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
I welcome everyone to the Planning and 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 to the 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 owners 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. Attendance and Attendance and apologies, no apologies around the table. I note everyone's here. Councillor Wegener, welcome. Mayor Wilkie, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Brian Stockwell. I note also there are one Councillor from Surfer, Councillor Wilson Wilson, welcome. Also, online, I'm not sure what else is on there. Frank Wilkie 01:11.344
It's a scary motive. Amelia Lorentson 01:12.824
Yeah, I like it. No? No, it's good. That's it? No, I think that's it. Oh, it's good. Can I please request before the meeting commences that everyone has their phones on silent or turned off. Andrew 01:26.204
Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 01:30.944
Confirmation of minutes. Item 4.1, can I please have someone to confirm the Planning and Environment Committee meeting minutes dated the 8th of July 2025. Councillor Wegener, thank you. Seconded by Mayor Wilkie. No discussion or... Presentations, deputations, there are none, so we move straight to reports for consideration of the committee. Items 7 and 7.1, update to infrastructure charges resolution. And I welcome to the table... Okay, and you're online, that's okay. 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 02:33.180
Yep, basically the planning requires council... 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 plans and regulations maximum amounts, which happens usually on the 1st of July each year. And the only difference with this one compared to the last few years, 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 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 03:45.562
And just confirming, Lord, the resolution now provides for a 6.4 increase in line with the changes within the planning regulation, is that right? The indexation? Luke 03:58.812
Yeah, that's correct. It's an increase of 6.44% based on from the previous planning regulation rates. Council's charges resolution captures those increases anyway. 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 these new rights according to the Act and the resolution increase. The reason we update it every year is just so it matches the actual planning regulations. It makes it a lot easier, a lot clearer and especially for all the customers so it's more transparent so we're actually 100% aligned with the regulations. Amelia Lorentson 04:59.903
I might start with a question. So the planning regulation 27 prescribes a maximum increase of 6.44. I think from recollection council also adopted a full prescribed increase at the time. before. I note that last year... Why does Council adopt the maximum rather than say a lower rate? Luke 05:27.537
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 Act and Council can and we do charge lower rates on some items as you see for for one 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 06:07.706
And can I ask, and maybe this is a question to the CBO or to Richard, how much revenue does council actually generate from infrastructure charges? And 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 06:27.313
Correct me if I'm wrong, Luke, it's about $2.3 million per annum. That funding assists to pay for... Funding assists to pay for trunk infrastructure upgrades. So the infrastructure charges levied help to subsidise and fund trunk upgrades. So that $2.3 million per annum is used to go into infrastructure upgrades to 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 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. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 07:32.244
Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 07:35.924
Questions Maybe a question I've noticed, what is the percentage that's recouped from infrastructure charges? As you said, Richard, it's not the full cost of the providing of the trunk infrastructure, it's a percentage and it's been set by the State government. It's only a percentage for quite a while now. What is it sitting at at the moment? Richard MacGillivray 07:55.286
30%? Have you got the most accurate? I understood it's between 15% and 20%, so it's still very low. Luke 08:03.106
Yeah, that's about the maximum. the maximum that we recovered. I mean, 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... Which, you know, they thought that developers were happy to pay and, you know, it's been the case 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 legit, the all projects, the trunk projects are all listed in the legit and I think on our every annual basis where we collect a bit. The infrastructure charge accounts for about 15% roughly, just off 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 have been spent on trunk infrastructure. 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 the money that was As well as all the trunk projects that was spent, money was spent. Richard MacGillivray 09:31.463
And that's currently being worked on by finance. 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 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 at the moment higher because at the moment 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. Frank Wilkie 10:09.940
Yes, 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 residents funds. Correct. I'm happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 10:24.595
One more question. Brian Stockwell 10:29.230
You mentioned a three-year rolling average index. I think you said PPI. Can you just spell out what that means and whether I was right in that you're saying that the State has set the 6.4% based on that index? Luke 10:45.090
Yeah basic yeah look the um i can share my screen with you all right the um section 114 of the planning act 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 what's required then go to state what 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 the an excel calculation to be used and that's what we've used before they've actually updated the regulation and that's what they used to actually do the regulation as well so and it just works out when you do the calculation that's worked out at six point four four percent that was increased from the previous financial year thank you I'm looking at the advocacy piece the LGAQ advocacy piece at the moment and it's quite interesting state government did commit to annually index the caps caps charge in line with the road and bridge construction index in 2011 and to date this has still not occurred which is really unfair Amelia Lorentson 12:30.873
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 that gap gap is is getting getting wider I think is that from 2011 so not smaller so that's a real challenge for us. wider More works to be done than that. Question to Richard. Can council introduce a fee or mechanism for heavy vehicle impacts? Richard MacGillivray 12:59.812
I'll have to take that on notice. It's obviously a little bit different than the nature of this particular report as such but happy to look at that. Amelia Lorentson 13:08.522
Can we introduce, probably my question is, can council levy charges where development increases the type or quality of use and places additional demand Places: additional demand on trunk infrastructure and I'm reading that from course 2.4. Under course 8.2, when we look at, you know, how is additional development assessed, changes in use scale are intensively captured. So, under the legislation, I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for us to introduce a levy. Richard MacGillivray 13:43.872
There's nothing, no There's nothing, no head of power through the Planning Act 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. There 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 as such to levy a charge or let's say royalty or something of that nature. 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. for you. 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 14:31.567
Thank you. I'll come back to you on that. I moved it, yes. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 14:45.498
Thank you, Luke, for the report. It's very important. 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 in infrastructure charges that could be applied there because... 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 15:32.160
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 bargaining 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 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 and use that one as a bit Amelia Lorentson 16:27.460
