Planning & Environment Committee Agenda - 12 August 2025
Date: Tuesday, 12 August 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 02:07:08
Synopsis: Infrastructure Charges Indexed 6.44%, Cap Risks, STA Review/Compliance, Cost-Recovery Fees, Data Audits, Sunshine Beach Hostel Conditions, Cooroy Grocer, Parking In-Lieu, Pomona Pilot Success.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Adopted Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.9) 2025, effective 21 Aug 2025; aligns with State cap indexation and maintains nil charge for secondary dwellings (Item 7.1; 02:32–16:27). Endorsed STA/Home Hosted Local Law 2024/25 Operational Review actions and thanked stakeholders; 31 initiatives with timelines approved (Item 7.2; 17:26–16:44). Approved minor change to shop at 12 Maple St, Cooroy, adding storage and setting façade transparency, stormwater, hazardous materials height (AHD 107.5) and asset protection conditions (Item 7.3; 17:45–31:12). Agreed to enter infrastructure agreement for contributions in lieu of two on-site car parks for Cooroy shop; parking policy cited and site annotated as eligible (Item 7.3; 21:13–30:52). Approved “other change” to Sunshine Beach visitor hostel to add 11 beds (total 80), with added acoustic, parking (1 car/2 moto/2 bike), and plan compliance conditions (Item 7.4; 32:32–43:48). Noted June 2025 delegated approvals (36 decided; no refusals) and continued use of delegation with public-interest trigger to elevate matters (Item 8.1; 44:43–47:27). Noted Pomona Place Pilot Evaluation; pilot deemed successful, providing a template for future place-based programs and embedding processes across Council (Item 8.2; 48:37–02:05:20). Frank Wilkie: Highlighted strong STA compliance stats: 87% properties with no complaints; 96% hotline response within 30 minutes; infringements for non-response (38:15–39:07; Item 7.2). Richard MacGillivray: Confirmed STA program is cost-neutral to ratepayers via full-cost recovery fees; 339 approvals cancelled/expired since 2022 (45:57–46:33; 40:58–41:51; Item 7.2). Patrick Murphy: STA approvals now 3,085; duplex/multiple dwellings dominate (2,349); 386 compliance notices and 169 infringements issued (17:26–30:04; Item 7.2). Brian Stockwell: Noted rates and infra indices alignment (~6.5%) reflects real cost drivers versus CPI, defending indexation choice (15:23–16:27; Item 7.1). Georgina: Clarified Cooroy extension supports a small grocer; parking in-lieu appropriate given historic servicing/layout constraints and policy (17:45–21:13; Item 7.3). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Pressed on why adopting max 6.44% infra index; officers confirmed statutory PPI method, not CPI, and some lower charges already used for specific dwelling types (05:01–06:07; Item 7.1). Amelia Lorentson: Challenged STA resource focus vs 400 problem properties; officers argued universal registration/renewal enables prevention, monitoring and equitable cost recovery (46:33–50:52; Item 7.2). Nicola Wilson: Queried how non-hotline complaints are captured; officers confirmed alternative reporting avenues and plan for better education/awareness (56:31–59:17; Item 7.2). Resort fee equity flagged as priority; no current “resort” definition, with commitment to co-design criteria with industry for next year’s Fees & Charges (41:51–45:33; 01:03:14–01:04:06; Item 7.2). Delegations: reassurance provided that significant height breaches would be escalated to Council, reflecting transparency triggers (46:42–47:27; Item 8.1). Legal / Risk Infrastructure charges: 6.44% indexation aligns with Planning Act s114 automatic increase using PPI (road/bridge) three-year rolling average; risk of under-recovery persists given State-set caps (02:32–12:48; Item 7.1). Trunk infrastructure funding gap: only ~15–20% cost covered by developer charges, shifting burden to ratepayers; ongoing LGAQ advocacy to raise caps and mandate data sharing (07:56–10:09; 55:45–59:58; Item 7.1, 7.2). STA legal posture: Council’s local law framework has withstood challenges; legal advice relied upon but withheld under privilege; continued audits on existing use rights and guest numbers to manage intensity (35:22–37:08; 31:38–34:13; Item 7.2). Sunshine Beach hostel: inconsistent use in Low Density under current scheme, but lawful via earlier approvals; impact assessment supported by acoustic report and peer review, with enforceable conditions (36:08–38:06; 38:44–41:21; Item 7.4). Operational risks: security patrols not preferred for STA due to limited powers; escalation pathway via QPS DTAC in place to enforce responsiveness (53:41–55:28; Item 7.2). Short-Stay Accommodation Operational Review 31 actions identified; 13 already implemented (hotline scripting, next-day investigations, targeting repeat offenders, data improvements) with timelines for remaining (17:26–28:04; Item 7.2). Data: baseline refined to ~3,100 approvals matching demand; 97% approvals are STA (not home-hosted) and complaints trending down (24:43–31:38; Item 7.2). Planned audits of listings to enforce approved guest caps tied to existing use rights; hosts must maintain booking registers and may be required to add attenuation/curfews (31:38–34:13; 01:04:36–01:06:51; Item 7.2). Advocacy: pursue State-mandated platform data sharing (Tasmania model) and clarify existing use rights; BCC-LGAQ motion supported statewide (55:28–59:58; Item 7.2). Sunshine Beach Visitor Hostel (102/106 Pacific Ave) Bed increase 69→80 with second storey on northern building; conditions require sealed windows facing neighbours, mechanical air-con, ground-level compressors, and extended 1.8m acoustic fencing (32:32–41:21; Item 7.4). Traffic/parking impacts deemed negligible with on-site compliance; on-site manager retained to monitor amenity (40:01–41:47; Item 7.4). Cooroy Retail Extension & Parking Management Minor change facilitates small grocer; two-space shortfall addressed via contributions in-lieu per policy and site annotation, reflecting historic constraints (17:45–21:13; Item 7.3). New conditions: 50% glazing to Apex car park frontage, stormwater on-site disposal, protect easements/services, and hazardous materials storage above 107.5 AHD (Item 7.3). Funds to support broader parking management works; staff parking restrictions on a single business deemed inequitable/unlawful (27:56–28:22; 28:22–29:12; Item 7.3). Placemaking & Community Livability (Pomona Pilot) Pilot confirmed effective cross-organisational model; next steps include short-term implementation plan and support for community “town team” delivery (48:37–02:03:11; Item 8.2). Learnings: clarify “placemaking” to reduce confusion with planning; tailor engagement per locality; consider scaling/using internal capacity for smaller towns (01:53:56–02:04:12; Item 8.2). Livability survey 2026 to provide baseline-trend comparators to inform targeted investments, acknowledging wider sentiment shifts (01:56:45–01:59:13; Item 8.2).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 12 August 2025 9:30 AM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Amelia Lorentson (Chair), Brian Stockwell, Frank Wilkie, Tom Wegener “Noosa Shire – different by nature” PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.31 am 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Nicola Wilson via Microsoft Teams EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 8 JULY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 8 July 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2025 and adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.9) 2025” provided as Attachment 2 to the report and take effect on 21 August 2025 replacing the previous “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.8) 2024”. Carried. Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.2 SHORT STAY LETTING AND HOME HOSTED ACCOMMODATION LOCAL LAW – OPERATIONAL REVIEW 2024/2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Amelia Lorentson That Council note the report by the Coordinator Short Stay to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2025 and A. Note the 2024/2025 Operational review of the Local Law has been completed. B. Agree to implement the actions identified within section 5 of this report in accordance with the timeline detailed within Attachment 2. C. Acknowledge and thank the stakeholders for their time and valuable feedback. Carried. Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.3 132003.220664.4 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING SHOP - AT 12 MAPLE ST COOROY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner, to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2025 regarding application 132003.220664.4 for a Minor Change to an existing development approval for Material Change of Use – Extension to Existing Shop situated at 12 Maple Street, Cooroy and described as Lot 806 C 5602 and: A. Approve the change. B. Amend condition 1 to read as follows: Approved Plans 1. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in accordance with the Approved Plans listed in the table below. C. Include the following additional conditions: Façade Treatments 17. Ground floor buildings that address the Apex car park must provide a minimum of 50% transparent glazing to shop fronts. Site Specific Conditions 18. All hazardous materials and chemicals are to be stored at or above a minimum height of 107.5 AHD. Stormwater Drainage 19. Stormwater runoff from the development must be disposed of on-site without causing scour or damage to the subject site or any adjoining property. Easements 20. All works must be kept clear of any existing or proposed easements on the subject land, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Grantee. Damage to Services and Assets 21. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times: 22. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety, immediately; or 23. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the development. Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services and assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 Infrastructure Agreement 22. The applicant must comply with the requirements of any Infrastructure Agreement entered into with the Council with respect to the payment of car parking contributions in relation to the proposed development. 23. Agree to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with the applicant that provides for contributions in lieu of two (2) on site car parking space. 24. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 83(9) of the Planning Act 2016. Carried. Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.4 132007.2446.05 - REQUEST FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - VISITOR ACCOMMODATION TYPE 4 CONVENTIONAL (VISITOR HOSTEL) TO INCLUDE 11 ADDITIONAL BEDS AT 102 PACIFIC AVENUE SUNSHINE BEACH Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Senior Town planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 August 2025 regarding application 132007.2446.05 for a n Other Change to a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Visitor Ac commodation Type 4 Conventional (Visitor Hostel) for an additional 11 beds at 102 Pacific Avenue, Sunshine Beach and A. Approve a change to the development approval. B. Include additional conditions 104 – 123 with amendments to condition 107 to read as follows: 107 . Approved Plans Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve theapplication: 1.The proposed development will occur within a site already approved for visitor accommodation. 2.A range of visitor accommodation is needed within the Shire. The relatively mi nor increase in bed numbers for the site can be appropriately incorporated while managing impacts. 3.The proposed development height complies with the Low Density residential zon e maximum height of 8.0 metres above ground level. 4.The proposed development setbacks to side and rear boundaries comply with the Low Density residential zone code. 5.The proposed development on site car parking provision complies with Noosa plan 2020 Works code - Driveways and parking code. 6.The applicant has prepared a site-specific acoustic assessment which has been peer reviewed. The peer review supports the recommendations of the acoustic assessment which have been included within the conditions of the approval. Carried. Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank For: Wilkie Against: None 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JUNE 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting on 12 August 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for June 2025 as per Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 8.2 POMONA PLACE PILOT EVALUATION REPORT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 12 AUGUST 2025 That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 12 August 2025 regarding the evaluation of the Pomona Place Pilot and key learnings for any future Placemaking processes. Carried Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr For: Frank Wilkie Against: None 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 11.38 am
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:00.000
Welcome everyone to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting, 12th of August, oh good morning, 12th of August 2025, my gosh, that's right. Good morning and I declare the meeting now open. First I'd like to begin by an Acknowledgement of Country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi People as the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and we pay respect to. Elders past, present and emerging and to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. I'm attendance no apologies around the table. I note everyone's here. Councillor Wegener, will the Deputy Mayor and Councillor Brian Stockwell. I note also there are one Councillor from serva, Councillor Nicola Wilson. Welcome. Also online, I'm not sure who else is online. Can I please request before the meeting commences that everyone has their phones on silent or turned off. Thank you. Confirmation of minutes. Item 4.1, can I please have someone to confirm the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting minutes dated the 8th of July 2025. Wegener, thank you. Seconded by Mayor Wilkie. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. Presentations, deputations? There are none. So we move straight to reports for consideration of the committee. Item and 7.1, update to infrastructure charges resolution. And I welcome and you're online, that's who, that's okay. You're welcome. Can I begin just by asking if you could give us an overview or summary of the reporting process and what's been recommended to council? Luke 02:32.786
