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)
AI-Generated 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 Kim Petrovic and John Cochrane : Opposed Noosa Springs hotel, citing outdated expert reports, bushfire evacuation risk via single access, flawed survey/consultation, community facility displacement, and “Trojan horse” for future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 00:00.000
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 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. Wegener. All in favour? Yes. Thank you, that's carried. Can movement 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. Wegener. All in favour? Yes. That's carried unanimously. Next are petitions. Councillor Lorentson, I'll let you have a petition. Amelia Lorentson 00:55.852
I do have a petition. The is for a safe pedestrian crossing 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 01:15.306
I have 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 is before the Council. Not us 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. Have 15 minutes. Thank you. Rhett Duncan 02:09.356
Good morning, Mayor Wilkie, Councillors Finzel, Lorentson, Phillips, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Unitywater is 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 in 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 number of experts with respect to ecology, odour, noise, visual amenity and bushfire. Unitywater has no visibility oh. 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. Unity unitwater 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 entire Noosa sewage 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, which 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 the plant needed 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. To the north. 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. Doesn't it 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 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 so two so what's this 2.58 unit contour line and what does it actually mean? There's been a lot of discussion and focus on this 2.5 odour unit contour line modelling, much of it being without proper context and understanding of what it actually means. Firstly the applicant would like you to think that the is a hard and fast line beyond which there are no odour issues. Is not the case. The odour modelling exercise and are simply scientific means of assessing the risk. It's not the law and it does not release water from its obligations under the law. The Environmental Protection Act and the June 2024 legislative changes specifically focus on odour, meaning 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 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. 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 based on the data used. In some scenarios, 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 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 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. But 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. 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 from the plant 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. This is the Noosa Noosa community and unity you board 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 harm, 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 Council is placing the reverse amenity risk back onto Unitywater even worse than this, Unitywater could also 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 of suburbia surrounded by three 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 referenced 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. 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 existing sewage 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, Council and a water shareholder, shares. 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 I asked 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 15:44.751
Next deputation, we have Kim Petrovic and John Cochrane with another deputation on Noosa proposed development. Welcome, Kim and John, you have 15 minutes. Kim Petrovic 15:59.520
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 noora's 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 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 any creek road as a safe evacuation option. Concerns contrasts 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 SPEAKER_04 18:12.409
During emergencies. Third, 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 by planning staff at the PME meeting of 11 June 2024. The notification period: strategically set during the Christmas season. Limited meaningful community engagement. Requests of for deadline extensions were denied and inadequate sign language was signage used. 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 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. The absence of measurable outcomes continues to undermine 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 changes, prior projects such as ICON 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 22:17.215
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 2016 does not list good intentions as a relevant matter. The act is quite clear that a person's personal circumstances, 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 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 2016. However, we do not believe that the matters raised in the application as relevant are sustainable. Are I'll let of public, not private interest? 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, gain, no extra tennis courts, golfing or ancillary facilities, lost public access and amenity. Two, does the application satisfy planning need? We say no, particularly now that there is approval in place for a better located hotel at settlers cove. Three, are current assessment benchmarks relevant? We say no. A higher level of impact assessment would be appropriate given the rezoning of the adjacent parkridge site to high density residential. Four, the are 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 of 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 include. Impacts 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 we are here because today the applicant african has the delayed right form final of decision on in the application african 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 applicant. We also note that there submission is some visual contains confusion. 