Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 8 July 2025
Date: Tuesday, 8 July 2025 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:36:24
Synopsis: Precinct BID-Type Framework Noosa Junction, Engagement/Levy Repurpose/Governance, Referred To General Committee, Legal Limits, Equity/Funding/Resourcing Risks, Noise Context, Other Approvals, Housing Metrics, STA Change.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Executive Officers
Acting Ceo / Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Apologies (Did Not Attend)
AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson chaired a focused session on managing land-use conflict in Noosa Junction, centering on a precinct management framework modelled on a Business Improvement District (BID) (7.1) (02:31–04:16). Kim Rawlings confirmed Council lacks a statutory BID mechanism in QLD, proposing a “BID-type” locally tailored framework subject to stakeholder support and feasibility on governance and funding (7.1) (08:37–09:39). Committee outcome : Item 7.1 was procedurally referred to the General Committee for further consideration due to mixed views; carried unanimously (7.1) (26:11–27:08). Stakeholder scope will include residents, tenants, business operators, and landowners; engagement to test appetite, boundaries, levy settings, and decision rights (7.1) (04:16–06:10; 14:32–15:16). Funding context : Noosa Junction already has a council-collected levy largely for marketing; the investigation may repurpose/evolve that levy rather than create a second one (7.1) (05:45–06:10; 12:34–13:15; 24:34–25:11). Council role envisaged as collector/oversight of funds with precinct board autonomy within an approved plan; potential resourcing impacts flagged (7.1) (07:53–12:15; 24:34–25:31). Future change driver : Junction facing significant redevelopment pressure (Carlisle, former bowls club, sites behind cinema); a precinct framework seen as “scaffolding” to coordinate impacts/opportunities (7.1) (09:43–11:46). Noise interface : Original trigger was noise/antisocial behaviour near Sunshine Beach Road hospitality venues; framework pitched as collaborative problem-solving without overriding existing laws (7.1) (04:55–06:10; 15:16–17:29). Delegations : 48 applications decided under delegated authority in May; all approved (8.1) (27:29–28:14). Nature-based tourism : Additional cabin approved at Pinbarren Road, expanding a 2020 consent; contribution conditions limited by reasonableness and relevance tests (8.1) (28:00–29:38). Secondary dwellings : Low planning-application volume reflects scheme settings facilitating certifier-approved outcomes; metrics to be captured via a forthcoming housing monitoring report (8.1) (33:12–34:14). Short-term accommodation : Minor change from multi-purpose room to bedroom within tourist accommodation zoning approved; not a new STA in low-density zone (8.1) (34:39–35:40). Contentious / Transparency Matters Tom Wegener opposed advancing the BID-type approach, arguing it risks micromanagement, strains tight budgets, and may not solve noise/behaviour issues governed by state liquor/noise regimes (7.1) (21:13–24:03). Tom Wegener warned a levy-funded model could concentrate power with landowners, marginalising renters/business operators and nearby residents; cited $6k/month small-studio rent pressures (7.1) (13:23–14:31). Amelia Lorentson stressed residents must be explicitly included in engagement and planning; suggested equitable levy options be explored while noting many models exempt residents (7.1) (04:16–06:58; 07:53–08:37). Brian Stockwell reframed purpose toward activities/events coordination by business operators versus capital works, proposing complementary use of the existing levy; moved referral (7.1) (26:06–27:08). Transparency ask : Clarified that Council would collect and return funds per a precinct plan; precinct body to set priorities (security, cameras) akin to Hastings Street, reducing perceptions of opaque council control (7.1) (24:34–25:31). Process discipline : Given non-consensus, protocol used to refer to General Committee for broader scrutiny, increasing transparency and reducing process risk (7.1) (25:37–27:08). Legal / Risk BID legality : QLD lacks a BID statute; any levy/governance must comply with the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), rating/charging provisions, procurement, and decision-making transparency; officers propose a “BID-type” within existing powers (7.1) (08:37–09:39). Noise/liquor regulation : Noise at venues is primarily regulated by the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation and environmental laws; a precinct framework