Yep, basically the planning requires councils to have a charges resolution to be able to issue infrastructure charges on new development, any increase in development. This report is basically just a standard administrative update to match the current charges with the recently updated planning regulation maximum amounts which happens usually on the 1st of July. Each year yeah and the only difference with this one compared to the last few years or all the other years is the changing of the charge applicable to secondary dwellings which on the 15th of May council decided to stop charging from the 1st of July and that's captured in the new updated charges resolution. Yeah that's basically a summary of what it is Patrick Murphy 03:44.457
Yep and just confirming what the resolution now provides for a six point four percent increase in line with the within the planning changes regulation is that right the indexation Luke 03:58.580
Yeah that's correct that's it's an increase of six point four percent based on from the previous planning regulation rights council's charges resolution captures those increases anyway in the automatic increase provision which is specified in the act and in council's charges resolution so even though we're currently operating on last year's resolution we are still applying these new rights according to the act and the resolution increase. This is the reason we updated every year is just so it matches the actual planning regulation it makes it a lot easier a lot clearer and special especially for all the customers so it's more transparent so transparent, we're actually 100% aligned with the regulation Amelia Lorentson 05:01.071
Luke, I might start with a question. So the planning regulation 27 prescribes a maximum increase of 6.44. I know last year I think from recollection council also adopted a full prescribed increase at the time. Why does council adopt the maximum rather than say a lower rate or CPI? Luke 05:28.679
Well we can't apply CPI because you must apply the rolling three-year rolling average of the PPI index for road and bridge in Brisbane. That's stipulated in the in the act. Council can and we do charge lower rates on some items as you see for one-bedroom blow-ins and for retirement development. That's been in keeping with council since the late 90s all the way to the current day. Amelia Lorentson 06:07.802
And can I ask, and maybe this is a question to vassilio or to Richard, how much revenue does council actually generate from the infrastructure charges? Where does that money specifically go? And I know it's in the report, but just for information, I think it's interesting. Yeah, no, just for the cheers. Richard MacGillivray 06:27.302
Correct me if I'm wrong, Luke, it's about $2.3 million per annum. That funding assists to pay for assist trunk infrastructure upgrades. So the infrastructure charges levied help to subsidise and fund trunk upgrades. So that is used to go into infrastructure upgrades. Support the new development that's obviously approved through the process so it's essentially a charge on developers that goes in to fund community infrastructure particularly for trunk infrastructure which is regional wide infrastructure so not local streets as such it's all regional wide sort of infrastructure. Main streets and some parks and stormwater and things like that as well. So it definitely doesn't fully cover the cost of all trunk infrastructure it's only a small proportion of the amount that we spend but it is a contribution to that and that's part of the reason why the 6.4 is obviously some recovery but certainly not a full cost recovery of the real cost of delivering trunk infrastructure upgrades. Amelia Lorentson 07:30.381
Thank you. Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 07:36.221
Maybe is the percentage? That's recouped from infrastructure charges. As you said, Richard, it's not the full cost of the providement of the trunk infrastructure. It's a percentage. And it's been set by the State government as only a percentage for quite a while now. Richard MacGillivray 07:53.904
What is it sitting at the moment? 30%? Lord, yeah, have you got the most accurate? I understood it was between 15 and 20%, so it's still very low. Luke 08:02.988
Yeah, that's about the maximum that we recovered. I mean, to the actual state has not set it as a percentage of recovery of infrastructure. It's just set a maximum charge which, you know, they thought that developers were happy to pay and, you know. Since 2011 when the adopted charges came in. It has no link with the actual cost of infrastructure. It's just a charge amount set by the State that we cannot go over. If you look at our LGIP, all the projects, the trunk projects are all listed in the LGIP and I think on our every annual basis where we collect a bit. The infrastructure charge accounts for about 15% roughly. The top of my head of the actual funds that are spent. But this will get reported in the council report when we do, when all the works that have been spent on trunk infrastructure are put into the report that goes to council for signing off in the annual council report. It'll have all the details in the infrastructure charges collected for the amount for last year and all that was spent, as well as all the trunk projects that were spent, money was spent. And that's currently being worked on by finance. Richard MacGillivray 09:35.874
And just in addition to your question, Mayor Frank, the council has been working with other local governments through LGAQ to advocate to the State government around trying to get a greater share of that trunk infrastructure to be paid from developers. There's been a lot of work, advocacy work done over many years to try and seek to get that proportion piece higher because ratepayers are having to fund a good chunk of that upgrade work, and often it's the new developments that benefit from a lot of those upgrades as well. Yes. Luke 10:11.153
And fortunately, we're able to attract grant funding as well from the State. Correct. The Federal government for a lot of this work as well as. Use residence funds. That helps. I'm happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 10:24.386
One more question. Any further questions first? Brian Stockwell 10:35.798
Spell out what that means and whether I was right in that you're saying that the State has set the six point four percent based on that index? Luke 10:45.558
Yeah, basic, yeah, look the, I can share my screen with you. Share that. Oh, shit. All right, the section 114 of the Planning Act 2016 basically says it includes a provision, an automatic income provision that provides for automatic increases in levy charges from when they are levied to when they are paid. They then go to state what's required. And the increase is worked out using the PPI, which is the Producer Price Index, for a rolling three-year average. And the State has actually provided an excel calculation be used, and that's what we've used before they've actually updated the regulation, and that's what they use to actually do the regulation as well. So, and it just works out when you do the calculation, that's worked out at 6.44%. That was increased from the previous financial year. Amelia Lorentson 12:00.332
Thank you. I'm looking at the advocacy piece, the LGAQ advocacy piece at the moment, and it's quite interesting, the State government did commit to I'm annually index the capped charge in line with the road and bridge construction index in 2011, and to date this has still not occurred, which is really unfairly burdening. For local and communities. Regional councils. Richard MacGillivray 12:29.919
Particularly as we know that the cost of infrastructure has, you know, has escalated in recent years as well, so those real costs are. That gap is getting wider, I think, from 2011, so not smaller, so that's a real challenge for us. Works to be done on that. Amelia Lorentson 12:48.517
Question to Richard. Can council introduce a fee or mechanism for heavy vehicle impacts? Richard MacGillivray 12:59.777
I'll have to take that on notice. It's obviously a little bit different than the nature of this particular report as such. Amelia Lorentson 13:14.197
Where development increases the type or quality of use and places additional demand on trunk infrastructure and I'm reading that from clause 2.4 and I look under clause 8.2 when you look at, you know, how is additional development we assessed? Changes in use scale are intended to be captured. So, under the legislation I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for us to introduce a levy. Richard MacGillivray 13:45.360
There's nothing, no head of power through the Planning Act 2016 that I'm aware of as such. Obviously, each proposal is assessed on its merits and obviously any of those impacts must be mitigated through the assessment process. Are opportunities to sometimes levy infrastructure agreements I guess between parties to address and offset some of those things but there isn't a mechanism embedded in the Planning Act 2016 as such to levy a charge. Let's say a royalty or something of that nature for use. So I'm happy to explore that further if you would like around the ability to levy a charge but there's nothing that I'm aware of in the legislation that gives us that direct power. Amelia Lorentson 14:31.576
Thank you, I moved. yeah, I'll come back to you on that. I appreciate that, thank you Richard. Mayor Wilkie, can you move? I moved it, yes. fantastic, I'll have a second. I'm happy. Mayor Wilkie, did you want to speak Frank Wilkie 14:44.676
To it? thank you, thank you Luke for the report. Very important that our infrastructure charges are aligned with changes in state government legislation and it's also gratifying to see that the nil charge for secondary dwellings is included in this and we've not accepted the increase charges that could be applied there because we are offering financial incentives for people to build secondary dwellings so that's reflected in the changes that you've included in your report. Thank you very much we're lucky to have someone who finds this subject very interesting and understands it so well. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 15:32.246
It's interesting that built into the infrastructure charges legislation, there's a criteria for working out how much the increased cost to council is and that was 6.44 if we look at a three-year rolling average. And if we look at our proposed interposed agreement for next year it's 6.5% and what we kept our minimum general rate to is 6.5%. So the historic concept of picking rates to CPI has no real relationship with what we do I pay staff and build stuff mostly okay so I think it's just interesting that you know there's some commentary about the rates we've kept it to what it really costs us to do business and probably what we could be doing each time we do put rates out is just work out what are the two major indices use that one as a bit of a guide for the community. Amelia Lorentson 16:26.872
Thank you for the discussion, tottenham. Which 7.2, short stay, wedding and home hosted accommodation in local law, operational review 2024-2025. Unfortunately, Nick has been very good and instrumental in this space. Unfortunately, he's not here today, so we have Director Development & Regulation, Richard MacGillivray, welcome, and Patrick Murphy. I'll hand it over to both of you if you want to just start with the Patrick Murphy 17:26.681
It is unfortunate that nick's not here. He's been a real driving force of the team for the past 18 months or so, and certainly with this operational review there's a lot of credit to the outcome review lies with Nick. So it is unfortunate that he can't be here today to talk to you about all the great work that he's done. I will try and pick up the pieces, so to speak. But going back to the beginning in February 1, 2022 is local law commenced. It was developed to regulate and manage short-stay letting to reduce the impacts on permanent residents and residential amenity. After 12 months, a review was undertaken. You may recall in March, 2020, 23, a report was presented to council, generally supportive of how the local law was operating and being implemented. Notwithstanding, there were certainly some challenges with the team and with the resourcing of the team and having some continuity around the team and when the new Director came on board 2024 it was identified a need for a review of the operation of the local law again there were times when Richard commenced that we only had one officer in the team we had some real challenges in retaining staff and acquiring new staff and I must say that you know around that time Nick came on board as well and has driven a lot of change and a lot of improvement in the team and you I think you'll see that through some of the actions that have been implemented it's recognised in the report I'll get to that in a moment so initially there was councillors a workshop that was held with councillors at which time the operational status was presented in addition to the proposed scope of the operational review with the purpose being to evaluate the operation of the local law to determine if any changes or opportunities available to increase the effectiveness of the local law in terms of the current status at that time there's this figure of five thousand two hundred and sixty five properties has always been put out there as number of properties that were thought to be operating short-term accommodation within the Shire that included a number of properties which the local law exempts from requiring an approval so it was estimated initially that there was a baseline of four thousand properties the current status today is three thousand and eighty five properties have an approval the team have worked through the list of the four thousand properties and through that process 421 properties were identified as no longer operating and have vetted that full list so that the number of approvals that have now been obtained is generally reflective of the amount that require an approval if that makes sense of those three thousand and eighty five properties two 2,349 thousand three hundred and forty nine a duplex or multiple dwellings and ninety seven percent of all approvals relate to short stay letting with only three percent being home hosted since to and twenty two three hundred and thirty nine prop approvals have been cancelled by property owners or by council a majority of which were dwelling houses in terms of compliance 87% of properties have not received a complaint over recent quarter was identified that 96% of complaints had been responded to within the required 30 minutes there's been an increasing increase in compliance activities over the journey