Planning & Environment Committee Agenda - 7 October 2025
Date: Tuesday, 7 October 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:49:59
Synopsis: Hospital Approval: Need-based, lower parking, strict conditions, Backpackers Refusal: Overdevelopment, code conflicts, amenity harms, Housing: Prioritise permanents; monitor planned, Appeals: Defensible; no precedent.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Non-Committee Members
Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson: Deferred confirmation of prior Planning & Environment minutes to the Ordinary Meeting; carried unanimously (Item 4.1). Amelia Lorentson: Noted August 2025 planning applications decided under delegation; carried unanimously (Item 7.1) (10:20). Brian Stockwell: Moved approval of “other change” converting 36–40 Hofmann Dr to Health Care Service, Hospital and Hospital (Infusion Centre), amending Conditions 2, 3, 17, 25; carried unanimously (Item 7.2) (23:26; Minutes 7.2 A–D). Frank Wilkie: Confirmed peer review supports hospital-parking rate (1/35 m² vs 1/20 m² for medical centres) and that use change lowers intensity; conditions tie GFA and layouts to hospital functions (12:49–14:30; 18:43–20:05; Minutes 7.2 D.III). Tom Wegener: Queried growth of cancer-care services and EV charging provisions; officer confirmed multiple local facilities and agreed chargers desirable (10:24–11:45). Amelia Lorentson: Sought protections if long leases lapse; conditions lock uses/floorplates via approved plans and community management statement, requiring new application for more intensive medical uses (18:02–20:05; Minutes 7.2 B). Karen Finzel: Raised medical-waste handling risks; officers cited state regulation and on-site secure facilities with on-site collection access (24:38–27:12). Amelia Lorentson: Committee refused 48-bed backpackers at 17 Russell St for overdevelopment, design non-compliance, parking/servicing deficits, privacy/noise concerns, and erosion of permanent housing intent; unanimous (Item 7.3) (33:33–41:27; Minutes 7.3 A(1)–(5)). Frank Wilkie: Noted correction: bicycle and motorcycle spaces each 7, not 28; recorded in resolution (41:08–44:12; Minutes 7.3 C). Brian Stockwell: Emphasised consistent policy since 2021 to prioritise permanent dwellings in Medium/High Density areas; cited 56% benchmark non-compliance as overdevelopment indicator (44:44–46:41). Amelia Lorentson: Noted 178 submissions (mostly opposed) and urged applicants to use pre-lodgement, heed scheme parameters, and engage community to avoid costly refusals (33:33–38:31; 47:52). Amelia Lorentson: Sought housing target tracking; officers said a forthcoming Housing Monitor will capture dwellings approved by private certifiers (self-assessable) to measure targets comprehensively (00:02–05:50). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson: Probed litigation costs, mediation posture, and risk assessment in defending refusals; officers outlined Planning Act-compliant decision-making and appeal pathways (00:02–03:30). Amelia Lorentson: Asked about State’s role in appeals; officers said the State may elect to join where a state interest exists, but it is discretionary (03:30–04:30). Amelia Lorentson: Pressed on precedent risk from approving an “inconsistent” hospital use; officers said each application judged on merits/need (Goodchap precedent) and no automatic precedent is created (21:36–23:26; Minutes 7.2 D.I–III). Karen Finzel: Sought broader policy advocacy on clinical waste; Chair ruled discussion out-of-scope for the application, suggesting workshop instead (28:18–28:59). Amelia Lorentson: Confirmed applicant engagement history for backpackers; staff documented pre-lodgement and repeated warnings about scale/land-use, with limited applicant response (37:31–38:31). Frank Wilkie: On-the-record correction to transport benchmarks for bicycles/motorcycles, transparently noted in resolution (41:08–44:12; Minutes 7.3 C). Legal / Risk Officer advice: Decisions guided by Planning Act 2016, case law, and defensibility; both Item 7.2 and 7.3 reports provided under s63(5) (00:02–03:30; Minutes 7.2 C; 7.3 B). Hospital approval: Although “inconsistent” in zone, Council relied on demonstrated planning need, internal-only works, and expert-validated lower parking demand; strict conditions tie use, GFA, and layouts to hospital functions, with CMS covenants and new-application trigger for any intensification (12:49–15:06; 18:43–20:05; Minutes 7.2 A–B, D.I–III). Parking risk: Loss of 30 spaces offset by hospital-rate parking and use mix limits; no contingency if demand exceeds forecasts, but conditions restrict any reversion to higher-intensity medical centre without further approval (20:37–21:36; 21:13–21:36). Backpackers refusal: Extensive non-compliance with High Density Residential Zone Code (site cover, GFA/plot ratio, setbacks, design character), Driveways & Parking Code (insufficient/ impractical parking incl. stackers; no motorcycle/bicycle/service spaces), Waste Code (no on-site servicing), and Visitor Accommodation Code (landscaping shortfalls) (33:33–41:27; Minutes 7.3 A(1)–(5)). Appeal posture: Council signalled robust, defensible grounds with detailed conflicts to support refusal if appealed; staff noted appeal/mediation pathways and Council’s duty to responsibly manage ratepayer-funded litigation (00:02–03:30; 44:44–46:41; Minutes 7.3 A). Medical waste: Regulated under Queensland frameworks (e.g., Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation; Medicines and Poisons regulations; State clinical waste guideline); Council relies on state regime plus on-site secure waste rooms and internal truck access (24:38–27:12). Short-term Accommodation and Permanent Housing Balance Brian Stockwell: Reaffirmed policy intent to prioritise permanent residents in Medium/High Density zones since ~Oct 2021; backpackers would further erode permanent housing in an area already saturated with STA (44:44–46:41; 33:33–36:03). Frank Wilkie: Highlighted over-scale built form (excess GFA/plot ratio), rear setback encroachment, rooftop terrace overlooking/noise, and parking shortfalls on a 609 m² lot with 48 beds (46:41–47:52; Minutes 7.3 A(1)(a–f), A(2)(a–d)). Amelia Lorentson: Noted 178 properly made submissions (majority opposed) citing amenity, traffic, privacy, noise; urged earlier applicant collaboration to avoid costly redesigns (36:03; 47:52). Officer advice: Alternative compliant pathways include Rooming Accommodation (code assessable) or scaled permanent residential uses; applicant did not apply for rooming accommodation (37:12–41:08). Planning Scheme Application and Zoning Nuances Frank Wilkie: Clarified functional difference: hospital allows potential overnight stays, larger floorplates, lower turnover; medical centres have higher patient churn and higher parking demand (12:02–13:06). Officer advice: Though hospital is “inconsistent” in the business zone, internal expansion, demonstrated community health need (cancer care), and lower traffic/parking intensity justified approval with tailored conditions (10:55–14:30; Minutes 7.2 D.I–III). Brian Stockwell: For backpackers, overdevelopment evidenced by 56% of assessment criteria failing benchmarks; consistent refusal approach aligns with Noosa Plan 2020 strategic intent (44:44–46:41). Amelia Lorentson: Ensured any future intensification at Hofmann Dr requires new MCU, enabling reassessment of parking and impacts under current scheme settings (18:43–20:05; Minutes 7.2 B). Environmental and Infrastructure Considerations Tom Wegener: Advocated for EV charging integration in parking; while not conditioned here, officers acknowledged directionally supportive stance (11:11–11:45). Officer advice: Disability parking numbers governed by National Construction Code via certification; Council cannot prescribe numbers in development approval (21:36–22:16). Officer advice: Hofmann Dr building includes secure internal waste rooms and internal truck access to avoid kerbside conflicts (24:38–25:34).