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 law of skies. Disguised. 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 was 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 carpark 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 building on the OSR zone. The only acknowledgement of this non-compliance in the planning report is it 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 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 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 site cover related to the TAZ would yield approximately, it would yield 9,200 square metres of site area, cover. The current scheme utilises 7,000 of the amount of site cover for the TAZ. This leaves an untapped 2,000 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 accruement accrued 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 plot 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 the at this the 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, 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 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, warnings of that unity you need water, to. 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 29:59.003
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 burn, pilates, 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' and interstate 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 Noosa Springs include private tennis lessons, hot shot squads, elite adult sessions, female training groups, tennis say. 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 dedicated coaches who facilitate exceptional training methods. Should the tennis courts become unavailable, it would not only impact obviously everyone's sessions, but be possible for our tennis players to go to other clubs, um, is, um, 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, I spoke many 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. 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 finally, there is burn pilates and physio, a wonderful business that supports our community in so many ways. The 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 ageing 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. Proposed development will also mean that the dreams of our children, some 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 all that we did every day um there are literally kids on the court floor they cannot be absorbed by other clubs there are wait lists everywhere just won't happen thank you for your time thank you so much. Frank Wilkie 36:04.609
Thank you Ms king. Next up we have an application of two questions from Debra Walz. Would you like to come to the podium and ask your questions which will be answered by Trent Grauf our Acting Director Corporate Services. Debra Walz 36:26.780
Good morning, I'm Debra Walz. I have two questions. The first question is 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 including with Kabi bloodline elders and comparison to councillors. Employee expertise to undertake the work. Trent Grauf 37:04.483
Thanks Debra, I'm happy that I can help answer some of these questions. Framework for outsourcing any goods and services extends to the entire life cycle of delivering any project or service and a 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 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 a service plan for each of its services that it undertakes. Service plan not only articulates aspects such service frequency, and where those services occur, but it also articulates 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 for tenders 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 on occasion 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 2024 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 in terms of procurement the goods and services by Councillors carried out in accordance with Local Government Act 2009 in 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 they make 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 logical of economy. Debra Walz 39:40.580
The which I think is sort of more relevant. Does Council keep a register of approved external consultants and contractors and internal expertise? Of if staff and so how often are these registered reviews, registers reviewed and updated and what is the process for undertaking this? Thank you Debra. Trent Grauf 40:06.221
Council does have a number of registers related to outsourcing arrangements at different levels. So in terms of the start the procurement process, the panel arrangements. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and 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. Panels are both established by the government 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 pre-qualification process 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 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 subcontractors, size, scale and expertise of that workforce that may be currently supplemented through external arrangements such as contractors, labour hire, subcontractors and consultants. You. Frank Wilkie 42:44.467
Okay. Trent Grauf. Thank you. Debra Walz. Second application of two questions is from Mr. John Cochrane. Mr. the podium is yours. Thank My apologies about the rather arcane nature of this first question, but it is relevant downstream. In the planning terms. And, John, Mr Cochrane, your questions will be answered by Richard MacGillivray, our Director Development & Regulation. Thank you. John Cochrane 43:14.971
May I read the background material, please? Just a question. The 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 return? Richard MacGillivray 43:33.294
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 which specifies 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 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, 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 provision. John Cochrane 44:41.702