such that now a total of 386 compliance notices have been issued and 169 infringements being issued as well so in terms of the review itself it was identified to form a stakeholder group similar to the initial review that took place after 12 months so a number of the same groups were involved and those they were the stakeholder group considered consisted of residential groups resort managers property managers and a planning consultant and in terms of I think there was five or six residential groups who were representing quite a large number of residents within each group so we've had a good cross-section of I suppose different industries and a good number of people involved representing the review certainly would like to thank the stakeholders for their participation in the review the feedback that they've been able to provide through the survey and their engagement throughout the process has been fantastic so initially there was an initial consultation with the stakeholder groups individual sessions in which the current operational status of the team was presented and there were some conversations around significant improvements and how the process of the review would be undertaken a survey was prepared and sent out to the stakeholders in which had 23 questions the stakeholders some of the stakeholders forwarded those the survey on to other questions members of their groups and whatnot and we ended up with 92 responses so we received the survey responses that the feedback was analysing and including a review of the improvements and a number of you know operational improvements were identified from this analysis the key themes that came from the survey were the 24/7 hotline compliance activities, opportunities to improve education, and awareness general administration of the local law and advocacy opportunities so 31 initiatives were identified 13 of those actions 13 have already been implemented so low-hanging fruit you might like to call them things that were quick wins that we saw that we would be able to implement and not necessarily wait to the end of the review and so they have been implemented they include activities such as collaborate collaborating with the police to enhance the opportunity for complaints that go to the police to be able to contact the relevant owner or contact person continuing to actively to investigate all hotline complaints the next working day and this involves the team listening to the calls calling the complainant calling the people have been you know the contact real person so a real thorough investigation changes to scripting through the hotline inclusion of a text prioritising properties with complaint histories for investigation of activities have been implemented sort of on the ground activities which have certainly as I said earlier the team improvement from when Nick has come on board and when this review has started is quite significant the team's in a I think in a much better space we've got much more consistent or improved data collection mechanisms in place so it's much more reliable data over the past 18 months that we're you know, a well-resourced team that are able to be responsive to complaints as they occur and also responsive in terms of undertaking proactive compliance. So actions the key actions to be implemented and you'll see the report details these actions and it also has an attachment with a timeline for their implementations is you know continued rigor around the hotline performance it's a very important front gate or and representation of council to people making complaints so certainly ongoing meetings with the hotline ongoing of their performance to ensure that it meets community expectations significantly a review of the three categories we heard know and for some time quite loud and clear from the resort managers what they feel is a form of inequity through the fee category process and the amount of work that's probably being undertaken by the team in relation to complaints coming out of the resort. So we see that as a body of work that we need to undertake as a priority. It may take some time to work through that and to understand the different nuances of how a management regime is established. In a resort to validate a different fee category. And also, you know, the importance of targeted audits, you know, being on complaint data, being a review of compliance with scale and intensity, and general compliance with the local law provisions. So I think that sums up the process and the report findings. So the recommendation is that note that the review has been completed and agree to implement the actions within section 5 of the report. Amelia Lorentson 28:04.333
Thank you, Patrick, and to the councillors, I'm sure this is going questions. Tom Wegener 28:10.958
It was very interesting to watch over the past five years the evolution of the team, the NECA team, because when we started, it seemed though they were trying to figure out how many there are, what to do. Going all the way to when implement fees and then put out the local law, and then the STA people, the owners, having to deal with now making the applications and going through and making sure that all these-- but it's an enormous amount of work that's now finished, it seems. And it seems though that the team now is actually going to fully-- there's five people that are working on it. And it is actually coming to fruition. Patrick Murphy 28:54.271
I certainly agree, Tom. And I think it has been that way for a period of time now. The initial fee waiver for applications and then having over 2 over 2,000 applications being assessed by a new team for a new local law with new processes, new systems, was really, really challenging. And trying to work through that backlog because ultimately if people were going to call the hotline, they needed to be able to make a complaint about a registered property. A lot of the resourcing was initially focused upon trying to understand the processes and work through that backlog of work, but certainly the team is now doing. Functioning and has a sort of a rhythm to it on a daily basis in terms of how they go about their work and review any complaints from the previous night. And I must say there's not a lot of complaints as well. I think a lot of the improvements that team has been able to implement has correlated with a reduction in the cost. Course of the hotline as well over time. Richard MacGillivray 30:04.480
Can I add too just on that I think when the local came in I understand that there was discussion that it was going to take about a three year period to sort of get it embedded and get the community used to it and getting the applicants to understand what the process was and here we are just over the three year mark now all of the properties that have been investigated examined have gone through an assessment approval process we've obviously got the team stabilised there's been lots of proactive being undertaken now so compliance as Patrick said it was always going to take some time adjust to a new process which was the first in Queensland to be introduced because there were no other areas to lean on to replicate this process was the pioneer in this so and yeah here we are three years on and the data and I think this is important piece to look at is the data showing some really great trends that the hotline calls are decreasing compliance is increasing residential dwellings are being used for short stay accommodation now we've seen in the data there that there's 339 approvals since the locals come in have been cancelled owners or by council where the fees haven't been paid so they've been removed from short-term housing sorry short stay accommodation and now potentially return to longer-term rentals so we've positive trends in terms of those areas of impact that are coming through in the data Amelia Lorentson 31:31.123
I have a few questions, there's a proposed action to enhance the tracking their quarterly guest numbers to ensure compliance with the program limits. Just wondering, is that something that can be enforced through what I like to call conditionals. Law provision or is it something that needs to be enforced through a market plan. I'm just trying to understand the modality of that action. Richard MacGillivray 32:11.103
So um so a number of the approvals particularly those that relied on existing use rights Councillor Lorentson and it's under theme for its action to be implemented number two did you get focus on auditing STA bookings to ensure guest numbers matched the approved scale intensity yes so when those properties involve demonstrating existing use rights they were required to provide all of the data and the history that they had been using the premises prior to the Noosa Plan coming into effect in 2020 that to demonstrate that continuation they had to demonstrate how many people that they were offering the bookings to so the those approvals actually have that information captured on the local approval and so what the team are proposing here is to do audits on all of those properties to ensure that the listings match what actually their existing use rights were in terms of the scale so reason why that's important is we heard quite clearly from some residents concerned that a house which might have been a small three-bedroom house is being used with 12 guests in there or you know and so this gives us the ability to ensure that those properties that were traditionally used for holiday letting maintain a similar scale to what was established prior to the introduction of the 2020 Noosa Plan and they'll be able to do proactive audits and monitoring and make sure that the scale hasn't changed over time to be larger than and what it was originally demonstrated as. Patrick Murphy 33:48.833
Can I just add to that is something that may come up from time to time at the moment and the team do investigate that and the approval holders are required to hold a register of their bookings so we do seek to obtain a copy of that where necessary and often that is supported by AirBnB bookings the booking summaries as well to validate that data. Amelia Lorentson 34:13.733
So this is in reference to maintain existing use rights you've also got to maintain the status quo which is the scale of development at the time. Correct, yeah. People, it remains a four people. That's great. Leans again, there's been, it's identified in the report summary just questions in terms of, again, existing use rights. Whether our way of understanding of existing use rights can protect council's culture with the ICT scheme in terms of existing use rights. And have we sought independent legal advice? Richard MacGillivray 35:16.779
Yeah, look, I'm happy to answer that one without going into, I guess too much of the detail around privileged legal advice, I'm comfortable to highlight that as part of the development of the local law itself and obviously periodically through the enacting you'll be we've had a couple of legal challenges against decisions made under local law which have resulted in an outcome supportive of the position that council has taken. Council has engaged what I would personally say is some of the best barristers and lawyers in the State to provide advice on everything related to short stays. That advice has supported how council has handled and managed the rollout of the local law and constant review it undertakes so um you know these are the same legal representatives that have defended many decisions, planning decisions that council has had over many, years as well. And, you know, and they continue to provide and guess, council's making the best, most informed decisions that it can under the legislation, and that has been continued through the process, I guess, till now. Amelia Lorentson 36:32.786
You mentioned that information is privileged and confidential. Can I ask why, Richard? Richard MacGillivray 36:39.106
Yeah, so, councils receive advice all the time, as you can imagine, for a whole range of different things. So, because they're relying on that advice to essentially, there's a level of privilege that's required to be attached to that, so that it's relied on, so it can make its decisions, and it's not able to release publicly as such, which is a normal understanding, you can imagine, from a legal perspective. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 37:07.086
Thank you I'd like to thank you and your team for the enormous body of work that's been done to get this council to this point in the introduction of Queensland's first short-stay-letting Local Law. As Councillor Tom said, it's been a long journey, and there have been challenges along the on which the is placed has proven time and time again to be very, very sound. It's held us in good stead in defending challenges and appeals in the courts, and. The effectiveness of the hotline, the statistics tell a very good story. If I remember rightly, it was 3% of properties have had one or more complaints. More than one complaint? Three or more complaints. Percent of properties, short of time, have had no compliance. The remainder have had at least one. Is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 38:15.776
Yeah, correct. 13 have had at least one and 3% have had three or more complaints. Frank Wilkie 38:20.496
Because that's the pivotal point. If there are disturbances, the effectiveness of the hotline is critical. If I remember rightly, when we had the stakeholder group briefing, the statistics were that within the last year there were three calls to the hotline that were not responded to within the half hour period and fines were issued. In those three instances of 820 Richard MacGillivray 38:49.425
That's correct, yes. So the last quarterly update of the hotline, 96% of all hotline calls were responded to by the contact person within 30 minutes. The and on that 4% of those occasions of infringements were to issue to those contact persons for not responding on time. Frank Wilkie 39:07.014
Have other councils reached out to you and sought advice on how to establish a similar law? Patrick Murphy 39:12.774
I've had a number of councils that have had conversations with us about our experiences with formulating the local law and implementing the local law and you know as they seem to be working through their own pathway to and the resource needs and potential structure of the local law so we've been more than willing to provide our experience and experience and support. Frank Wilkie 39:42.675
