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 & Environment Committee Meeting. I declare the meeting open. I also want to start with just an apology. We've had a technical glitch. The meeting normally starts at 9:30. We're running, we're we've just fixed our technical problem, so it's now commencing at 9:00. Patrick Murphy 00:25.057
Go to court, 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 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 00:46.634
So given the cost of litigation and our responsibility to ensure that the user ratepayers money wisely, do we work under some sort of like a risk assessment framework when deciding to defend or refuse applications? Richard MacGillivray 01:07.810
I'm happy to join jump in here. I yeah I mean we obviously we have to assess and decide planning applications under the Planning Act 2016 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 in planning law around you know decision-making ensure it's defensible and makes it you know the key principles around a good decision-making and making sure that any conditions or the decision is a proper one and it's based on sufficient efficient merit and merit 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 2020 so there's a very robust assessment process that the team are very familiar with and obviously there is appeal rights your right to negotiate 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 Amelia Lorentson 02:17.178
In terms of state, does the State get involved at all in this process? The refusal needs to be supported I understand by referral agencies. What part the State plays in this process? Richard MacGillivray 02:38.872
Well, the State can elect to become, I guess, a party to appeals if they choose to do so. It's their decision, 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 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 to the matter. Amelia Lorentson 03:20.220
My other questions whenever I raise these mass 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 a housing strategies. Report comes to council. But I like going through the delegated report and actually 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 delock. You can see 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 what our monthly target is compared through. Is that something, again, like I said, I've thrown this question very often, is that something that you would consider? Richard MacGillivray 04:22.811
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. Councillors. The challenges, 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. 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 provisions. So it's better that we get a full read of all of those so those ones just approved by the 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 target. So the strategic planning team are well aware of the need and request to provide that information. 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 can do which I think will give the 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 there's likely to be a significant number of other dwellings approved which don't require a planning approval as such. Amelia Lorentson 05:49.040
Correct, yeah, absolutely. There's something that could uptake a great thank you. Any further questions around the table? No? Okay. I'm happy to move the delegated report. Seconded by Mayor Wilkie, all in favour? So we'll move now to the next item on the agenda, which is item 7.2, 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 RAL19/0004.07, Reconfiguring a Lot at 36 to 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville, and handed over to Nadine for an overview and summary of the reporting from us. Thank you. Nadine Livingstone 06:55.201
Good morning, everyone. As Councillor Amelia has outlined, this is an application for another change to an existing development plan. 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 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 160 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 from a to a health care 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 to 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 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 large floor plates would be around one space per 35 square metres. As a result of that, the applicant was willing to change the proposed use to hospital conditions that were very specific in terms of the type of uses and floor plates allowed, and our consultant was willing, he agreed 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 to ensure that we maintain our car parking and our floor plates. Application is recommended for approval subject to conditions relating Amelia Lorentson 10:20.330
Thank you Nadine. Questions around the table top? Tom Wegener 10:23.652
We seem to be moving towards lot of cancer treatment in Noosa. yes. Which is, you know, none of us in the room would be against that. Is that true? yes. And it seems though that that's what's budding, that's what's evolving out Nadine Livingstone 10:40.529
We have 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 have they present their care is different to other centres so yes but they have indicated that there's a need in the Shire. Tom Wegener 11:10.656
Last question with when it comes to the parking and electric vehicles and electric chargers there yeah I was just in china and of course it all there's electric chargers everywhere because you very seldomly hear the car engine in china especially you hear a diesel you're like oh what is that oh that's a diesel engine oh man I've never heard one of those in a while so anyways I'm hoping that we follow suit and we have electric chargers you know at regular car parks like that because if the cars are there during the day you might as well be charging it through solar. Nadine Livingstone 11:45.238
Yes, I agree with you. Frank Wilkie 11:56.640
Thank you. Yeah, what is the principal difference between a medical uses and hospital uses? Nadine Livingstone 12:02.060
Under they vary. 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 as 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 rooms and things like that where it's slightly different to those other centres. Frank Wilkie 12:44.601