Thank you for the discussion, Totna. All in favour? Thanks. Then let's move on to the next item, which is item 7.2, short stay, wedding and home hosted accommodation in local law, operational review 2024-2025. Unfortunately, Nick has been very good and very instrumental in this space. Unfortunately, he's not here today, so we have director of planning, Richard MacGillivray. Welcome. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 17:23.180
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 operational review, there's a lot of credit to the outcome of this review 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 1, 2022 is when the local law commenced. It was developed to regulate and manage short stay living to reduce the impacts on permanent residents and residential amenity. After 12 months, a review was undertaken. You may recall in February 2023, 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. when the new director came on board in 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 we had some real challenges in acquiring new staff. And I must say that around that time Nic came on board as well and has driven a lot of change and a lot of improvement in the team and I think you'll see that through some of the actions that have been implemented as recognised in the report and I'll get to that in a moment. So initially there was 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 are required or opportunities available to 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 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 that the 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 it was estimated initially that there was a baseline of 4,000 properties requiring an approval. The current status today is 3,085 properties have an approval. The team have worked the list of the 4,000 properties and through that process 421 properties were identified as no longer operating and have vetted that full list. So 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 3,085 properties, 2,349 are duplex. And 97% of all approvals relate to short-stay leading, with only 3% being home-hosted. Since 2022,339 approvals have been cancelled by property owners or by council, the majority of which were dwelling houses. In terms of compliance, 87% of properties have not received a complaint. Over the recent quarter it was identified that 96% of complaints had responded to within the required 30 minutes. There's been an 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, a number of the same groups were involved, and the stakeholder group consisted of residential groups, resort managers, property managers, and a planning consultant. And in terms of residential groups, 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 a good number of people throughout 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 operational status of the team was presented and there were some conversations around significant issues, potential improvements and how the process of the review would be undertaken. A survey was prepared and sent out to the stakeholders which had 23 questions. The stakeholders, some of the stakeholders forwarded those, the survey on to other members of their groups and whatnot and we ended up with 92 responses. So when we received the survey responses the feedback was analysed including a review of the suggested improvements and a number of operational improvements were identified from this analysis. 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 awareness. General administration of the local law and advocacy opportunities. So 31 initiatives were identified. 13 of those actions 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 not necessarily wait to the end of the review and so they have the end of the review. And so they have been implemented. They include activities such as collaborating with the police to enhance the opportunity for complaints. They go to the police to be able to contact the relevant owner or contact person, continuing to actively investigate all hotline complaints the next working day, and this involves the team listening to the calls. Calling the complainant, calling the people who have been, you know, the contact person, so a real thorough investigation. Changes to scripting through the hotline, inclusion of a text, prioritising properties with complaint histories for investigation. investigation. So a range 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 is started is is quite significant. The team's in a, you know, 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 relying on. And, 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. lines so So the remaining 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 the implementation. Is, you know, continued rigour around the hotline performance. It's a very important front gate and representation of council to people making complaints. So, certainly ongoing meetings with the hotline, ongoing review of their performance to ensure that it meets community expectations. Significantly, a review of the fee categories. We heard, you know, and for some time quite loud and clear from the resort managers, what they feel is a 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 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 based 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 that sums up the process and the report findings. So the the recommendation is that note that the review has been completed and agreed to implement the actions within section 5 of the report. Amelia Lorentson 28:05.617
Patrick, to the councillors, I'm sure there's going to be quite a few questions. It was very interesting to watch over the past five years the evolution of the team, the SCA 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 they implement fees and put out the local law, and then the SCA 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 28:53.166
I certainly 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 2,000 applications being assessed by 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. So a lot of the resourcing was initially focused upon trying to understand the processes and work through that backlog of work. certainly the team is now 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 them from the previous night and I must say previous night and I must say of there's not a lot of complaints as well I think a lot of the improvements that the team has been able to implement has correlated with a reduction in the course of the hotline as well over time. Richard MacGillivray 30:04.441
Can I too just on that 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 all the applicants to understand what the process was and here we are just over the three 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 and approval process we've obviously got the team stabilised there's been lots of proactive compliance being undertaken now so as Patrick said it was always going to take some time just to a new process which was the first in Queensland to be introduced because there were no other areas to lean on to there were no other areas to lean on to replicate this process, Noosa was the pioneer in this, so, and yeah, here we are three years on, and the data, and I think this is an important piece to look at, is the data's showing some really great trends, that the hotline calls are decreasing, compliance is increasing, potentially less residential dwellings are being used for short stay accommodation now, we've We've seen in the data there that there's 339 approvals since the locals come in have been cancelled by property owners or by council where the fees haven't been paid, so they've been removed from short stay accommodation and now potentially returned to longer term rentals, so we're seeing some positive trends in terms of those areas of impact that are coming Amelia Lorentson 31:35.380
I have a few questions. There's a proposed action to enhance the tracking of the auditing guest numbers to ensure compliance with the provenance. I'm just wondering if Is that something that can be enforced through like a local law provision or is it something that needs to be enforced through a market planning plan? I'm just trying to understand the modality of that action. Patrick Murphy 32:10.740
Yes, 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 it get focus on auditing STA bookings to ensure guest numbers matched the approved scale intensity? Yes, so when those properties are 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. They had to demonstrate that continuation, they had to demonstrate how many people that they were offering the bookings to so 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. the scale so so the 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 leasing maintain a similar scale to what was established prior to the introduction of were in terms Richard MacGillivray 33:32.499
