Planning & Environment Committee Meeting - 10 March 2026
Date: Tuesday, 10 March 2026 at 9:30AM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 00:29:26
Synopsis: Holts Rd s18 rezoning advanced with consultation and safeguards, Industrial land supply targeting larger lots w/ 5–10 yr lead, Minor fixes adopted and TIA s42 granted.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Amelia Lorentson Frank Wilkie Brian Stockwell Tom Wegener Non-Committee Members
Karen Finzel Jessica Phillips Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions Amelia Lorentson: Committee unanimously endorsed commencing a Planning Act 2016 s18 tailored process to amend Noosa Plan 2020 for 94 & 170 Holts Rd, Cooroy, to deliver employment/industrial land, with CEO to report back on agreed process and draft amendment (Item 7.1) (00:49; 7.1). Michelle (Strategic Planning): Clarified s18 enables co-designed, faster plan-making with State while retaining full state interest review and the statutory minimum 20 business days public consultation (03:05–05:51; 7.1). Anita (Strategic Planning): SEQ Regional Plan (2023) already placed the sites in the urban footprint for employment/industrial purposes; local scheme must rezone from Rural to an urban/industrial zone to align (11:18; 7.1). Kim Rawlings: Noted likely mix of State, Council (LGIP/trunk), and private infrastructure costs; landowners must service their land, while broader network upgrades are addressed via LGIP and charges (07:13–09:15; 7.1). Michelle and Anita : Preliminary checks suggest surrounding infrastructure is adequate; Unitywater servicing and DTMR reviews to occur via State interest review (06:17–07:13; 7.1). Kim Rawlings: Value capture is not enabled under Queensland law; Council will advocate for community-benefit outcomes and environmental protections (11:50–12:20; 7.1). Michelle : Anticipated yield ~18 ha of industrial land, with an emphasis on larger lots due to market gaps; 5–10 year lead-time before delivery (16:37; 9:36–10:43; 7.1). Council : Adopted Minor Amendment No. 3 to Noosa Plan 2020 under Planning Act s17 and MGR Ch2 Pt2 to correct errors/clarify triggers; no policy change, no State review or public notice required beyond gazettal notice (18:05–19:11; 7.2). Tara (Strategic Planning): Key clarity fix distinguishes when matters are a DA trigger versus a building assessment referral to Council, improving consistency (19:23; 7.2). Council : Delegated to CEO (LGA ss257, 259) to make a s42 Transport Infrastructure Act request needed to assess OPW25/0072 at 36 Roses Rd, Federal; intends to include this delegation permanently in next review (23:17–25:57; 7.3). Patrick Murphy : Site currently landlocked; DTMR supportive in principle; delegation enables assessment to proceed (23:17–25:10; 7.3). Council : Noted January 2026 delegated decisions: 20 approvals, 2 refusals; one pool within coastal protection setback refused and since appealed; second partially refused re front/side boundary setbacks (27:26–28:44; 7.4). Contentious / Transparency Matters Amelia Lorentson and Michelle : Emphasised s18 will not reduce consultation time; minimum 20 business days with owner/adjoining owner notification remains (04:24–05:51; 7.1). Karen Finzel (remote): Sought assurance the amendment aligns with SEQ Regional Plan process; staff confirmed inclusion since 2023 and current step is local scheme alignment (13:30–14:39; 7.1). Frank Wilkie : Queried consultation scope and later clarified delegated decisions outcomes; staff provided specific DA rationale for refusals (04:24–04:49; 28:13–28:26; 7.1; 7.4). Council : Public gazettal notice will follow Minor Amendment No. 3 adoption to ensure transparency despite no statutory consultation requirement for minor corrections (18:05–19:11; 7.2). Legal / Risk Statutory alignment: Item 7.1 follows Planning Act 2016 s18 (tailored amendment), preserving State interest review and community engagement; Item 7.2 follows s17 and MGR Ch2 Pt2 for minor amendments (03:05–05:51; 18:05; 7.1–7.2). Infrastructure exposure: Potential LGIP/trunk upgrade liabilities and Unitywater servicing needs at Holts Rd; risk mitigated by infrastructure charges and State/local planning of trunk networks (06:17–07:13; 07:13–09:15; 7.1). Delegations hygiene: One-off CEO delegation under LGA ss257, 259 to seek TIA s42 approval reveals a gap; officers will remedy in next delegations review to avoid future process delays (25:10–25:57; 7.3). Appeals risk: Refusal of pool within coastal protection setback has already been appealed, indicating ongoing litigation exposure around coastal hazards and setback enforcement (27:26–28:44; 7.4). Scheme consistency: New industrial development at Holts Rd must still comply with Noosa Plan provisions upon rezoning; mitigates policy drift risk from SEQRP urban footprint changes (17:02–17:27; 7.1). Planning Scheme & Zoning Brian Stockwell and Frank Wilkie : Unanimous support for progressing Holts Rd rezoning via s18 to address industrial land shortages and projected Cooroy jobs growth over 5–10 years (14:39–16:37; 7.1). Michelle : Urban footprint includes industrial/commercial/residential; these parcels specifically earmarked for employment uses by State (11:01–11:18; 7.1). Richard MacGillivray : Reiterated that all subsequent development must be consistent with Noosa Plan provisions despite SEQRP designation (17:13–17:27; 7.1). Tara : Minor Amendment No. 3 clarifies DA vs building referral triggers to reduce