Would say hospital uses are less intense, land uses? Yes, that's exactly right. Hence they don't need as many car parking spaces. That's right. 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. 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 that I want to service. Nadine Livingstone 13:18.208
Quite as I said they 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 outlining how it would work, it would function, their workflows of when a patient comes in, where they go through, so that provided that documentation to us. Frank Wilkie 13:42.187
Did you say councils engaged a consultant as well? Yes, we engaged. 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, dropping from one car space for 20 to one car space to 35 square metres. That's correct. And that this change complies with that. Yes. As well as providing this new hospital use for cancer treatment for the community. Nadine Livingstone 14:13.724
And it is a mix, again noting that 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 functional cancer care provision. Frank Wilkie 14:29.883
And 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 you know it's typically yeah not yeah yes that's right it is very consistent with the a medical centre. Are there likely to be patients staying overnight? I don't believe so, no. They've got recovery beds, but they haven't really indicated that they would be staying overnight. Could we get clarification on that for you? Patrick Murphy 15:08.337
The hospital use that those seeking services stay overnight. Yes. 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. 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 set goals are. Whereas the treatment that's occurring in this facility would 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 Livingstone 15:55.518
So the-- they're on I'm not quite sure what page it is. In the report, there's a layout on page-- after the occupancy and staffing table. That is on. Page eight. Page eight. Richard MacGillivray 16:14.201
And that diagram-- or is it 30 in the actual full agenda packet? Nadine Livingstone 16:20.912
Is it-- 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-- infusion Chair, so you can see there it's much larger, hallway storage. There's greater storage for medical items. There's staff rooms that take up room rather than a general GP office. You might have, again, those people coming in and having a high turnover. Frank Wilkie 16:53.473
Thank you. Tom Wegener 16:55.693
Question? When it comes to zoning, so there's no specific zoning for medical offices, but this has a specific 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? Doctor surgeries can generally go into business centres, business zones. There's no shortage of space for regular medical centres that are being displaced by the cancer. Well, this is currently being, it's being operated by the cancer care, so this will add to their facility, the type of services that they'll be able to offer. Yeah, so it's an ancillary use. Yes. But we're not, we're not displacing other, opportunities for medical centres. No. Amelia Lorentson 17:46.517
Of the leases with cancer care and the day hospital. Yes. How long are leases? There are 20 years, yes. So if they don't want run their full term and a tenancy change has occurred, how are we protected and is, and I'm assuming there's 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 real issue in terms of risk of overfired parking onto nearby streets or the surrounding businesses. How do we protect ourselves in terms of risk if the plot Nadine Livingstone 18:40.800
And tenants were to leave? Absolutely very good question and we've been asking the applicant exactly 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 included 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 health care service 1,300 square metres for the hospital infusion centre and 1,383 for the hospital in general stating that these suites are 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 it's stringent I think the conditions 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. Amelia Lorentson 20:05.665
In terms of talking about and valuable that is in Noosa. Mm-hmm. The proposed hospital uses the car parking rate in the report said it's based on previous approval for a day hospital at 47 Goodchap Street, Tewantin. Scallywags. The scale and intensity seem different from the chapter list. Can you explain? Nadine Livingstone 20:34.945
It's--- Or do you agree? Again, I'm basing it on our expert chapter consultant who involved. So this isn't the hospital, this was the appeal next door. Okay. So that was the mix between-- there was a medical centre and a sort of a day hospital there as well, that dual 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 based on the numbers, he was happy with a one space per 35, which is similar to that Goodchap Street application. Amelia Lorentson 21:13.141
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? No, not really. Again, based on the one per 35, yeah. Well, again, I'll have to base it on what our expert has indicated. Thank you very much. And one last question in terms of disability car parking. The number of accessible car parking compliant with the national construction code and, or have we gone above the minimum? 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 through that process. It's an inconsistent use, and probably my question is, in approving an inconsistent use, what precedence or what risk does that pose? In terms of council approving, you know, similar applications in major centre zones? Does it open the door for that or not? Patrick Murphy 22:40.785
No. The nature of the use is important in terms of making the decision. 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 because an inconsistent use has been approved next door. What we learned through the Goodchap appeal was that hospitals have a very high order in terms of planning need and that makes it a big impact on the decision that we make in terms of determining whether to approve or refuse the application. Amelia Lorentson 23:21.227
Questions around the table, I'm happy. Karen Finzel 23:27.630