cannot override statutory limits, reducing expectations-risk (7.1) (15:16–17:29; 21:13–22:40). Levy equity/administration : Shifting or increasing a special rate/charge entails equitable benefit tests, clear boundaries, and consultation; risk of challenge if residents are levied without demonstrable benefit (7.1) (05:45–06:10; 07:53–08:37). Conditions law : Requiring the Pinbarren tourism proponent to fund trail maintenance was rejected as not reasonable or relevant to the development, aligning with statutory conditioning tests (8.1) (28:55–29:38). Resource risk : Officers flagged internal resourcing to support set-up; proceeding without clear scope/consent could create unfunded workload and governance exposure (7.1) (12:08–12:30). Rates policy : STA rate multipliers already increase contributions from short-term accommodation, relevant to fairness considerations in any precinct funding model (8.1) (32:14–32:58). Short-Term Accommodation, Secondary Dwellings, Planning Scheme Patrick Murphy confirmed a minor internal change in a tourist accommodation-zoned unit (2→3 bedrooms) proceeded as an MCU at the applicant’s choice; not an expansion of STA footprint (8.1) (34:47–35:40). Patrick Murphy noted new scheme settings reduce planning triggers for secondary dwellings, shifting volume to private certification; comprehensive metrics to come via a housing monitoring report (8.1) (33:20–34:14). Amelia Lorentson requested visibility of secondary dwelling uptake for policy calibration; officers proposed consolidating data in the forthcoming housing report (8.1) (33:56–34:14). Noosa Junction Precinct Dynamics (Sunshine Beach Road, Noise, Growth) Brian Stockwell described the active hospitality strip largely along Sunshine Beach Road as the focal geography for an activities/events-oriented framework (7.1) (25:48–27:08). Kim Rawlings emphasised spatial boundaries are essential to any precinct framework, ensuring all beneficiaries contribute and participate (7.1) (31:04–31:40). Amelia Lorentson canvassed potential non-statutory mitigations: acoustic treatments, vegetation buffers, nuanced zoning adjustments, and security measures to complement regulatory settings (7.1) (15:16–17:29; 25:16–25:31). Richard MacGillivray reminded that developments contribute to trunk infrastructure, including district parks/trails, contextualising growth impacts and funding (8.1) (30:02–30:27). Environmental Concerns & Nature-Based Tourism Patrick Murphy outlined the Pinbarren Road nature-based tourism expansion as consistent with site context and earlier approval; conditioning remained proportionate (8.1) (28:14–29:38). Patrick Murphy and Kim Rawlings noted that “friends of trails” style voluntary partnerships are more suitable than compulsory levies for dispersed hinterland enterprises (8.1) (31:04–32:58).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 8 July 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 8 JULY 2025 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 9.30am. 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 NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Nil. EXECUTIVE Acting CEO / Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings APOLOGIES Cr Frank Wilkie 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 10 JUNE 2025 Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 10 June 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 8 JULY 2025 7.1 NOOSA JUNCTION PRECINCT MANAGEMENT MODELS ASSESSMENT Motion Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Senior Strategic Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 8 July 2025 regarding managing conflicts between hospitality venues and residents in Noosa Junction; B. Engage with relevant Noosa Junction stakeholders to gauge support or otherwise for the potential establishment of a Precinct Management Framework based on the Business Improvement District (BID) model within the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct; C. Subject to B investigate the feasibility, governance and funding models for the Precinct Management Framework outlined in B. D. Report back to Council on the outcomes of B and C. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Planning & Environment Committee Agenda Item 7.1 be referred to the General Committee for further consideration. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MAY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting on 8 July 2025 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for May 2025 as per Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener Against: None 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10:07 AM.