That regard and the other thing I'd like to congratulate the team on is the regular short stay letting local snapshots that are provided quarterly on the website. I have a question that mentions the approvals. By suburb, the total number of approvals, the number of calls to the hotline over the last three or four years. Currently this year there's been to the end of 25 or June 25 136 calls as opposed to 592 calls two years ago number of applications refused 97 applications refused 46 renewals expired it does 386 compliance notices issued 169 infringements which shows that your team is very active in ensuring that laws being enforced but it does say approval surrendered 229 and I've heard today you saying 339 have been approved can you just explain to me Richard MacGillivray 40:51.012
Yes and so those numbers there are where the with a property owner hasn't so they've basically they haven't continued with their short stay approval so they've essentially said we're no longer they either haven't paid the fee and they've decided not to renew whereas the number referred to in the report actually includes those additional properties that council has not issued a renewal for because they haven't paid the fee within time itself so slightly larger number so because some haven't paid their fee within the prescribed time for a renewal we have not issued them with a renewed short stay letting permit so therefore they're no longer lawfully able to undertake short stay letting so that's why there's a slight discrepancy in that number and we're looking to potentially update that to reflect this updated I guess description which is a bit broader but gives a broader perspective on that combined data Frank Wilkie 41:51.798
And we're all very keen to support you in the work to find to deliver equity to the resource that do have on-site management I understand that there is a recognition there they because they do not they're not a source of a great source of complaints like individual dwellings there is drastic reduction in the application fee of this is it 200 as opposed to a thousand dollars Patrick Murphy 42:20.102
That's the renewal fee the it's significantly lower at the moment yeah because we haven't been able to work through all of the multiple dwellings and duplex approvals to ascertain which of those are that are actually resorts they're all getting bundled in together yes so it's probably going to just pull that out a bit more yeah and over time we'd like to think that resort category yeah whatever that looks like would get a lesser fee and then as I said those the duplex and multiple dwellings they haven't been increasing their fee for the last two years as well so there's some form of benefit that they may have been obtaining yeah might be looked at as well an increase in that fee but the results SPEAKER_03_b 43:06.368
And I know you you're wanting to make it as equitable as possible certainly very supportive of that as well but thank you for the work to do this review was much look forward promised it's look forward to and it gives us a really good snapshot of where we're at and Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 43:26.669
I have quite a few more questions. Out of the 2349 multiple and duplexes you just mentioned we actually don't have a number of results that are captured in that data. Is it in the thousands? Is it in the hundreds? Do we have any idea? Patrick Murphy 43:52.229
It would just be a gut feel and it's going to be determined by what we identify a resort to be and around. Amelia Lorentson 44:03.489
So it's 80% or more or 70% or more? Strictly used for purpose-built resorts, not the short-term accommodation that's managed under. Richard MacGillivray 44:19.674
Yeah, so as Patrick said, there isn't actually a definition, I guess, a land use definition even, of what a resort entails. A lot of the resorts that were originally established were, most of the time, they were sort of a multiple dwelling building or a mixed-use potential building. So we've got to do that piece of work to try and separate what is a bona fide resort versus what's a sort of multiple dwelling complex that has a similar appearance, I guess, in some cases. And that's the body of work that we've promised to do as one of the priority actions out of this is sort of separate that out. Potentially, I mean, yeah, there'll be hundreds, if not maybe in the order of a thousand of those that may fit that, but we need to do this body of work first before we can probably confirm exactly what meets that definition because there isn't a set definition for a resort at this stage. And that's why we've defined as a resort style terms of what we're looking at is what's the best representation and some of those elements that you mentioned will be relevant around the look and feel, what management processes are in place to mitigate and manage those issues as well. Amelia Lorentson 45:31.996
Thank you mark. How much does it cost to manage a complaint and manage short-term accommodation and how much money are you generating on our short-term accommodation sector? Richard MacGillivray 45:53.761
The cost of the team operating the I guess administering is essentially a nil cost to rate pay so it's essentially a full cost recovery model so it's a very important element where we want to ensure the operation of the team and the funding of the team is funded solely by the cost to deliver and administer the local law itself so essentially there's no net financial gain from the administration of local law it's essentially a zero cost to rate pay so fully funded through the fees it generates. Amelia Lorentson 46:32.485
I think my question is probably so 87% don't receive a complaint and 30% do. I think I've just calculated that's 401. So 401 properties are a problem and be investigated. We sort of mulled down, you know, the current framework when you see whether it's delivering for money given there's 400 components and whether there's more efficient or, um, better systems that can, um, address those 400 components, not 2,085. Oh, sorry, and not address the 3,085. Richard MacGillivray 47:29.611
Well, the challenge you would have is how do you determine which properties are going to have problems, I guess, in the future. So whilst we've got the data based on what we know, um, I guess the, process is really is, A, there's a registration element so we know all the properties that are short stay letting itself, um, but also it's the mechanisms that are put in place to prevent and manage some of those issues arising in the first place. Obviously the rigorous process through of the application assessment process ensures that, those um, those properties and you're right, many of them, we don't receive a complaint, but we would like to think that a lot of those properties, um, have put in a lot of those practices that are required under the local law to prevent there being complaints in the first place. So the, renewal process, whilst has a fairly modest fee for particularly those in multi-dwelling units, $200, um, it gives us that ability to monitor and manage all of the, complaints and issues across, um, the Shire. So essentially it's a, it's a fee to sort of reflect where the effort is and the complaint data gives you a bit of an indication to where the majority of the hotline issues and the effort is required from the team. But there is a more broader element of monitoring and understanding, Amelia Lorentson 48:42.137
Um, the scale and changes over time as well. So there's a, there's an element of not just the and the enforcing enforcement, but there's also, um, setting the permit conditions and administering that, um, consistently across which, has a cost to it as well. Home hosting, et cetera. Optics and rates, whether it's expensive or cheaper. Optics and numbers, whether it's, um, places where there's more than, say, two families or three families, or whether and we've got to do graphical distribution of the short stay accommodation across Noosa to help understand whether there's trees. So rather than. I'm going back to it so we can have a fun piece and more strategic approach to how we address short stays in the future. Patrick Murphy 49:48.275
I think that there is some data within the report that dissects the complaints to the property type. One of the proposed actions is to take that deeper dive into the complaints and to target, you know, a more targeted response. I think in terms of what you're. This sort of still relates to what you're asking. The cost though is, the resourcing is more than just dealing with the complaints. There's a lot of administrative work that goes into administering the local law, a lot of change applications that come through, a lot of inquiries, a lot of following up, a lot of proactive work that takes place as well. So it's probably not right just to focus on the number of complaints and look at that from a resourcing point of view, I think that's what Richard was saying, that the breadth of work that's required is required across the whole of the approvals for a range of functions. Richard MacGillivray 50:52.625
Yeah. And to your point, Amelia, just around the data. So you're right, there's some very good data already in there and obviously on the snapshot that we've got on the quarterly dashboard. And in terms of the number of the actions, they are focused at where those complaint management database. So all the properties we know and we can analyse what the trends or the issues are. And we're able to focus our effort on those particular properties that are causing problems and we've got an escalating compliance approach so obviously if we receive continuous complaints about the management or conduct of a particular property, we will ramp up and escalate our compliance actions. So we do use the data a lot to drive our efforts and we'll be doing more of that moving forward. Amelia Lorentson 51:42.234
So I'm going back to mornington peninsula. We were very good when we went to mornington peninsula. Had security cars. So they knew that the property had children and families. They knew the area which, you know, there was a cluster of families with high occupancy levels that had a security car that would just, over I think that's where I'm sort of going with my question, whether with targeted emissions, whether a deep dive would give us that information to just, you know, red flag this. Eight people with verbal tension. That walked into four homes in this precinct over this big holiday. Maybe we could look at, you know, whether it's a local police officer or monitoring these areas or hotspots. Richard MacGillivray 52:39.995
Do you want to speak to that? Patrick Murphy 52:41.355
I know, well initially we had security and they were only required to go out, I think, on one or two occasions in the first 12 months and it was resolved to remove them. I think also need to look at the data to have perspective on the issue of short-term accommodation and the data at the moment we're not necessarily having out-of-control properties in clusters there's always a human element to this and you'll get a guess or a number of guests that unfortunately won't be respectful and hence the local law and the process is but we're not seeing the data come through the hotline to show that continually there's an area at the moment in which every weekend's a problem Richard MacGillivray 53:40.393
Yeah and I think just on the point of the security and whilst that was looked at in the initial part of the of the local law there's limitations on what a security card can actually do on someone's property as well so you know it was identified as that the most effective way of having someone driving around and look potentially if there may be a noise or not so I think you know the decision was made early on and that's not necessarily really providing a you know really effective solution necessarily let's look at other avenues through you know through local the law in terms of improving that responsiveness and greater accountability on the manager of the property and also in recent times and you'll see one of the actions we've been working with Queensland Police Service as well their DTAC which is their sort of their central triaging centre and they are able to assist so if there is an ongoing escalation and someone doesn't respond within the 30 minutes as required in the local law there's the ability for a resident to even escalated to the QPS and now with DTAC having a copy of the contact person they can escalate their efforts with that contact person as well to provide an extra layer of support to the residents to ensure that those issues get resolved as quickly as possible. Yes we've already got an arrangement in place where if they receive escalated complaints after they haven't heard a response in the 30 minutes they are able to assist as well and they'll make a call in the first instance to that person as well and then they follow up with further action or a site visit if it ongoing and escalates but again we're not aware of any situation where they've had to necessarily be called out. Amelia Lorentson 55:28.339
Places I think like Tasmania use their BnB data sharing agreements. Get into section of downsharing agreements. Richard MacGillivray 55:44.900
Yeah we have an advocacy piece at the moment you might be aware we put an LGAQ motion forward to the State government and we advocate for that data sharing arrangement. You're aware Tasmania have a very good model where the State government have mandated the provision of that data to local governments to manage and monitor. Noosa Council partnered Brisbane city with that motion and that was supported by the majority of local governments for that. We feel that that's a really important piece to give us that data and we'll continue to advocate for that as part of this action plan. Amelia Lorentson 56:25.929
Nicola, Councillor Wilson the call. Nicola, you've got your hand up. Thank you. Nicola Wilson 56:31.829
I've just got a couple of questions. First of all, good news with separating out the resorts. I think that's a piece of work that really needs priority focus, so thank you for happy to see the ongoing compliance and enforcement actions. There's a couple here, continue to prioritise compliance on policies with complaint history and escalating compliance action for repeat offenders, which is an ongoing action. Just wondered, for people who are still affected by their amenity is still affected by neighbouring properties. If they're not calling the hotline, will they be captured as a complaint history property? And what advice can you give for people that are continuing to have issues with neighbouring properties who potentially calling the property manager rather than calling the hotline of how we make sure that we capture those properties and take action? Patrick Murphy 57:26.914