Excuse me, Through the Chair. Yes please, I do have a question. Would you like me to proceed? Go ahead Karen, yes. Thank you, thank you for the report. It is good to see that 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 medical waste that is treated and untreated and how do we ensure that this is managed effectively in terms of disposal? Is I wouldn't say see any regulations around any of the State planning schemes or anything like that are you able to talk to me about that please? Nadine Livingstone 24:38.086
In terms of us in terms of sort of the waste management 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 southern side of the building it comes in they have a whole waste area that's 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 deal with their own waste but there is room on site as part of the existing building to have storage of waste and also pickup of waste on site. Patrick Murphy 25:34.361
Disposal of medical waste is going to be heavily regulated through a range of legislation in different in types of waste that includes 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 26:05.371
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 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 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. Karen Finzel 26:40.528
Thank you so in summary local councils we known 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 is correctly disposed of Richard MacGillivray 27:11.606
It's already heavily regulated already Karen as I mentioned those pieces 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 so 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 an industry and sector that's already appropriately regulated through the correct state avenues. 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. Karen Finzel 28:18.841
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 an advocacy piece to move it forward to one of our peak bodies, like LGAQ, for example, to look at this and how other councils are managing this moving into the future. Amelia Lorentson 28:42.938
Excuse me Karen, it's not relevant to the application in front of us. I appreciate your passion in this but we might reserve a question for a workshop. And just stick to the planning application we've got in front of us. Thank you and Chair. SPEAKER_03 29:02.146
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 29:24.055
Yes, correct, yep. Amelia Lorentson 29:26.635
Thank you. Karen. Any questions around the table? Brian Stockwell 29:33.536
I was just going to speak to the motion. I think Councillor Wegener brought up the most salient point is. We are seeing an increase in the need for healthcare. 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 in 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 I think that is the key point in terms of when you look at an 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 separating their use from 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 which would avoid the future problems should you know penalties change etc so I think it's got to a reasonable conclusion. Amelia Lorentson 30:48.748
I'll speak to the application in front of us also in terms of the loss of early car parks. It has been peer reviewed by experts, so I'm happy and confirm that the hospital uses will generate lower parking demand 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's in front of us is really important as Councillor Stockwell just stated. It's 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 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 the Hospital (Infusion Centre), and I think this is a title asset to the Noosa community. Any further questions? Frank Wilkie 32:07.920
Yeah, look, I think it's all been said, Madam Chair. I'd just like to point out we do have a spelling error in line two of the recommendation. Business type one office, commercial business. It just needs to be corrected to commercial. This is a great asset. To the community. Car parking requirements have been met. Should use change in future, another application will have to come to council. Car parking will be assessed. If it's 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 getting met, so a good decision. Amelia Lorentson 32:51.070
That's unanimous and we're moving to the next item on the agenda. SPEAKER_02 32:56.310
Sort of breezed over the, I think Brian knew. I moved it, Frank seconded it. I seconded it. Frank Wilkie 33:04.290
Just want to make sure Amelia Lorentson 33:05.190
We've got the right one. 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 Livingstone 33:33.439
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 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 proposal includes a main reception and entrance as well as a accommodation unit on the ground floor of the and existing building a new sort of wing at the back which will 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 178 properly made submissions were received with the majority of the submissions against the proposal raising concerns about impact 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 the loss of permanent accommodation in this area. The intent of the high density design is to cater for permanent residents. This area is well serviced. There's a map 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 inconsistent on the inconsistencies with our intent for this zone as well as the non-compliance with the Bill form provisions the application is recommended for refusal Amelia Lorentson 36:02.963
Thank you indeed and I'll hand it over to the councillors any questions Brian Stockwell 36:08.720
Um yeah mine's in regard in your report uh you take an exit except from the economic report now it's not usual that these sort of things do economic assessments um had a couple of questions related to that bases need on a 75 percent occupancy rate do we normally is that a standard rate that we would use it sounds quite a high expectation this was the applicants yeah I know um is it the one that we have before I just when I first read that I thought 75 percent is quite a um ambitious target and seems to be trying to embellish the need you won't comment okay I'll go down to the next one um and similarly um it supports Noosa economy by people providing housing for key workers particularly working holiday makers in the tourism sector that would be a rooming accommodation use uh was rooming accommodation applied for rooming accommodation was not applied for just this 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 development it really calls into question how much weight you can put on any of it. So, that's my questions. Amelia Lorentson 37:32.324