Scale to what was established prior to the introduction of the 2020 news plan and they'll be able to do proactive audits and monitor and make sure that the scale hasn't changed over time to be larger than what it was originally demonstrated as. Can I just add to that? Patrick Murphy 33:50.006
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 required to hold a register of their bookings and so we do seek to obtain a copy of that where necessary and often that is supported by Airbnb bookings with booking summaries as well to validate that data. Amelia Lorentson 34:14.092
So this is in reference to existing use of rights to maintain... use of rights to maintain existing use of rights and also option to maintain the status quo which is the scale of development at the time of the... Correct, yeah. for people who remain sick for a few years. That's correct. Leave-ins, again, there's been... it's identified in the report summary stakeholder feedback. Thanks. Just questions in terms of, again, existing use rights. Whether our legal understanding of existing use rights, what Council is covered in the ICICS meeting in terms of existing use rights? And have we sought independent legal advice? Richard MacGillivray 35:16.820
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. part of the development of the local law itself, and obviously periodically through the enacting of the local law itself, and you'll be aware that we've had a couple of legal challenges against decisions made under the 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 the constant review it undertakes. So, you know, these are the same legal representatives that have defended many decisions, planning decisions. Council has had over many, many years as well. And, you know, and they continue to provide and support, I 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 36:32.566
The mention of information is privileged and confidential. Can I ask why, Richard? Richard MacGillivray 36:39.066
Yes, 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 make decisions, essentially there's a level of privilege that... 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. Frank Wilkie 37:07.044
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank you and your team for the enormous body of work that's been done 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 wall. As Councillor Wegener said, it's been a long journey, and there have been challenges along the way. The legal basis on which the local wall 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 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. Three or more complaints. 87% of properties, short to say, have had And the remainder have had at least one. Is that correct? Richard MacGillivray 38:15.788
Yeah, correct. 13 have had at least one and 3% have had three or more complaints. Frank Wilkie 38:20.508
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. were not responded to within the half-hour period. And fines were issued in those three instances of 820... That's correct Richard MacGillivray 38:51.015
Yes. So the last quarterly update of the hotline, 96% of all the hotline calls were responded to by the contact person within the 30 minutes. And on that four Patrick Murphy 39:13.449
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 understanding things like existing use rights and the resource needs and potential structure of the local law. So we've been more than willing to to provide our our experience and experience, yeah, our support in that regard. Frank Wilkie 39:44.256
And the other thing I'd like to congratulate the team on is the regular short stay letting. local law snapshots that are provided quarterly on the website the local I have a question that it 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 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 that law is being enforced. But it does say approval surrendered 229, and I've heard today you're saying 339 have been approved. Can you just explain to me the difference in that? Yeah, so those numbers there are where the property owner hasn't, so they haven't basically 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 it's a slightly larger number, so because some haven't within paid their 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 why there's there's a 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. And we're all very keen to support you in the work to find... to deliver equity to the resorts that do have onsite management. I understand that there is a recognition that they're Is it $200 as opposed to $1,000? Patrick Murphy 42:19.801
The renewal fee. That's the renewal fee. It's significantly lower at the moment because we haven't been able to work through all of the multiple dwellings and duplex approval. ascertain which of those are actually resorts. They're all getting bundled in together. So it's probably going to just pull that out a bit more. And over time, we'd like to think that the resort category whatever that looks like, would get a lesser fee. And then, as I said, those 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. So that might be looked at as well, an increase in that fee, but the results. Frank Wilkie 43:06.691
And I know you're wanting to make it as equitable as possible. Certainly. We're very supportive of that as well. But thank you for the work to do this review. It was promised. It was much looked forward It was looked forward to. It gives us a really good snapshot of where we're at. And thank you. Great, thank you. Amelia Lorentson 43:26.718
I have quite a few more questions. I think that, um... Out of the 2,349 multiple drawings and duplicates you just mentioned, um, we actually don't have a number of, um, results that are captured in that data. Um... Is it in the thousands? Is it in the hundreds? Do we have any idea? Patrick Murphy 43:52.216
Um, it would just be a gut feel and it's going to be determined by what we... a resort to be and around... Amelia Lorentson 44:03.532
So it's 80% or more, 70% or more used for, um... Strictly used for purpose-built resorts. Richard MacGillivray 44:20.767
Yeah, so as Patrick said, there isn't actually a definition, I guess, a land use definition even 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 So we've got to do that piece of work to try and separate what is a bonafide 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. But potentially I mean yeah there'll be hundreds if not maybe in the order of a thousand of those. be 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 what meets that definition because there isn't a set definition for a resort at this stage and And that's what we've defined as a resort style in terms of what we're looking at is what's the best representation and some of those those elements that you mentioned will be relevant around the look and feel what management you know processes room management you know processes are in place to mitigate and manage those issues as well. Amelia Lorentson 45:33.447
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 45:53.741
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 solely funded by the cost to deliver it. 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 46:33.140
I think my question is probably, so 87% complaint and 13% do, I think I've just calculated that's 401, so 401 properties are a problem. It needs to be investigated. Again, have we sort of mulled down, you know, when a current Whether the current framework we're using, whether it's delivering payment for money given there's 400 complaints, and whether there's more efficient or better systems that can address those 400 complaints, not 2,085, oh sorry, and not address the 3,085. The problem is 400, should we be spending money for the 400? Richard MacGillivray 47:29.843
The challenge you would have is how do you determine which properties are going to have problems, I guess. the future, so whilst we've got the data based on what we know, I guess the the process is really is a there's a registration element so we know all the properties that are our short stay letting itself, but also it's the mechanism. But also it's the mechanisms that are put in place to prevent and manage some of those issues arising in the first place so obviously the rigorous process through the application assessment process ensures that 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 have put in a lot of those practices that are required under local law to prevent there being complaints in the first place so the the renewal process So the renewal process, whilst it has a fairly modest fee for particularly those in multi-dwelling units, two hundred dollars, it gives us that ability to monitor and manage all of the complaints and issues across the Shire. So essentially 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 understanding the scale and changes over time as well so there's there's an element of not just the regulation and the enforcement but there's also setting the permit conditions and administering that consistently across which which has a cost to it as well So have we done a deep dive and analysed the property types, whether it's drug and home hosting etc. Amelia Lorentson 49:06.709
