tourist accommodation. Outdated data cannot support informed decision making. Two, the bushfire risks. Links Drive is situated within a high potential bushfire intensity zone, presenting serious. Evacuation challenges due to its single access road. The Queensland fire and emergency services do not recognise Eenie Creek Road as a safe evacuation option. Their concerns contrast with statements made by planning staff at the P&E meeting of 11 June 2024, who suggested hotel buildings could shelter evacuees. This disparity raises critical questions about the safety of all residents and guests during emergencies. Third, applicant the survey. The applicant survey is fundamentally flawed. It relied on a small, non-representing sample, including non-residents and visitors, without targeting those directly affected by the development. Furthermore, the methodology was unqualified, with misleading assumptions, for example, attributing neutral responses as being supportive. We call for a professionally conducted independent survey to accurately capture residents' views. Planning and engagement issues. We reject the applicant's dismissal of over 400 resident objections as near standardised responses, and the similar comments made planning staff at the PME meeting of 11 June 2024. The notification period: strategically set during the Christmas season. Limited meaningful community engagement. Request for deadline extensions. Were denied and inadequate signage obscured the process further. Our concerns remain unaddressed. Despite multiple submissions and petitions. Demonstrating informed and genuine opposition. Community discussion forums. The held by the applicant on 24 June and 1 July 2024 revealed inconsistent. And a lack of concrete assurances. Claims linking the golf club's viability to the hotel's success lacked substantiated commitments. Additionally, aspirational statements about a five-star hotel failed to address the broader community's concerns. Trust. The absence the of measureable measurable of outcomes continues to undermine to trust. In this proposal. Six mental health impacts. The proposed development risks disrupting the community sense of security and peace, leading to increased stress and mental health concerns among residents. The displacement of key facilities such as pilates physio, school holiday camps and junior tennis programs further compounds this stress. These activities are vital for community wellbeing and their loss will be deeply felt. 7. Developers history and transparency. The applicant's history, including delays in changes prior projects such as ITON, Milton and hope island, raises concerns about their reliability and intentions. Approving this major change of application without clear guarantees risks exacerbating unresolved issues, potentially allowing for expansion beyond what is currently approved or proposed. In summary, this proposal does not adequately address critical zoning, safety and community concerns that have been raised over the past three years. The outdated reports, flawed survey methodology and lack of transparency undermine its credibility. We urge Councillors to prioritise the wellbeing and the voices of the residents who will bear the direct consequences of this development. It is worth noting here that tourism only supports one third of the Noosa economy and the application does not assist Council in any way to achieve its desired health. Housing compounds. We respectfully request that you uphold the unanimous decision to refuse this application as taken by the General Committee on 17 July 2023. John Cochrane 22:17.715
Thank you, Councillors, for the opportunity to address this meeting. My submission is in regard to the Noosa Springs hotel. My name is John Cochrane and I live in Noosa Springs. The objections to this application are broadly based and cover many issues. I'm reminded that the aphorism, the path to hell, is paved with good intentions. I have no reason to doubt the applicant's good intentions, but the Planning Act does not list good intentions as a relevant matter. The act is quite clear that a person's personal circumstance, financial or otherwise, are not relevant matters. Why is this important? Well, the applicant has chosen this development form over one which would comply with the Noosa Plan 2024 financial reasons. We have proven that a smaller scale development could be constructed on land zone for the purpose of complying with all controls. The strategy used to support the application relies on good intentions and the interpretation of relevant matters as defined in the Planning Act. However, we do not believe that the matters raised in the application as relevant are sustainable. Are they matters of public not private interest? We do not believe so. The application restricts public use and amenity to affect private gain. The simple equation is over a three-year construction program in broad numbers lost 45,000 tennis coaching places, lost 23,000 pilates and physiotherapy places, gained no extra tennis courts, gained no extra golfing or ancillary facilities, lost public access and amenity. Does the application satisfy a planning need? We say no, particularly now that approval in place for a better located hotel at settlers cove. 3. Are current assessment benchmarks relevant? We say no. A higher level of impact assessment could be appropriate given the rezoning of the adjacent parkridge site to high density 4. Are how the assessment benchmarks based on material errors? We do not believe so. Nor, as I understand, does Unitywater. Indeed, in considering the issue of relevant matters, his honour judge Wilkinson KC in guidance states: may include matters which mitigate for and against approval. We believe that there are a multitude of relevant matters mitigating against approval of this application. Indeed, relevant matters may also include amenity impacts and environmental impacts. It is important to note that amenity impacts not only the effect of the place on the census, but also the residents' subjective perception of the locality. Key takeaway here is that if relevant matters are to design an application, they must have weight and they must include consideration of both positive and negative impacts. We're here today because has the delayed the final decision on the application after Council voted to refuse. The applicant's amended submission seeks to persuade Council that there are sufficient grounds to reverse the prior decision. We believe that the amended application brings no new information but simply reiterates prior statements by the we also note that submission contains only minimal changes to the proposed design and no mitigation of impact outlined in council's motion to refuse. This application is full of inconsistency and potentially unforeseen consequences. Except the potential consequences are not all that well disguised. One, let's look at what potential expansion by future application. The applicant has stated that the tourist accommodation density control would yield 15,240 square metres of floor area, whereas the hotel only contains 10,280. As the current scheme is cited mostly on open space recreation zone land, there is a considerable portion of land zone tourist accommodation available for future development. If the argument is accepted, a further application for an additional 5,000 square metres of hotel to be built over the existing car park area could be lodged. It would comply with the plot ratio. Controls and zoning. The site cover calculation is a little murkier. The planners report has considered. Has concluded that the site cover will only comply if the site is aggregated. It's an aggregation of both TAZ and OSR zones. In fact, the site cover on the OSR zone is two-and-a-half times the level of 10 per cent. This zoning of approximately 15,000 square metres would yield 1,500 square metres of site cover. However, the application cites 3,800 square metres of building on the OSR zone. The only acknowledgement of this non-compliance in the planning report acknowledged the extent of site cover does not comply with the existing map, Recreation and Open Space Zone when considered in isolation. However, the building and structures do not detrimentally reduce the usability of open space think or dominate the site. Is that there that is a matter of opinion and hardly a sound basis to observe a principal density control. Further, the only planning justification given is the assumption that the only basis for the OSR zone is the ODEC contour. No rigorous planning assessment no rigorous planning assessment can justify acceptance of such a gross non-compliance with the planning controls for zoning without reference to all objectives of the zone. These are not addressed. Further, if in the future one was asked to assess an application on the basis of the Noosa initial plan, a site cover related to the TAZ would yield approximately, it would yield 9,200 square metres of site area, site cover. The current scheme utilises 7,000 of the amount of site cover for the TAZ. This leaves an untapped 2,000 square metres of site area. What the developer is potentially asking Council to do is to approve a building outside the allowable zone in order to make available land in the proper zone for possible future development. 5,000 square metres of additional allowable floor space would equate to 100 rooms based on 30% travel and engineering and a room size to those proposed in the current application. So the hotel could be 206 rooms with little possibility of refusal. Even if the applicant were to reduce the size of this hotel in this application and shuffle it around on the LSR zoning, all they are really doing is banking clock ratio and site cover for future application. Two, potential change of use by future application. The proposal will approve gain consent to construct a facility which includes an overscaled foyer with an attribute which would make it enormously attractive to operate as a function space. A commercial kitchen and backup house provision will be on the scope of service appropriate to breakfast for 200 guests. It is of little comfort that these uses are carved out by conditioning at this stage. It would only be a matter of a further application to achieve a fully independent facility capable of operating to the exclusion of the existing golf bar. You must remember, the hotel will be leased to a fully independent operator. The suggestion that the management system expressed by the applicant can be maintained is fanciful, albeit another intention. In closing, let's be clear what the applicant is asking of Council. I have one parcel of land zoned tourist accommodation and another zoned open space recreation. I would like to build an hotel on the open zoned land. The only reason I can give for doing so is that it will be bigger and better than it might be if sited on the tourist zoned land. So, Council, will you put aside your properly made plan, your environmental overlay. The warnings of Unitywater, the multiple environmental and social impacts and concerns of many residents so we can build a bigger, more profitable hotel than we might otherwise be able to build? In this application, we have no new information, a real danger of future. Unforeseen development and no real reason to request that Councillors alter their previous position on the hotel. Frank Wilkie 29:59.484
Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Mr Cochrane. Now, a third and last dedication, also on Noosa Springs, is from Christy Kim on behalf of the Noosa Springs Tennis Club. Welcome, Christy. Christy Kim 30:08.804