processing errors and improve certainty for applicants and assessors (19:23; 7.2). Infrastructure & Transport Patrick Murphy : OPW25/0072 enables lawful access to a landlocked lot at 36 Roses Rd; DTMR supportive in principle; TIA s42 approval needed due to State-controlled road interface (23:17–25:10; 7.3). Amelia Lorentson and Richard MacGillivray : Future-proofing via permanent delegation update planned to streamline similar TIA s42 requests (25:10–25:57; 7.3). Anita : LGIP review assessing required trunk road upgrades around Cooroy; State examining key intersections; infrastructure charges to contribute (06:37–07:06; 7.1). Environmental Concerns Kim Rawlings : Portions of Holts Rd land will be preserved to protect surrounding waterways as part of community benefit outcomes (11:50–12:20; 7.1). Patrick Murphy : Pool DA refused due to intrusion into the coastal protection setback; indicates continued enforcement of coastal hazard setbacks (27:26–28:44; 7.4). Development Applications & Appeals Patrick Murphy : January 2026 outcomes—20 approvals, 2 refusals; one refusal now on appeal; partial approvals where front/side setback encroachments not supported but rear works allowed (27:26–28:44; 7.4). Frank Wilkie : Sought specifics on boundary setbacks; staff confirmed front and side encroachments were the issue (28:13–28:26; 7.4). Community Consultation & Economic Impact Amelia Lorentson : Reiterated that residents will have full opportunity to review/comment on Holts Rd amendment during s18 consultation; will test if s18 achieves timelier outcomes without reducing engagement (14:39–15:40; 7.1). Kim Rawlings : Industrial land delivery addresses documented supply gaps; larger-lot focus targets identified market shortage to support regional employment (09:36–10:43; 16:37; 7.1).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Tuesday, 10 March 2026 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 10 MARCH 2026 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 Frank Wilkie Cr Brian Stockwell Cr Tom Wegener NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Karen Finzel Cr Jessica Phillips EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh APOLOGIES Nil. 4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 10 FEBRUARY 2026 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 10 FEBRUARY 2026 be received and confirmed. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2026 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. 7 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 7.1 NOOSA PLAN 2020 - SECTION 18 AMENDMENT PROCESS - 94 AND 170 HOLTS ROAD COOROY Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Amelia Lorentson Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 March 2026; B. Resolve to enter into a Section 18 Process under the Planning Act 2016 for a proposed amendment to Noosa Plan 2020 for land located at 94 and 170 Holts Road, Cooroy; and C. Following B above, request the CEO bring a report be to a future Council Meeting on the Section 18 Process and draft amendment. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.2 NOOSA PLAN 2020 - AMENDMENT NO. 3 - MINOR AMENDMENT Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Senior Strategic Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee dated 10 March 2026 and Under Section 17 of the Planning Act 2016 and Chapter 2, Part 2 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules and resolve to: A. Make, prepare and adopt minor Amendment No. 3 to Noosa Plan 2020 as contained in Attachment 1 to this report; B. Publish a notice in the newspaper and Queensland Government Gazette; C. Commence Amendment No. 3 to Noosa Plan 2020 on the date the notice appears in the Queensland Government Gazette; D. Provide the Chief Executive for State Development and Infrastructure a copy of the public notice and a certified copy of the minor amendment; and PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2026 E. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer to make minor corrections if required prior to gazettal. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.3 REQUEST FOR DELEGATION UNDER SECTION 42 OF THE TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 1994 ASSOCIATED WITH OPW25/0072 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS (VEHICLE CROSSOVER, ROADWORKS, DRAINAGE WORKS, EARTHWORKS, VEGETATION CLEARING AND WATERWAY BARRIER WORKS) - 36 ROSES ROAD FEDERAL Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council A. Note the report by the Manager of Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 March 2026; and B. Pursuant to sections 257 and 259 of the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer, including the power to sub-delegate to Position 10223, to make an application under section 42 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (“the Act”) in relation to development application OPW25/0072 at 36 Roses Road Federal. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None 7.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JANUARY 2026 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manager to the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 March 2026 regarding applications that have been decided by delegated authority for January 2026 as provided at Attachment 1 to the Report. Carried. For: Cr Amelia Lorentson, Cr Brian Stockwell, Cr Tom Wegener, Cr Frank Wilkie Against: None PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 10 MARCH 2026 8 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE Nil. 9 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10 MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 10.00am