Optics and rates, whether it's expensive or cheaper. Optics and numbers, whether it's places where there's more than say two families or three families or whether it's just a people issue. and with that geographical distribution short stay accommodation across Noosa to help understand whether there's trees. So rather than, so I think I'm going to actually, so, so. We can have a more focused and more strategic approach to how we address short stays in the future. Patrick Murphy 49:48.243
I think that there is some data within the report that dissects the complaints into 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 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 enquiries, 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 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 50:52.431
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 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, we have a 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 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 action so we do use the data a lot to drive our efforts and we'll be doing more of that moving forward. Amelia Lorentson 51:46.508
So they knew that the property had children and families, they knew the area which was cluster of families with high occupancy levels that had a security card that would just, over the weekends, just sort of drive around. 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 that are hooked. looked into poor homes in this precinct over this big holiday. Maybe we could look at whether it's a local police officer or we outsource a security guard that's just monitoring these areas or hotspots. Richard MacGillivray 52:39.984
Do you want to speak to that? Patrick Murphy 52:41.564
I know, well initially we had security. 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 we also need to look at the data to have perspective on the issue of short term accommodation and the data at the moment is telling us that 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 guess that unfortunately won't be respectful. hence the local law and the process is there. 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 53:41.005
Yeah, and I think just on the point 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 is 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 the local law in terms of improving that responsiveness and greater accountability on the the manager of the property and also in recent times and also in recent times and you'll see one of the actions we've been working with Queensland Police Service as well and their DTAC which is their sort of their central triaging centre and they are able to assist so if 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 escalate it to the ability for a resident to even escalate it 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. Amelia Lorentson 54:58.822
Yes yes we've already got a 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. 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 visitor if it ongoing and escalates but again we're not aware of any situations where they've had to necessarily be called out. Places, I think, like Tasmania, New Zealand, being the data sharing agreements, are we looking at entering, you know, anyone new with MD &B to get into? Richard MacGillivray 55:43.780
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're continuing we're continuing to 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 with Brisbane City Council 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. It's part of this action plan Thank you. Nicola Wilson 56:31.869
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 that and also 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 amenities, 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 are potentially calling the properties? 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 57:26.936
Thanks Councillor Wilson. It's certainly important for the community to call the hotline. We won't know about a 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 managers 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 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 to really make sure the community are aware of the hotline and its purpose and its process. Richard MacGillivray 58:19.087
Councillor if I may add to Patrick's comments today if for some reason residents don't feel comfortable contacting the hotline they can send an email or request a directly to council or contacting us through our normal channels email phone call coming in in person and happy to engage with those customers and take some details and understand their concerns and the team will treat that 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 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. Nicola Wilson 59:02.309
Thank you. So, for people who don't feel comfortable 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, yes. The second question is right at the end of the report the final page of the final attachment which was about advocacy. Thank you. These are the actions that can really maybe change the whole landscape in the future with state government and with the booking platforms but they're not on the timeline until 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 moving those forward 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? Certainly. Richard MacGillivray 01:00:00.573
Certainly we're already undertaking some advocacy already, particularly around the registration, I guess the data-sharing process, Councillor. That's 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 Surrogacy Dimension has commenced, it'll largely is 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 the data sharing piece as the first cab off the rank because we see that as being really really critical for ongoing Ongoing management and oversight of ST. That's 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 know we'll continue to work on that advocacy piece and may be able to bring some of that that forward as you know as early as sort of the back half of this year. Nicola Wilson 01:01:15.021
Is there anything the council is going to do to keep the momentum going Richard MacGillivray 01:01:23.480
What I would say is is to continue to encourage people to contact the hotline if they're experiencing issues the team are open if to hear and understand if there are challenges out there in the community that they're experiencing and as a result of amenity being adversely impacted from short stays without knowing that as Patrick alluded to they it's quite hard for them to 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 it's just highlighting the you know the effort the team is very Highlighting the 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 to follow suit. We've had a number of local governments reach out in the last particularly 12 months asking us lots of questions. asking us lots of questions because they 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 the community let us know where there's challenges and we'll respond Amelia Lorentson 01:02:47.340
Thank you. Nicola. My last question is back to resorts. What assurance 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... Yeah, we do have that in the timeline there, Councillor Lorentson at the back there, so we're looking to... to commence that body of work in the next few months and then that'll lead into 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 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 they're also 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 Thank you so much. Thanks for And last question, just to sort of on the back of what Nicola mentioned, in terms of residents who don't pick up the hotline, has Council of simply sitting and looking at just random or... conduct resident surveys in hospital areas? Just to capture just that information, what impacts it is of having evening on car parking or is overcrowding? Richard MacGillivray 01:04:35.970
I know the the team and Patrick might 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 they're 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 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 address so that the neighbours don't have concerns with with noise and some putting in acoustic attenuation some putting in noise monitoring equipment and the like to help mitigate so that they don't 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 or anything outdoor like that that's likely to generate a noise or amenity issue. 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 through the implementation of local law. Amelia Lorentson 01:05:54.523