Hi, thank you so much. Good morning, Mayor, CEO and Councillors. My name is Christy Kim, I'm a local here in Noosa. Sorry, I'm a bit nervous. Today, I'm here to communicate concerns around the proposed hotel development at Noosa Springs on behalf of the tennis community, outside the box gym, and vern platt. And physio. Noosa Springs Tennis Club has developed significantly over the last 20 years. It is a very much appreciated facility that is enjoyed by Noosa Springs members, junior tennis players, mothers' groups, fathers' groups, and interstate tennis enthusiasts. Currently, there are 210 junior tennis players and 140 adult players who participate in wonderful programs offered at this thriving sporting club every week. That's 210 junior tennis players. Programs offered at Noosa Springs include private tennis lessons, hot shot squads, elite squads, adult sessions, female training groups, tennis camps, and more. To say. Just a few months ago, two of the under 11 female tennis players that train in our club were selected to represent Queensland in a major event against New South Wales. There were only 16 girls out of the whole state that were selected. Two of them were our girls. We have many aspiring young athletes, tennis players, starting to make a name for themselves in ranked tournaments, not just locally but on a state and national level, which has been made possible due to the professional programs offered at Noosa Springs and due to the dedicated. Caring coaches who facilitate exceptional training methods. Should the tennis courts become unavailable, it would not only impact obviously everyone's sessions, but it would not be possible for our tennis players to go to other clubs. Other tennis clubs could not absorb the immense quantity and quality of training sessions that are currently being provided to the players at Noosa Springs. Some of our junior players train like twice a day. Um, there are wait lists everywhere. For private lessons and sport intake at other tennis clubs, um, junior players would fall out of the sport, um, would have their sporting pathways taken away from them and also coaches would lose their jobs. Um, Harry, who operates outside the box gym, which is located at the back of the tennis courts at Noosa Springs, um, has become a very important business to the Noosa community. He works with children, youth, adults, seniors and aspiring athletes to improve strength, fitness, confidence and overall um, wellbeing. Harry, probably most importantly, offers a KidFit academy during the holiday periods between 9:00am and 3:00pm, where children can be outside, off screens. In a safe place while staying active. Um, during these days, Harry has an average of 40 to 50 children that get dropped off there, um, by their parents. Um, spoke I with many parents and I always do because I'm always there with my kids. Um, as they were dropping their kids off earlier this week, I'm so sorry. Most of the parents told me that it allowed them to working through the holiday period. Um, as you all know, some of the private schools take two months off over the Christmas break and times are tough. It's extremely difficult for parents who must work due to the cost of living. So he's like a saviour for local families who can continue working. Finally, there is burn pilates and physio, a wonderful business that supports our community in so many ways. The burn pilates and physio studio have approximately 160 people attend each week. Over 48 weeks, this is over 7,000 users per year. With many of these people from Noosa Springs in byron's, which has an ageing population, many of these users will be affected by the proposed development. They attend these important sessions as a pathway to healthy ageing and the programs perform both physical and psychological practices. Such sessions help our community with functional autonomy, life satisfaction and sleep quality. Removing such important programs will have adverse impacts on our beautiful community. The proposed development will remove all of these recreational activities which are currently used by Noosa community and significantly impact our community in a detrimental way. Development will also mean that the dreams of our children, some of our children at those tennis clubs are aspiring to compete in our Olympics in Brisbane. This will all be destroyed. If this development goes ahead, individuals will lose jobs, businesses will suffer, many will fall out of tennis and our thriving community will never ever be the same again. Respectfully request that you maintain the decision to deny this application as taken by the General Committee on the 17th of July 2023 and I have to be genuinely honest, like if our tennis community is pulled apart, it will never be the same again, like that place is just, if you come to one of the training days, which is every day, there are 80 kids on the court, they cannot be absorbed by other clubs, there are wait lists everywhere, it just won't happen. Thank you for your time, thank you so much. Frank Wilkie 36:04.789
Thank you Ms King. Next up we have an application of two questions from Debra Walsh. Would like to come to the podium and ask her questions, which will be answered by Trent Grauf, our Acting Director Corporate Services. Debra Walsh 36:27.661
Good morning. I'm Debra Walsh. I have two questions. The first question is what is council's framework Unidentified Speaker 36:36.592
For outsourcing work to contractors and consultants, Kerri Contini 36:40.277
Including key criteria such as value for money, contracting practices and policies, alignment with appropriate Council plans, identification of risks, feedback on lessons learned, community engagement including with Kabi bloodline elders and comparison to internal Council employee expertise to undertake the work. Trent Grauf 37:04.626
Thanks Debra. I'm happy that I can help answer some of these questions. The framework for outsourcing any goods and services extends to the entire life cycle of delivering any project or service consideration can be given to sourcing at both the planning and execution stages of any of those activities or projects. The planning stage focuses on service planning, workforce planning, project planning and also budget deliberations leading to that. Now during delivery it's considered in terms of procurement and the contract management. Now with particular focus on service planning, Council prepares the service plan for each of its services that it undertakes. Service plan not only articulates aspects such as service frequency, and where those services occur, but it also articulates the council's decision on how those services are delivered and the delivery model and the resourcing of those services. Now, those service plans are adopted each year with the council's budget. It's a document, it's called our service catalogue, and it's available on council's website. Any major contract though, and some examples recently may be pretenders for cleaning, waste, lifeguards, as they reach the end of their contract, they are reviewed to determine whether the scope and the sourcing model is appropriate. Now given this is undertaken on a case-by basis for major services, and a focus on how high value outsourcing arrangements, and as discussed last month at the Ordinary Meeting for November 2020, there's a great opportunity for Council to develop a broader, comprehensive and consistent review model for all its services large and small, and that's the significant opportunity discussed last month. Now terms of procurement, in the procurement of goods and services by Councillors carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012. More specifically, when procuring goods and services, Council officers must have regard to the sound contracting principles that are detailed in the act. And noting that value for money is one of those principles. Also in addition is effective competition, developing competitive local business and industries, environmental protection and ethical behaviour and fair dealing. As such, in assessing any contract outsourced, an evaluation approach is applied that assesses the preferred contractors based on a number of factors such as value for money against environment, experience, methodology, safety, quality and their contribution. To the life of the economy. Debra Walsh 39:41.701
Thank you. The second question, which I think is sort of more relevant, does Council keep a register of approved external consultants and contractors and a register of internal expertise? And if so, how often are these registered reviews, registers reviewed and updated, and what is the process for undertaking this? Trent Grauf 40:05.514
Thank you Debra. Council does have a number of registers related to outsourcing arrangements at different levels. So in terms start of the procurement process, the panel arrangements. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council does rely on panels or registers of pre-qualified or preferred suppliers. Now Council will utilise these panels to undertake many of its procurement arrangements, particularly for the larger and medium to small arrangements. These panels are both established by independent industry bodies, such as LocalBuy, and also for some specialised Council registers with a specific focus to ensure that Council can utilise and support local businesses where possible. For interest, it's worth noting that during the 23-24 financial year, over half of the goods and services Council outsourced were from local contractors based within the Noosa, Gympie and Sunshine Coast regions. Is that hard? Rather the pre-qualification process for these panels follows the act's requirements for sound contracting principles and value for money. So it ensures that any business that we engage with through these panel arrangements has sufficient experience, insurance and standards, such as safety and environment, before Council engages them for work. And these panel arrangements are reviewed and updated annually, both the industry body ones and our panels. Now for any business listening online or interested in being listed in these panel arrangements, Noosa Council's website and the neighbouring council's websites have information as to how businesses can list on these panels. In terms of executed contracts, under provisions of the Local Government Act and Local Government Regulation, Council reports all its large value contracts and tenders, valued at $200,000 and above, on its website, under the tenders and procurement page. Now that does not extend to small to medium-sized contracts, which is many of our smaller arrangements and engagements. It's purely focused on the large contracts. And this register is updated for each in new contract. Terms of workforce, and you mentioned about workforce in your question, council's new Corporate Plan articulates the need to develop a workforce capability plan. This once we develop it over the next year, across the organisation will provide us with a consistent baseline in determining any risks or opportunities with the size, scale and expertise of that workforce, that may be currently supplemented through external arrangements such as contractors, labour hire, subcontractors and consultants. Thank you. Trent Grauf, Frank Wilkie 42:47.910
Thank you. Debra Walsh. Second application of two questions is from Mr. John Cochrane. Mr. Cochrane, the podium is yours. Thank you. My apologies about the rather arcane nature of this first question, but it is relevant downstream. In the planning terms. Questions will be answered by Richard MacGillivray, our Director Development & Regulation. John Cochrane 43:18.032
The question the definition of a strategy? Of a structure used in determining site cover under the Noosa Plan 2020? How is this definition derived and what guidelines are used to ensure consistency in the application return? Richard MacGillivray 43:33.852
Thank you very much for your question John. The term structure is not defined in the Planning Act 2016, the planning regulations 2017 or in the Noosa Plan 2020 as you highlighted. However the definition of site cover is in the planning regulations 2017 which specifies certain buildings specifies certain buildings and structures that are excluded from site cover calculations. These exclusions include buildings or structures in landscaped or open space areas such as gazebos or shade structures, basements completely below ground level used for car parking, the Eaves of a building and sun shades. As a result, these buildings and structures are not included in the calculation of site cover, however, to ensure consistency, Council officers have historically included structures greater than a metre in height, greater than a metre above ground level in these calculations. Items such as fences, retaining walls and poles are not included. The recent Council-endorsed amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020 do now include an editor's note that aligns with this approach to provide greater clarity regarding this provision. John Cochrane 44:42.925