Meeting Transcript
Amelia Lorentson 00:03.720
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting today, 10th of March. I declare the meeting open. I'd like to begin by an acknowledgement to Country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and thank them for Noosa area and thank them for their careful custodianship of this unique environment for over thousands of years. We pay respect to Kabi Kabi elders who have come before us and elders past, present and emerging and to their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. Attendants welcome councillors mayor today. I note that Councillor Finzel is online. Welcome Councillor Finzel. And everyone is in attendance. Can I please request before we commence meeting that everyone have their phones on silent or turned off. Thank you. Okay we'll go to confirmation. go to confirmations of minutes. 4.1 planning and environment committee meeting minutes dated 10th of February 2026. Thank you and can I have a seconder? Thank you. So that's councillor, Mayor Wilkie. Mover, seconder, councillor Tom Wegener. Sorry, something's just dropped off. That's alright. So mover, councillor Wilkie, seconder. Wilkie, seconder, Councillor Wegener. No discussion. All in favour please. That's unanimous. Thank you Sally and welcome Councillor. I note you're online as an observer. So there are no presentations, no deputations. We're going to go to item 7, reports for consideration of the committee. And we'll start 7.1 Noosa Plan 2020, section 18. Amendment process, 94 and 170, Holts Road, Cooroy, and welcome to the desk, Michelle and Anita. Oh, hello, Kim. I'm looking for you online. Sorry, welcome, Kim. I'll hand it over to Michelle if you want to give us an overview of the report in front of us today. Michelle 03:05.672
Morning, Today's report is to seek council endorsement to work with the State Department of Planning to undertake a Section 18 process under the Planning Act 2016 for a proposed amendment Noosa Plan 2020 regarding land at 94 and 170 Holts Road, Cooroy. These sites were included in the urban footprint under the SEQ original plan review back in 2023 for employment, land or industrial purposes. The amendment is to require to Noosa Plan 2020 to facilitate the employment and land use outcomes for these sites. A section 18 process allows for a tailored approach to amend the Noosa Plan 2020 and allows local government to co-design the plan making process and adapt steps in conjunction with the State to be more flexible and responsive to the unique local context and communities within their local government area. It's important to consider that as part of this process there's still the statutory community engagement that will be undertaken and there is still state interest review. Once the is agreed with the State the section 18 notice will be issued by the Chief Executive of the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and a further report would be presented to Council outlining the agreed section 18 18 process together with the draft amendment to this plan 2020. Amelia Lorentson 04:19.841
Thank you, Michelle. Questions around the table? Frank Wilkie 04:24.541
Thank you. Michelle, could you outline what the consultation process So the consultation process will still undergo the statutory requirement of 20 business, of a minimum of 20 business working days, so we will still be required to do that and it'll be our normal process that we would do in terms of notifying owners, adjoining owners and going out into community. Amelia Lorentson 04:49.875
A communications panel. Yeah, a communications planner will come with the amendment when we present it to council. In terms of standard planning scheme amendments, how does a section 18 process work? In comparison, so which making the process faster, more efficient? Michelle 05:13.239
Yes yes. But in terms back to the community engagement, is it less time for the community engagement or the same? It's the same amount of time. Yeah, yeah. So the process really is just, there's opportunities to have a more tailored state interest review. So the process really is same amount of time, yeah. So the process really is just, there's opportunities to have a more tailored state interest review. Obviously with this kind of process and the narrow scope of the amendment, not all state interests would probably be wanting to have a say. There's opportunities for combined state interest review and community consultation, saving that process as well, and there's delegation opportunities that can happen as well to allow the process to go through quicker. Amelia Lorentson 05:51.200
Questions around the table? I've got a few, but throw it to the table first. In terms of infrastructure risk, are existing roads, waters, utilities adequate in that precinct for industrial use, or will council need to invest in upgrades and to Michelle 06:17.737
Basically, infrastructure processes through planning scheme amendments is dealt with under the local government infrastructure plan. We'll do consultation with the relative stadium for surrounding infrastructure, but from the, I guess, preliminary investigations, we That should be adequate for the proposed land use. Anita 06:37.106