Meeting Transcript
Unidentified Speaker 00:00.041
All right, there you go. Amelia Lorentson 00:03.800
Can't wait. Good morning everyone and welcome to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting today, Tuesday, I think it's the 7th or 8th of July. I'd like to first of all begin by an Acknowledgement of Country. Noosa Council acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and we pay respect to elders past, present and emerging and also to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future of the First Nations people. Nation's first of all apologies from the Mayor, he's not here today, he's on holidays for a couple of weeks. Also our CEO, Sam stock, again I believe he's holiday, so welcome to the event. So welcome to the Acting CEO seat, Director Richard MacGillivray. And also there is no one online. So welcome Councillor Wegener and Councillor. Councillor um can I please request before the meeting commences that everyone have their phones on silent and all turned off. Thank you. Go straight to confirmation of. Minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder? Thank you. Councillor Wegener, seconder, Councillor Stockwell. No discussion. All in favour please. So we'll go straight to. If you could just bear with me. So step the next item for discussion is item number seven, reports for consideration. And there's one report, Noosa Junction Precinct Management Models Assessment. And I welcome to the desk Kim, Anita and Michelle. Sara. Excuse me, Sara Wilson. And I just. I can hand it over to you for a summary of the report. Sara Wilson 02:33.746
At the Ordinary Meeting held on the 17th of October 2024, Council endorsed a notice of motion requesting an investigation into precinct management framework suitable Noosa Junction. This report is in response to the notice of motion. The report has been prepared to compare strategies for addressing land use conflicts between entertainment venues and nearby residents. The scope of the report includes a review of current mitigation processes, a brief exploration of best practice management precinct management models including Special Entertainment Precincts, Safe Night Precincts, the Business Improvement District model and the Harmony Project being carried out by University of the Sunshine Coast and it also includes an assessment of their relevance and the applicability to the Noosa Junction context. The report specifically focuses on frameworks designed to manage the interface between hospitality venues and residential areas while also considering broader integrated precinct management approaches encompassing the full range of land uses and business activities within the junction. An evaluation of each option is in attachment one of the report. Concludes with a recommendation to further explore the Business Improvement District framework and seeks to that seeks to balance the diverse interests of stakeholders, enhance precinct vibrancy and ensure alignment with regulatory obligations. The recommendation in the report is that Council engage with the relevant Noosa Junction stakeholders to gauge support or otherwise for the potential establishment of a precinct management framework based on the Business Improvement District model within the junction and subject to that support that we investigate the feasibility. Governance and funding models for the precinct management framework and after that we would report back to Council on the Amelia Lorentson 04:26.326
I'll investigate the feasibility stop. Start the recommendation. There is to engage with relevant Noosa Junction stakeholders. I'm assuming and perhaps I might ask if we can just make a reference that any that includes the wider community residents as well. Is that the case? Yep. Yes it would be. Fantastic. Questions around the table? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wegener, I've got quite a few. Stockwell? I refuse, I'll let you guys lead. Tom Wegener 04:58.848
I remember this, when I started out, the conflict between Noosa and the junction and the residents. Mostly that's what brought this about. And the residents are key stakeholders. So one of the risks, sorry I have a long question, one of the risks is that the key stakeholders may, residents in proximity, may feel excluded from the decision making that will impact them. Question, are they paying this levy? So if they're funded, there's a levy. And so there's going to be people, stakeholders paying the levy. Will the residents be contributing to that as stakeholders? Sara Wilson 05:44.462
So, the, at the moment, the junction already has a levy that's being collected and being used within the junction. Part of the investigation will be looking to see whether that is, if we increase that levy or what the options are with that existing levy. Whether we look outside of that area, it would be part of the investigation, but I don't imagine that the residents would be paying a levy. Tom Wegener 06:11.368
You guys go ahead. My gears are turning. Amelia Lorentson 06:14.831