And my last question, I've been to the house of a couple of residents where they're actually surrounded by a short term accommodation and I don't think there's many members that This is a candle that, um, 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, I don't know, a different set of rules, or whether it's, you know, code of conduct, testing was a code of conduct, must be made a treaty, maybe delivered by council staff to... properties, just to give you a heads up, is one property, with a small family, maybe just two people residing, in an area where other joint properties, they have short term accommodation. Yeah, absolutely. Richard MacGillivray 01:06:52.818
The team are aware if there are any properties, particularly where they feel like they're being adversely impacted, whether through 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 best manage or respond to those concerns and issues, so that we don't have an adverse need to understand 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 to peace and enjoyment of their property so whilst some properties might be short stay living that they need to understand the obligations on them is to contain that noise and not have an have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties so certainly if we've got some of those properties 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 owners to put in further mitigation measures to ensure that they don't impact other parties. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:45.750
Thank you very much. Frank Wilkie 01:07:48.090
Happy to move it Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 01:07:49.650
Thank you, I'll second. And they're looking to have any further... Yes, thank you again. Please, on behalf of the Council team, thank you all. They're a sure-say leading team. They're doing an enormous body of work. They are... It's very difficult work. It's a huge quantity of approvals. They've worked their way through. I also especially commend them for following up on every single complaint. your request that anyone who does experience disturbance from a short stay letting property to call the hotline because that's the way the 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... this is leading the way in the State in this and your team is a lot to be proud of. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:09:00.062
I think it's good to put a few things on public record. One is this process that we're looking at the report on today was 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 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 Noosa council the first to introduce local law it is probably the council that has done the most to reduce the impacts of SBA and enablers. A combination of what we see in this report about the significant reduction in complaints, about the reduction in the number of rent properties and the 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 Council is also the, there's no other council in the State that has done more through the planning scheme than Noosa Council than we currently have in the amendments that I believe may have come back from state government. this but Noosa Council is also the, there's no other council in the State that has done more through the planning scheme 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 is a gradual improvement. I'm not saying that there is no reason to continue to be upset by it or that There is 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 SDAs in this neighbourhood under current legislation, either planning or 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 scheme. But what we do see is a good news story, is an initiative by this Council several years ago has been in been in operation, has achieved impacts which is desirable and 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... better balance the nature of making it cost-neutral for ratepayers, so paid for by the industry. Now it would be wonderful to come up with a system whereby only non-compliers pay for the compliance costs, but... we all pay our taxes for the police force and not all of us break the law. It's just a fact of life. If government needs compliance, it's paid for by the collective rather than by those who break the law or need it. So all in all, it's a good news story. It was a good process. It was very thorough and 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. Tom Wegener 01:12:31.414
Carrying on from that and from Nicola's comments, a lot of the comments are on the table. We, this is something that Council took on voluntarily. We took on the responsibility of regulating short-term accommodation 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. I think that, and it's going well overall. We're looking at car parking and and rubbish as problems. So as we've been asking you, what can councillors do or, you know, the rest of the council do to kind of wrap to help, is you mentioned that the local law could take an opportunity to educate guests and owners as to what to do. And I think that one aspect could be that this is a soft power and the good will say, is a soft power, and the goodwill saying, you know, you're in Noosa, you're in the Biosphere 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... in this opportunity to educate 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, and put that, you know, front and forward, so, just saying... 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 own tight-knit community that they are coming to enjoy, but at the same time they have to respect the rules, especially the Karparky brothers, 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 if you let 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 on. Amelia Lorentson 01:14:36.219
I'll just mention, I get a lot of feedback in relation to the local laws. I'll start with Nick's team, and it's all super positive. So please send to him our acknowledgment and respect. Sort of just quickly summarise what Brian said. What's before us is basically an evaluation or assessment of how the management of I think we're doing a good job in terms of reducing short-term accommodation costs. 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, et cetera. But that's not the discussion we're having in H &As. How are we going with our local laws? How are we managing? And are we listening? And with everything that we do, we can do better. But so far, so good. So Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:15:46.239
I'll close. Thank you, Madam Chair. It has been a strategic focused and targeted review, and I thank you for that. And 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, and 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 Wilson pointed out, advocacy at the State government level to change the planning framework to allow us to deal I'm just going to spend a Amelia Lorentson 01:17:04.580
We will continue, 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 Maple Street, Cooroy and Georgina 01:17:47.298
Application we have in front of us is to an extent an existing development approval for the purpose of the shop and we are at 12 Maple And we are at 12 Maple Street in Cooroy. So just 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 and as 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 Plans driveway and car parking code car parking rates are based off the assumed increase of patronage that are useful in Kerr which which in in this this instance 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 the history of the site there has not been any requirements for on-site car spaces parking to be provided historically and there have been a number of spaces that have been accepted within the Maple Lane Road Reserve to the south of the development consequence of the size of the allotment and the existing servicing arrangement on the side 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 these are two additional spaces on the side it would have been normally determined under delegation. Through the course of the application, the suitability of 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 upon 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 loading on unloading of deliveries. So within context of the site, it's not considered practical or desirable from a from a serviceability perspective to have these spaces within the confines of the 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 being suitable for accepting contributions. In consideration, I suppose, of different circumstances within the Shire where we have accepted contributions previously, it includes the Royal Mail up the road where we accepted five spaces. A veterinary practice on 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. Thank you, Georgina. Amelia Lorentson 01:21:15.252