My second question is specifically with regard to MCU 210110, the Noosa Springs hotel. I would 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 you. Well, 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 Parkridge to high density residential, which is materially affected would be in by any the waste movements in area. In 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 so it will use minimum 60.640 litre bins. These would need to be whirled up a 1 in 10 ramp at the loading dock and then down a SPER 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 Parkridge. 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 glass crusher proposed and where do garbage trucks access the bins? Richard MacGillivray 46:22.994
Thank you Mr Cochrane for that. So your query seeks specific advice about development application currently under assessment and that may be subject to further changes from the applicant. What we will do is arrange for planning a 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 46:49.230
Thank you, Mr Cochrane. Cochrane, 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 thank you, Richard. Kim Petrovic 47:26.468
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 decision, at what point does it become the councillor's decision to determine if these approvals should be issued rather than being issued by the development assessment manager? And I'd really like some follow-up action taken on this. Yes, Richard MacGillivray 48:32.643
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 document. 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 itself. Additionally extensions to 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 briefed from time to or on request on the status of applications that have significant community interest and 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. So my second question is does the re-signing of the adjacent estate as high density residential materially affect the assessment of the hotel? 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 park-reached 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 and the DA rules. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 50:09.696
You, Mr. FitzGerald. Thank you, Mr. McDonough-Bride. Now, again. Mary nance bolster, for real this time. And your questions will be answered by Shaun Walsh, our Director Infrastructure Services. Mary Nance Forster 50:26.506
Okay, 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 exit in case of emergencies such as ushuaia? Shaun Walsh 51:05.727
Thank you, 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 bakeset 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. Any particular route vehicles running 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 52:33.392
Thank you, Mr. Bolster. We now come to item nine. There are no Mayoral minutes, notified motions. Can we have a comfort break? Um, Councillors Councillors, would you like um, five yeah? Okay, thank you. We'll adjourn for five minutes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:00:26.392
All- 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 &E committee reports routes, please. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? Bye-bye. 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 658 Louis-Basso bazzo drive Ringtail Creek and 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, 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. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:03:01.870
We've moved the standard resolution regarding to that Councillor Lorentson would be participating 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 01:03:15.113
Excuse me, I just have a question. Frank Wilkie 01:03:17.653
So we've got Councillor Wilson has seconded don't wish to speak, Sir. You Councillor Wilson? Finzel, you may ask your question. Karen Finzel 01:03:30.522
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 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 01:04:09.817
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. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 01:04:27.950
Okay, any further questions or discussion? Councillor Finzel, do you wish to speak to the motion? No, thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to pose the question. I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lorentson did not vote. I Councillor Stockwell? Brian Stockwell 01:04:49.744
Will move the alternative. Well, 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 want to? Yeah. It doesn't work. No, you've got to click that thing. 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 specific specifically in regard to amplified music. In question 16, it was talking about noise from site operations and specifically adding associated with the function facility use, a new condition 17, which suggests the event manager and/or on-day controller must ensure the noise levels generated by 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? And condition 26, the approved operational management plan. Oh, there was another one. It's about the environmental restorations. That must be further down. There we go. So this is inclusion of a new condition. The land area, condition 2054, identified as vegetation community 4 on the approved plan titled ecological values plan EV01, revision 1, date 25th of 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 concentrated on 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. One, Declared plants under Biosecurity Act 2014 and Biosecurity Regulation 2016. Two, schedule one two, and on-scheduled list in the Noosa biosecurity plan 2020. We might just flip down to make sure there's no other amendments. Well, there's one 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. Councillor Wegener, Frank Wilkie 01:08:23.133
Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to speak? Brian Stockwell 01:08:25.373
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 of where specific use is has 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 role stipulated by the Planning Act 2016. It is not a political role. We, when we assess 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 generally have concerns around the potential impacts on their amenity and the environment. So we have had both our staff and expert advice that through the way that the proposal is conditioned that 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 in question. So Councillors. Is a use envisaged by the planning scheme. It 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, it is something that envisaged and complies with the relevant parameters of planning. Frank Wilkie 01:11:15.269