I'd like to add to that Tom. So I've done a little bit of just research what's happening in New South Wales and they're investigating business improvement districts. The district's really quite interesting and they're probably a little bit ahead of where we are. So can you explain, and I think it'll help answer some of your questions Tom, but can you explain how a BID works, who pays and why do we need it? Can it exist without our intervention? Sara Wilson 06:49.344
Yeah, so essentially you'd set up the precinct area so at the moment we're obviously just looking at the Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct area that's outlined in the scheme. In theory that would be the area that would be investigated and be the area that would be paying the levy. So the levy goes into a fund that's then used for the different sorts of things in terms of marketing strategies and things like that. So it's not specific just to the hospitality venues, which is where this sort of investigation did start. And then we looked at, well, we would be looking at the whole a and in terms of how we would balance the existing, the other businesses outside of just the hospitality area. So essentially that's the main, I guess, framework of the levy for is the, sorry, the framework of the BID. Is for them to pay the levy and then that money gets used by a board, so Council sort of sits outside of that board. But we can provide administrative and financial, sorry, governance structures to that. Amelia Lorentson 07:54.032
So property owners and tenants pay the levy, or is it just the property owners? Sara Wilson 08:00.411
That would be part of the investigation, but I think generally it's just the property owners Amelia Lorentson 08:05.409
And residents. So the ones that I've been reading about, so if they live in the in precinct, the land levy doesn't apply to the residents. And I'm just trying to think, Hastings Street Association, how does that levy work? Is that businesses, property owners? So is the opportunity in the Noosa Junction framework that. If you even could. It Yeah. Kim Rawlings 08:36.162
It definitely could. That would be all part of the feasibility and that's why engaging with stakeholders about the model and what its opportunities are and what it can enable and what sort of, you know, sit around it. I think it's a really important step before we jump to what the actual model looks like. You'll note in the report it says a model based on the BID-type framework. We don't have the legislative framework to implement a BID but we have similar parameters. We think there are huge benefits a BID-type framework but essentially it would be a nuanced, locally specific framework for the junction that works for the junction and the key stakeholders modelled on the BID-type framework, if that makes sense. Amelia Lorentson 09:30.598
So in terms of what's happening in the junction, there is significant development and I'm going from, you know, we've got proposals perhaps behind the cinema for affordable housing, we've got both bookings of the junction with significant developments that come up, the boxcars, there may be some movement there. Covers, in the day, how important is establishing this sort of framework given where we're going in terms of, you know, future planning? Kim Rawlings 10:15.721
Um, yeah, I think, I establishing some sort of framework sort of precinct management framework could actually help manage some of the opportunities and impacts of the massive change potentially that the Noosa Junction is going to go through. So yeah, I think it's I think it could create you know the sort of scaffolding the framework to help them you know provide a great source of communication to have the right people around the table to weigh up opportunities and implications you Council. Know to help get ahead of some of the issues that might arise so you know I think these frameworks when you look at case studies the benefits of them seem to outweigh some of the challenges that you know might arise so I think it would be a positive approach of course it needs to be something that this the stakeholders landowners in the junction would want so that's definitely a first step it's not something that you impose it's something that needs to be wanted from key stakeholders Sara Wilson 11:32.832
It would also enable to have a voice around the table about the future of the junction in terms of the role and function and direction particularly from an economic perspective as well and how all those different developments all knit together to have it you know and role for the junction? Amelia Lorentson 11:50.312
This doesn't override planning rules, environmental or noise regulations. It sits beside us as a business. Absolutely, it doesn't override any of that. And in terms of Council again, it doesn't duplicate the work or services we already provide. It complements this sort of how I'm reading all this. Kim Rawlings 12:09.660
Yes, it may require some resourcing though. So it's part of the feasibility and consideration of sort of helping establish, helping support. You know, Council would probably have more of a presence. So there will be some resource considerations that would need to be looked at as part of the next phase. Amelia Lorentson 12:30.196