Questions around the table? Brian Stockwell 01:21:23.012
The planner in your report, you referred to it being a convenience store. The definition is a shop. The approval would would be be able able to to be be used used for for any any form form of shop, because the convenience store, most people would think of that as another grocery store, but you're suggesting it's a fruit market or something like that. Georgina 01:21:45.650
Yes, the overriding definition is a shop. In this instance, we've been, I suppose, told the intended operator would be operating a fruit market, so small-scale convenience. And the next step, in I suppose, considering the car parking contribution in lieu of provision. 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 consent is going to lead to a significant increase in patronage, is it, by having a dry store area? Amelia Lorentson 01:22:30.320
Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 01:22:32.160
There's two buildings that seem to be a loading zone by Maple Lane behind there. Does the front building-- front building that faces on Maple Street itself, do they use that Maple Lane as an accessory as well? Georgina 01:22:51.631
From my understanding, yes, they use the rear portion that we're looking at today because that's where their waste storage Okay, Tom Wegener 01:23:00.882
That's 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, it's owned by the same property, by the same person, it's on the same block, How, when 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. Because if the front store needs it as a service driveway and for loading and unloading things, will the structure that's being built impede the front person, the front block? Who owns it? Because if the front store needs it as a service driveway and for loading and unloading things, will the structure that's being built impede the front person, the front block? So from my understanding, so just for a bit of a visual, we've got the main Maple Street here. We have shop one 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. Georgina 01:24:21.848
Servicing is occurring within so from my understanding so just a little 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 Patrick Murphy 01:24:42.700
So this application would have received the consent of the landowner to make the application. It wasn't publicly notified. 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? Well I'm not sure of their awareness of the application but as I said certainly the landowner has consented to this is a relevant consideration in assessing an application like this. Georgina 01:25:30.160
We have the owner's consent for that. This is the one title and we have the owner's consent from the landowner for the lodgement of the application. So, assumingly, they wouldn't be fully aware of that. Tom Wegener 01:25:40.798
Yeah, like you say, it's quite a title. Richard MacGillivray 01:25:45.158
And the site can still be serviced as it has been in the past, which is for vehicles to drive on and pick up roads. Tom Wegener 01:25:54.876
Could there be a condition where we say that the employees have to park on site? I'm still worried about Apex Park. It is a chocolate block. A lot of people that work there park their cars there all day, and the previous J car store that was in that. parking, it's a very, very tight parking area, so that's why I'm really trying to understand the two parking in lieu of two parking. Patrick Murphy 01:26:34.126
Well, 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, of the policy to accept contributions. It's with areas such as this that have been established some time ago with 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. And the contributions provides that mechanism for businesses still to evolve. Tom Wegener 01:27:14.792
Is there any way of aligning the most disabled? You know, there's all the parking on the railroad reserve and behind the RSL there. And to say, well, this payment, I would almost love to see a straight line to say, park over there, everybody, because we don't want you, the workers, you know, parking here, we want to make, you know, to make sure that this is that. The zone, I know that they, they all, the tenants put out their own, their own 15-minute parking zone, you know, stands there, probably against our regulations, because they were so concerned, they had such a fight with that, they felt as though that, you know, their, their business is very limited by, by part of the parking situation. That's why I'm asking these questions, trying to really get, making clear if there's any, anything I'm missing. Well, this money gives the opportunity for Council, I would envisage, to explore. Yeah. Suitable. Richard MacGillivray 01:28:21.960
As well. It's your point Tom mentioned that the car parking management plan work that we're doing it look because it'll look at the car parking more broadly and these contributions actually contribute to potentially creating more developing you know improvements in terms of as Larry in terms of the efficiency of car parking in certain areas that have got challenges as well, so whilst it's acknowledging the potential to not provide on site at this point, that money is able to be used to support either upgrades or improvements. or identify new areas for provision of parking as well across the Shire, but it just takes a bit of time to obviously draw that line between providing the money and then obviously where that offset is. Offset is, you know, developed and created. Amelia Lorentson 01:29:19.304
When we approve infrastructure agreements, do we look at the present and have a look at how many infrastructure agreements we've already approved, what the shortfall in parking actually is? And is that a consideration when assessing this, when approving the infrastructure agreements, and should it be? Patrick Murphy 01:29:44.762
We'd certainly need to consider the capacity of, you know, car parking area, and obviously the constraints on the site. To my understanding, there have been no infrastructure agreements entered into, in proximity of this site. In, certainly, my time with Council, nearly 10 years, and certainly some of the investigations I've done into 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 assessment does. assessment does 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 Cooroy has a lot of people that come there at different points in time, and it can get quite busy from a car parking point of view. Understandably, the car parking review was certainly to look at that. Amelia Lorentson 01:30:52.092
Thank you. I'm happy to move the application. Can I have a second, please? Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, and thank you, John J. Markle, for the report. Does one pack up the demand for car parking? Well, 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. Enjoy the conversation around the table, and looking forward to, you know, trying a successful fruit shop at the back in Maple Lane. I can't back there, so I can't wait to grab my fruit and veggies and bring it home. much for your interventions and for your time. Thank you, George. Thank you. Did you vote? Any further discussion? All in favour, please. Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. Now move to our next item, which is item 7.4, request for another change to existing development. 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. Andrew 01:32:31.464
Good morning councillors, it's a bit of a mouthful isn't it, the application time, but basically what's been applied for or requested for approval is a change to an existing approval at the site or a visitor accommodation for basically a hostel increase. The existing approval is for six to nine beds at the site within three buildings already at the site located along each of the two side boundaries and at the rear boundary. 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 stories. As part of that change, an increase in number of increase in number of beds, a trigger for increased car parking results. So one extra car parking space is required. Two extra motorcycle spaces would be required and a number of bicycle spaces, two extra bicycle spaces is also required as that increase. As part of the application process because the site is located within the low density residential zone, it's considered to be an inconsistent use within the zone. So that triggers impact assessment. The application was publicly notified and received three submissions. The submissions related the potential impact on noise transfer between the site and the adjacent residential area, the 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 site. As part 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 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 recommendations of the report were that basically 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 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 it is recommended that the other change requests be approved. Patrick Murphy 01:36:08.382