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 7 October 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 7 OCTOBER 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.39am 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Amelia Lorentson (Chair) Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 9 SEPTEMBER 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 4.1 be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 2025 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – AUGUST 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 7 October 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for August 2025 as per Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.2 MCU19/0017.07 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TYPE 1 OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TYPE 2 MEDICAL TO HEALTH CARE SERVICE, HOSPITAL AND HOSPITAL (INFUSION CENTRE) AND RAL 19/0004.07 RECONFIGURING LOT AT 36-40 HOFMANN DRIVE, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 October 2025 regarding Other Change to Application MCU19/0017.07 Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Commercial Business – Type 1 Office, Commercial Business Type 2 Medical and Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot to a Material Change of Use - Health Care Service, Hospital and Hospital (Infusion Centre) and Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot, situated at 3640 Hofmann Drive Noosaville and: A. Approve the change to the approved uses so that the approved uses are now Health Care Service, Hospital and Hospital (Infusion Centre) B. Amend Conditions 2, 3, 17, 25 C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 2025 D. Find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application: I. The proposed extension is located internal to the building and will not impact on the existing streetscape. II. The proposed hospital use more accurately reflects the nature of services provided on-site, which include specialised cancer treatment, dedicated treatment areas, and inpatient accommodation. These functions are more consistent with a hospital use than a general medical centre. III. The proposed carparking provision and information has been peer reviewed. The peer review supports the recommendation the carparking provisions based on the predominant use of the site being for hospital purposes as described by the applicant. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.3 MCU25/0006 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION (BACKPACKERS ACCOMMODATION) AT 17 RUSSELL ST, NOOSAVILLE Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council note the report by the Senior Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 October 2025 regarding Application MCU25/0006 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Short-term accommodation (backpackers accommodation), situated at and 1-3/17 Russell Street Noosaville and: A. Refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is an overdevelopment of the site and is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 6.3.3.2 (2) (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) (h) (j) (n) and (p) and performance outcomes and acceptable outcomes PO6, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO15, AO9.1(c) and AO15.2 and AO15.3 of the High Density Residential Zone Code as; a. The scale of the development is not consistent with structures on adjoining or nearby land and is likely to dominate and adversely impact the surrounding residential amenity. b. The proposed development will result in a site cover which significantly exceeds the site cover requirements of the planning scheme providing a building that is not consistent with the street and surrounding area. c. The proposed development does not satisfactorily incorporate design elements and materials reflective of the local streetscape character of the area, with the building not designed in the Noosa sub-tropical style. d. The proposal will result in a plot ratio which significantly exceeds the plot ratio requirements of the planning scheme and is of a size that is not compatible with surrounding development. e. The proposal rear setback of the third floor and rooftop terrace significantly encroaches into the rear setback as required by the planning scheme and PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 2025 contributes to building bulk and provides opportunities for overlooking to adjacent properties. f. The proposed roof top terrace creates opportunities for potential privacy impacts on neighbouring properties due to overlooking. 2. The proposal does not comply with Overall Outcomes 9.4.1.2 (2) (a) (b) (c) and Performance Outcome 6 and Acceptable Outcomes 6.1and 6.2 of the Driveways and Parking Code as: a. Sufficient carparking is not available on site to accommodate the likely demand for carparking on site and the site is located where on street parking is insufficient and undesirable. b. The proposed car stacker is not suitable for parking as it lacks sufficient clearance for operation and is impractical for use by guests and staff unfamiliar with such systems. c. The development does not provide the required number of functional car spaces including service vehicles as the proposed bus park is not sized to accommodate a small rigid vehicle. d. No provision has been made for motorcycles and bicycles. 3. The proposed does not comply with Performance Outcome 7 and Acceptable Outcome AO7.1 of the Driveways and Parking Code as: a. The development fails to provide adequate loading and manoeuvring areas on site to accommodate the anticipated service vehicles. 4. The proposal is not consistent with Overall Outcome 9.4.10.2 (2) (d) and Performance and Acceptable Outcomes PO3, AO3.2(b), AO3.2(d), AO3.2(e) and AO3.2(f) of the Waste Management Code as: a. The development has not adequately demonstrated that waste can be serviced on site. b. The proposed waste storage area has not been designed to allow for unobstructed access for collection by service vehicles (i.e., on-site servicing). c. Kerbside servicing is unable to occur while remaining clear from all existing on-street carparks, pedestrian footpaths and without impeding traffic flow on Russell Street. 