I'm we're doing a lot of talking. Councillor Stockwell, do you have questions? Tom Wegener 12:36.001
You said that the Junction Association already has a levy, and you're saying that this will be. That they're going to voluntarily give some of that levy to this project? You didn't say that. So this is a levy different from the Junction Association levy that already exists? Kim Rawlings 12:54.577
It could evolve into a different form of levy, Councillor Wegener, so rather than an additional, it could be, you know, and these are the conversations that we need to have and we haven't had them with the Junction Association and the business out there to see whether or not. There's appetite to evolve the framework, which could mean that the levy looks slightly different. Tom Wegener 13:23.934
Okay, and then you said that the landowners pay the levy, not the. Because I was with a just with a renter there and they said their rent has increased dramatically up to $6,000 a month. To $72,000 a year for a small studio. And I look at that and I just say, well. We need to be talking to the people that are renters, the actual businesses, the owners. I'm not quite sure if they're even. Oh they're stakeholders but you have the stakeholders and business owners the residents is this focusing on payments from the business owners and do they have the same interests as the other two stakeholders that's what I'm just very confused about what we're actually doing here and who's paying for it and whether we're actually fixing the original problem of antisocial behaviour, residents complaining. Are we actually addressing the problem or are we trying to improve the business district of Noosa Junction by talking to the landowners and not actually the businesses that are there? Kim Rawlings 14:31.883
Long question. The intention would be to talk to all stakeholders and all of those people you listed are stakeholders whether they live there whether they work there whether they have businesses there or whether they own land there so the stakeholders would be all of those groups. This proposed framework is about setting up a collaborative framework with all stakeholders to manage whatever issues arise at the junction and whatever sort of opportunities and like Anita said future role and future considerations. So it is about establishing a framework with the right people around the table to work through the issues that arise at the junction Amelia Lorentson 15:20.056
Is what so part of his strategy is a that it's business a plan. It's a strategic plan that will be developed. I'm understanding that whether it's a tenant and landlord and resident, they will have equal voting rights. So that plan is developed. Go over to the table. And residents can't take in wider community. But in terms of like, I keep going, how's it going to exactly where you're coming from Tom, how's it going to fix the problem? And I think, and please correct me, fixing the is sometimes just simply getting all the key stakeholders involved. Around the table and talking. And to me, community solutions that might not necessarily be exactly the same format as a BID, it'll be a Noosa-specific community solution to the issues. But I go do how do we fix that problem, given that we can't override any, you know, OLGR or noise environmental issues. And things that come to my mind are like, you know, when I talk to residents is do you have, you know, residence zone one side of the street is a little bit different to another side of the street. Acoustic treatments, vegetation, those sort of noise mitigation issues. So I see the value in at least opening the discussion. And I also like the fact that in New South Wales, they're quite ahead of this and they're looking at legislative changes. That's how encouraged they are. So to me, I just like further information and again, really respect that this is contingent on the support of the Noosa Junction Association and the wider community because without their buy-in, you know, there's no point. Tom Wegener 17:29.542
Oh, wait, I want to, okay, let me yeah, then we speak to the staff, you know, bring Amelia Lorentson 17:33.216
Up more questions. Is there any questions before we speak to it? Tom Wegener 17:38.221
I mean, we've just gone through the tightest budget and here we are going to put, you know, have a budget. And for this, it would be a considerable time for a staff member to work on this. Amelia Lorentson 17:51.583