Scheme therefore I'd Councillor Stockwell? Karen Finzel 01:11:21.229
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 01:11:52.332
Thank you, Councillor Finzel. We'll get the staff to the table to answer your question. Karen Finzel 01:11:59.152
Thank you, Mr Chair. 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 staff around this road construction. Richard MacGillivray 01:12:30.992
Okay. Patrick Murphy 01:12:34.932
There's existing tracks on the property. Oh, my apologies. Not I'm not sure which figure that would be in the report. And those tracks are to be upgraded to a standard that would be suitable for buses, for firefighting appliances. So when we use the word roads. It's not like a new road that you'd be expecting to drive off on in the public domain. We have requested that those roads be sealed. Now they're primarily existing there is like is a circular route near where the function building is located which will be there'll be a connection in a new network to create that area. In terms of easements there's no easements that's actually going over the roads. What we're requiring is actually a covenant over a vegetated area. They're separate issues. Karen Finzel 01:13:37.826
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'm just wondering, given the land, its location and significance next to ringtail, given it's been an agricultural use for a long term. Good 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 01:14:30.344
Through the Chair the applicant outside of the Planning Act 2016 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 on impact any cultural culture. Heritage so there is a separate provision it sits outside of the assessment Planning Act 2016 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 01:15:15.871
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 01:15:29.991
Through 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 cultural heritage act provisions so just trying to understand the process prior Karen Finzel 01:15:54.586
So to any upgrade or work on this infrastructure project 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 01:16:09.476
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. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:46.312
Councillor Lorentson. 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 sound. C. A maximum of three events per week and D. A maximum 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 01:17:45.562
Is anyone willing to second that? I'll second for the purpose of debate. Councillor Wilson, Morrison. Amelia Lorentson 01:17:52.951
I okay. 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, the it Noosa, was it was the Noosa new. Plan that made a function facility a consistent land use in the rural zone. Our role here today is minimise the impacts of this lawful use as much as possible through reasonable and effective conditions. Our job is bring the voices 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. 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 operation. 11:00 to 7:00 Monday to Thursday and 10:00pm. On Friday Saturday and then sundays only when Queensland Government Gazette had published public holidays. To me strikes a fair balance. The amendments supports the business while also protecting residents quality of life and residents well-being. The later 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 I 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 think to the application but last week council's 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. 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 the well-being and wishes of our community. So I hope you support what's in front of you. Frank Wilkie 01:21:10.802
Questions, Councillors? Senator Chair? Yes, Councillor Finzel. Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:21:15.202
Yes, thank you. I just have a question. We're looking at conditioning the hours of operation. Maybe 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 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 viable. Are these conditions, are we heading down the right track path? Frank Wilkie 01:21:52.485
On these or how does this work in I guess your, Councillor Finzel that I'm not 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 judgment call for Councillors. Is there any advice you can give about how the applicant may respond to a change like this? Richard MacGillivray 01:22:19.678
Correct. 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 we 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 it 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. Frank Wilkie 01:23:17.622
Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:23:21.323
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 01:23:43.704
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 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 01:24:33.940
I a have a question if the amendment is supported does the applicant have the opportunity to come back to Council and apply for an extension of ours Patrick Murphy 01:24:51.860
The Chair certainly first mechanism the applicant would have a be to make representation 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 01:25:18.081
Council's wish to speak to the amendment Karen Finzel 01:25:19.700
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 what 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 01:25:49.808
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 date beyond-making at this stage. Karen Finzel 01:26:19.275
And to refresh my memory can you please tell me what happens in the process? Does that mean a deemed refusal? Richard MacGillivray 01:26:27.955
Through the Chair so if a decision is not made within the statutory time timeframe, frame because this is an impact assessable development application the applicant may seek a deemed refusal if the on the application Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:26:49.818