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 Provision in the table of assessment that specified that a visitor hostel would be consistent use on this site with a density of 320 persons per hectare. So that was that So that was that was the original site which is 102 Pacific Avenue so the use 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 that's now being enhanced was brought into the approval through another change and the lots were to be amalgamated hence why I decided it's 106 Pacific Avenue but just to just to clarify yes whilst it's an it's an inconsistent use, it's got a lawful approval that was established originally as a consistent use on the site. Frank Wilkie 01:37:31.466
So inconsistent on the current planning? Patrick Murphy 01:37:33.926
That is correct. Amelia Lorentson 01:37:33.996
Can I ask, was it the 2018 ordinary meeting, that's my notes, when the approval was given, which permitted visitor accommodation? That was the other change, the first change. Patrick Murphy 01:37:50.330
Change which brought in this building and required the amalgamation. So the original approval was 102 Pacific Avenue and now that it's been amalgamated, the property is 106 Pacific Avenue. But yes, you're right, that 2018 change brought in this building. Amelia Lorentson 01:38:07.224
And what's the currency period when an approval is given? What's the timeframe there? Richard MacGillivray 01:38:14.124
Six years is the currency currently under the Planning Act. So they have acted on that approval? So they have acted on it. So yeah, it's taken effect. So at that time they increased the occupancy from 48 to 69 persons. That is now in effect. Amelia Lorentson 01:38:29.362
So they have consistent misguided services or they have a lawful approval, an approved Patrick Murphy 01:38:38.722
That's correct. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 01:38:44.300
Yeah, how is the submission relating to noise? How are the issues raised in that submission intended to be addressed? You mentioned there was an acoustic report done. What recommendations have come out of the report? Andrew 01:38:58.626
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 north-eastern boundary, were to be shut at all times. So you can have a window there, 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 01:40:01.128
Given And 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 01:40:14.946
Mean it complies with the code so far as the provision of on-site car parking. So the general anecdotal sort of conversations with the 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 the end of the day the on-site provision complies with their supply. Frank Wilkie 01:40:47.466
This hostel has been a part of the landscape for many years now. Has it been the source of many complaints at all? Patrick Murphy 01:40:54.926
No it has not and just expand upon what you're saying there's the acoustic fencing. Oh sorry yes of course yes. It's being partially extended. Andrew 01:41:07.004
Yeah there's an existing acoustic fence in place which will be extended along both boundaries. Patrick Murphy 01:41:26.206
So. So the on-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 to monitor any potential impacts as well. Amelia Lorentson 01:41:48.508
Are there any formal complaint processes for neighbours post approval? I'm imagining the hostel would have complaints. Processes and procedure should address the complaints. Andrew 01:42:03.794
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 um... I'll have to refresh my memory of that particular provision, but yes, I think there is a on-site requirement. Amelia Lorentson 01:42:22.360
Thank you very much. Patrick Murphy 01:42:24.270
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... is not the case, so Andrew has prepared an amended recommendation which should just amend condition 107 to striking out... Can we just scroll through that? Yeah, so just striking out as annotated by Council. The plan shows that there's potentially three eight-bedroom dorms upstairs. The plan shows that... There was an annotation included saying that it was to accommodate 11 more persons but that's not was never the intent of the application and the acoustic acoustic report has reviewed the layout based upon the eight bedrooms of the eight persons per bedroom upstairs. It's an increase of 11 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 01:43:38.610
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. Next up is item 8.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Patrick Murphy 01:44:42.486
Thank you, Councillor. 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 an aside, 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 01:45:15.980
Thank you. Any questions around the table? Tom Wegener 01:45:22.020
33 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Change to RAP, dwelling house, height and setback. The height and setback for 33 Seaview Terrace, does that have a change in going higher than approved or anything like that? Patrick Murphy 01:45:41.043
I would have to come back to you on the details on that one the specifics the the descriptor in the full details will be what the application was originally for originally approved for so height was was obviously an issue in the initial assessment being an 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'll probably have to come back to you on that. Tom Wegener 01:46:28.362
I guess I was worried about Seaview Terrace because my gosh is it hard to get trainings up there, that little tiny road to work on giant houses. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:39.502
Yep, get some information back to you on that one. Frank Wilkie 01:46:42.962
To go to Tom's point about height, can we be reassured that if there was any significant breach of Significant breach of height limits, it would come before us, you know, handle that delegation. Richard MacGillivray 01:46:56.609
Yeah, I mean, the team, you're right, the team in most cases wouldn't support anything over height generally anyway. I mean, that's the reality from a policy perspective. And anything, yeah, potentially we would raise with council for consideration. 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 01:47:27.321
Did you want to add anything? We actually made changes in powers of delegation. If anything triggers any community, public community interest, then it comes to council for a decision. Richard MacGillivray 01:47:41.200
Yeah, for submissions. Amelia Lorentson 01:47:43.480
Any further discussion around the table? I'm happy to move, please. I'll second that, Madam Chair. Thank you for working after the discussion. Next, I'd like to thank you, Patrick and Angela. Next up is item 8.2, the minor post-private evaluation report. Welcome, Michelle and Amelia, if you would like to speak, Michelle, for an overview of the minor post SPEAKER_05 01:48:37.955
So, as you are aware, Council has previously resolved to establish a placemaking program 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 the organisation. Pomona was the 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 a plan 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 initial implementation phase of the Pomona place plan and the embedding placemaking program for the organizations it also provides useful insights and key learnings for the future of the placemaking process the evaluation of the pilot is developed and the development of the Pomona pilot is developed and the development of the Pomona 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 That will improve liveability and character of the village. The part 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 placemaking and can be adapted depending on the unique needs of each community. embedded a program and organisational policy and staff training to demonstrate organisational commitment to placemaking and place based processes moving forward. It is also The recommendation is this report B for noting. Amelia Lorentson 01:50:41.400
I have a glass of beer. I have a question. She's hungry. In terms of costs. Has the cost benefit of the plan been assessed? How much did it cost? And was the cost-- does the cost justify the-- the outcomes justify the investment? And how is that assessed? SPEAKER_05 01:51:08.181