Can I just step in, Tom? Before I ask you to speak, we might ask for a move. I'm happy to move the motion. I'll second. Thank you. Oh yeah. Speak to it since I've moved it and then I'll ask you to speak. For ahead of the junction. We've discussed around the table, you know, there's going to be some significant developments happening in the junction, from the Calile to the old bowls club site, to projects potentially behind the cinema, new suggestions part of this. Even Noosa Drive, and I think, you know, what we've got in front of us is an opportunity to be forward-thinking and future-focused. It's an invitation. I think the motion is simply an invitation to gauge whether or not, again, the key stakeholders identify this as an issue and want to pursue it. I just think. I just think. Again, we've got an invitation to start some really important conversations. We can not go ahead with this and the issues that are arising and I know that. Escalated quite a bit over the last few months so that doesn't come to this table but there are ongoing land use conflict issues, noise issues in the junction. I've been told over the last two months there's been. Yep, residents not happy, and I just think we can pretend it's not happening, or we can be proactive and work with the business district and with residents. And find community solutions to these issues. This isn't going to go away. In fact, I think it's just going to get, you know, it'll exacerbate. So, you know, I want to take the opportunity and thank the staff. I think the report is really great. The scope of the notified motion was to explore these best practice precinct management plans and assess their relevance and applicability to Noosa Junction. I'm hoping that this does get support from Noosa Junction Association but I do want to stress all that's in front of us is an invitation to the junction and the key stakeholders whether they will partake in conversation. This is not something that's going to happen overnight. There is no commitment to resourcing. This is basically invitation, sit around the table and recommendation C, subject to B, investigate the feasibility, governance and funding models. That's something that's done contingent on B, being supported. So I'm excited and hope that this recommendation does get support around the table. Tom Wegener 21:14.337
I hope you have good a, one, I have a policy where I don't like to micromanage what other businesses, big groups, organisations, governments are doing. And this may fall into that category of micromanagement. Immediately when you say that there's a levy and the old business, not owners, the landowners are going to be paying the levy, well they have the power. That's who this thing is working for. And you say, well, you've got key stakeholders are the residents and key stakeholders are the businesses, but I just see it as who's paying for it. They've got the power. I don't see the don't end, the BID actually addressing what the presidents want, who are worried about the noise. I think that we haven't even exhausted our, what we're already doing. We are CALM, our collaborative approach to liquor management. We don't even, Noosa hasn't, Noosa Council hasn't Noosa Council has not been a formal member of the accord, nor has the accord actually been going on. Been active, been so active, but it's been happening for 15 years in Noosa. So we already have the Office of Liquor and Gaming. We have our own organisation called calm, which has been around for a long time. We have our Noosa Plan that regulates Noosa regulates these things. And when it comes to that the key thing we're worried about which is noise in the junction well that is squarely the Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation whether we're gonna have any influence on that at all because like you say we're that takes priority. Those rules are forced. What we've already given these businesses is that they can do what they're gonna do. They have the right to have the music at a certain level. They have certain rights that are already there. I see the BID as trying to work with the businesses in order to perhaps maybe get perhaps more get business perhaps have you having residents involved somewhat but I see that it it's not actually going to address the problem and we haven't we have what we have we there's a Noosa Junction there's the business association what is at the end the business chamber and that the business chamber at the Noosa Junction Association those are the groups that we can support but I don't think this that the bit this kid we need to do it it's not necessary it's a strain on our resources that we know we've had a super tight budget and I don't I just see inconsistencies with the plan and I just I can't actually imagine it working in my own head so I can't support it if I can't really see it happening and it were happening effectively and with the power that it needs to actually have tea teeth. Amelia Lorentson 24:04.028
Can I ask a couple of questions? So the Noosa Junction do not pay a levy, can they? Yes. They do. So if this was developed it would replace would be the same levy but. Different parameters. Yes. Correctly. At the moment they pay a levy, do they have total power to use that levy the way they want it and would a big framework give them more Kim Rawlings 24:34.030
Yes, so autonomy or less? At the moment they pay a levy, as part of that they're required to develop a marketing plan because it's primarily for marketing of the precinct, which they submit to us. It's their plan, they submit to us and then they spend the money in accordance with their plan. I would suggest the same sort of approach would happen, that a strict. A plan for the precinct would be developed, a strategic plan for the precinct identifying priorities and then the funding, essentially Council just acts as the collector and then gives the money back to them, would be used to implement the priorities of the plan. Amelia Lorentson 25:16.303