I'm going to make a few comments about the amendments proposed related to what we discovered when we went on 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. On 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 area. 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 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 consultant's report that there will be very little sound impact on the nearby residents. Applicants have said they only will call require 96 events per year, which is one, maybe two a week, and they say they occur on Friday, Saturday nights. And Sunday. Now I know that's consistent with what could be allowed this amendment. But 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 going to 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 three events per week. So it creates uncertainty that residents could expect when the intention of the applicant is certainly nothing like that. It's The conditions as they are very stringent, robust. I think this amendment will be overturned on a representation to conditions or an appeal. I don't want to give the 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 have seen the topography, distances involved, seen what stands between the potential site, the design that's proposed, glass walls enclosed, function centre, will be assured 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 preventing them going beyond 7pm on some nights would be merited and certainly not challenged. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:28.127
A question Through the Chair. Yes. Thank you. Richard, is it possible that. Sorry, there may in fact be four or five events in any given week, that there are periods that are slower and busier and. Yeah, good question. Richard MacGillivray 01:30:52.582
Yeah, Through the Chair. Yeah, that's correct. Different times of year there may be more events occurring and then other times of the no events. So the applicant obviously, as the conditions are presented, are to give flexibility those events throughout. The year. So it won't be 1.8 events every week 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 01:31:32.370
So just to clarify, so there may be some weeks where there could be say four or five events, possibly six events. Karen Finzel 01:31:41.850
Monday, Tuesday. Sorry to interrupt, I can't hear Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:31:45.541
Okay just. Terms of clarity, is it possible that the applicant or this proposed function centre may actually entertain five to six functions in one Frank Wilkie 01:32:05.661
Point of order is sustained. Through the Chair, yeah. So as I mentioned earlier, the flexibility exists. Yeah. Okay. Councillors, any further questions? Karen Finzel 01:32:27.030
Yeah, just a question. Councillors. Reduce the 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. Price 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 01:33:02.841
So your question is if this amendment is supported and the applicant doesn't support the change of hours. Of what avenues are open to them? Is that correct, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:33:13.736
Yeah, aside from appeal, is there. They can just come in and talk to planning staff or how does that work? Richard MacGillivray 01:33:20.496
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 Patrick Murphy 01:33:46.977
Agreeable to three days per week, but that would only be the basis of being able to operate on a Sunday in the public holiday as well, which is contrary to our recommendation. Karen Finzel 01:33:59.373
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:33:59.973
Any wish to speak to the amendment before Councillor Lorentson closes? Councillor Wilson thank you. Nicola Wilson 01:34:06.969
I wouldn't be supportive of all of those conditions or amendments. I would 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, think imposing a restriction on three events per week is the best way to do that. 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. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Lorentson, Lorentson, you wish to close? Amelia Lorentson 01:34:53.817
Councillor Lorentson, 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 01:35:27.606
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 01:35:46.989
Yes, number 8, which is use of resources. Of approved amine condition HRE, 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 01:36:11.040
We have a seconder for that one. Karen Finzel 01:36:15.590
We need a second for debate. Frank Wilkie 01:36:17.650
Councillor Finzel will do it. Proceed for the second of the original motion. I think thank you Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:36:25.050
Larson I think the risk we have today is the risk of this going to appeal courts. So again, I acknowledge that the applicant has the lawful right 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 Again our job today is 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 sorry, Frank Wilkie 01:37:30.778
Councillor Noosa. Finzel could you turn off your microphone? Could you mute please? We're going to echo. Sorry, Councillor Noosa. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:37.438
That's right, so currently the amendment allows for 96 events per year. It doesn't actually specify how these can be happen. 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, eliminate ambiguity and allow or ensure that 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 right quite. To enjoyment and respecting the rural environment that this proposal is located at. Frank Wilkie 01:38:24.827
Question to staff: is this consistent with what the applicant has said they only intend to have? One to two events per week? Patrick Murphy 01:38:35.415
Through the Chair, no. The applicants have asked for capacity to have events throughout the week. Not to 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. Richard MacGillivray 01:38:55.383
At the moment not allowed, the conditions don't allow them to do that, the proposed conditions. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Brian Stockwell 01:38:59.327
The amendment has the potential 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 three days may actually push. More nighttime activity rather than saying oh okay we can have if 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. The need for us to stipulate a number of times a week it's probably limiting the degree of flexibility that may have the perverse impact of leading to more nighttime activities. Frank Wilkie 01:40:14.899