Thanks Councillor Nicola. It's certainly important for the community to call the hotline. We won't know complaint or a problem property until such time as it comes through the hotline. So whilst there might be an element of comfort or having the property manager's contact details, it certainly bypasses council and our processes. So we would certainly encourage people that have a complaint to call the hotline. We've certainly identified some opportunities for greater education and awareness and I think that'll be part of it is to really make sure the community are aware of the hotline and its purpose. Richard MacGillivray 58:17.544
Councillor, if I may add to patrick's comments too, if for some reason residents don't feel comfortable contacting the hotline, they can send an email or a to council or contacting us through our normal channels, email, phone call, coming in person and happy to engage with those customers and take some details and understand their concerns and the team will treat in a similar way but obviously deal with that appropriately as well so once I have that understanding and knowledge of there's a potential issue there they're happy to investigate and may that may initiate even further rigor around some of the challenges or issues that a resident may be experiencing thank you. Nicola Wilson 59:03.113
So for people who don't feel comfortable calling the hotline or it's something that they don't think is an immediate kind of issue but it's an ongoing problem that's not kind of an emergency but they can make a complaint in various number of ways and that will still be captured as a problem of property. Is that right? Correct. Thank you. The second question is right at the end of the report the final page of the final attachment which was about advocacy. These are the actions that can really maybe change the whole landscape in the future with state government and with next year. I know that that's because of so much else happening in the compliance space but is there any way that we could prioritise for moving those forward so that. Because obviously once you start an advocacy piece it takes a long time before any legislation changes or anything so could we start that sooner rather than later? Richard MacGillivray 59:58.922
Certainly yeah certainly we're already undertaking some advocacy already particularly around the registration I guess the data sharing process Councillor Wilson a really important piece obviously started that last year with their LGAQ motion with Brisbane City Council so I guess that work is whilst the whilst the sort of mention has commenced it'll largely dovetail into everything I guess STA looked at and that's refers to existing use rights already we obviously are trying to progress on the data sharing piece is the first cab off the rank because we see that as being really really critical for ongoing management and oversight of STA that's a one of the key challenges that all local governments not only across Queensland but across Australia have identified as a real challenge is having really accurate data source from you know that's mandated through a legislative provision but certainly we'll continue to work on that advocacy piece and may be able to bring some of that forward as you know as early as sort of the back half this year. Thank you. Sorry, I'm just thinking in my last one is there anything that councillors can to do to keep the momentum going on all of these actions? What I would say is to continue to encourage people to contact the hotline if they're experiencing issues. The team are open to hear and understand if challenges out there in the community that they're experiencing as a result of amenity being adversely impacted from short stays. Without knowing that, as Patrick alluded to, it's quite hard for them to respond. So if they do have that understanding that there are problems or issues, the team will jump onto that very quickly and have done that, particularly in recent times now that they're a resource team. And I think the other thing is just highlighting effort you know, the effort, the team is very dedicated and focused on making sure that this local law, as Mayor Frank mentioned, is the first in Queensland to be adopted, is the most effective and becomes the model for potentially other local governments to follow suit. We've had a number of local governments reach out in the last particularly 12 months asking us lots of questions. Are experiencing similar challenges and wanting to leverage off the work that's been done to date in our Shire. So there's a lot of interest and really we want to keep the momentum strong. We want to ensure that community let us know where there's challenges and we'll respond accordingly Amelia Lorentson 01:02:48.551
Thank you Nicola. My last question is back to resorts. What assures and what timeline can we give resort owners that we are, like we'll be, we are looking at ways to exceed or to provide some equity? Opinion in this space. Richard MacGillivray 01:03:12.552
Can we get yeah we do have that in the in the timeline there Councillor Amelia at the back there so we're looking to commence that body of work in the next few months and then that'll lead into early next year with the aim being we would like to have this better down for next year's Fees and Charges so I guess have that category identified we're going to work with the industry and the stakeholders around defining that because we want to make sure it's workable I think it's important to know that there may be you know once we develop the criteria there will be some that will be able to meet it and there will also potentially be some that don't meet it so we're trying to draw a line in the sand with that but we'll work with industry representatives and some of them were the stakeholders as part of this review work with the aim to have that ready for next year's Fees and Charges. Amelia Lorentson 01:04:06.173
Excellent, that's very good. And last question, just to sort of on the back of what we could mention in terms of residents who don't get the hotline. Cussin been looking at just random or conduct resident surveys in hotspot areas just to capture just that information, what impacts it is of having evening on car parking or Richard MacGillivray 01:04:35.645
I know the team and Patrick might step in as well have been doing a lot of work actually going out and meeting residents and doing inspections monitoring inspecting properties through this process particularly where there's been history of concerns raised from residents so the team again now being fully resourced are doing a lot more of that work where they're going and meeting with residents having meetings on site and working out ways to address those issues moving forward and in some cases property owners that have had a complaint or an issue wanting to do the right thing have been seeking advice on what mitigation measures that they could put in place to help address so that the neighbours don't neighbours have concerns with noise and putting in acoustic attenuation some putting in noise monitoring equipment and the like to help mitigate so that they don't have issues some are putting curfews for their guests around you know when guests are outdoor or using the pool anything outdoor like that that's likely to generate a noise or amenity issue so the team get lots of those inquiries all the time around that and are working closely with parties to ensure that we can you know ultimately address these issues on amenity through the implementation of local law Amelia Lorentson 01:05:56.240
I've been to the house of a couple of residents where they're actually surrounded by short-term accommodation and I don't think there's many but there is a handful that there's one person with either side in fact some of the two, three properties surrounding their property where they are short-term accommodation. Has council considered maybe, whether it's, you know, code of conduct, testing was a code of conduct, must be mandatory, maybe delivered by council staff to these properties, just to put in a bit of something. One property, with a small family, maybe just two people residing, in an area where either of the properties, they had sheltered accommodation. Richard MacGillivray 01:06:51.301
Yeah, absolutely. The team are aware if there are any properties, particularly where they feel like they're being adversely impacted, and the hotline or through contacting council, there is the ability for council to look at engaging with those parties to look at putting on requirements around how they sort of best manage or respond to those concerns and issues so that we don't have an adverse impact because at the end of the day everyone's got a right and to peace and enjoyment their property so whilst some properties might be short stay letting that they need to understand the obligations on them is to contain that noise and not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties so certainly if we've got some of those and the team usually aware of most of those already we're taking steps to work with those surrounding owners to put in further mitigation measures to ensure that they don't impact other parties happy SPEAKER_03_b 01:07:47.210
To move it Amelia Lorentson 01:07:49.231
Thank you, I'll second and we're looking to have any further discussion Frank Wilkie 01:07:54.671
Thank you again please some from the half the council team thank you all they should say letting team they are the coalface that are enormous body of work it's very difficult work it's a huge quality of approvals they've worked their way through and also especially commend them for following up on every single complaint call the following day to under better understand was it responded to what was the issue and the time frame for responding and also I'd like to repeat your request that anyone who does experience disturbance from a short stay letting property to call the hotline because that's the way we disturbances can be addressed. They are addressed in 96% of cases and if not there's compliance action that can be taken. Thank you for leading Noosa leading the way in the State in this and your team is a lot to be proud of. Patrick Murphy 01:08:56.191
Thank you. Nicola Wilson 01:09:01.024
It's good to put a few things on public record. Brian Stockwell 01:09:04.164
One is this process that we're looking at the report on today was reviewed review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the local law process. It wasn't a policy review. The stakeholders engaged were the most appropriate form of consultation to conduct the review. There is another process going on where the general community can talk about where they'd like to potentially ask council to go in terms of next steps but any next steps will require change in legislation. So not only was council the first to introduce local law it is probably the council that has done the most to reduce the impacts of STA in the neighbourhoods. A combination of what we see in this report about the significant reduction in complaints the number of registered properties and the number of properties that were refused that were previously operating without the appropriate planning approval or those that have opted out as a result of compliance action. But Noosa is also- there's no other council in the State that has done more through the planning scheme SPEAKER_07 01:10:22.994
Than Noosa Council than we currently have in the amendments that I believe may have come back from state government. The effect of what we've done Brian Stockwell 01:10:38.626
Is a gradual improvement. I'm not saying that there is no reason to continue to be upset by it or that level of SEAs in our neighbourhoods is accepted. What we have to be really clear about, because there's no other issue that has more misinformation in the public space than the STA one, is that there no other trigger or lever the council can pull to do the sort of things that people talk about overseas. We can't say we have a maximum number of STAs in this neighbourhood under current legislation or the planning or the local law. We can't use the local law to affect any land use controls. The land use are only to be controlled by the planning screen. But what we do see is a good news story, is an initiative by this council several years ago has been in operation, has achieved impacts which is desirable that on review we find areas which we tweak to make it more effective and we look at the funding model to better balance the nature of making it, as you say, cost neutral for ratepayers. It's paid for by the industry. Now it would be wonderful to come up with a system whereby only non-compliers pay for the compliance force. But we all pay our taxes to the police force and not all of us break the law. It's just a fact of life. And if government needs compliance, it's paid for by the collective rather than by those who break the law or need to have compliance action against them. So, all in all, it's a good news story. It was a good process. It was very thorough when we had the stakeholders around the table. There were a lot of them saying that they think it's working well. And that's important. That's all. Tom Wegener 01:12:30.820
I'll carry on from that, I had some difficult comments a lot of the time. Comments are on the table. This is something that council took on voluntarily. We took on the responsibility of regulating in Noosa, and we didn't have to do that. Like Ed Brian said, we voluntarily jumped into this space and were the first to do it. And it's quite a, giant leap. Um, I think that, Amelia Lorentson 01:12:54.590
And it's going well. We're looking at car parking and rubbish as problems. So as we've been asking you, what, can councillors do Tom Wegener 01:13:03.114
Or, you know, the rest of councillors do to kind of wrap to help is, um, you mentioned that, uh, local law could take an opportunity educate guests and owners, um, as to what, to do. And I think that one aspect could be that, um, this is a soft power and the good will say, you know, you're going to do so if you're, an advisor to the reserve, we have a Destination Management Plan. This is what we expect of you. We are watching by the way, we have a very active community and to put, that positively on, um, in, this, um, opportunity to educate the, um, the, people staying there, the tenants. Because they may think that they're coming to a, you know, a party destination when it's actually not with that, you know, front and forward. So just saying, I'm hoping that we can use the hard power of the local law and the soft power of the DMP and our, and our own tight-knit community that they are coming to enjoy, but at the same time, they have to respect the rules, especially the car parking. Well, there's all these different things where the local laws themselves have a very hard time fixing that. You know, it's hard to figure out which car belongs to which short-term tenant where them know that at least we're watching, you know, that's something in itself, that soft power of goodwill. So thank you, thank you for all your hard work and I hope that the whole community can get behind this and continue to do on. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:36.013