5. The proposal is not consistent with Performance Outcome PO9 and the corresponding Acceptable outcomes AO9.1 & AO9.2 of the Visitor accommodation Code as: a. The proposed area of landscaping is significantly less than the area required by the planning scheme; b. The proposed landscaping widths to side and rear boundaries are significantly less than that required by the planning scheme; c. The undersupply of onsite landscaping area and widths to boundaries results in a development which restricts the ability to incorporate landscaping between the site and neighbouring premises / buildings and to assist with softening the built form. There are no relevant reasons to approve the proposed development to vary from development intensity specified by the Noosa Plan 2020 for this area. B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. C. Note the report incorrectly identifies the required number of bicycle spaces and motorcycle spaces which should each be identified as 7. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 7 OCTOBER 2025 Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.30am.
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:02.380
Good morning everyone and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I also want to start with just an apology, we've had a 10 minute technical glitch. The meeting only starts at 9:30. We've just fixed our technical problem, so it's now commencing at 9:30. Patrick Murphy 00:25.816
And you've got barristers and solicitors engaged and experts engaged in court proceedings over a matter of days. Certainly the cost becomes more significant, but it's too early to determine whether these applications will be able to be resolved by mediation at this point. But we'll certainly enter mediation should it occur with an open mind. Amelia Lorentson 00:46.403
So given the cost of litigation and our responsibility to ensure that the user rate pays money wisely, do we work under some sort of like a risk assessment framework when deciding to defend or refuse applications? Richard MacGillivray 01:07.990
I'm happy to jump in there Amelia. Yeah I mean we obviously we have to assess and decide planning applications under the Planning Act so we're actually bound to follow the legislative provision and there are there's obviously case law there's certain rules around that have been well established and enshrined and planning law around you know decision-making ensure it's defensible and meets the you know the key principles around a good good decision-making and making sure that any conditions or the decision is is a proper one and it's based on sufficient merit and grounds as well and that's obviously why the team do a very thorough application report which outlines the particular grounds of why they are concerned if a proposal doesn't meet the provisions in the Noosa Plan itself so there's a very robust assessment process process that the team are very familiar with and obviously there is appeal rights negotiated decision provisions so there's lots of avenues for an applicant to challenge through the process decisions made by council or even the tribunals or even in the case the courts themselves through a court of appeal process In terms of state, does the State get involved at all in this process? process. Amelia Lorentson 02:25.717
The refusal needs to be supported I understand by referral agencies. Can you explain what part the State plays in this process? Richard MacGillivray 02:39.128
Well the State can elect to become I guess a party to appeals if they choose to do so. It's their decision similar to like in the instance of an impact assessable application where a submitter might want to join an appeal so they have the ability to do that if they elect to do so and that's often on the basis of where they see that there's a state interest that they would like to be involved in or not but it's ultimately their decision whether they want to be involved or not as either a referral or as a joint appellant. Amelia Lorentson 03:20.060
My other questions might be that I raise these last meetings in terms of our dwelling targets and the opportunity to include just where we're up to. I know the response I've always received is housing report strategy when that report comes to council but I like going through the delegated report and actually write down how many I write down how many dwellings have been refused, how many have been approved and I note this lot, we've got six units, one dwelling, one dual occupancy, three units of demolition so I don't know how that's actually captured. Is that a dwelling target, not a dwelling target? But it'd be just great to compare but it'd be just great to compare what our monthly target is compared to what we're actually getting through. Is that something again, like I said I've thrown this question a lot then, is that something that you would consider? Richard MacGillivray 04:22.247
So in answer to your question, so the housing monitoring report's the best way to utilise that and provide a really accurate update for councillors. The challenge is, particularly through the delegated report, is a lot of dwelling houses, you know, either modifications or a new dwelling won't require a planning approval at all, if it's self-assessable for example, which in most cases most houses would be, they would just need a building approval from a private building certifier and we wouldn't see the application at all if it confines with the Noosa Plan provision. So it's better that we get a full read of all of those, so those ones just approved by a private building certifier as well as council's decisions and they will then tally those up to work out how we're tracking against their housing targets. So the strategic planning team are well aware of the need and request to provide that information and data and working on getting a report to council. That provides a bit of an update on how we're tracking with them overall numbers of houses and that will include the knockdowns and the rebuilds versus the new ones as well, the number of units, the whole kit and caboodle, which I think will give councils a really good read on how we're tracking over overall because this is currently only the ones that the planning team are actually seeing and assessing whereas this likely to be a success. I'm guessing where is this likely to be a significant number of other dwellings approved which don't require a planning approval as such. So secondary dwellings captured, not captured in Noosa? Correct, yeah, absolutely. I can imagine there's a good uptake of greening in place there. Yeah. Fantastic. Okay. Any further questions? All right. Okay. I'm happy to move the delegated report. Seconded by Mayor Wilkie, all in favour? All right. So we'll move now to the next item on the agenda. Which is item 7.2, develop an application for other change to develop an approval for commercial business type 1, office commercial business type 2, medical 2, medical to healthcare service, hospital and hospital inclusion centre, and RAL19/0004.07 reconfiguring lot at 36 to 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. And hand it over to Minty for an overview and summary of the reporting from us. Thank you. Nadine 06:55.226