Councillor Wilson. Nicola Wilson 01:40:16.919
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 01:40:33.851
Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Now the Councillors wish speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? No, Thank you. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? Councillor Lorentson and those against. Councillor Wilkie, Wilson, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie. The amendment's lost. Councillor Lorentson. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:02.028
I have another amendment. Yes. 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 30 100 guests. Frank Wilkie 01:41:34.840
The first time we've seen this, so we'll just absorb that. 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 30 100 guests. It failed for loss of a seconder. Do you have another amendment, Councillor Walsh? Amelia Lorentson 01:42:24.640
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 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 process, key findings and any proposed changes to the operational management plan and the updated must be implemented approval by Council. I'm happy to support the amendment. Councillor Finzel, thank you. 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 you know, lessons from the past we, and everyone around this table knows what I'm referring to and I am going to raise kin-kin, but the lessons Frank Wilkie 01:44:39.308
From the past. Going to ask that you don't link this application Amelia Lorentson 01:44:42.243
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 context. 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. Frank Wilkie 01:45:14.293
Thank you Councillor Wilkie. We've got Councillor Stockwell on his feet, Councillor Finzel. Brian Stockwell 01:45:22.753
So I know in circulating this amendment staff did have some issues that need to be considered regard to 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? Richard MacGillivray 01:45:44.567
Through the Chair. So the operational management Patrick Murphy 01:45:46.507
Plan relates to 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 separate matter. Counts. Standalone, 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 01:46:25.700
Question to the planning staff. Yes. You've got the floor. Thank you. Through the Chair to the staff, you've just answered that question saying regulating conditions fall outside of this amendment. 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? Regulate that moving forward? Richard MacGillivray 01:47:13.617
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. Yes. Karen Finzel 01:47:25.950
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? Frank Wilkie 01:47:58.255
Because we don't want to see a situation. Sounds like commentary, Councillor Finzel. We'll let the question be answered. Richard MacGillivray 01:48:07.880
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. So 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 to manage as well. So hopefully that answers your question. Karen Finzel 01:48:53.110
Thank you, but Through the Chair it actually doesn't give me clarification. Given that 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 there, I'm trying to protect the amenities. Frank Wilkie 01:49:14.671
So you're making, arguing now Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:49:18.551
Could you cut to the question please? The question has not been adequately answered. Is there a way we can regulate as a Council and mitigate the risks around intensification of vehicles I'm trying entering in and out of that site Richard MacGillivray 01:49:37.235
Through 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 Louie bezzo is-controlled so they're 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 they for the proposal subject to stringent conditions about 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 Karen Finzel 01:50:39.622
Thank you question Through the Chair yes Councillor Finzel just to clarify then so currently there is no need to upgrade the road there through Sara and just wondering if conditioning you could put Frank Wilkie 01:50:57.810
Order Finzel Councillor we have a point of order yeah Councillor Finzel the 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 will be reviewed after each event to ensure the company can continually meet the clients requirements whilst maintaining Council permit guidelines so my question is does either this review after three years or after every event have anything to do with Council changing the conditions of approval? Patrick Murphy 01:52:00.964
Through the Chair any change to conditions would need to be part of an amendment proposal we couldn't just change imposed conditions think the comments about the review after every event is more around a performance assessment how they've done themselves in light 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 mm-hmm in Richard MacGillivray 01:52:40.102
Support of patrick's comments I think the important element about a review process too is that over time and noting that development approvals run with the land 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 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 01:53:19.067
I'm not sure whether the term conditions at to the site in terms of maybe 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 term. Richard MacGillivray 01:54:13.705
Can this work? Frank Wilkie 01:54:16.625
And would it be helpful? Patrick Murphy 01:54:17.662
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 it is timely enough, and as Richard said, new technologies may come on board that enable them to operate to a higher standard. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:54:41.142
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. Um, can I speak to the amendment Through the Chair? Yes, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:55:34.560
Actually, can I ask a question? Yes. Firstly, if Councillor Lorentson, if she'd if 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 believe that Frank Wilkie 01:56:00.954
What's your question please Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 01:56:03.154