Infrastructure charges will be liable for the development, which will contribute to any trunk infrastructure. And through current LGIP process, we're identifying any upgrades required to road networks in terms of trunk. Also, the State government are looking at particularly their state roads around that area and the intersections around Cooroy as well. Tom Wegener 07:06.116
To follow up on that, so it's not, they don't have sewage up there, so will Unity Water be putting sewage in there? Michelle 07:13.172
Would be part of the State interest review process and yeah, that would be required to connect into the existing Unity Water infrastructure. That would be part of the State It's an industrial state, it's been included in the urban footprint, so it's expected that those services will be provided. Can I just add to that through the chair? So there's likely to be costs associated with this. It's a good question. They will all be investigated through the process, but there could be state infrastructure costs. There could be local government infrastructure costs, and there will be private infrastructure costs. This is contributing to regional and local employment in industrial land use outcomes, and we are required to strategically plan for future industrial and employment land, and it's those things that we kind of have to weigh up, that there is likely to be some investment required to enable those outcomes. At this point, we can't exactly say what that is, but the process will reveal that. process will reveal that. But to service the land itself, that will be the owner's requirement. They'll need to get the land development ready. So there'll be some substantial costs in getting the site development ready by the landowner. But the wider network costs, so how the land uses contribute to the wider network, that does form part of our legit process and, you know, we talked to council about the legit process and how much that contributes to the cost of trunking infrastructure. But the wider network landowner. But the wider network costs, so how the land uses contribute to the wider network, that does form part of our legit process and, you know, we talked to council about the legit process and how much that contributes to the cost of trunking infrastructure. as you know, it's only a portion. So there are other costs when you look at the wider network. But again, it's part of that strategic forward planning about weighing up the delivery of industrial land employment opportunities. Yeah, it's a good question. Amelia Lorentson 09:15.920
Probably my other question, I think I raised this at the workshop. Council already owns industrial land in the Cooroy precinct, why aren't those sites being progressed first? Kim Rawlings 09:36.720
Probably Anita, you can comment also on the industrial land supply study, but some of those sites are being advanced early. This has probably got a lead time of five time of 5 to 10 years possibly before it comes online. I can't quote the figures, I'm sure one of you can, or maybe it's actually in the report. We do an employment and supply study, as all local governments do. It's an important feeding in process to the regional plan. It's important into our own planning scheme. And that study showed that, you know, at a certain point in we start to have a shortage of a particular industrial land. But, yeah, this site itself won't come online for, at best, five, maybe eight, possibly ten years. So in that period, those other sites in Cooroy, we anticipate, will be advanced. Amelia Lorentson 10:35.731
At the same time Anita 10:39.051
Did add anything? No, I think you covered it. Amelia Lorentson 10:43.700
Councillor Wegener. Tom Wegener 10:45.080
The urban footprint, is that synonymous with sort of an industrial footprint? It's called an expansion of the urban footprint, but when I think of urban, I think of housing. It's set to be industrial land, but it's still under the urban Is that right? Michelle 11:01.245
Yeah, that's correct. The urban footprint entails all urban land, which is industrial, commercial, residential, yeah, those types of land uses. It excludes rural land, for example, and yeah, and the State set the boundary through the regional planning process. Anita 11:18.625
When the State included this, these two sites in the urban included these two sites in the urban footprint. It was specifically notated in the regional plan for employment industrial purposes. Amelia Lorentson 11:36.654
Financial gain from this re-zoning. Will council as part of the amendments advocate to the State to capture any benefits? What's it? I think the windfall gain or is it? Kim Rawlings 11:50.414
Value capture. Yeah. Yeah. We don't have that provision in Queensland. I think we should always advocate for those sorts of outcomes and we'll obviously advocate. advocate for community benefit outcomes of the development. There's a portion of the land that will need to be preserved to protect surrounding waterways. So there'll waterways. So there'll be some environmental outcomes. There'll obviously be some employment outcomes. So there's a raft of benefits that this development could deliver. But I do understand your question. And it is, yeah, it's not a provision we currently have Queensland to be able to do. But I think it is something we should definitely keep on the agenda. Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 12:42.440