Security would be if they identified security, same as what Hastings did, they need more police, they need cameras, they would have the autonomy through their own plan and their own funding to make those decisions separate to Council. Brian Stockwell 25:31.646
That would be the intention I think it's protocol if we don't have consensus here that we do refer it generally. I will say a couple of words. I understand some of what Council members are saying and perhaps the wouldn't say opportunity here is I was looking up where the hospitality precinct is and it's basically the businesses most businesses fronting Sunshine Beach Road not those to the extreme south and the ones on the eastern side of the Lanyana Way so it's a group I think there is value in thinking the existing levy may be capital works focused and may be more structural which is logical for the business owners to be the contributors to have but what a I think the issue is around activities events and it's probably more logical for the business owners to be the key decision makers how they work together to create an environment through the running of their business more so than actual capital work so there may be something that can be worked out there about the purpose of the two different activities. Are initiatives and if need funding it goes from there but I'll move the procedural motion to be referred to the General Committee for further consideration I'll second it. Amelia Lorentson 27:09.241
In the next reports for noting welcome Patrick to the desk and we're looking at report 8.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority and some Patrick if you can give us an overview of the applications decided this month. Patrick Murphy 27:29.326
Thank you so this is a report detailing those applications that were decided under delegated authority for the month of May another productive month for the team across a range of application types with 48 applications that were decided. All those applications were approved so yes. Amelia Lorentson 27:54.683
Questions around the table? Tom Wegener 28:00.796
There was one application for Clifton barren road for further sites for not campers but for nature-based tourism and that was approved. Patrick Murphy 28:14.994
That's right so in I think in there was an application approved on the site for nature-based tourism. The trail network goes past the front of the site and that was a reasoning why it was approved back then with the number of cabins is I think it's three cabins originally it's now been an additional cabin. Located on the site for that purpose. Tom Wegener 28:36.186
With that nature-based surprise you? Do they support the actual trail network? Is there any way we could have a link between the tourism that's evolving there and supporting the trails which a lot of people are going to actually walk on and enjoy. Patrick Murphy 28:56.280
Nature-based tourism could be for a range of different types of activities, so it will be determined by suppose the location of the premise and some of the attributes that might be on the site and also in the surrounding area. This site has a small frontage to the network I think in terms of whether you're seeking for those people that have an approval to contribute to the maintenance of the trail I'm not sure if that's the question that you're asking but any condition would need to be reasonable and relevant and I don't think that would be reasonable or relevant in this circumstance before cabins considering the broad length and use of the trail to require a limited number of persons to contribute. Tom Wegener 29:41.189
It's funny I think as a BID and I think this would be a great example for the businesses and the environment-based businesses in the hinterland and they might need a BID. I don't do that. Amelia Lorentson 29:53.758
That's the sort of framework, you know, you can do a pilot summary and understand its application across the show. The Shire. I agree. Richard MacGillivray 30:02.733
It's relevant to note that all development levels approvals will pay be the paid infrastructure charges. Too, so that can be a contribution to trunk infrastructure which can include our district parks and in some cases trails as well so there's a contribution through that but to patrick's point it's more around they are supporting and enabling people to access those tracks which is essentially what that accommodation will facilitate but it's not limited just to access to trails. And get them. Amelia Lorentson 30:31.288
Yes, hello. Tom Wegener 30:33.473
I did mention that actually a BID might actually be very relevant to the hinterland businesses like we have a eco-tourism camping, not but cabins and you know the hinterland that would be a place where there could be a BID because the landowners and the business owners are the same and not they might make that a question? Would the hinterland businesses be an example of something that might be good for a BID development? Kim Rawlings 31:04.961