Good morning, everyone. As Councillor Amelia has outlined, this is an application for a other change to an existing development approval. There's an existing medical centre at Hofmann Drive, which is currently built, and the applicant seeks to extend that internally by adding an additional 594 square metres of gross floor area, by converting an existing car parking area to cater for that for that use. The area to be converted to internal car parking is to be for additional medical suites and hospital areas. It will reduce car parking on site by 30 spaces, resulting in a total of 166 spaces on site, which includes eight motorcycle spaces. At present, the existing approval is for medical and office facilities. As part of this application, they're wanting to remove that requirement for office-type functions on the site and to change the whole definition of the use to a healthcare centre, a hospital. A healthcare centre, a hospital, and a hospital infusion centre. In terms of visually, it will not be visible to the street because it is an internal area. One of the main issues related to car parking, and as you can imagine, an additional 594 in removal of car parking spaces raised some concerns. We've been liaising with the applicant and our traffic consultant look at the impacts of such a use on car parking, and whether this increase could be appropriately handled by the development on site. Our traffic expert came back to us and indicated if it was a hospital type use, they generally have a lesser rate than a normal medical centre, because they have a larger footplate for operating rooms, for transfusion rooms etc. So our consultant was very definitive in terms of the rate that would apply to a hospital type use. Normally we have a one space per 20 He was indicating that this type of use for a hospital type function with larger floor plates would be around one space per 35 square metres. As a result of that the applicant was willing to change the the proposed use to hospital and agreed to conditions that were very specific in terms of the type of uses and floor plates allowed and our consultant was willing he agreed that that car parking based on those types of uses would be appropriate. A hospital use unfortunately is an inconsistent use in this zone however this is one on a balance that it is a toss between a medical centre and also a hospital so to ensure that we maintained a land use that had an appropriate amount of car parking on site we've agreed that a hospital type function and infusion centre would be an appropriate definition and it's more of a labelling And it's more of a labelling to ensure that we maintain our car parking and our floor plates. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions relating to that specific use. Amelia Lorentson 10:20.395
Thank you Nadine. Questions around the table top? Tom Wegener 10:23.895
We seem to be moving towards a lot of cancer treatment in your sense. Yes. Which is, you know, none of us in the room would be against that. is that true? And it seems though that that's what's budding, that's what's evolving out of our business centre. Nadine 10:39.500
It seems to be, yes we have this, this is currently operating the cancer care and then there's the one the other one at the Civic and there is also one at Goodchap Street. So yes they, we have talked about the need. I know we have talked to the applicant or the owner of the centre and he indicated that what they, how they present their care is different to other centres. So yes, but they have indicated that there is a need in the Shire. Tom Wegener 11:11.138
Last question. When it comes to the parking and... Electric vehicles and electric chargers there. I was just in China and of course they're all loud. There's electric chargers everywhere because you very seldomly hear a car engine in China. Especially when you hear a diesel, you're like, oh what is that? If you hear a diesel, you're like, oh, what is that? Oh, that's a diesel. Oh, that's a diesel engine. Oh, man, I haven't heard one of those in a while. So, anyways, I'm hoping that that will follow soon. And we have electric chargers, you know, at regular car parks. Like, the cars that are during the day, you might as well be charging it through solar. Nadine 11:46.100
Yes, I agree with you. You've been outside the scope, thank you. This is actually meeting me, so I will allow the conversation. Mayor Wilkie, you've got a question. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 11:57.706
Yeah, what is the principal difference between medical uses and hospital uses under the planning scheme? Under the planning scheme, a hospital technically can have overnight stays. That's really the difference. Yes. But as I said, when you look at it, when our consultant looked at it, he said there is that difference. there is that difference, there's a higher turnover with a medical centre. It can be GPs, it can be radiographers, it can be physios, those type of people can operate out of there. Whereas this is going to be, you would have seen on the plans, they had the infusion centre, the chemo, they had the chairs for that, they had the waiting room. And things like that, where it's slightly different to those other centres. Would it be fair to say hospital uses are less intense than land uses? Yes, that's exactly right. Hence the, they don't need as many car parking spaces. Nadine 12:52.366
That's right. You have bigger, you've had bigger areas put aside to waiting rooms, to an infusion room, to beds, recovery areas, whereas with a medical centre you might have rooms with GPs in it and they turn over a lot more people. Frank Wilkie 13:06.095
Yes. So obviously when... an applicant makes these sort of changes, they've done the demographic research to justify the change, there's a need, they want a service... Nadine 13:17.324
Yes. They were quite, as I said, When this initially came in we had significant concerns, which we've always flagged, about the extent of the extension and the loss of car parking. They provided several traffic reports and documents. documents outlining how it would work, it would function, their workflows, when a patient comes in, where they go through. So they've provided that documentation to us. Did you say Council's engaged a traffic consultant as well? Yes, we're engaged. Yes. And the independent traffic consultant confirmed that the change in use requires a less intense, is a less intense use, so therefore a lower requirement for car parking. I'm talking from one car space for 20 square metres to one car space to 35 square metres. Yes. One cast by his friend. That's correct. And that this change complies with that. Yes, yes. As well as providing this new hospital use for cancer treatment for the community. And it is a mix again noting that there is still there is still the type 2 health care service on the site. Yes. So there will be that general type uses but two-thirds of the building is to be used for this hospital type function. Frank Wilkie 14:26.354