It's one little niggling thing. It's 104 Holts Road, or 170, and 94, so... It doesn't actually touch there. The second block doesn't seem to actually touch Holts Road. It looks like it's more on the other road. Michelle 12:58.524
Holts Road goes around the corner. Tom Wegener 12:59.844
So Holts Road goes all the way, it's a different name on the map, but that's okay. So it will touch. Michelle 13:04.760
The legal address will probably, yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Great. No further questions. Anita 13:11.180
Councillor Lorentson, we've got Jessica who's joined and Karen's got a question. Oh, thank you very much. Councillor Finzel, you've got a question? Frank Wilkie 13:19.520
Yes, good morning. Through the chair, I just have a question to staff to how does this process align with or integrate with Karen Finzel 13:30.237
The South East Queensland review and will this be if reported as part of a properly made submission to the State? Anita 13:44.200
So just to answer your question, Councillor, this site, these two sites were included in the last review of the SEQ regional plan in 2023. So it's not forming part of this review. It's actually been in place and included in the urban footprint now for two and a half odd years. So we are going through a process from a planning scheme amendment process to facilitate the outcomes that the SEQ plan envisage, which is employment land. So currently it's rural, it would need to go into an urban zone such as industrial or the like. Thank you for the clarification. Amelia Lorentson 14:39.117
Stockwell. Just probably the only point I want to note or reiterate is that the section 18 process still includes key steps such as community consultation. So the community will same time as per our normal planning scheme amendment consultation process to review and comment on the draft. So welcome that opportunity to our residents. But it'll be really quite interesting a section 18 process to see how and if it works as intended and if so I think really great. think Any further that the key point is that the analysis shows that the amount of developed industrial land at the moment is at capacity that there is demand a current for more. And the demat, the future population projections show that the Cooroy area is one of the, in the next 15 years, one of the largest growth areas in terms of both people looking for jobs and the need for employment land. So I think it's, as we know, it's not going to reap immediate we need to just keep on looking and getting ahead of the game and this will provide a significant boost to industrial land in the Shire and employment opportunities in, yeah, probably five years' time. A question before we close. Just out of curiosity, does Council look at how many potential industrial sites that this site can accommodate and what are those numbers? Michelle 16:37.845
So it's going to produce probably around 18 hectares of industrial land. In terms of the number of lots and things like that, that's all subject to the development, yeah, yeah. So we're looking at larger size lots, that's That's where we find the shortage for our future industrial land, so we'll be working through that as part of the amendment and the provisions that will come to you in the next couple of months. Thank you. Tom Wegener 17:02.898
Although the State is doing this and then we vote for it, for the urban footprint to be expanded, it still falls under the Noosa Town Plan. Richard MacGillivray 17:13.090
So for example we had the distillery there that we had shuffling about whether it would fit in with the town plan or not. so the same thing will go here that all the new developments still have to be consistent with the Noosa Plan. Michelle 17:27.855
Correct, yes, yep. Amelia Lorentson 17:30.855
Thank you. No further questions or discussion? I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? that's unanimous. Thank you. ladies. So we'll go to the next item, report for consideration of the committee, 7.2, the Noosa Plan 2020, amendment number 3. Minor amendment and Tara and Kim and Anita, thank you. I'll hand it over to you Tara. Tara 18:05.771
So Noosa Plan was originally adopted in July 2020 and has since had two amendments, a minor amendment in September 2020 and a major amendment in September 2025. The planning scheme is subject to regular reviews to ensure it remains contemporary, responsive to emerging issues, accurately drafted and consistently interpreted. The report recommends the adoption of a minor amendment to Noosa Plan 2020 being amendment number three. The amendment seeks to correct minor errors, formatting and improve clarification where required. The amendment seeks to correct amendment number three. The amendment seeks to correct minor errors, formatting and improve clarification where required. These amendments do not introduce policy changes and do not require public notification, state interest review or ministerial approval. Adoption of amendment number three to Noosa Plan will support clearer interpretation the planning scheme and consistent decision making. Following adoption of amendment number three, a public notice will be placed in the local newspaper and will commence the date the notice is placed. So it's important to note that the recommendation is to resolve to make, prepare and adopt the minor amendment. Amelia Lorentson 19:11.340
Questions around the table, Mayor Wilkie. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 19:14.780