Finzel my question is, the characteristics and the social economic aesthetic of the community also included under the definition of environment in relation to planning. Patrick Murphy 01:56:15.311
Through the Chair that's the not the intent of the word environmental in this record in this drafted condition Karen Finzel 01:56:26.837
Okay thank you for the clarification there was a question uh to Frank Wilkie 01:56:33.954
Council there was a question to Councillor Lorentson about whether you would accept two years from the date of this approval. Amelia Lorentson 01:56:40.404
I actually had sought advice on that island with what is considered reasonable whether it was annually two years or three years and the advice from was staff 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 the question at the planning staff stage Patrick Murphy 01:57:09.100
Obviously 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 two or three years I think is something that could the operator work with Frank Wilkie 01:57:22.081
You Amelia Lorentson 01:57:22.441
Thank you in that case I'm happy to change to two years if that's in agreeance with the planning staff thank you just to clarify did you say three years was can say two or three years? Frank Wilkie 01:57:40.330
Either two or three years I think would be reasonable. Can I request just a minor change and put that to a vote for Councillors okay the request has been to change the vote to two years as opposed to three years. Think generally we're going to use process of canning amendment that has a substantive impact on the intent on the amendment this does have that should be done by a separate amendment process if people are given that vote I think there's not some consensus we'll live this amendment pass or fail just yeah so I just have Brian Stockwell 01:58:30.780
One question the way it's worded to me is it's just enforcing a long-term review of the individual review there is no trigger there for Council to require any change the operational plan there's not an approval process days of approval by Council and updated every three years from this date of this approval yeah it's interesting because the section 4 you talk about approval by Council but there is no requirement for it to be approved in the amendment. A question oh yeah I just I can't see anything in the amendment that requires us to approve it other than say we're going to but there's nothing in the wording suggested yet to be submitted for approval Amelia Lorentson 01:59:24.510
It does in the first sentence yeah sorry Patrick Murphy 01:59:26.494
Through the Chair point to require the operational plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority within 30 days of the review completion Brian Stockwell 01:59:40.680
Yeah sorry I'm still disagreeing it's still just meeting if we want it to be approved we're going to do four approvals should be in the headline Richard MacGillivray 01:59:51.580
I got a lot of ifs if Patrick Patrick Murphy 01:59:54.340
Uh well I thought that was uh suitable the existing wording but if Council seek to change it I'll be able to do that Frank Wilkie 02:00:01.060
Question what would be a uh more effective what needed to be changed to reflect what you just made Richard MacGillivray 02:00:16.135
Through the Chair I would probably just say this the updated operation management plan must be submitted to the relevant planning authority for approval within 30 days of the review completion Amelia Lorentson 02:00:26.846
Approval in number two b2 Frank Wilkie 02:00:38.928
So is the committee happy for that change to be made? Councillor Finzel? Thank you, I think the intent here is to try and mitigate reverse amenity risk. Will this. Sorry, Councillor Finzel, the question was are you happy for the words for approval to be inserted into part two of the amendment? That the councils are yes. Thank you. Have another question? Karen Finzel 02:01:14.508
Yes, I do. I'm just trying to make sure that the wording reflects what I believe is 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. Richard MacGillivray 02:01:43.192
The Chair, yes, ESS drafted, yeah, it's more appropriate in light of it's clear about the requirement for an approval of the review that occurs. In terms of the comments about reverse amenity, I'm not entirely sure. Of the relevance of this particular thing, knowing that's a 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 02:02:18.152
Councillor Lorentson, if you wish to close, would you just close, Councillor Lorentson? Amelia Lorentson 02:02:23.912
No, only just to re-argue or rewrite the amendment so that it reflects a two-year review, not a three-year review. Going to let this form. Frank Wilkie 02:02:40.270
Lawrence is closed, so we put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Yes. Thank cancellors. 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. SPEAKER_12 02:03:11.560
Yes, just let the girls catch up. Amelia Lorentson 02:03:20.920
Is there another amendment? Karen Finzel 02:03:25.769
Through to the Chair, I am unable to hear Councillor Wegener. No one's speaking at lyman Council of things, though. You, Mr Chair. Thank nothing wrong with your hearing. SPEAKER_04 02:03:37.189
Thank you. SPEAKER_06 02:03:40.029
Is there a substantive motion? Frank Wilkie 02:03:41.969
The substantive motion was moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Councillor Wegener. SPEAKER_06 02:03:47.019
We'll just catch him up. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:08.700
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 02:06:02.640
Good to go okay so we're back to the original motion with the changes and only Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Any other Councillors wish to speak to Councillor Wilson? Nicola Wilson 02:06:20.580