The reason why we have different land uses and different zonings and planning schemes to ensure there's no conflict when these land uses take place side by side. Is there likely to be any conflict arising from this change of use? No. It sounds entirely consistent with the medical centre. Yes it's all internal. Even though it's technically not. Nadine 14:52.984
It is very consistent with the medical centre. Yes that's right. That's right. Frank Wilkie 14:57.884
Are there likely to be patients staying overnight? Nadine 15:00.624
I don't believe so, no. They've got recovery beds but they haven't really indicated that they would be staying overnight. Frank Wilkie 15:06.584
Could we get clarification on that for you? Patrick Murphy 15:09.324
It's not a requirement for the hospital use that those seeking services stay overnight. It's something that can occur. That's correct. I think as Nadine's touched on, you know, with the medical centre, it's that more rapid turnover of... Frank Wilkie 15:27.370
Like a GP seeing a patient every 15 minutes, for example. That's right. Yes. And more people are likely to be sitting waiting for the GP because of those shorter tenure of bookings. the treatment that's occurring in this facility will be over a longer period of time, and I think the report shows that the amount of people that'll be waiting for the next treatment would be less than what would normally occur in a medical facility. Yeah. Nadine 15:55.612
So the... On page... I'm not quite sure what page it is. In the report, there's a layout on page... Page... After the occupancy and staffing table. I'm not quite sure what page that is on. Page 8? Page 8. And that diagram... Richard MacGillivray 16:16.590
Or is it 30 in the actual full agenda packet? Is it that one? Yes, that one. Yes, the coloured one if it's on your agenda. That gives you an indication. You know, it's got the radiation, the bunkers. It's got the cancer chair, the infusion chair. It's got the... So you can see there it's much larger. Hallways, storage, there's greater storage for medical items. There's staff rooms that take up room rather than a general GP office where you might have, again, those people coming in and having a high turnover. Frank Wilkie 16:52.632
Thank you. Tom Wegener 16:56.638
When it comes to zoning, so there's no specific zoning for medical offices, but this has a specific zoning for the cancer care. There's a slight difference. But generally speaking, there's not a specific zoning for medical areas, but for doctors, from what it was? Nadine 17:14.138
Doctor surgeries can generally go into business centres, business zones. So there's no shortage of space for regular medical centres that are being displaced by the cancer? Well, this is currently being operated by the cancer care, so this will add to the type of services that they'll be able to offer. Yeah, so it's an ancillary use. Yes. Tom Wegener 17:36.939
But we're not displacing other opportunities for medical centres? No. signs Amelia Lorentson 17:45.120
In terms of car parking, and I'm going to go back to the 30 car parks, the leases with cancer care and the day hospital, how long are the leases? There are 20 years, yes. So if they don't want their full term and the tenancy changes occurred, how are we protected and is, I'm assuming, these conditions in the application that protect us from the site converting into high demand, yes, like a medical centre and then that would be a reduction in terms of risk of overfired parking onto nearby streets. So how do we protect ourselves in terms of risk if the long-term tenants were to leave? Nadine 18:42.700
Absolutely very good question and we've been asking the applicant. Exactly those those questions. That was one of the reasons we asked for the use to be changed to a hospital and we've named it Hospital Infusion Centre and Hospital. As part of the approval we have the plans that they have provided which shows the layout with recovery rooms with their bunker rooms. We've also included a condition which clearly indicates 1,700 square metres for the healthcare service, 1,300 square metres for the hospital infusion centre, and 1,383 for the hospital in general. We've also included a condition stating that these suites are only to operate generally only to operate generally in accordance with these layouts that they've given us. And we have asked that the community management statement, anybody corporate requirements, it's indicated in there that it has to be used for hospital-type functions. And it has to operate basically as these hospital-type functions for the duration of the life. Any changes will require a new application to be lodged with council. It's quite stringent, I think, the conditions protecting us. protecting us, and therefore if they want to change it to a medical centre, they'll have to make a new application to come back to us to change the approved plans, and also they'll have to address car parking again. And therefore, if they want to change... Amelia Lorentson 20:05.520
In terms of, again, talking car parking, and you know how valuable that is in Noosa, the proposed hospital uses the car parking rate in the reports. It's based on previous approval for a day hospital at 47 Goodchap Street, Tewantin. Scale and intensity seemed different from Goodchap to this. Can you explain? It's a... Nadine 20:35.582
Do you agree? Again, I'm basing it on our expert chapter consultant who also was involved. So this isn't the hospital, this was the appeal next door. Okay, so that was the mix between... Okay. There was a medical centre and a sort of a day hospital there as well. That's your one that was... Council initially refused and then it was settled. And based... That was the rate that was indicated as part of that appeal. And that's what our... Again, our expert indicated that based on the numbers, he was happy with a one space per 35, which is a one space per 35, which is similar to that Goodchap Street application. Amelia Lorentson 21:13.384
And do we have a contingency in place just in case the staff numbers or the patient numbers are higher than what's being predicted? Nadine 21:26.524
No, not really. Again, based on the one per 35... Yeah. Yeah. Well, again, I have... Well, again, I have to base it on what our expert has indicated. Amelia Lorentson 21:37.392
Thank you very much. And one last question in terms of disability car parking. Of a number of accessible car parking... compliant with the National Construction Code and... Or have we gone above the minimum? Patrick Murphy 21:57.206
We can't prescribe the number of disabled car spaces. That's done through the certification process. And so that will be... That will accord with the requirements. Amelia Lorentson 22:17.340