I'll just mention, I get a lot of feedback in relation to the local laws. So I look next to him and it's all super positive. So please send to him our acknowledgement and respect. Sort of just quickly summarise what Brian said. What's before us is basically evaluation and assessment of how the management of local laws is happening and I think we're doing a good job. In terms of reducing short-term accommodation properties, that's a different discussion and we do have leavers, not just through advocacy. We actually have leavers through rating systems etc. But that's not the discussion we're having in H how are we managing? How are we going with our local laws? And are we listening? And with everything that we do, we can do better. But so far, so good. You. SPEAKER_03_b 01:15:43.767
Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:15:46.187
I'll closed. Okay. You, Madam Chair. Been a strategic, focused, and targeted review and I thank you for that. As has been mentioned, and you've acknowledged, there's room for improvement that has come from working with the key stakeholders, including four resident groups and two independent community advocates, as well as industry representatives. I would invite anyone who's interested in seeing what are the next steps to read the section of the report that mentions the actions already commenced and the actions to be implemented. There's a lot more work to be done, as Councillor Nicola pointed out, advocacy at the State government level to change the planning framework. To allow us to deal with issues that are obstacles at the moment, but otherwise it's an excellent piece of work and thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:16:44.414
No of the bachelor vote. All in favour? Thank you. I'm just going to spend a Penny, Madam Chair. It's going to happen. We will continue it. So we'll move to the next item on the agenda, which is item 7.3, application for a minor change to an existing development approval for Material Change of Use extension to an existing shop at 12 Opal Street, Cooroy. And Richard and Patrick. And Georgina. So Georgina, I might throw it to you. Can you give us an overview of the reports report and what recommendations can be put forth? Forward. By council? Georgina 01:17:45.831
Yeah, beautiful. So the application we have in front of us is to an extent an existing development approval for the purpose of the shop. We are at 12 Opal Street. In Cooroy. For a little bit of context the extension itself is for storage purposes at the rear of the building and the intent for the extension is to accommodate a small-scale grocer for the intent of being a fruit market. So I suppose comparable to what we have up the road in Tewantin. As touched on before the area of extension is at the rear of the building and it's a dimension of 9.45 metres by 4.2 metres achieving a total floor area of just shy of 40 square metres. In accordance with the Noosa Plan's driveway and car parking code, car parking rates are based off the assumed increase of patronage that are useful in Kerr, which in this instance, for a shop, is based off gross floor area at a rate of one space for 20 square metres requiring two additional spaces. With this being a minor change application there has been a series of prior approvals on the site and then looking through history of the site there has not been any requirements for on-site car parking spaces to be provided. Historically there have been a number of spaces that have been accepted within the Maple Lane road reserve to the south of the development. Of consequence the size of the allotment and the existing servicing arrangement on the site, the applicant has proposed to enter an infrastructure agreement to provide car parking contributions in lieu of providing two on-site spaces. Which is why we have this application in front of us today. As typically the application, if they were able to provide the two additional spaces on the site, it would have been normally determined under delegation. Through the course of the application, the suitability of carpark accepting the car parking contributions in lieu of providing spaces on site has been assessed with regard to council's policy. The contributions in lieu of provision of onsite car parking. And within this instance it was determined as appropriate. This was largely considering the history of the site and the existing waste collection unloading of deliveries. So within context of the site, it's not considered practical or desirable from a serviceability perspective to have spaces within the confines of the lot. In regard to council's policy about car parking in lieu, it is important to note that this site is specifically annotated within the Shire as for accepting contributions. In consideration I suppose of different circumstances within the Shire where we have accepted contributions previously, it includes the Royal Mail Hotel up the road where we accepted a Mary Street where we accepted one, and Elm Street in Cooroy where we accepted three spaces. And I suppose for these reasons discussed it's been recommended for approval subject to conditions. Amelia Lorentson 01:21:14.514
Georgina. Questions around the table? Brian. Brian Stockwell 01:21:21.032
The planner in your report, you referred to it being a convenience store. The definition is a shop. Approval would be able to be used for any form of shop. The convenience store, most people would think of that as another grocery store, but you're suggesting it's a the overrides. Yeah, is a shop. In this instance, we've the been, I suppose, told intended operator would be operating a fruit market, so small scale convenience. And the next step, I suppose, Amelia Lorentson 01:21:59.189
Is in considering Brian Stockwell 01:21:59.929
The car parking contribution in lieu of provision. Front of me is my A fruit and veg market is unlikely to drive any more or less than any other sort of shop. There's no other scenario where approving for a shop with no comparison outside is going to lead to a significant increase in patronage. Is it by having a dry store area? Richard MacGillivray 01:22:24.284
No. you never time pencil Tom Wegener 01:22:34.159
There's two buildings that seem to be a loading zone by Maple Lane behind there. That's front building that faces on Opal Street itself, do they use that Maple Lane as a sort of driveway as well? From my understanding, yes. They use the rear portion that we're looking at today because that's where their waste storage currently is kept. Okay, Mac-- where Max was with the old machine shop with the rental tools place. Yeah, so that. My question is that the nature of the tenure of Maple Lane there is owned by the same property. Which is on the same block. It's. How would they add on to that, they're adding on to it, so they're supposed to put two more parking spots out. So that's just a laneway, but you have to have an application to build something there. Even though it's on their own property. The nature of the land use is for a laneway like that. Who owns it? Because if the front store. Needs it as a service driveway for loading and unloading things, will the structure that's being built impede the front block from being able to use it as a service driveway? Brian Stockwell 01:24:08.160
So from my understanding, so just for a bit of a visual, we've got the main Opal Street here. We have Shop 1 that fronts the Street and the shop that we're talking about is back here. This is internal to the property. Maple Lane is at the rear. Servicing is occurring within this area. There wouldn't be adequate area for them to turn around on site I would imagine currently considering the width between the property boundary and the building. I would imagine there would either be reversing on or reversing out from the site and that should not change as a result of this. Patrick Murphy 01:24:41.166
That's it so this application would have received the consent of the landowner to make the application. It wasn't publicly notified. I think maybe, Councillor Wegener, you're asking whether the occupants of the front building are going to have an issue with this structure being developed? Yeah well I'm not sure of their awareness of the application but as I said certainly the landowner Amelia Lorentson 01:25:22.579
Is there a relevant consideration in a assessing an application like Brian Stockwell 01:25:29.958
We have the owner's consent for that. This is the one title and from the landowner for the lodgement of the application. So assumingly they wouldn't be fully aware of that. Tom Wegener 01:25:41.018
Yeah, like you say, it's blood Richard MacGillivray 01:25:44.777
And can still be serviced as it has been in the past which is for vehicles to drive on and pick up rubbish and then leave the site. Tom Wegener 01:25:54.757
Could there be a condition where we say that employees have to park on site? I'm still worried about Apex car park. It is a chocolate block. A lot of people that work there park their cars there all day and the previous jaycar store that was in that complained regularly about. Saying people can't park to get to my shop because they're parking here to go to the. Everywhere else. They park here, they go to the playground and so parking. It's a very very tight parking area so that's why I'm really trying to understand. The two parking in lieu. Patrick Murphy 01:26:33.585
Where we're suggesting or we're saying that it's not appropriate to provide the car parking on site due to constraints and that's why it accords with the policy to accept contributions it's with areas such as this that have been established some time ago with different parking regimes and different demands in the shops it does create a challenge for them in terms of being able to develop their site further belt the contributions provides that mechanism for Tom Wegener 01:27:15.665
Way of aligning almost to say well you know there's all the parking on the railroad reserve and behind the rsl there and say well this pavement I'll almost love to see a straight line to say park over there everybody because we don't want you the workers in the party here we want make, you know, to make sure that this is that. The zone, I know that they put out their own 15 minute parking zones, you know, they're probably against our regulations because they were so concerned they had such a fight. With that. Felt as though that their business is very limited by part of the parking situation. That's why I'm asking these questions, trying to really get, make it clear if there's anything I'm missing. Patrick Murphy 01:27:56.075
Well, this money gives the opportunity for council, I would envisage to explore suitable yeah. Parking within. Parking management. Within the area. And it would not be reasonable to tell the staff of this shop to park in a certain area where other staff from other shop have no restriction on them. That would seem inequitable and not a relevant condition Richard MacGillivray 01:28:21.810
As it's but to your point, Tom, as Larry mentioned, the car CARPAC-packing management plan work that we're doing will look at the car parking more broadly and these contributions actually contribute to potentially creating more developing improvements in terms of the efficiency of car parking in certain areas that have got challenges as well. So whilst it's acknowledging a potential to not provide on site at this point, that money is able to be used to support either upgrades or improvement or identify new areas for provision of parking as well across the Shire. So, but it just takes a bit of time to obviously draw that line between, you know, providing the with money and then obviously where that offset is, you know, developed and created. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:09.168
Thank I'm probably just following on a little bit with their time studying and I think I raised this question before, but when we prove infrastructure agreements, do we look at the present and have a look at how many set up with what we've produced, what the shortfall we can't be met with, action is? Actually and is that a consideration when assessing this, when approving the infrastructure agreements, and should it be? Patrick Murphy 01:29:44.718
We'd certainly need to consider the capacity of car parking within the area and obviously the constraints on the site, to my understanding, there have been no infrastructure agreements entered into in proximity of this site. Certainly in my time with council, nearly 10 years, and of the investigations I've done into the property over time, I haven't been aware of any. The one that was in Cooroy was on the other side of Elm Street. So the does assessment factor in the potential impacts on the surrounding area. It is noted that there is significant car parking in proximity of this site. I do appreciate that Cooroy lot of people that come there at different points in time and it can get quite busy from a car parking point of view and understandably the car parking review was certainly to look at that. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:51.936
Thank you, I'm happy to read the application. Can I have a second please? Thank you Councillor Stockwell and thank you John J. Markle where it's still in, um, does want to pack up the mic in a minute and I'll have to come back in. Car parking but what it does is it helps small businesses and I think that's the important thing that I take away from this. Enjoy the conversation. Around the table and looking forward to trying a successful fruit shop at the back and that may fall laying apart back there so I can't wait to grab my it home. Thank you. Did you vote? No further discussion, all in favour please? Thank you. Minimus. Thanks, Georgina. Now move to our next item, is item 7.4, request for another change to an existing development permit for Material Change of Use, visitor accommodation type 4, conventional visitor hostel. So it's going to be 11th edition. Additional beds at 102 Pacific Avenue, Sunshine Beach. Hello, thank you, and welcome to the first of the Noosa summary, and what is your opinion for approval? Andrew 01:32:31.881