My second question is specifically with regard to MCU 210110, the Noosa Springs hotel. I would like to read the background of this if I may, because it is significant in terms of answering the question. Are we going to be hearing anything other than what we heard during the 15-minute deputations, Mr coffin? Yes, indeed. Thank well, you. The associated background material is the applicant states in the application that deliveries and waste collection activity are expected to occur at the existing clubhouse and hence no significant noise impact. The reason it is significant obviously is the rezoning of park ridge to high density residential, which is materially affected by any waste movements in the area. This case why is there a need to assess the suitability of refuse truck access to the proposed loading dock in the traffic report? The above statement is correct. How is the waste transported to the existing loading dock? Bearing in mind that most commercial waste facilities will use minimum 60.640 litre bins. These bins would need to be whirled up a 1 in 10 ramp at the loading dock and then down a spur road to the existing loading dock a distance of over 100 metres. The waste management process has considerable visual, olfactory and noise impacts on adjacent high density residential areas such as park ridge. Architectural drawings indicate a facility which is inconsistent with the applicant's statement. So my question is specifically how is waste management to be carried out in the Noosa Springs hotel, specifically where are the bins located and what size are they? How is waste transported to the bins? How is noise associated with the bins mitigated? Is the glass crusher proposed and where do garbage trucks access the bins? Richard MacGillivray 46:23.535
Thank you Mr Cochrane for that. So your query seeks specific advice about a development application currently under assessment and that may be subject to further changes from the applicant. What we will do is arrange range for planning office to assist you with some queries about the waste management for the application and can also direct you to the current relevant application information which is available on the council's PD online website. Thank you John. Frank Wilkie 46:48.575
Mr. Cochrane, thank you Mr. Mr. MacGillivray. Our last application with only one question is from Mary Nance Forster. I jumped again on Mary, Kim Petrovic, you have two questions in either way. Thank you. Sorry, Ms. Petrovic. You're all right, thank you. And your questions are going to be again answered by Richard MacGillivray, the Director of development and regulations. Thank you, Richard. Kim Petrovic 47:26.811
Um, my first question is basically around the concerns that community has in relation to the multiple extensions that have been granted to the applicant and the second question which is this really quite timely too, is failure of planning staff to put application and an extension approval up on the planning portal in a timely manner. So my question is, when does a request to extend the decision period cease to be dealt with by way of a delegated authority and brought to councillor's attention information or social information that these have been issued previously, including how many? Secondly, in the case of multiple rolling approvals to extend the at what point does it become the council's decision to determine if these approvals should be issued rather than being issued by the development assessment manager? I'd really like some follow-up action taken on this. Thank you. Richard MacGillivray 48:33.374
Thank you, Kim, for your question. Council officers are responsible for assessing development applications in line with legislative requirements. Extending the decision-making period is an operational decision made during the assessment process, similar to the issuing of an information request, extending an information response period or sending a further advice letter. Agreeing to extend the decision-making period is part of the assessment process and is not a decision on the application additionally, itself. Extensions to the decision-making period are often only requested and agreed to where the applicant has advised they intend to take steps to address or respond to issues raised during the assessment process. Councils are brief from time to or on request on the status of applications that have significant community interest and I appreciate your comment about documents being uploaded timely and I'll ensure that staff make sure that those documents are accurately updated on the PD online as soon as possible as well. Thank you. Kim Petrovic 49:32.827
So my second question is does the re-signing of the adjacent Parkridge the estate as high density residential materially affect? The assessment of the hotel. Richard MacGillivray 49:44.922
Thank you again Kim for your question. While specific advice cannot be provided about an application currently under assessment, I can confirm that the re-signing of the adjacent Parkridge estate does not materially affect the assessment of the proposed hotel at Noosa Springs. The application is impact assessable. And must be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016, the planning regulations thank and the DA rules. Frank Wilkie 50:11.136
McDonaghy. Thank you, Mr. McDonough-Ray, now again. Mary-Nance bolster, for real this time, please come up. And your questions will be answered by Shaun Walsh, our Director of infrastructure. Mary Nance Forster 50:27.540
Thanks. My question pertains to the Calile Hotel, which has now been approved, and the traffic infrastructure around it. So my question is, can banksia Avenue and banksia Avenue north be connected in order to provide a third route from Noosa Junction to the Calile Hotel in Serenity Close in order to alleviate traffic congestion on Grant Street and also to provide a third exit in case of emergencies such as bushfire. Shaun Walsh 51:06.644
Thank you. For the question. Council's traffic engineers have assessed the proposed parallel development application and considered the use of Grant Street and Katharina Street as being appropriate for the traffic generated by the proposal. To connect Banksia Avenue north and Banksia Avenue needs more consideration. As it may have an unintended impact on the network, potentially altering current traffic patterns and increasing demand on surrounding streets. As a result, a comprehensive analysis of the redistribution of traffic flow will need to be conducted to identify and address any potential congestion points, delays or combustion issues. Particular, right vehicles and local streets to avoid traffic congestion in Noosa Junction needs careful consideration. Fortunately, it's noted that Council has commenced an update of the Noosa Traffic Study that considers traffic networks and functionality across the Shire using updated traffic rules. Council can commit to raising this proposal to connect Banksia Avenue with council's traffic study consultants and determine any benefit or impact. We're expecting that study in June this year, so June next year. Any changes to the local traffic network can then be considered in a holistic manner and any changes fully considered by Council and future community engagement are necessitated by any changes. Thank you for raising this possible traffic improvement for our future consideration. Frank Wilkie 52:34.094
Thank you Ms worcester. We now come to item nine. There are no Mayoral minutes, there are no notified motions. Can we have a comfort break? Um, Councillors would you like um, five minutes? Yeah? Okay, thank you. We'll adjourn for five minutes. Frank Wilkie 01:00:26.840
Right, we'll bring the to order. The General Committee. 7.2 planning applications decided by delegated authority October 2024. We have a mover and seconder for the Planning & Environment Committee recommendations to be adopted. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded. Does Councillor Lorentson have a. No, sorry, wrong. We have a seconder for the Planning & Environment Committee reports please. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. Services & Organisation Committee reports. 7.1 mayor's attendance and representation of Council for the Council of Mayors (SEQ) overseas delegation 2025 international travel. 7.2 was the Council attendance at Sunshine Coast precinct transport security meeting. 7.3 strategic asset management plan 2024-2030.7.4 was the privacy policy review. May I have a mover and a seconder for the Services & Organisation Committee recommendation to get. Doctors, thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Seconder, Councillor Wilson. All in favour? Yes. That's unanimous. We come now to General Committee reports, which was 7.1, Material Change of Use, function facility 65. Louis bazzo and drive ringtail Councillor Lorentson has a conflict of interest. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:22.841
I have a conflict of interest. I, Councillor Lorentson, have informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers, in a personal capacity for legal advice. On one single occasion, although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:03:01.996
I move the standard resolution to that Councillor Lorentson would be participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Do we have a seconder for that? Karen Finzel 01:03:15.422
Excuse me, I just have a question. Frank Wilkie 01:03:18.055
So we've got Councillor Wilson has seconded that and now you don't wish to speak, Sir. You don't wish to speak? You wish to speak, Councillor Wilson? Councillor Finzel, you may ask your question. Karen Finzel 01:03:30.950
Thank you, Mr Chair. Just as an abundance of caution, I was on site yesterday with the applicants. As you're well aware, the issue around this conflict of interest was asked. Just ensuring that there is, that Councillor Lorentson can confirm that you have no other relationship with this gentleman outside of a professional working relationship? Councillor Lorentson? Do you meet him on any other occasions? Are you friends? Do you go away together? I'm just asking given the applicants raised that on-site yesterday. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:10.448
No problem, happy to answer that. I know Pat Rogers just through community groups. He's a member of the Noosa Chamber commerce and met him on numerous occasions again in work capacity only. Frank Wilkie 01:04:25.478
Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Okay any further questions or discussion? Councillor Finzel do you wish to speak to the motion? Karen Finzel 01:04:37.049
Thank you Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to pose the question. Frank Wilkie 01:04:40.845
I'll put it to the vote, those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson did not vote. Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 01:04:50.448