It's an inconsistent use. And probably my question is, in approving an inconsistent use, what precedents or what... What precedents or what risk does that pose in terms of council approving similar applications in major centre zones? Does it open the door for that or not? Patrick Murphy 22:40.757
No. The... The nature of the use is important in terms of making a decision upon that application. If someone wants to put a pinball parlour in next door and it was an inconsistent use, it doesn't give that pinball parlour merit. A big impact on the decision that we make in terms of determining whether to approve or refuse the application. Amelia Lorentson 23:19.702
Further questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 23:27.119
No, excuse me, through the chair. Councillor Finzel, yes, what would you like to ask. Yes, please, I do have a question. Would you like me to proceed? Go ahead, Karen yes. Thank you for the report. It is good to see that our residents are going to be supported in their health care. The concerns I have around approving the hospital use in the business zone is a medical waste. In the report, I didn't see it, but I'm open to be corrected. How does council then mitigate risk around disposal of both medical waste that is treated and untreated? have And how do we ensure that this is managed effectively in terms of disposal? the existence I couldn't see any regulations around any of the State planning schemes or anything like that. is there Are you able to talk to me about that please? Nadine 24:41.247
The existing building has a substantial on-site facility the there's actually room on site for a garbage truck to enter the building on the into the building on the southern side of the building it comes in the they have a whole waste area that I understand secure in the building and they have certain waste rooms within the actual building itself and within the individual tenancies to deal with that I would assume in terms of the medical waste that will have their own requirements under their own acts to to deal with to deal with their own waste but there is room on site as part of the existing building to have storage of waste and also pick up on of waste on site the the disposal of medical waste is the disposal of medical waste is going to be heavily regulated through a range of legislation in different types of waste that's generated so so that includes the environment protection regulation so it's not something that council would necessarily regulate at the source but certainly there is a strong regulatory requirements around it. Richard MacGillivray 26:05.374
Yeah correct and Karen just to add so there's the waste reduction recycling regulation so as Patrick mentioned heavily regulated around medical waste disposal and then there's the medicines and poisons regulations and then there's also a guideline that the State have produced around clinical and related waste that guides for facilities and hospitals to adhere to and understand I understand is that there's a strict provision around monitoring ensuring that their waste is disposed of correctly to ensure no environmental or personal harm as well. Frank Wilkie 26:40.864
Thank you. So in summary, local councils, we have no way to condition this or ensure that this is correctly managed moving forward, especially like, you know, is that potentially going to end up in our landfill? Is there any way we can, local council can, I don't know, keep a set of eyes over this at a local level, or ensure that that is correctly disposed of? Richard MacGillivray 27:12.793
It's already heavily regulated already, Karen, as I mentioned. This piece of legislation requires certain types of instruments and chemicals to be disposed of in a very particular and certain way, so it doesn't expose people to harm. I guess the fact is there's already regulations in place means that it's not appropriate for us to then necessarily overreach and step into regulating. arm. So An industry and sector that's already appropriately regulated through the correct state avenues. Does that help to clarify? Obviously if there are recyclable materials that can be recycled and reused. There will be those avenues available as they normally are but particularly around the medical waste it needs to be carefully and sensitively managed and there's a range of different types of approaches based on the type of composition and the chemical compounds involved and how they must be managed and handled as part of that disposal. Frank Wilkie 28:17.885
Thank you. Given the matters you've raised and I think potentially there's gaps there given councils do have to manage these issues moving forward. In your opinion do you think there's opportunity there for for an a advocacy piece to moving forward to one of our peak bodies like LGAP for example to look at this and how other councils are managing this moving into the future given that Amelia Lorentson 28:44.781
Excuse me Karen, it's not the relevant to application in front of us. Appreciate your passion in this but we might reserve the question for a workshop and just stick to the planning application we've got in front of us. Frank Wilkie 28:59.518
Thank you Madam Chair. Amelia Lorentson 29:02.718
One last question to the staff then. Please go ahead Karen. Thank you. So the staff is satisfied beyond doubt that the regulatory matters in place that you've mentioned today will be satisfactory down into the future? Richard MacGillivray 29:24.000
Yes, correct. Yep. Amelia Lorentson 29:26.760
Thank you. Karen. Any further questions around the table? Brian Stockwell 29:33.520
I was just going to speak to the motion. I think brought up the most salient point is we are seeing an increase in the need for health care. The data that was presented to us recently was over 85, so double in our community in the next 10 years and along with that came a range of illnesses that are more prevalent in the aged and obviously this application, while it is a change in the defined term to a hospital is not a change in the nature of the use that was initially envisaged so I think that is the key point in terms of when you look at a inconsistent use you look at are there circumstances which would warrant the approval I think that in this case what we're saying is because they're separated we're saying is because they're separating their use from that which is high traffic to that which is a lower volume of patients that it's reasonable to tie our agreement to the reduction in parking to a specific use I think that's a wise move which would avoid the future problems should you know penalties change etc so I think it's got to a right Amelia Lorentson 30:44.828