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 put-- commit funds to future things that the community need up front, and it's not reactive. So we can definitely-- 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 it's starting to embed that philosophy of us working with community a lot more effectively in the future. Definitely. So we can definitely-- 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 it's starting to embed that philosophy of us working with community a lot more effectively in the future. Ciao. Amelia Lorentson 01:52:02.308
So in terms of this program being rolled over to other locations, will there be developments or consultants as much say in the next placemaking? SPEAKER_05 01:52:19.761
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. The process could be less resource intensive, particularly in undertaking the process, than like a larger place, but I think we've got enough learnings to pre-empt 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 of documentation and all those types of things. We always benefit from, you know, sometimes having engagement run by a consultant, that third party. run by a consultant that third party separation sometimes the community feels that it's separated from us therefore it's it's kind of transparent even though we would run a transparent process regardless so this I guess is pros and cons to each but I think over time we certainly have the capacity to develop those skills to running house. Frank Wilkie 01:53:20.349
Thank you. 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 Michelle were involved intimately. On a personal level what was the greatest thing that you learnt and what would you do differently next time? SPEAKER_05 01:53:56.906
Yeah I think I guess the learnings were really around explaining what place and place making is place and placemaking actually is to the community. I know when we went out on engagement we could probably preempt and have a lot more what is placemaking, 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 original. plan come out we had the tail end of some planning scheme amendments so there was a bit of confusion around that we had 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 would transition a Yes, being a being open, listening to community is really, 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 a key learning. I think they're probably the... they're probably the main things. I think just being consistent and being out in community is key, like actually being out there. You know, there 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 really, 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, 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 that validates that they have the same experiences as as other community members. So having someone from that location... 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 responsibility is in delivering those actions because they've been informed the whole way through the process. Frank Wilkie 01:56:45.213
Liveability is central to what we're trying to achieve with active processes like a placemaking. We like to think and we hope that communities will become more livable as a result of these processes and the work that comes and flows out of it. What's recognised as worthy of being preserved and what needs to change to improve things. You mentioned in report that we lacked a baseline to measure that against and so there was a livability survey done in 2021. What are we hoping to see in the livability survey that's proposed for 2026? And how will we regard that in relation to other, the findings of that in relation to other trends that are happening in society generally about community sentiment? SPEAKER_05 01:57:41.750
Yeah I think there has been a trend I guess in that community sentiment against I guess government. With any survey we'll have to factor that in. It would be hard to say I guess livability 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 what we and then we use that information for the services we deliver to actually channel that and tweak our investment it allows us to really drill down to what individual communities value and and I I guess guess with with that that livability livability survey 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 livability survey early next year to see if particular things around open it's very high level so around open open space 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 an opportunity then to see if they are changing, why, for the better, for the worse, you know, it provides us to really drill down and tailor the questions we want to 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. Amelia Lorentson 01:59:06.127
Can I ask for all the 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 launch a switch with Pomona residents or wider community? SPEAKER_05 01:59:25.368
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 markets and things like that. were regularly at 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. So I think it 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 work. in terms of the actions they were putting through work from that community majority yep. Amelia Lorentson 02:00:10.338
The Pomona Chamber of Commerce, they were significant contributor in the engagement process and part of this plan. They are no longer active in Pomona Chamber. Yep. My question is will there be a process to re-look? We look at the priorities and ensure that they still reflect the business community needs, etc. Ensure that whatever the Chamber of Commerce advocated for, they still remain relevant. SPEAKER_05 02:00:49.020
Yeah, I don't see the relevance changing. I think it's still an important 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 of those business people 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, to continue on with those actions for those Pomona businesses. that's Amelia Lorentson 02:01:26.020
My last question is, 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 action or the construction plan? SPEAKER_05 02:01:45.328
We will lead 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 term actions and see, you know, who's doing what, 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 contacted, I think Nick Cook is the 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 finished 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. Definitely. Nic's contacted me separately through Cooroy and Pomona Lions about some little worker bees, both in Pomona and Cooroy. So that kind of is a really good place. a really good place action to start to kick off a town team if you wanted to recruit additional people to do those types of things so we're coordinating what could be done around that. So there's lots of little things happening that build upon the of little things happening that build upon the broader plan which we can definitely support and help coordinate moving forward I'm happy to move the recommendation. Frank Wilkie 02:03:09.049
I'll second it Madam Chair. Brian Stockwell 02:03:10.469
I think it was it was a good pilot it I think we've had the report about the plan and about the feedback from the community which I believe was a 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 there was a suggestion of little bit more time upfront 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, Boreen Point may need a lesser investment but get it done soon. That's my That's my take. Question. Tom Wegener 02:04:14.794
Was the face making mandated by any chance? Was this our own initiative? SPEAKER_05 02:04:20.594
It's our own initiative. It was council's initiative, yeah. Tom Wegener 02:04:23.480
I'll speak for it. Local government can be fun. There's, there's a, there's a, you know. You act surprised. Well, we, we, Noosa has stepped into these roles. Well, we, we, Noosa has stepped in. I mean, they're, they're both race and rubbish, which, you know, that's what you're supposed to do. But things other than that, like the, the J, the Leisure Centre, the, the Aquatic Centre, all these different things where local government steps into these, these, these. so this is, it's a wonderful thing that we're doing and it really shows the value of living in Noosa, so just thank you very much for taking us here and making the livability experience for Noosa residents. Thanks, Tom. Amelia Lorentson 02:05:18.317
I'll just add, in my challenge from community to village to village, there's so much interest in establishing their own plant 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, and the best outcomes often are when 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 because the good and the bad is 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. I'm really excited about what this can be developed and that's it. No further discussion, I'm going to throw this out for a vote. All in favour please. 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. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