I will move the alternative, or the amended recommendation that staff provided to the General Committee. If I can have that up, I believe I will need to read out the changes, even though they were discussed by the committee. You are. And if you just flick through to the amendments, just so we all recall what those amendments were, the first one is an amendment to condition 8, which is a clarification of wording to include the use of approved facilities. Function facility is limited the hours of 11:00am. To 10:00pm. Inclusive of provisions of amplified music /sound, renumbering, and then in number 11, a minimum of one bus must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests. Then again in new condition 15, with approved function facility use being in regard music. Question 16, it was talking about noise from site operations and specifically adding associated with function facility use, a new condition 17, which suggests the event manager and/or on-day controller must ensure the noise levels generated by the function facility use are continuously monitored in real time to protect the immunity of nearby sensitive receptors and ensure compliance with relevant noise standards. We then go down to a new condition 22. Which is the function facility use must always comply with approved environmental noise level impact assessment and noise management plan. There might be one more, is there? Condition 26, the function facility use must always comply with the approved operational management plan. There was another one, it's about the environmental restoration, so that must be further down. There we go, so this is inclusion of a new condition, the land area, condition 2054, the land area identified as vegetation community 4 on the approved plan, titled ecological values plan EV01, revision 1, date 6/24, found in the ecological assessment report version 1, must be rehabilitated /revegetated. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an operational works approval and the planning scheme policy 2 landscape. The works must include the following: works A, the works concentrating and incorporating tree and shrub species that diversify the vegetation community in accordance with regional ecosystem 12.3.2 and 12.3.1. B, control all weed species listed in the following standards and legislation. 1, Declared plants under Biosecurity Act 2014 and Biosecurity Regulation 2016.2, schedule 1 and 2 and non-scheduled invasive species list in the Noosa biosecurity plan 2020. We might just flip down to make sure there's no other amendments. Well, there's one there, which is just a clarification. The development site must be with ablution facilities consisting of a toilet. So taking out the word permanent. We're there now, I believe. So it's now moved. For that please Councillor Wegener, Frank Wilkie 01:08:23.282
Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to speak? Brian Stockwell 01:08:25.814
So, Councillors, we've had the opportunity now for those Councillors who wish to go out on site to get an appreciation of the context specific of where use is being proposed on the site. It is one that will be difficult for some Councillors to support because we are aware that the submissions made by our surrounding residents were generally or completely ones that raised. Areas of concern. It is, however, a straightforward application. Our role when we're assessing development applications is a role stipulated by the Planning Act. It is not a political role. When we assess we, an application, must be bound by the same rules set down by the minister as staff do. We can assess this application in accordance with the act, which is about the benchmarks in the planning scheme or any other relevant matter. The staff report clearly shows that the acceptable outcomes and performance outcomes and overall strategic objectives in relation to a range of things have been met. There is no aspect that I can see in the report that has areas of grey. There's no aspect where staff have had to exercise any form of discretion in considering the application. The submitters are generally have concerns around the potential impacts on their amenity and the potential impacts on the environment. So we have had both our staff and expert advice that through the way that the proposal is conditioned that the noise and light amenity will not be of any significance. In fact the noise emanating at the border from this use would be significantly less than a car driving along the main road. We have, and particularly with the addition in the environmental restoration put in conditions that will ensure that the environment is not only conserved but and rehabilitated to increase the natural values of the property so Councillors, it is a use envisaged by the planning scheme. It is a use that has been able to demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions of the planning scheme. We as the assessment manager need to assess that compliance and in my view while it may be something that the general vision of the community doesn't support in that locality, envisaged it is something that and complies with the relevant parameters planning. Of scheme therefore it needs to be approved. Frank Wilkie 01:11:18.258
Councillor Stockwell? To stop like to. Karen Finzel 01:11:20.957
I have a question. Councillor Finzel? Thank you Mr Chair. After going over the property yesterday we went along. A rather large drive through the property to the site where the dam is and where the proposed function centre will be. My understanding is that there has to be a road constructed to the centre. My question to the staff is, that where the easement would be? Frank Wilkie 01:11:53.262
Thank you Councillor Finzel, we'll get the staff to the table to answer your question. Karen Finzel 01:11:59.651
Thank you Mr Chair. Race the reason I do ask this question is around, you know, when you're doing a road building we have to like preserve cultural heritage and I'm just wondering what, if we're moving forward with this construction of what I understand to be a road, what the ramifications are but I'm looking forward to hearing from the staff. Around this. Patrick Murphy 01:12:31.898
Okay there's existing tracks on property oh my apologies there's existing tracks on the property not sure which figure that would be in the report and those tracks are to be upgraded to a standard that will be suitable for buses for firefighting appliances so when we use the word roads it's not like new a road that you'll you'd be expecting to drive off on in the public domain um we have requested that those roads be sealed now that's they're primarily existing roads there are is like a circular route near where the function building is located which will be there'll be a connection in a new network to create a connection in that area in terms of easements there's no easements that's actually going over the roads what we're requiring is actually covenant over a vegetated area there's separate issues Karen Finzel 01:13:35.326
Okay thank you so if it's an upgrade to a standard for buses and safety vehicles and things like this to traverse my question then comes back to the cultural heritage act looking at when roads get built I mean I'm not an expert on this I just wondering given the land its location significance next to ring tail given it's been an agricultural use for a long term. Good question please Councillor so the question is there any condition for the building of this upgrade to the standard to ensure any cultural things of significance that may be found through the construction are protected Richard MacGillivray 01:14:30.400
Through the Chair the applicant outside of the Planning Act has obligations to meet the aboriginal cultural heritage act which requires the duty of care the applicant to take reasonable steps to ensure that no artifacts of cultural significance if identified must be notified to the department and ensure that they don't have an adverse impact on any cultural heritage so there is a separate provision it sits outside of the assessment Planning Act process and is separately regulated through the State department for that so they have a duty of care that they have to comply with at all times undertaking any works Karen Finzel 01:15:17.193
Thank you another question following on from that then to mitigate risk and make sure that the protocol is you know adhered to through the process can we condition that Richard MacGillivray 01:15:32.611
The Chair we can't specifically condition it because it's a requirement under a separate piece of legislation we do have advice notes included in our decision notices that make applicants acutely aware of their obligations and the aboriginal and so cultural heritage act provisions Karen Finzel 01:15:50.765
Just trying understand the process so prior to any upgrade or work on this infrastructure project I don't know the process does that need to be checked prior to commencement or is it only when and if something's found on site Richard MacGillivray 01:16:10.691
Through the Chair there's a duty of care so prior to the works commencing that the applicant must discharge duty of care there's a range of steps and guidelines that the department has published that make landowners and developers aware of how they must meet those obligations so before they undertake and during the process of site preparation works they'll need to undertake those steps in accordance with the act guidelines you. Karen Finzel 01:16:43.733
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:16:47.036
Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:48.198
I have a few amendments that I'd like to try. First is amend conditions 8 and 9 to read the following. 8. Functions are limited to hours of 11am. To 7pm. Monday to Thursday, inclusive of provisions of amplified music and sound. P.m. Friday to Saturday and sundays followed by gazetted Queensland public holiday inclusive of provisions of amplified music sound. C. A maximum of three events per week and D. A maximum of 96 events per year. 9 all staff and guests must have vacated the premises by A. 8pm. Monday to Thursday and B. 10:30pm. Friday to Saturday and sundays followed by a gazetted Queensland public holiday. Frank Wilkie 01:17:46.309
Is anyone willing to second that? I'll second for the purpose of debate. Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:52.951
I want to start by reiterating what Councillor Stockwell said earlier, that the applicant's done exactly what the planning scheme has allowed him to do. In 2020, it has was allowed the Noosa, it was the Noosa Plan that made a function facility a consistent land use in the rural zone. Our role here today is to minimise the impacts of this lawful use as much as possible through reasonable and effective conditions. Our job is to bring the voices communities of the community that we've met to this table and particularly those voices of the adjoining landowners and the local residents that live in close proximity to this site. The amendment I've proposed is, in my opinion reasonable. And reflects our commitment to our community. Firstly it gives residents some certainty by capping the number of events to a maximum of three per week so they have certainty that there's not going to be an influx of say five or six events in any given week. Restricting the hours of to 7:00 Monday to Thursday and 11:00 to 10:00pm. On Friday Saturday and then sundays only when Queensland Gazette public holidays to me strikes a fair strikes a fair balance amendments supports the balance the amendments supports the business while also protecting residents quality of life and residents well-being the later and hours from Friday to Sunday allow the business to operate during its busiest and most viable days while maintaining restrictions during the quieter weekdays I go back to unrestricted style of operations I think it's important that we first provide the community time to understand how this business is going to function and time to assess its impact allowing the operations from 11:00 to 10:00 every day denies residents this opportunity. Again if the impacts are proved to be manageable the applicant can always come back to Council and seek an extension of hours. I want to raise this because it's relevant I think to the application but last week councils met with residents of Kin Kin and every single day these residents. Councillor Lorentson I'm going to rule that out of order. It's a totally separate issue. Okay so today what I'm asking is for us to basically respect or strike some sort of balance between the operations of the business understanding that it has a lawful right to operate and also respect well-being and wishes of our community so I hope you support what's in front of you. Frank Wilkie 01:21:13.440
Yes Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:21:15.648
Yes thank you I just have a question we're looking at conditioning the hours of operation maybe this is a planning this is the planning staff Through the Chair I was of the understanding that we don't consider the impacts of like the business their business plan I'm raising this because the applicants on site yesterday communicated that the condition to reduce number of hours would not be like conducive to making their business plan are these conditions, are we heading down right track on these or how does this work Frank Wilkie 01:21:59.486