I think it's got to a reasonable conclusion I'll speak to the application in front of us also in terms of the loss of 30 car parks it has been peer reviewed by experts So I'm happy and confirm that the hospital uses will generate lower parking demands than other commercial and medical uses I also just want to just commend council on approving this application because it is an inconsistent use and I think what is in front of us is really important as Councillor Stockwell just stated that it's important not only just to our residents but also to our local economy and I think this is really just a great example of council and applicants working together to get a really great... a really great outcome that benefits the whole community so the operators that are in there are great operators so I'm really actually quite excited to have a look at our... to have a look at the hospital infusion centre and I think this is a total asset to the Noosa community. Any further questions? Frank Wilkie 32:07.903
Yeah look I think it's all been said Madam Chair. I'd just like to point out we do have a spelling error and in line two of the recommendation. Business type one office, commercial business. It just needs to be corrected to commercial otherwise this is a great asset to the community. Car parking requirements have been met. Should the the use change in future another application have to come to council, car parking will be assessed if it's a more intense use car parking requirements won't be met it's likely to be refused. So it's a great asset to the community and car parking requirements have been met so a good decision. Amelia Lorentson 32:55.377
Sorry, we sort of breezed over the, I think Brian knew. Patrick Murphy 33:01.157
I moved it, Frank seconded it. I seconded it, yep. Just want to make sure we've got the right one. Amelia Lorentson 33:06.506
Yep yep. That was supported unanimously. So item 7.3 MCU25/0006, development application for material change of use, short term accommodation. Backpackers accommodation at 17 Russell Street, Noosaville. And Nadine again, if you can speak to the report in front of us and the recommendation for us today. Nadine 33:32.691
Okay, this is an application for a material change of use for short term accommodation for a 48 bed hostel, which involves the retention and renovation of an existing three storey building on site and the construction of a new three storey extension behind that, which includes a rooftop terrace to accommodate this 48 bed hostel. The proposed includes a main reception and entrance as well as a accommodation unit on the ground floor of the existing building and a new sort of wing at the back which will include Include outdoor decks and a rooftop terrace to the rear of the site. The use under the site is included in the high density residential zone which is which and is a consistent use within this zone at present sorry under the previous scheme sorry let me start again on that this application was lodged under the which is now the superseded scheme it was lodged in January 2025 and under this the previous scheme it was included in the high density residential zone in which visitor accommodation short-term accommodation is actually a impact assessable consistent use the application was subject to public notification and a hundred and seventy eight properly made submissions were received with the majority of the submissions against the proposal raising concerns about impact on the traffic network scale of development privacy and overlooking the proposal seeks a number of relaxations to setbacks GFA site cover plot ratio and on-site servicing as well we've got concerns in terms of the loss of permanent accommodation in this area. The intent of the high density zone is to cater for permanent residents. This area is well serviced. There's a map within the report that shows the amount of short term accommodation within this area, which shows this area is very well serviced with short term accommodation. The further approval of Backpacker for short term accommodation will further erode our permanent residence in this area. So based on the inconsistencies with our intent for this zone, as well as the non-compliance with the built form provisions, the application is recommended for refusal. Amelia Lorentson 36:01.885
Thank you, Nadim. And I'll hand it over to Francis. Any questions? Brian Stockwell 36:09.290
Yeah, mine's in regard, in your report, you take an excerpt from the economic report. Now, it's not usual that these sort of things do economic assessment. I had a couple of questions related to that. It bases need on a 75% occupancy rate. Do we normally, is that a standard rate that we would use? It sounds quite a high expectation. Nadine 36:37.515
Thank you this was the application This was the applicants report. Brian Stockwell 36:41.299
Yeah I know. Is it one that we had before? I just when I first read that I thought 75% is quite an ambitious target and seems to be trying to embellish the need. You won't comment? I'll go down to the next one. Similarly it supports the Noosa It supports the Noosa economy by providing housing for key workers particularly working holidaymakers in the tourism sector. That would be a rooming accommodation use. Was rooming accommodation applied for? No rooming accommodation was not applied for. It just makes you wonder that when you have economic assessments of making claims which are outside the scope of what's been applied for and using that as justification for development it really calls into question how much weight you can put on any of it. So that's my questions. Nadine 37:46.182
Yes there was a pre-lodgement meeting held with the applicant the applicant and the consultant and they were clearly indicated they were clearly told as part of that meeting that there were significant concerns with the proposal including the land use they did there were a number of information requests issued phone calls and council staff have been quite consistent with their approach raising concerns with this development but the applicant wanted to proceed in its current proceed in its current form. It was reduced slightly in numbers I will say in response to one of the information requests but they still wanted it to proceed in its current in the form we currently see. Amelia Lorentson 38:31.284
So given the scale and the zoning constraints and I'm going through all the reasons of refusal, what form of development could have been supported? Nadine 38:48.173
So at the moment we've got a development which is the planning scene talks about 40% site cover. We have around 45% site cover. So we generally do not vary our site cover provisions at all. So that's a significant can significant impact. The gross floor area is the scheme allows 396. This is at 533. Again we do not vary our planning scheme for gross floor area site cover and gross floor area. very very tight on. If you convert that to plot ratio it's supposed to be 0.65 it's at 0.88. Remembering too that the site the site area is sorry 600 um sorry 609 square metres. So it's the size of a small residential block and they're wanting to put 48 people on there. So those two alone if a development came in that met GFA and site cover then that's something we could start looking at. Also then we have issues with the car parking side of things that it's not working as well as servicing. Patrick Murphy 39:57.513