I've got a couple of questions indeed. In terms of, do the applicant engage. Meaningfully with council officers during the assessment process? And was there any pre-lodgement advice provided? Nadine Livingstone 37:46.903
Yes, there was a pre-lodgement meeting held with the applicant, the applicant and the consultant, and they were clearly indicated. 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 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 the form we currently see. Amelia Lorentson 38:31.006
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 on this site without triggering significant concern or departure Nadine Livingstone 38:46.854
From the planning scheme? So at the moment we've got a development which is the planning scheme talks about we have around 45% site cover so we generally do not vary our site cover provisions at all so that's a 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 we're very tight on if you convert supposed to be 0.65 it's at 0.88 remembering to that the site the site area is so 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. There's no provision on site for servicing so that will most likely occur in the Street. Patrick Murphy 40:03.020
And they're the built form parameters, 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 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 and the notion that we were seeking predominantly within the zone became a very strong notion that we were refusing applications on as well as car parking. So just to expand on your question a bit more there, it's more than just getting Amelia Lorentson 40:43.290
The development built form aspects right, it's the land use that we're seeking for that. And understanding community sentiment. Patrick Murphy 40:52.163
Yes, that's right. And certainly rooming accommodation is a consistent code assessable use. A residential care facility is a impact assessable user. These more permanent residential type uses being preferred. Amelia Lorentson 41:07.708
Thank you. I'm happy to. Nadine Livingstone 41:09.608
There is. Sorry, before. Sorry. Oh, sorry, I should have mentioned it beforehand. There a slight error in the assessment of 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 41:30.072
Yeah. So, do we need to move an amendment identify the change, to or the mistake? It would be odd, yes. We could say no to the report. Has indirectly been assessed the bicycle and motorcycle spaces. I'm not so new that I'm in it. We move an alternate motion, is that correct? No one's made a second this year. We could just add this into this report. Just an extra dot for you there. SPEAKER_04 42:03.750
Just an extra dot for you to say noting calculations Frank Wilkie 42:18.699
The bicycle spaces ought to be seven, not 28. And motorcycles, but I might actually defer. Amelia Lorentson 42:16.639
Excuse me, gentlemen, I might actually defer the wording to Nadine or Patrick. You go on. No, okay. Sorry, our screen is not open at this stage, so the committee. I can't see that. Notwithstanding, it doesn't change. No, that doesn't change. It's still not compliant. That's right. No. That's what you like to. Is it a B and a C? Add a C. Add there you go. Yeah. So add C, Sir, at the end. Oh, okay, so just clear and then hit enter, that's it. Patrick Murphy 43:00.400
Note incorrectly. Thank you. States. Yeah, will incorrectly identify as the required. The required no, number of bicycle spaces. And motorcycle spaces which should each be? Seven. So you're identified as multiply I'll do one in the morning. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 44:08.420
Seven. Amelia Lorentson 44:10.340
Six. Yeah. Is that okay? Yes yeah, Brian Stockwell 44:44.020
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 it. So 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 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 short-term accommodation in the eastern beaches Noosaville area and that we are prioritising dwellings. I think the to create an opportunity for key workers is good 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 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 big times it can be of assistance but other than that it's really just an inconvenience to business to have to keep on retraining staff so I support from a planning perspective that use is not what we'd like to see and secondly the design is a significant over development of the site that would cause significant amenity impacts to the surrounding neighbours. Frank Wilkie 46:40.683
Yeah thank you it was always going to be challenged fitting 48 people on a 600 square metre site as already been identified the building is over scale encroaches on the rear setback and site cover is site exceeded dominates the surrounding buildings. plot ratio and GFA are excessive. The rooftop Terrace creates opportunity for overlooking of and invading the privacy of surrounding premises. Also have concerns about the noise that might be generated from the rooftop Terrace. There's insufficient car parking on site, the waste can't be handled on site, and we predominantly want the uses in this area to be residential and that conflicts with that. Stockwell said, it doesn't tick all the boxes, it sort of, there's more crosses than ticks when it comes to this application and it'd be interesting to see what the applicant, what the applicant's revised proposal may look like. Amelia Lorentson 47:52.456
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 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, the importance of pre-watchment advice, early guidance, the importance of community engagement and having realistic. 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. I hope anyone listening, applicants, take lessons from the refusers. Any further discussion? No? You're closed. Thank you. And I think that brings us to the end of our. Thank you. There are no reports noted by the committee. There are no confidential sessions. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10:30 and thank the councillors and thank Karen online and. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the officers 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