Guess I Councillor Finzel I might have to rule that question out of order because the staff can't say whether or not these will make the business unviable or not. That's a probably a judgement call for Councillors. Is there any advice you can give about how the applicant may respond to correct. A change like this? Richard MacGillivray 01:22:20.450
Just in terms of the comments around the commercial viability, it's not a planning consideration as such from our perspective. The comment we would make, understand, is that the applicant has concerns. Obviously they've applied for the hours that they have sought and staff have assessed that against the relevant benchmarks. The risks of revised hours is whether that will be challenged by the applicant in terms of a potential appeal or submission of representations. So Council staff have put forward the recommendation based on what was put before them and they've assessed that against the current benchmarks with the relevant technical reports so their view is that the hours proposed in the report meet the scheme requirements and a reduction could be subject to a challenge. Brian Stockwell 01:23:21.683
I think what Councillor Finzel was perhaps requesting was the staff have put up a set of conditions which they believe is reasonable and relevant a reduction in hours to this extent is less reasonable and less relevant and therefore is open to challenge is that correct? Patrick Murphy 01:23:44.104
Through the Chair yes I would agree I just if I may just note that condition six on the approval details the number of events that are to occur throughout the year and the number of guests that attend reflective of what the applicants proposed that equates to 96 events year that is what they're proposing and in terms of the hours they actually did extend for longer hours than what we have condition as a result of the acoustic review there was a slight modification to pull in the operating hours in half an hour at the end of the day to align with the required acoustic requirements Amelia Lorentson 01:24:34.200
A question if the amendment is supported does the applicant have the opportunity to come back to Council and apply for an extension of hours Patrick Murphy 01:24:51.900
The certainly the first mechanism the applicant would have be to make representation a so a decision of Council which would seek modification or changes to any approved conditions alternatively they could seek an appeal or if they did accept that they could exceed seek to change conditions down the track Frank Wilkie 01:25:16.623
Can our Councillors council's wish to speak to the amendment Karen Finzel 01:25:21.365
I have another question Through the Chair Councillor Finzel if I may thank you given it was put forward that we asked for an extension for this meeting given like we're having these discussions around conditions and certain things did the applicant show any consideration to extend the opportunity to give further consideration to the meeting in was that January? Richard MacGillivray 01:25:50.869
Through the Chair staff engaged with the applicant in relation to the request to extend the decision-making period by agreement they did not agree to that request and the decision date is due on the 20th of December so yeah they haven't formally agreed to extend the decision-making date beyond the 20th of December at this stage Karen Finzel 01:26:18.109
And to refresh my memory can you please tell me what happens in the process does that mean a deemed refusal Richard MacGillivray 01:26:28.524
Through the Chair so if a decision is not made within the statutory time frame because this is an impact assessable development application the applicant may seek a deemed refusal if the decision is not made on the application thank the Chair you Frank Wilkie 01:26:50.468
Welcome I'm going to make a few comments about the amendments proposed related to what we discovered when we went on site yesterday. These amendments relate primarily to the impacts seek to further minimise potential impacts on the residents which is primarily about impacts on rural amenity and the sound experience site. The conditions applied are extremely rigorous and stringent and put the applicant to considerable expense but I think they're merited given our commitment to minimise the impact on the site itself is rather large, it's 100 hectares and even though the nearest sensitive receptor or house is 670 metres as the crow flies, it is in between the site of the proposed site and that house there are many hills and orchards there's not a direct line of sight so it is reasonable to accept the acoustic consultants report that there will be very little sound impact on the nearby residents the applicants have said they only require 96 events per year which is one maybe two a week and they say they occur on Friday Saturday nights I know that's consistent with what could be allowed with this amendment I think it also gives residents false hope that the applicant is not going to come back and make representations to this or appeal it because most of the events are gonna be on Friday Saturday night anyway and I think it's slightly confusing because the conditions as they stand say a maximum of 96 events per year this amendment also says a maximum of three events per week so it creates uncertainty that three events per week when the of the intention of the applicant is certainly nothing like that it's 96 events per year. It the conditions as they are very stringent, very robust. I think this amendment will be overturned on a representation to conditions or an appeal. I don't want the to residents any false hope. So I'm not going to support this amendment because I think the conditions already are extremely stringent and those of us that went out on site yesterday and seen the topography distances involved, seen what stands between the potential site, the design that's proposed, glass walls enclosed, function centre, will be thank that the stringent enough, and there has to be good reason to impose less operating hours, and I just don't think, nothing that I saw there would indicate that preventing them going on 7 beyond seven.00pm. On some nights would be merited and certainly not challenged. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:28.147
A question Through the Chair. Yes. Thank you. Richard, is it possible. Through the Chair. Oh, sorry, Through the Chair. Is it possible that there may fact in be four or five events in any given week, given that there are periods that are slower and periods that are busier and. Richard MacGillivray 01:30:50.862
Yep, good question. Yeah, Through the Chair. Yeah, that's correct. Different times of year, there may be more events occurring and then other times of the year there may be no events. So the applicant obviously, as the conditions are presented, to give flexibility to when and the frequency of those events throughout the year, so it won't be 1.8 events every week throughout the year to meet the 96th. The applicant will have the flexibility to maybe have more on one week and less on another week as the conditions are designed. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:32.968
So does-- male speaker: just one more question. So just to clarify, so there may be some weeks where there could be say four or five events and possibly six events. Karen Finzel 01:31:42.285
Monday, Tuesday. Sorry to interrupt, I can't hear Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:46.190
Okay so so just in terms of clarity, is it possible that the applicant or this proposed function centre may actually entertain five to six functions in one given week? Brian Stockwell 01:32:01.961
This is exactly the same question being asked in a different way. Frank Wilkie 01:32:04.595
Okay point of order is sustained. Richard MacGillivray 01:32:11.776
Through the Chair yeah so as I mentioned earlier the flexibility yeah the flexibility yeah Frank Wilkie 01:32:20.293
Councillors. Any further questions? Karen Finzel 01:32:26.444
Councillor Lorentson? Yeah just a question. Just to clarify that this condition to reduce number of hours to try and protect amenity, which I believe is the intent of Councillor Lorentson, and we haven't got the applicants at the table for further conversation and we've got to make the decision. What's the process for the applicant to seek to change the hours if it's not viable for their business, aside from appeal? Frank Wilkie 01:33:02.783
So your question is if this amendment is supported and the applicant doesn't support the change of hours, what avenues are open to them? Is that correct Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:33:13.926
Yeah, aside from appeal, is there they can just come in and talk to planning staff or how does that work? Patrick Murphy 01:33:21.458
Through the Chair, they can seek to make representations once Council makes a decision on the application and seek a negotiated decision notice or a change to the application. They are aware of suggested modified hours and have indicated to staff that they're not supportive of restrictions on their operating hours. I believe they did make a comment where they would be agreeable to three days per week, but that would only be on the basis of being able to operate on a Sunday in the public holiday as well, which is contrary to our recommendation. Frank Wilkie 01:33:59.560
Thank you. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:34:05.875
Thank you. I wouldn't be supportive of all of those conditions or amendments. I would be supportive of reduced hours to 9pm on Monday to Thursday, making that more consistent with the entertainment facility in residential zones. And noting that this is a wedding facility and that it's seasonal, I think imposing a restriction on three events per week is all totally the unfair, at the same time noting it's probably unlikely they would have more than three anyway, given the amount of time it takes to set up and pack down after each event, so that's hopefully something that's a consideration. Too. Frank Wilkie 01:34:46.629
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 01:34:54.578
Yep, I wanted to play with this amendment because I think Councillor Wilkie, what we heard around the table is there is a possibility that there will be events on a Monday, on a Tuesday running until 10 o'clock and the intent of the motion was simply to try to strike some and respect the adjoining neighbours and representations that they have made. I am happy for this one to fall and I have another one that I would like to propose as well. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:35:26.565
Put the amendment those in favour. It is Councillor Lorentson. Those against? Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie. Where are you standing on this one, Councillor Finzel? Against? Amendments lost. Councillor Lorentson, would you like to try another amendment? Amelia Lorentson 01:35:47.527
Yes, number 8, which eight is use of approved, amend condition eight to read use of approved function facility is limited to the hours of 11am. To 10pm. Inclusive of provision of amplified music and sound be a maximum of three events per week and maximum of 96 events per calendar year. Frank Wilkie 01:36:11.397
We have a seconder for that one? We need a second for debate. Councillor Finzel will do it, pursue for the second I of the original motion. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:26.602
The risk we have today is the risk of this going to appeal courts. So again, I acknowledge that the applicant right has a lawful to operate and those rights are given to him under the amended Noosa Plan in 2020. I've actually run this proposal with the applicant and spoken to planning staff on this one. Simply it's to be very clear that it is a maximum of three events per week not five events per week. Again our job today is to mitigate any potential adverse impacts to the community and I think if certainty around how many events are allowed per given week at least they can be rest assured that at least four days a week they're sleeping. So at the moment the current amendment allows. Frank Wilkie 01:37:30.860