There's no provision on site for servicing so that will most likely occur in the street and they're the built form parameters so I mean if we talk about the actual land use whilst it's a consistent use in the zone if we think back to when the Noosa Plan 2020 first commenced and we had applications for short-term accommodation within the medium and high density residential zone we got to a point where we were refusing those. point where we were refusing those and the the notion that we were seeking predominantly permanent residential uses within the zone became a very strong notion that we were refusing applications on as well as car parking so just just expand on your question a bit more there it's more than just getting the development built form aspects right it's the land use that we're seeking for that. Certainly rooming accommodation is a consistent code assessable use. A residential care facility is a consistent impact assessable use again these more permanent residential type uses being preferred. Nadine 41:09.400
There is sorry before you sorry oh sorry I should have mentioned it before and there is a slight error in the report in the table of assessment of the benchmarks the report indicates that there were there was a requirement for 28 bicycle spaces that's actually incorrect it's only seven spaces so bicycle and motorcycle spaces. Amelia Lorentson 41:29.620
So we need to move an amendment to identify the child. Patrick Murphy 41:38.673
Yes, we could say note that the report has indirectly assessed the bicycle and motorcycle spaces. Amelia Lorentson 41:51.370
We could just move an alternate motion, is that correct? Like if no one's been to a second this year, we could just add this into this group. Just an extra dot for you there. Just an extra dot for you to say, noting calculations in... Frank Wilkie 42:12.027
The bicycle spaces ought to be 7, not 28. Amelia Lorentson 42:16.587
Excuse me, gentlemen, I might actually prefer the wording to Medina or Paul Patrick. You go on. Patrick Murphy 42:35.304
Notwithstanding, it doesn't change. No, that doesn't. It's still not compliant. It's still not compliant, that's right. Amelia Lorentson 42:42.502
Would you like to... Is it a B and a C? Add a C. Add a C. C, there you go. Patrick Murphy 42:52.722
Yeah. So add C, sir, at the end of Amelia Lorentson 42:56.362
The... Oh, OK, so just... Note to the report... Patrick Murphy 43:05.500
Incorrectly... States. Yeah, well, incorrectly identify... Incorrectly identifies... number of... of which should each be... be identified as seven. Be multiplied by two, one, and divided by two. Yeah. Amelia Lorentson 44:09.400
Seven. Yeah. Patrick Murphy 44:14.240
Is that OK? Amelia Lorentson 44:26.960
I'm happy with that. I'm happy to move the motion... the motion in front of us. Can I just... Second. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Any discussion? Yes, Councillor Stockwell, go ahead. Brian Stockwell 44:43.377
Yeah, it's... Yeah, it's an interesting one in that I don't think I've ever seen a table of assessment... of the assessment details of the assessment criteria where 56% of the criteria had crosses against them. So it's a fairly easy one to identify. It's a fairly easy one to identify over development of a site in that respect. I think the other aspect is obviously clearly the use proposed is inconsistent with Council's strategic intent and inconsistent with a fairly consistent approach by this council to interpreting the Noosa Plan 2020 since I think around October 2021 and that is that we feel there's sufficient accommodation of accommodation is in the eastern beaches Nooseville area and that we are prioritising dwellings I think the desire to create an opportunity for key workers is good and as mentioned And as mentioned a scaled down proposal that met the assessment criteria and provided some additional key worker accommodation via rooming accommodation on site is a plausible option for that site. It is in close proximity and well served by public and active transport links to the major holiday areas. If the suggestion is that people here are going to stay there for less than three months and pop in and out of employment, I do know that most, a lot of our hospitality sector really want staff that they can train and keep for longer than a month or two. I know in peak times it can be of assistance but other than that it's really just an inconvenience to business staff to keep on retraining staff. So I support from a planning perspective that the use is not planning perspective that the use is not what we'd like to see and secondly the design is a significant overdevelopment of the site that can cause significant amenity impacts to the surrounding neighbours. Amelia Lorentson 46:41.216
Yeah thank you. It was always going to be a challenge fitting 48 people on a 600 square metre site. As already been identified the building is over scale, encroached on the rear setback and site cover is exceeded, dominates the surrounding buildings. Pot ratio and GFA are excessive. The rooftop terrace creates opportunity for overlooking and invading the privacy of surrounding premises. Also have concerns about the noise that might be generated from the rooftop terrace. There is insufficient car parking on site, the waste can't be handled on site and we predominantly already have, we want predominantly want the uses in this area to be residential and that conflicts with that. So as Councillor Stockwell said it doesn't tick all the boxes, it sort of, there's more crosses than ticks when it comes. There's more crosses than ticks when it comes to this application and it'll be interesting to see what the applicant, what the applicant's revised proposal may look like. I'll just quickly speak to the application. There's a real cost in putting an application like this to council in terms of, you know, drawings. This is architectural designs, planning costs. This is architecture. And I sit here as a councillor thinking, you know, what lessons can we take or anyone or applicants can take away from these refusals. And after five years sitting at this desk, it's the importance of working with council, with council, the importance of pre-watchment advice, early guidance, the importance of community engagement and having realistic expectations. So the importance of... It's just such a shame that they've got to start all over again and possibly could have been avoided if they worked better with council. So support the refusal for the reasons... articulated in the report and it was a very good report and the reasons given around the table. And I hope anyone listening, applicants, take lessons from... refusals. Any further discussion? No? All clear. Thank you. And I think that brings us to the end of our... There are no... There are no reports for noting by the committee. There are no confidential sessions. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10.30 and thank the councillors and thank our... The councillors have been Karen online and... Thank you, Madam Chair and the office's CEO and our great administrative support, Sally and Vicky. Meeting is now closed at 10.30. Thank you. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