So the idea of a Business Improvement District is that there it's also spatial so that you it's actually a district or it's actually in a defined area um so it's not about picking out a group of businesses I think that's more of like a network or an ecosystem or a facilitated you know process a that's right it really needs parameters and boundaries to say this is the scope of the area that we are putting a framework around uh they are all contributing whether it's time money resources or you know everyone's at the table to um deal with these issues or to um you know renew an area or you know implement a strategic plan so I'm not sure it's the right framework for what you're talking about Tom kind of selecting individual landowners or businesses across the Shire I think there are other things that we can do to help facilitate that not the Business Improvement District model yeah I think Brian Stockwell 32:17.881
Getting off a bit of course it is a planning matter and I agree it's not very reasonable relevant I think it's okay for me to talk about it now because the most I've seen is the commander of district and commerce there's a process that I helped facilitate a few years ago looking at all these opportunities and certainly around the world there's these sort of friends network that spring up out of the businesses that have their customers are using and it's generally a more voluntary approach but I suppose the other thing to recognise is as a short-term accommodation they do have a multiplier on their rate so we are already getting a rates, an intense contribution towards that. The providing facilities for the guests as part of the budget process anyway. Amelia Lorentson 32:59.331
Thank you, a little bit off topic but given it's a committee meeting I'm enjoying the conversation and allowing it. I've noticed this round of meetings which is unusual Patrick, no secondary developments in this round of meetings which is unusual because I think that the uptake's so far slow but it's happening. Because I think that the uptake's Patrick Murphy 33:20.384
It's happening. Yeah, it certainly is and I think that's probably the planning scheme doing its job in terms of facilitating secondary dwellings without having to come through planning so it doesn't mean that it hasn't been approvals through the private certifier. The only ones you'll see through planning are those that are triggered through the scheme and generally. Relaxations. That's right. With the new scheme reducing some of the parameters around the location of where a secondary dwelling had to be, it's certainly significantly reduced the numbers that through have come planning in the past few years. But it's still, there is an uptake that we're seeing through the building department. Amelia Lorentson 33:57.626
Can we capture that data in this report? Like it would be just great to understand what the uptake of secondary dwellings are. So anything that's certified by a building certifier, can we have like maybe a little section in this report? Patrick Murphy 34:14.670
I'm just wondering if we've got a housing monitoring report that we're looking at doing for Council and I think that would be the best sort of forum to report on all of those metrics, Amelia, rather than adding in particular building elements and it takes a little bit of time and a bit of comes from private building certified, so I think that's the Richard MacGillivray 34:34.186
Best forum to give us a really good snapshot of what's coming through the door in that space, absolutely. Amelia Lorentson 34:40.494
And my only other question, short-term accommodation, I think approved Noosa Drive. Patrick Murphy 34:47.665
Yes, so that was seven of six and yeah, so all that was the conversion of a Multipurpose room into a bedroom within an existing dwelling unit that was in the Tourism Accommodation Zone. The applicant had opportunity to make a minor change to an existing approval, however persisted in, as is their right, with moving forward just as an MCU application. So it was a very minor modification to the existing dwelling and that was a dwelling unit, not a low density residential zone dwelling, but a multiple dwelling unit, again within a Tourism Accommodation Zone property. Amelia Lorentson 35:29.180
So did we approve a new STA or an existing STA? Patrick Murphy 35:34.000
It was existing, it was just a change from two to three bedrooms and that was a conversion of the Multipurpose room to a bedroom. Amelia Lorentson 35:40.687
Thank you very much. Further questions around the table? This is going to be a short running environment committee meeting. Thank you seconder, Councillor Wegener, no discussion, all in favour? Thank you. And no confidential sessions. And I and declare I the meeting now closed. At ten past ten, this beautiful Tuesday morning. So thank you Councillors, thanks Patrick, and thank you Acting CEO Richard MacGillivray, he's got a good one too. Tom Wegener 36:19.671
Thank you Kim. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