Sorry, Council note. Councillor Finzel could you turn off your microphone? Could you mute please? We're going to echo. Sorry, Council note. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:37.530
That's right, so currently the amendment allows for 96 events per year. It doesn't actually specify how these events can be distributed and I think there's. That can lead to confusion and concerns. About multiple events occurring during busy periods. By introducing a weekly cap, we eliminate ambiguity and allow or our residents are not subjected to unpredictable influx of events. I just think this makes the condition clear. And is one step towards sort of balancing residentials. Residents quite. Right to enjoyment and respecting the real environment that this proposal is located at. Frank Wilkie 01:38:25.402
Question to staff. Is this consistent with what the applicant has said they only intend to one two events per week? To two events per week. Patrick Murphy 01:38:35.937
Through the Chair, no. The applicants have asked for capacity to have events throughout the week. Not to have a limit on the number of events. They did say that they would accept three but that was only on the basis of being able to also have events on the sundays and public holidays. At the moment not allowed, the conditions don't allow them to do that, the proposed conditions. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:38:59.704
The amendment has the potential well, to if it was accepted to change the way it operated. There would be, for example, opportunities to use this facility. I believe the concept was not just weddings for long lunches. Say if you had a business event in Noosa Heads, then there may be an option to come and have lunch out here. In fact, limiting the three days may actually push more nighttime activity, rather than saying, oh, okay, we can have, if we can have a few daytime activities, we might only have one in the week. The other thing it's based on is the concept that the level of impact on residents is significant. And as we heard, the background noise level is equivalent to this place without anyone talking, and five decibels is just a little bit above that. So the need for us to stipulate a number of times a week is probably limiting the degree of flexibility that may have the perverse effect of leading to more night time activities. Frank Wilkie 01:40:15.381
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:40:17.349
I'm just noting that we have been provided with. An overview of anticipated scheduled events for the calendar year, and even in the busiest months of the working season, it's looking like less than 10 per month, which is an average of less than three anyway. Frank Wilkie 01:40:34.427
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close? No, Thank you. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and those against? Council. Against. Wilkie, Wilson, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie. The amendment's lost. Councillor Lorentson. I have another amendment. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:04.553
Yes. Amendment 11. A minimum of one bus with a seating capacity of 20 to 50 persons must be provided for events which have over 50 guests and two buses each with a seating capacity of 30 to 50 persons must be provided for events which have over 100 guests. Frank Wilkie 01:41:35.641
The first time we've seen this so we'll just absorb that. A minimum of one bus with a seating capacity of 20 to 50 persons must be provided for all events which have over 50 guests and two buses each with a seating capacity of 30 to 50 persons must be provided for events which have over 100 guests. It looks like the amendment has failed for loss of a seconder. Do you have another amendment, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 01:42:25.161
I do. So, new condition 28. And apologies, this was distributed early this morning when I got received the wording. I did submit this request very, very early this morning when I woke up at four o'clock. Twenty-eight. The operational management plan be reviewed and updated every three years from the date of this approval. One, the review must assess the effectiveness of the current operational management plan in achieving its objectives. B, consider any changes in operational practices, regulatory requirements and environmental conditions. The updated operational management plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority within 30 days of the review completion. The submission must include a summary of the review process, key findings and any proposed changes to the operational management plan and the updated operational management plan must be implemented within 30 days of approval by Council. Karen Finzel 01:43:36.841
I'm happy to support the amendment. Frank Wilkie 01:43:40.465
Councillor Finzel, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:43.140
I think the wording explains the intent. I think it's important again to respect the early submissions that were made by adjoining residents and those living in close proximity to this proposal. I think it's really important that we at least review whether or not the operational management plan does achieve its objectives and whether there is any opportunity to consider any changes in the operational plan if it doesn't. Again, I talk about lessons from the past we, and everyone around this table knows what I'm referring to and I am going to raise Frank Wilkie 01:44:40.230
Ask that Amelia Lorentson 01:44:42.745
No worries, so I think we have an obligation as Councillors to understand that businesses especially those in rural areas and those in small communities have or should have a social contract with this community and I think a review of an operational plan is a really great opportunity for the owners and the community to meet and to respect that social contract. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. Karen Finzel 01:45:18.399
Just a question Through the Chair. Frank Wilkie 01:45:20.075
We've got Councillor Stockwell on his feet, Councillor Finzel. Brian Stockwell 01:45:23.234
So I know in circulating this amendment staff did have some issues that need to be considered to this amendment, in regard to what an operational plan does in terms of regulating compliance conditions and the process of doing it. Could staff please outline some of the issues that we need to consider please? Patrick Murphy 01:45:45.088
Through the Chair. So the operational management plan relates to the operation of the events that are occurring on the site, how they're to be managed effectively. It's not a mechanism to require or to regulate compliance with conditions of the approval, that's a separate matter. Standalone, counts. Which Council will enforce. Any review of the operational management plan shouldn't include the opportunity to amend or include new conditions, is the position. Karen Finzel 01:46:26.401
Question to the planning staff. Yes. Frank Wilkie 01:46:32.887
You've got the floor. Karen Finzel 01:46:34.749
Thank you. Through the Chair to the staff, you've just answered that question saying regulating conditions fall outside of this amendment. How would those conditions be addressed if there was an intensification of heavy, rigid vehicles along the road, given the upgrades linked to the development, including the widening of turning vehicles in and out of the venue site? How do we address that, if it's outside of this conditioning now? How do we regulate that moving forward? Richard MacGillivray 01:47:14.119
Through the Chair, so what I understand you're talking about other heavy, rigid vehicles accessing the site like farm equipment or machinery? Or are you referring to. Karen Finzel 01:47:25.932
Yes. Intensification of any vehicles in relation to the site and the general usage of Louis Bazzo Drive. How do we. I guess what we're trying to do, and we're not to mention it, but we all know the elephant in the room. How do we have a way that we can regulate and then change and manage potential intensification of heavy vehicle movements. In and out of the venue and along Louis Bazzo Drive? Because we don't want to see a situation. Frank Wilkie 01:48:02.330
Sounds like commentary, Councillor Finzel. We'll let the question be answered. Richard MacGillivray 01:48:08.461
Through the Chair, so the applicant is being assessed on its merits in terms of the nature of the likely vehicles related to the activity. Obviously that's referenced buses in some cases and also private vehicles. It's also of relevance to note that the site is a rural and active macadamia farm it's envisaged that there's likely to be heavy machinery associated with those farming activities accessing the site but also across Louis Bazzo Drive. Which it's designed to manage as well so hopefully that answers your question Karen Finzel 01:48:53.718
Uh thank you but through the chat Chair it actually doesn't give me clarification thank given the farm machinery already has access in and out of that site and there hasn't previously been a need to upgrade the road for returning left and right access in and out of there I'm trying to protect Frank Wilkie 01:49:13.989
The amenities so you're making you you're arguing now um Council offender could you cut to Karen Finzel 01:49:19.054
The question adequately please answered is there a way we can regulate as a Council and mitigate the risks around intensification of vehicles entering in and out of that site through Richard MacGillivray 01:49:40.216
The Chair so I'd point out as part of the application material is referred to SARA which is a state assessment referral agency as Louis bezo is a state controlled road so they're the administering authority for all activity assessment on development applications that access off their road so they are the appropriate department that assess and around development proposals and how that impacts on the safety and the efficiency of road operations. They have approved the proposal subject to stringent about conditions increasing shoulders to make it more safer than it currently is for access of vehicles to and from the subject site. Council is unable to regulate activity on that road because it's not within our jurisdiction. You. Question Through the Chair. Yes Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:50:44.331
Just to clarify then, so currently there is no need to upgrade the road there through SARA and just wondering if Frank Wilkie 01:50:56.522
Conditioning of point the of order. Councillor Finzel. We have a point of order. Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:51:02.097
This is relevant to the amendment to update on operational actual time. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:51:06.043
Yeah. Councillor Finzel, the point of order has been sustained and that is it's we're addressing an amendment about an operational management plan review. So we'll leave your question about the road till after this matter has been dealt with. I have a question. That's alright Councillor Finzel. In the operational management plan it says that the operational management plan will be reviewed after each event to ensure the company can continually meet the client's requirements whilst maintaining Council permit guidelines. So my question is does either this review after three years or after every to event have do with Council changing conditions? The of approval? Patrick Murphy 01:52:01.566
Through the Chair, any change to conditions would need to be part of an amendment proposal. We couldn't just change, impose conditions. I think the comments about the review after every event is more around a performance assessment, how they've done of their operational management plan, where I think the condition is actually talking about reviewing the robustness of the actual structure of the operational management plan to ensure that it is an effective document in managing the operations going forward. Richard MacGillivray 01:52:33.146