Good morning, councillors. Yeah, it's a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? The application time. But, um, basically what's been applied for, requested for approval is a change to an existing approval at the site. Or a visit accommodation a for, um, basically a hostel increase. Um, the existing approval, um, is for six to nine beds at the site, um, within three buildings already at the site, located along each of the-- two side boundaries and at the rear boundary. Um, each of the-- rear boundary and the southern side boundary buildings are established and are two stories in height. The northwestern building is a single story building. The change basically requests a lift of the 69 beds up to 80 beds. That increase in bed numbers will necessitate an additional floor across that northern building from one to two storeys. Um, as part of that change, an increase in number a trigger for increased car parking results. So one extra car parking space is required. Um, two extra, um, motorcycle spaces would be required and, uh, a number of bicycles spaces, two extra as part um, increase, um, as part of the application process, because the site is located within the low density residential zone, um, it's considered to be an inconsistent use within the zone. That triggers impact assessment. The application was publicly notified and received three submissions. The submissions related to the potential impact on noise transfer between the site and the adjacent residential area. Impact on potential traffic at the site and the traffic generation to the local road network, as well as potential impact on views from the properties located towards the northeast of the assessment process, council requested an acoustic report to be prepared to look at what impacts would result from the additional level, particularly because the, I guess, lifting up the actual intensity of the site and creating a new level raises the potential of noise transfer at that more elevated sort of level. The initial report was prepared by David Moore. That report was prepared to address the increase in number of persons at the site, and council also undertook a peer review of that report. So the recommendation recommendations of the report were that basically the building which was fronting the neighbouring residential areas was to be closed, so no openings to those spaces or adjacent neighbouring premises, as well as to ensure that any sort of community. Areas within the site are limited to the maximum number of persons which could congregate at any one time. So basically at this stage the site can accommodate one additional car parking space adjacent to the extended building on Pacific Avenue and the additional space basically results in the site and the proposal complying with council's code for provision of on-site parking. As part of the general compliance of the actual proposal is recommended that the other change requests be approved. Patrick Murphy 01:36:08.384
If I could just add just to that, Andrew has rightly pointed out that this is an inconsistent use on the site subject to impact assessment. The previous planning scheme, the 2006 planning scheme, the site was zoned detached housing, but there was a provision in the table of assessment that specified visitor hostel would be consistent use on this site with a density of 320 persons per hectare. So that was that was the original site which is 102 Pacific Avenue. So was established as a consistent use. It has got a development approval. There was another change application that was made to that three or four years ago, in which the site of the building that's now being enhanced was brought into the approval through another change. And the lots were to be amalgamated, hence why the site is 106 Pacific Avenue. But just to just to clarify, yes, whilst it's an inconsistent use, it's got a lawful approval that was established originally as a consistent use on the site. So inconsistent on the current planning. That is correct. Is correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:36.161
Can I ask? It was at the 2018 Ordinary Meeting, that's my notes, when the approval was given, which that Patrick Murphy 01:37:48.681
Was other change, the first change which brought in this building and required the amalgamation original approval was 102 Pacific Avenue. And now that it's been amalgamated, it's the property is 106 Pacific Avenue. But yes, you're right, that 2018 change brought in this building Amelia Lorentson 01:38:07.578
What's the currency period when an approval is given? What's the timeframe there? Richard MacGillivray 01:38:14.118
Six years is the currency currently under the Planning Act 2016. So they have acted on that approval? It. So yeah, it's taken effect. Patrick Murphy 01:38:22.493
So at that time they increased the occupancy from 48 to 69 persons. That is now in effect. Amelia Lorentson 01:38:29.374
So they have consistent with strike services? Haven't? A lawful haven't developed an approval. That's great. Thank you. Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 01:38:44.068
Yeah, how is the submission relating to noise, how are the issues raised in that submission intended to be addressed? Mentioned there was an acoustic report done. What recommendations have come out of the acoustic report? Andrew 01:38:58.783
Councillor, what was required to be undertaken to the building envelope was that any windows located fronting the residential areas, which is basically the northern, north-western boundary, and also I guess the-eastern boundary, where to be shut at all times, so you can have a but you can't open the windows. So the upper level will have to be mechanically air-conditioned. Those three compressors will be located at ground level. Acoustic evaluation of that particular scenario is that even if those three compressors are running at full capacity during a heating phase, the noise still wouldn't exceed the acceptable thresholds for noise transfer. The pedestrian access to the upper level is from within the site, so there will be no activity on those two edges, so there won't be any passing or corridors. Which could possibly have some incidental noise transfer through conversations or laughing or that sort of thing to the adjacent properties. Frank Wilkie 01:40:01.075
Given that it triggers the need for one additional car space and two bike spaces, does that mean that the impact on the traffic network is deemed to be negligible? Andrew 01:40:13.070
I would agree with that position. I mean it complies with the code so far as the provision of on-site car parking. So the general anecdotal sort of conversations with applicant and by looking at sort of what is occurring at the site at any one time, the car park is normally occupied but it's not in a situation where it's oversupplied or overspilling into the Street that I can see. But again that could be just the time of year or that sort of thing but at the end of the day the on-site provision SPEAKER_03_b 01:40:45.564
Complies with Noosa Frank Wilkie 01:40:48.765
This a part of the landscape for many years now. SPEAKER_03_b 01:40:52.523
Has it been the source of many complaints at all? Patrick Murphy 01:40:54.923
No, it has not. And just to expand upon what you're saying there's the acoustic fencing? Oh sorry, yes of course, yes. He's being partially extended? Yeah. Andrew 01:41:07.382
There's an existing acoustic fence in place which will be extended along both boundaries in a minor way, but a 1.8 metre acoustic fence is required to be placed on those two residential boundaries. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:21.537
On-site manager, that condition still remains? Patrick Murphy 01:41:26.637
Yeah, so the on onsite-site manager condition is retained. There was a unit downstairs on this building towards the rear boundary where the on-site manager lives and that's detailed on the plans so that's a good buffer and it's also good that they're in that location. Monitor any potential impacts as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:47.479
And are there any formal complaint processes for neighbours post-approval? I'm imagining the hostel would have a compliance process no. or some procedure. To address the complaints. Andrew 01:42:03.746
Councillor, I believe there are conditions in the existing approval whereby the on-site manager is required to, I think, basically hold a phone on body until certain times of the night and look I'll have to refresh my memory of that particular provision but yes, I think there is a on-site requirement. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:22.353
Thank you very much. Patrick Murphy 01:42:23.813
And just before we move on we've identified in the recommendation that there's one of the plans is identified as needing to be annotated however that is not the case so Andrew has prepared an amended recommendation which should just amend condition 107 just striking out can we just scroll through that just that would be yeah so just striking out as annotated by council the plan shows that there's potentially three eight bedroom dorms upstairs there was an annotation included saying that it was to accommodate 11 persons but that's not was never the intent of the application and the acoustic report has reviewed the layout based upon the eight bedrooms of the eight persons per bedroom upstairs so in terms of optical seed, is it still it's an increase of 11 people across the whole site but potentially a reconfiguration of how the rooms are used across the site. Amelia Lorentson 01:43:33.017
Could have 16 people but still overall the next game of the round that's correct and there's a condition that stipulates that to 80 persons and identifies that a single bed and a double bed it just details what it is any further questions around the table? No, I'm happy to move the report to a seconder, Councillor Wegener. No further discussion? All in favour? Thank you. So next. Okay, next stop is item 8.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Patrick, can you give us an overview of what's being decided as a delegation? Patrick Murphy 01:44:42.501
Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, the monthly report detailing those decisions that were made under delegated authority for the month of June in 2025. There were 36 applications that were approved. There were no refusals. As a side note, there were no reports that came to council last month. Again, a cross-section of applications as usual, quite a high number of minor changes and exemption certificates in that month. Amelia Lorentson 01:45:16.985
Any questions around the table? Tom Wegener 01:45:21.985
33 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Change to R.A.P. Dwelling house. Height and setback. Was that, the height and setback for 33 Seaview Terrace, does that have a change in going higher than approved or anything like that? Patrick Murphy 01:45:43.112
I would have to come back to you on the details on that one, the specifics. The descriptor in the full details will be what the application was originally for, originally approved for, so height was an obviously issue in the initial assessment. Being an odd number, I believe that's on the high side of Seaview Terrace, so when they're developing those buildings, you'll probably note along there that they do have significant front elevations due to the topography of the site, so it's likely that there was an exemption, there was an approval for increased height, but again this might have changed, it could have just been changes to the layout, it could have been changes to landscaping, I'm not sure, I'd probably have you've got me there, come back to you on that. Tom Wegener 01:46:31.731
I guess I always worry about CB Terrace because my gosh is it hard to get trains up there, that little tiny road to work on giant houses. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:39.533
Yeah, get some information back to you on that one. Frank Wilkie 01:46:42.973
To go to tom's point about height, can we be reassured that if there was any significant breach of limits, it would come before us and we'll handle that delegation. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:56.604
Yeah, I mean, well the team, you're right, the team in most cases wouldn't over, height generally anyway. I mean, that's the reality from a policy perspective and anything, yeah, potentially we would, we would raise with council for consideration on them, but in most cases the staff will request that the applicant amends the design to meet the height requirements as outlined in the scheme. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:31.236
Think the question is in powers of delegation, where if anything triggers any community, public community interest, then it comes to council for a decision. Yeah, yes, I should. Any further discussion around the table? I'm happy to move, please. I'll sit in the middle. Thank you. We're looking at a discussion on the plan of unanimous. Next slide, welcome. Thank you, Patrick and Richard. Dr. DiMaggio. Thank you. Next up is item 1.2, the first part of the evaluation report. Welcome, Michelle and Anita, if you would like to speak, Michelle. Yeah. Overview. Next of the united place pilot evaluation report. Michelle 01:48:33.112
Thank you, Councillor. Yep. So, as you are aware, council has previously resolved to establish Placemaking Program and a whole-of-Council approach to managing place. This included the development of a place program framework, commencement of a place pilot project, and embedding of placemaking and place-based approach across organisation. Pomona was selected as the location for the pilot and the placemaking process commenced in June 2023. The purpose and benefit of the pilot was to test ideas and processes within the organisation and to develop a collaborative community-based partnership and plan. A this report presents an evaluation of the Placemaking Program to date. Specifically, it includes an evaluation of the pilot with input from the consultants, the internal project team, and the community. It also provides an evaluation of the implementation phase of the Pomona Place Plan and the embedding Placemaking Program for the organisations. It also provides useful insights and key learnings for the future of the placemaking process. Evaluation of the pilot is developed and the development of the moment of place plan concluded. The placemaking pilot process has been successful. It's fostered collaboration across the organisation to deliver efficient, effective and responsive initiatives for the Pomona community that will improve liveability and character of the village. Pilot has also provided a successful process to engage and collaborate with communities to identify and address matters important to them. It has provided opportunities for local groups, businesses and individuals to deliver actions and work together to make places better. The pilot has established a good framework and process that can be used for future projects. Placemaking and can be adapted depending on the unique needs of each community. It has also embedded a program and organisational policy. Staff training to demonstrate organisational commitment to placemaking and place the recommendation report B for noting. Amelia Lorentson 01:50:33.196