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 and is now accessible. We talk often about 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 turn down his original rule, a condition that he's consistent. 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 Plan 2020 plan, and the impact by planners in respect of noise, traffic, road and conditions have been addressed with conditions, operating hours, 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 for finance. The planning scheme, but that doesn't mean we will approve 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 7am. To 6pm. Daily. But when we look into the function centre, as we wouldn't normally anticipate in rural zone, the entertainment activities code is relevant instead, which allows for there was no one living 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 much more sensitive zone to noise that just isn't mentioned in that because it doesn't anticipate such use. Interval activities operate within a time that frame that avoids negative impacts on the surrounding area and sensitive land. Uses. 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 adjoining land in a residential zone and not otherwise specified a bug, the intertaining activities will operate only between 7am, 10pm, Sunday to Thursday, and other days. So by putting us into the 10pm every day is in keeping with the entertainment activities code, which surprisingly is allowing greater activity in more sensitive zone. I'm told the Planning Regulation 2017 specified the zones as organisational zones and a global zone is not residential zone, which is probably a surprise to me, wasn't it? I 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 10:00pm, with a the literal interpretation of the planning scheme, this application makes it harder to hear it. Is a priority here, but I think the consequences that the residents are bringing to albuquerque will accept. Frank Wilkie 02:09:57.934
Do Councillors wish to speak before Councillor Stockwell closes? Karen Finzel 02:10:01.380
Thank you very much. Councillor Councillor Finzel. 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 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, can we do better? I think a manatee not is not a concept constant. 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 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 against this you too, son. 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 make sure that our community has a voice I 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 to 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 02:13:46.756
I wanted to just say I support Councillor Lorentson's amendment concerning the operational plan review. This is an urban activity. Is moving into the hinterland, and I think it's arguably inconsistent with the strategic framework of the use of plan 2020, so I'm glad that we are going to monitor this. Amelia Lorentson 02:14:06.211
Thank you. Councillor Lorentson. I'll speak to 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? Advocating for mandatory direct notification to all properties impacted by proposed changes to 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 02:15:27.327
Point of order, way veering off topic here, we're talking about a planning scheme amendment process. Approach. We're not talking about the development application. SPEAKER_01_b 02:15:35.674
Yes. Point of order is upheld. Amelia Lorentson 02:15:37.574
Councillor Lorentson. No worries. The applicant purchased property based on the Noosa plan's designation of a function facility as a consistent use. Our responsibility today, 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, tried 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 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 are being 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 ratepayers 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 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 also avoid unnecessary legal costs and false expectations for our objecting residents. I think the right course of action today is approve the recommendation before us. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you wish to close. SPEAKER_05_b 02:18:07.971
I do. Brian Stockwell 02:18:16.371
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. Generally something that is quite nauseating. 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 range of noisy uses, and environment management and conservation. Now, the people living in this area highly value. Those aspects which would be around 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 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 producers by giving them an additional use and certainly my own research a decade ago showed in our area along the central Coast in very similar areas that nearly all food production occurs where a second source of income occurs if you just try and start up a new primary production without generally it fails so yes it does challenge perception of the surrounding residents 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 mix of uses and it can not be at in a way done 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. You Councillor Wilkie 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 will go to item 8.1. Thank you staff. Thank you. Financial Performance Report November 2024 8 Regional Arts Development Fund RADF grant recommendations annual round. Councillor Wegener you have a declaration. Tom Wegener 02:21:43.035
Yes I Councillor Wegener inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter in relation to artist residency natural ecology as my 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 voted on. Frank Wilkie 02:22:02.844
Thank you Councillor Wegener. Have a mover and seconder for the motion please. Councillor Lorentson, 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. Changes integrated permaculture designed organic orchard and golf course complex to include group farm stay, accommodation and associated supporting infrastructure at Kabi Rd, Cootharaba. 9.1 was a confidential item, Planning & Environment Court appeal. Number 1219.19 of 2020, application for multiple dwellings, detached house and reconfiguration of one lot into two lots at 27 tunga 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 do the last promotion of the year. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. And I'll second that. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. We have no Ordinary Meeting with reports. We have 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. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Karen Finzel 02:24:05.986
Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