Yeah, can I ask I also add--- Councillor MacGillivray. Yeah, sorry, can just to--- Director MacGillivray. Thank you, though. - In support of patrick's comments, too, I think the important element about a review process, too, is that over time, and noting that development approvals run with the land, is that over time there might be new technologies that have evolved that might, you know, could be introduced that would help to limit further any issues or impacts or concerns, so this gives potential. A mechanism potentially for that to be reviewed and Council will need to endorse whether there's some changes that may enhance the operational and further minimise any potential impacts from the use as well. Patrick Murphy 01:53:19.812
Through the chairmaker comment, I'm not sure whether the term conditions at 1 is.2 is causing concern, and whether councils are interpreting that would provide an ability for conditions to be changed, because that's not the intent of that word yeah, what is the intent of the word? Well, it's, supposed to be the environmental conditions that apply to the site. In terms of maybe changing changes to operations or changes to what's happening in the site from an environmental point of view, and whether there's a need to review traffic management car parking, where patrons can go, things like that. The intent of that. Can this work? And would it be helpful? Through the Chair? I think there's validity in providing in requiring the applicant or the operator to review their operations in a three year time period, I think is timely enough. And as Richard said, new technologies may come on board that enable them to operate to a higher standard. Frank Wilkie 01:54:39.777
Thank you. I'm going to speak in favour of the amendment. We've just heard it can be done. It's prudent. The review after every event is basically about the events themselves, whereas this is about the whole operation. Management plan ought to be reviewed periodically. It gives us an opportunity to see how it is running. So as a prudent safeguard, I'm in favour of this amendment. Karen Finzel 01:55:31.301
Um, can I speak to the amendment Through the Chair? Frank Wilkie 01:55:33.796
Yes, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:55:35.221
Actually, can I ask a question? Frank Wilkie 01:55:36.865
Yes. Karen Finzel 01:55:38.509
Firstly, if Councillor Lorentson, if she'd be willing to make that, um, two yearly. And the way things, um, escalated and the intensification of development headed towards this hinterland. And secondly, um, I'd like a definition from the planning staff, because in my mind I that the environment. Frank Wilkie 01:56:01.552
What's your question please Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:56:03.766
My question is, the characteristics and the social economic aesthetic of the community also. Included under the definition of environment in relation to planning? Greg Patrick Murphy 01:56:19.452
Through the Chair that's not the intent of the word environmental in this record. Karen Finzel 01:56:26.235
Drafted condition. OK. Thank you for the clarification. Frank Wilkie 01:56:31.482
There was a. Question to Council. There was a question to Councillor Lorentson about whether you would accept two years from the date of this approval? Amelia Lorentson 01:56:41.685
I actually had sought advice on that, what is considered reasonable, whether it was annually two years or three years, and the advice from staff was three years would be considered a reasonable period. So, again, at the risk of this not ending up in planning and environment or may. Might actually. Before I get to that. Throw the question at the planning staff. Patrick Murphy 01:57:10.101
Well, Through the Chair, ultimately it's a decision for Councillors to make, but I think annually would be prohibitive. I think four years would be too long. Amelia Lorentson 01:57:29.349
Two or three years I think is something that the operator could work with thank you Patrick. In that case I'm happy to change to two years if that's in agreeance with the planning staff. Thank you. Sorry, just to clarify did you say three years? Patrick Murphy 01:57:38.861
Did you say two or three years? Either two or three years I think would be reasonable Amelia Lorentson 01:57:44.390
I request just a request minor change to the wording and put that to a vote for Councillors. Frank Wilkie 01:57:57.789
Okay the request has been to change the vote to two years as opposed to three years. Brian Stockwell 01:58:06.687
Generally we're going to use the process of changing amendment that has a substantive impact on the intent, on the amendment this does have a substantive impact that should be done by a separate amendment process if people are given that vote. Frank Wilkie 01:58:20.403
There's not a consensus, so will this amendment pass or fail? So I just have one question. Brian Stockwell 01:58:33.767
The way it's worded to me is just enforcing a long-term review of the individual review. There is no trigger there for Council to require any change to the operational plan. There's not an approval process. Oh, I see there's an approval by Council. And updated every three years from this date of this approval. Yeah, it's interesting because in the section before you talk about approval by Council, there's no requirement for it to be approved in the amendment. Is that a question? Oh, yeah. I can't see anything in the amendment that requires us to approve it other than to say we're going to, but there's nothing in the wording that suggests. It's submitted for approval. Amelia Lorentson 01:59:24.742
It does in the first sentence. Patrick Murphy 01:59:26.284
Yeah, sorry. Through the Chair, point two, the operational plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority within 30 days of the review completion. Thank you Brian Stockwell 01:59:42.101
Yeah, sorry, I'm still disagreeing. It's still just submitting it. If we want it to be approved, the wording for approval should be in the headline. Richard MacGillivray 01:59:51.823
Okay, well, if. Patrick Murphy 01:59:55.762
Well, I thought that was suitable, the existing wording, but if Council seek to change it, question, I'll move on to that. Frank Wilkie 02:00:03.315
What would be a more effective. What needed to be changed to reflect the point you just made? Richard MacGillivray 02:00:16.596
Through the Chair, I would probably just suggest the updated operation management plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority for approval within 30 days of the review completion. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:26.881
For in number two 2, B2. Brian Stockwell 02:00:34.530
Sorry, can you repeat that again? Frank Wilkie 02:00:36.249
Yeah. Okay. So is the committee happy for that change to be made? Councillor Finzel? Thank you. Karen Finzel 02:00:50.534
I think the intent here is to try and mitigate reverse amenity risk. Will this. Frank Wilkie 02:00:58.797
Sorry, Councillor Finzel, the question was are you happy for the words for approval to be inserted into part two of the amendment? The other councils are in yes thank you have another question Karen Finzel 02:01:15.269
I do I'm just trying to um make sure that the wording reflects what I believe you see the intent is to address reverse amenity risk into the future to the planning staff Through the Chair do you think this is the right wording to mitigate this risk moving forward or is that another method Richard MacGillivray 02:01:37.702
Through the Chair the yes as drafted yeah it's more appropriate and lot of it's Through the Chair yes as drafted yeah it's more appropriate clear about the requirement for an approval of the review that occurs in terms of the clear about the requirement for an approval of the review that occurs in terms of the comments about reversibility I'm not entirely sure relevance of this particular thing knowing that's the situation where the residents would be impacting on the operator of the function facility so I'm not too sure how that would be of assistance. Frank Wilkie 02:02:15.712
Okay. Councillor Lorentson, you wish to close or any- you wish to close, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:02:24.453
No, only just to re-argue or rewrite the amendment so that it reflects two years- a two-year review, not a three-year review. We're going to let this form- we've put Frank Wilkie 02:02:39.650
Councillor Lorentson's closed, so we put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Councillors, yes. Councillors. Okay, I'm happy with three. It's unanimous. Yay. Thank you. Okay, any other amendments? Okay, we go back to the original motion to which only Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Does Councillor Stockwell you were supposed to close. I'll speak. Oh, Councillor Wegener. Yes, just let the girls catch up. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:21.588
Is there another amendment? Karen Finzel 02:03:26.130
It's ready to share. I'm unable to hear Councillor Wegener. Frank Wilkie 02:03:29.495
No one's speaking at the moment, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:03:33.282
Thank you, Mr Chair. Nothing wrong with your hearing. Unidentified Speaker 02:03:37.228
Thank you. Nicola Wilson 02:03:40.531
Is there a substantive motion? Frank Wilkie 02:03:42.358
The substantive motion was moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Nicola Wilson 02:03:46.148
We'll just catch him up. Come over here, I'll sit with you. Unknown 02:04:02.271
I'll take you up there. Supposed do to him. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:08.842
I'm sorry, do you want to be a minute? Brian Stockwell 02:05:13.360
Okay, here we go. We have to show the right focus as well. Frank Wilkie 02:06:03.280
Good to go. Okay, so we're back to the original motion with the changes and only Councillor Stockwell has spoken and the Councillors wish to speak to Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 02:06:20.560
Residents living in the rural zone expect to live surrounded by nature and rural activities. In the 2020 plan, a function facility became consistent use in the rural zone and accessible. We talk often expanding the Noosa I think in this case, the plan puts us in an unusual situation, and we are prompted personally to agree with that plan. The is never perfect and has to evolve and adapt to meet needs, hence the many moments recently passed. One of those was to tone down this original function thought. Centre. This consisted of use in the future, only in conjunction with nature-based tourism, not sustainable use. But this application has been legitimately made under the current Noosa 2020 Plan, and the raised by planners in respect of noise, traffic, road and conditions have been addressed with conditions, operating hours, operating plans, etc. So on paper this ticks every box. But I do totally understand and relate to residents' concerns. An application can meet all of the criteria for the planning scheme, but that doesn't mean we will approve the planning scheme and the outcome of that. In this application, both the rural zone code and entertainment activity code are relevant. If we were assessing a rural activity, such as a farm, under the Rural Activities Code we would find P04, customers and clients do not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents, and A04 says customers or clients do not attend the site outside the hours of 7amm. To 6pm. Daily. But when we look into the function centre, as we wouldn't normally anticipate in a rural zone, the entertainment activities code is relevant instead, for which allows operating hours. Rural zone would really expect this use. The report refers to AO 12.5 and the fact that the site is not adjoining land in a residential zone. But I'd argue it's a much more sensitive zone to noise that just isn't mentioned in that because it doesn't anticipate such use. I believe that avoids negative impacts on the surrounding area and sensitive land uses. We've AO 12.1 says operations of the entertainment activity is limited to between the hours of 7am and 9pm, seven days per week, on any site that adjoins residential zones. It doesn't refer to the rural zone. And so because it's not mentioned in AO 12.5, where the site is not the site is land not just in a residential zone and not otherwise specified a bug, the entertainment activity is to operate only between 7am, 10pm, Sunday to Thursday, and other days. So by putting us into the 10pm every day, it's in keeping with the insane activities code, which surprisingly is allowing greater activity in a more sensitive zone. I was told the funding regulations 2017 specified the zones that are residential zones, and the then rural zone is not listed as a residential zone. Which is probably a surprise to many of us, isn't it? I can see that residents living in the rural zone would have had the expectation that they are shielded from noisy impacts at night and businesses operating until 10pm. With a literal interpretation of the planning scheme, this application makes the priority here, but I think, um, I don't really understand the consequences that the residents of ringdale creek will accept. Frank Wilkie 02:09:55.285