Thank you very much. Questions are in the table. I have a question. She's hungry. In terms of costs, has a cost benefit? Of the plan been assessed? How much did it cost? And was the cost, does the cost justify the, outcomes justify the investment? And how is that assessed? Michelle 01:51:08.166
So we haven't done an official cost benefit analysis as part of the pilot. I guess in terms of the money spent and the contribution from my opinion. I think it has been a really successful process in that there will be ongoing benefits into the future, not only for the organisation, for the community. It allows us to work more collaboratively across the organisation, therefore there's cost savings there. We can commit funds to future things that the community need up front and it's not reactive so we can definitely monitor that over time to see if that comes to fruition. It feeds into other strategic plans as well as operational capital works plans, so we have a bit more of a strategic focus across a particular place or location. And I think it's starting to embed that philosophy of us working with community a lot more effectively in the future. Amelia Lorentson 01:52:15.160
By smoking or has a temper to be established or not. Learnings? Michelle 01:52:19.999
There's definitely been a template and learnings established. I think for us it'll just be every place is different. Smaller places could be less resource intensive, particularly in undertaking the process than like a larger place. But I think we've got enough learnings to preempt that and potentially use internal resources. There's probably a little bit of upskilling required to complement what a consultant will bring in terms of design documentation and all those types things. We always benefit from, you know, sometimes having engagement run by a consultant, that third party separation, sometimes the feels that it's separated from us, therefore it's kind of transparent, even though we would run a transparent process regardless. So, I guess there's pros and cons to each, but I think over time, we certainly have the capacity to develop those skills to run in-house. Frank Wilkie 01:53:20.375
Thank you, Madam Chair. From what I saw, it was a great engagement process, a variety of different activities that people could engage in and express. What they loved about Pomona and have that recorded. You mentioned in the report a whole lot of learnings. I'd like to ask, I know they're all very well articulated there, but you both were, well you and Michelle I'd involved yeah. Intimately on a personal level. On what was the greatest thing that you learned? SPEAKER_03_b 01:53:54.116
I was. What would do differently now? Next time? Michelle 01:53:56.876
Yeah, I think I guess the learnings were really around explaining what place and place-making actually is to the community. I know when we went out um on engagement um we could probably pre-empt and have a lot more what is place-making what is place and what is the planning process we're undertaking so they don't get any confusion with other things that are happening you know we had the SEQ Regional Plan come out we had the tail end of some planning scheme amendments was a bit of confusion around that feedback from some of the community orgs saying you know because when we met with them we gave them all that information so we said potentially if we've done that with the community and had a bit more explanation around what place and place planning was that transition a lot better in people understanding the process and what it meant and managing their expectations about what can be delivered through the process yeah obviously I guess being open listening to community really critical and important and we did get things a little bit wrong but we tried to you know be flexible and actually adapt throughout the process as well so and just learning how community receives information the different methods required how much notice they need in engagement to come to these things that was they're probably the main things I think just being consistent and being out in communities is key like actually being out there know is a lot of discrepancy from my experience being out in community and what you hear direct from community versus social media so for me it's dealing with that direct community and they appreciate you being there and they value that as well so and another thing too was if you're going out into location it was really important to have people that actually live in that location on the engagement team have that understanding because people ask do you are you from here do you live here so having someone from that location as a staff member on the engagement team was really critical and validates that they have the same experiences as other others. Community members so they're probably the key things and I guess from an organisational perspective just really being collaborative and working across the teams and communicating at each key stage what was happening the internal working group is an invaluable internal working group putting together the short-term implementation plan now because of that ongoing communication I think has made that a much more smoother process and everyone kind of there's no surprises everyone knows what their expectation is and what their in delivering those actions they've been informed the whole way through the process Frank Wilkie 01:56:43.257
So liveability is central to what we're trying to achieve with active processes like the placemaking we'd like to think and we hope that will become more livable as a result of these processes and the work that comes flows out of it what's recognised as worthy of being preserved and what needs to change to improve things you mentioned in the report that we lacked a baseline to measure that against and so there was a liveability survey done in 2021 what are we hoping to see in the liveability survey that's proposed for 2026 and how will we regard that in relation to other defining findings of trends that are happening in society generally about SPEAKER_03_b 01:57:37.517
Community sentiment that might be heading in a different direction Michelle 01:57:42.038
Yeah I think there has been a trend I guess in that community sentiment again guess government with any survey will have to factor that in it would be hard to say I guess liveability is more the survey is not about council services as such it's about people's experiencing experiences where they live and what they what contributes to their overall livability liveability what we and then we use that information for the service deliver to actually channel that and tweak our investment it allows us to really drill down to what individual communities value I and guess with that livability Liveability Survey it also measures the community rate you know that out of ten so we can continue to go back and compare the results with the with another liveability survey early next year to see if particular things around open it's very high level so space connectivity those types of things we can measure those over time to see if they're changing or not and then you know it might be opportune then to see if they are changing why the better for the worse you know it provides us to really drill down and tailor the questions we want to ask community rather than going out really broad brush we can start then to drill down and tailor exactly what's happening within that community over time which is great you Amelia Lorentson 01:59:00.452
Mentioned Michelle scratch had staff member that lived in kelowna. Can I ask where respondents during the engagement process, were they all Pomona residents? And how was that data sort of collected and recorded and was it relevant? Did you only want to switch to Pomona residents or wider board community? Michelle 01:59:25.383
So the majority of people that did I think around 85% were actually residents. They also worked in the town as well. We did get people coming through that were visitors but they you know were regularly at the markets and things like that. They didn't live in Pomona but come to the markets and those types of things. So I think they're really important too. It's not just about Pomona as a village but what services Pomona provides to that broader community as well. So I think we need to capture all those but the majority were from Pomona. So that made that, you know, in terms of that feedback from the survey, very validated in terms of the actions they were putting through were from that community, majority. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:13.690
Were significant for tribunal in the engagement process and part of this plan, they are no longer active, combined with the Cooroy chamber. Our question is, will there be a process to re-look at the priorities and ensure that they still reflect the business community needs, etc. And also ensure that whatever the Cooroy Chamber of Commerce advocated for, that they still remain relevant. Michelle 02:00:48.940
Yeah, I don't see the relevance changing. I think it's still important feedback. We can go through the Cooroy chamber and actually speak to those. There's actions around that the chamber was assigned to, which we could potentially, you know, we would touch base with some in community and see how they wanted to approach that moving forward. So we were definitely going to contact the Cooroy chamber and, you know, continue on with those actions for those Pomona businesses that's in the plan. Amelia Lorentson 02:01:26.026
My last question is, the hard work about to start? And can you just talk to us a little bit about the town team as well? Who's going to be leading the actual yeah, implementation plan? Michelle 02:01:42.247
Will that initially as council. I've been putting that together and we'll be finalising that hopefully next couple of weeks and then going out to each of the groups. I've chatted with a couple of groups already around that, but I think it was important to go through those short and see, you know, who's doing what, our commitment was around those actions firstly, because community are interested in that. But the town team is very much a community organisation, it's not our organisation, but I've put, I've contacted I think coordinator of the town team. Yeah, Hayley. I've sent them messages saying if they want any assistance from us, more than willing, happy to go and work with them. So once I finish the implementation, I was going to, I'm going to organise to go and meet with them, definitely. Go through the actions and see what they feel like doing. Nick's contacted me separately through Cooroy and Pomona lions about some little worker bees, both in Pomona and Cooroy. That kind of is a really good place action to start to kick a town team if you wanted to recruit additional people to do those types of things so like you know coordinating what could be done around that yeah so there's lots of little things happening that build upon the broader plan which we can definitely support and help coordinate moving forward. Brian Stockwell 02:03:06.779
I'm happy to move the recommendation. I'll second it Madam Chair. Yeah I think it was it was a good pilot it I think you know we've had the report about the plan and about the feedback from the community which I believe was a ringing endorsement of the process. This is a bit more of a planner sitting back and saying did we plan right and it had a lot of useful information in their insights. A couple of key things that I got out of it that I think suggestion of having a little bit more time up front just to work with the community stakeholders to make sure that the proposed consultation was fit for purpose and locality, time, place, type. I think that's a good initiative. I think there was another key thing that came out was perhaps we have got the capacity internally if we're looking at some of the smaller communities and making the scope of those smaller community pacemaking fit the need rather than, you know, promote as a sort of mid-scale village, whereas Kin Kin, boree and pointe may need a lesser investment. But get it done sooner. That's my take. Amelia Lorentson 02:04:13.639
Good question. Tom Wegener 02:04:14.839
Was the pacemaking mandated by any chance or just our own initiative? It's our own initiative. It was council's initiative, yeah. I'll speak for that. Local government can be fun. You asked the wrong question. There's well, Noosa has stepped into these roles. That's what you're supposed to do. But there's things other than that, like J, centre, all these different things where local government steps into these areas where it doesn't have to. But we do, as elected representative, you know, do this. And the local laws is a great example that we didn't have to do that, but we did it. And this placemaking as well. So this is, it's a wonderful thing that we're doing, and it really shows the value of living in VXS. So just thank you very for taking us here and making the liveability experience for Noosa residents even that much better. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:18.339
I'll just say, in my travels from community to village, there is so much interest in establishing their own plan in all these communities and I think my take home is that we have the expertise, we have the passion, we have the know-how and no one knows their community better than the people that live there and they love the community. The best outcomes often are when we allow community to lead. So I'm excited, I think there's lots of learnings and I really appreciate the report. It's been good and bad and I was all there and we need to explore that if you are committed to do better. But thank you and I'm excited to see this roll over to communities, particularly the smaller ones, scoring point, kin, Cooroy, etc. Really excited about what this scheme can be developed and that's it. Thank you. No further discussion, I'm going to throw this out for a vote. All in favour please. Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. And I think we're almost to the end. We are, so there are no confidential sessions, so I now see the meeting closed at 11.38. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