Councillor Wilson. Councillor's wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes. Councillor Wegener. Yes. You go ahead. Go on. Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 02:10:08.199
Oh, sure, okay. Yeah, I think the question around this planning scheme, yes, Councillor Wilson is correct in saying, you know, it's ticked boxes, but how does the community expectations fit into the process? I think we did a point pointing in history where, you know, not just in Noosa Shire, but across the probably state of Australia and beyond, is this increase in conflicting uses of. Residential areas, our urban areas, including our rural areas. I think this provides us a good opportunity to reassess our planning scheme and have a look at, like, moving forward into the future. We do better? I think amenity is not a concept that can be considered the abstract. It is in part formed by the content of the site and it surrounds by reasonableness. So my question is, this reasonable that the. Operation and this business is a fit for this area and how do we measure that? And what may be the unintended consequences of TML road upgrades that potentially increase use of heavy vehicles and traffic through our hinterland? I think we also have to take into consideration the interpretation of environment in relation to planning, including ecosystems and their parks, including people and communities. Natural and physical resources, social, economic, aesthetic and cultural conditions that are affected by this development application. As Councillor Wilson to, we need to be considering where are the gaps and how do we make sure that the weighting of our community, noting that they put in 30 properly made submissions this development, due to some intangibles around pleasure, enjoyment, peace, serenity. You know, I think it's time to have a conversation of how do we measure these things and how do we make sure that our community has a voice in this decision. Think moving forward, this provides a perfect opportunity for collaborative solutions moving given that the DMP, I believe, is heading towards, you know, moving intensification from the Coast towards the hinterland. I think this provides us a perfect opportunity collaborate between Council, individuals, community organisations and business, including all levels of government, to ensure that we work together to retain our lifestyles. And also invite and promote suitably based businesses where we collectively are all at the table and that there is a balance around inclusive community engagement around development. Thank you. Tom Wegener 02:13:47.740
I wanted to just say I support Councillor Lorentson's amendment concerning the operational plan review. This is an urban activity which is moving into the hinterland. And I think it's arguably inconsistent with the strategic framework of producer plan 2020. So I'm glad that we are going to monitor this. Frank Wilkie 02:14:06.296
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:10.516
And I'll speak this. The developer has acted entirely within the bounds of what the Noosa Plan allows. My issue today has never been with the applicant, but with the amendments that were made to the Noosa Plan in 2020, which designated a function facility as a consistent use in a quiet rural zone. And this decision may have consequences for the surrounding community. Key concern is that, for me, was that the-- adjoining property owners had no idea that these changes in 2020 were happening. As we heard on Monday, the amendments were publicly notified and advertised in compliance with statutory notice requirements. However, this raises an important question to me, at least. Should we be changing the way we consult on planning scheme amendments? Should we be advocating for mandatory direct notification to all properties impacted by proposed changes the Noosa Plan which will ensure that affected residents receive a notice delivered to their door with confirmation of receipt? Additionally should we be considering amending the Noosa Plan? Brian Stockwell 02:15:27.388
Point of order, veering way off topic here. Talking planning about a scheme amendment process. We're not talking about the development application. Frank Wilkie 02:15:35.818
Yes, point of order is upheld. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 02:15:38.581
No worries. The applicant purchased a property based on the Noosa plan's designation of a function facility as a consistent use. Our responsibility today's Councillors was to mitigate the negative impacts within the framework of the planning scheme. We fought hard and we tried. I to impose two buses, try to reduce hours. Unfortunately they didn't receive majority support but the most important one which is the operational management plan review did. So I believe the conditions imposed along with that additional condition agreed upon today. Strikes a good balance. The applicant has designed the project with measures to minimise disruption and encouragingly two to of the property owners are actually long-term Noosa residents and I know that they understand clearly the value of maintaining a good reputation within our community. These measures that have been imposed within the development conditions and the applicant's commitment to being a responsible neighbour I think will help mitigate the impacts on the surrounding properties. I think where I'm sort of sitting is that we can't, the situation is really unfortunate but it can't be undone. If this application is refused the matter will most certainly proceed to court and that'll cost ratepayers pays tens of thousands of dollars and likely resulting in an approval and possibly we may lose the conditions that we fought hard today for. I don't believe that will serve the interest of the applicant who has acted in good faith nor the residents by giving them a false expectation of success. Our role today is to act in the best interests of the community by imposing enforceable and effective conditions. And I think by approving the recommendation in front of us today, we can ensure the impacts are minimised and we unnecessary legal costs and false expectations for our objecting residents. I think the right course of action today is to approve the recommendation before us. Frank Wilkie 02:18:05.243
Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close. Brian Stockwell 02:18:08.135
I do. I think the heart of this issue is expressed by a number of Councillors. I think Councillor Wilson talked about resident expectations, Councillor Finzel community expectations, Councillor Lorentson so far as to say quiet rural zone and in Noosa most people would have the perception that the rural zone is for quiet rural living and that perception isn't correct. The rural zone is generally something that is quite noisy. It's just, in fact because we only have a limited set of zones we can go by there's only two options in the rural area. A rural zone which allows for a range of noisy uses and environment management and conservation. Now the people living in this area highly value those aspects which would be around environment management and conservation and one of the options available to landowners is actually to voluntarily ask us to rezone their property and if this progressively happens we can actually turn. More of the rural area into the sort of retreats that many people live in the rural area for. But the rural zone isn't necessarily quiet. It isn't, as Councillor Wilson pointed out, a residential zone. It's historically primarily. Where our food grows. Councillor Wegener mentioned it's a urban use. And function centres, historically, yes. But if we take out the word function centre and say wedding venue, I think the vast majority of every wedding I've been to in my life has been in a rural or a conservation area. I was married in a rural area. My niece was. And so perhaps it's also then this application may serve as a useful approval in that it may means the viability of our food produces by giving them an additional use and certainly my own research a decade ago showed in our area along the central Coast and very similar areas that the nearly all food production occurs where a second source of income occurs if you just try and start up a new primary production without a second source of income generally it fails so yes it does challenge the perception of the surrounding residents it does challenge their vision of what their area should be used for but hopefully with the conditions it can actually also demonstrate that we can use the rural area for a mix of uses and it can not be at in a way done in a way that of residents but actually adds to what we're trying to achieve and certainly having new venues for people get married in the hinterland was one of the aims in terms of the strategic framework of the 2020 scheme. Frank Wilkie 02:21:07.263
Thank you Councillor Stockwell. We'll put the motion those in favour. That's Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Lorentson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Councillor Finzel against, Councillor Finzel. The motion is carried. We now go to item 8.1. Thank you staff. Thank you. Financial Performance Report November 2024 8.2 Regional Arts Development Fund radoff grant recommendations annual round. Councillor Wegener, you have a declaration? Tom Wegener 02:21:43.187
Yes. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to artists residency Noosa natural ecology. As my son has a connection with this project and may derive a benefit from this grant funding, as a result of my conflict, I will leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and Councillor voted on. Wegener. Frank Wilkie 02:22:08.024
Have a mover and seconder for the motion, please. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stockwell. We've got Councillor Stockwell, beecher-with-a-Punch, Councillor Finzel. Do we have any discussion on this motion? All in favour? That's carried. Councillor Finzel? Yes. That's carried unanimously. May Councillor Wegener may return to the meeting. 8.3 is the climate change response plan implementation update. 8.4 is the application for other change to development approval. Integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex to include group farm stay, accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at Kabi road, Cootharaba. 9.1 was a confidential item, Planning & Environment Court appeal.19 of 2020, application for multiple dwellings, detached house and reconfiguration of one lot into two lots at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa, heads. Now, can I have a movement, secretary, of the General Committee recommendations to be adopted, except we're dealt with separately. Please. I'll move the last motion of the year. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. And I'll second that. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Meeting. We have no Ordinary Meeting reports. We no confidential items. Thank you, everyone. That brings you to the last Ordinary Meeting of the year. The next Ordinary Meeting will be at the Noosa Council chambers on Thursday, 23 January at 10am. I declare the meeting closed. At 12.25pm and thank you, everybody, for your attendance and contributions. Not just today, but the whole year. Thank you very much, Chair. Karen Finzel 02:24:04.522
Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