They are minor technical amendments, what is the most significant of these minor technical amendments in your opinion? Tara 19:23.475
None really, there is some clarification. We've had some issues in the past regarding where something triggers as a planning application versus a building assessment referral, so we've made that that a lot clearer in the scheme as to when something comes in as a referral to council as opposed to as an application. That's probably one that's been tripping up DA for the last few years, so that's made that a lot clearer. Other than that, they are really super minor. Formatting, errors, typos. There was one redrafting of a provision just to clarify it and separate it out, so it was very clear there was some misinterpretation going on, but the policy intent or anything does not change. Tom Wegener 20:12.180
You, you did a lot of work in here. I mean it's insubstantial to go through it and the amount of effort that has gone into this. Thank you, Tarma. Tara 20:25.280
There's been a lot of feedback from DA too. Jessica Phillips 20:29.040
The benefits of being the Can I just say something? Kim Rawlings 20:39.981
It's a huge document you know I don't know how many thousand pages but it's a huge document and we do the more you know the more it's used we do the more, you know, the more it's used by DA, you know, things are picked up, you know, formatting, dot point wrong, this says 8.1, it should be 8.2, those sorts of things and we just keep a running list and, you know, the list has got to a point where we're like, okay, it's time to rectify some of these things. just But just to to be be clear, clear this this does does run a very different process to the previous one you know this is simply an administrative minor amendment process that council has the remit to both resolve and adopt and put in place so it doesn't require community engagement engagement a consultation because of the nature of the amendments thank you who would like to speak to the other report anyone thank you for for putting putting in in time time and and the the effort effort in in your new role and putting all those years of DA experience to the test by fixing up your old colleagues. Tom Wegener 21:51.474
Yeah, I tried to find something to be get-up-ity, but I couldn't find anything. Jessica Phillips 21:58.354
I was reading a lot of them. Yeah, they did, you know, some really nice clarifications. I think what I picked up is just the attention to detail, and it was nothing significant that would change the intent or the meaning. meaning of the amendment, but it's the little details. So thank you very much for the hard work, Amelia Lorentson 22:25.319
Really appreciate it. No further discussion? All in favour, please. That brings us to report 7.3 and welcome to the the desk, Patrick and Richard. 7.3, request for delegation under section 42 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, associated with OPW. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 23:17.156
So the team are assessing an operational works application as you've detailed for those range of activities to facilitate access to property at 36 Roses Road in Federal. The site currently does not have access. It's effectively landlocked. The current access is through the adjoining property which is in the same ownership. So this application, the operational works application is seeking to facilitate access to the site from Roses Now as part of the application it's been identified that the works result in an interface with the State controlled road and accordingly approval is required from the Chief Executive to proceed with those With the assessment of operational works application so it's a technical requirement and we've identified that the relevant officer does not have delegation to make that request so we're seeking effectively a one-off delegation to the CEO which will be to the CEO which will be on delegated to the relevant officer so that this operational works application can proceed. Amelia Lorentson 24:33.161
Thank you Patrick. Questions around the table? Patrick Murphy 24:37.361
Dispersed in the driveway. You. It's been a long time that we've been working with this landowner so I certainly appreciate the ability to progress. Yeah, correct. We've been working with them I think for several years now trying to find a solution including easements and a whole range of different things. think it's important for councillors to also note that officers have had in principle discussions with DTMR as well and they're supportive of that so this is really the formality through just getting a sign off from the Chief Executive I'm happy to move the recommendation. Amelia Lorentson 25:10.106
Sorry, I'm the Chair, excuse me, Councillor Stockwell. I have a question, Richard. Given the need for section 42 under the Transport Infrastructure Act, should Council consider formally amending the CEO delegations to include this type of application so that we don't need to go through this process? Richard MacGillivray 25:32.279
Is that something considered? Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the intention is that with our next round of delegations that come through to Council, we'll be looking to include this in a permanent...delegations to be passed on through the CO. This is just obviously dealing with this current application, but we'll deal with this as part of our normal annual review package of all delegations from Council to the CO and to Thank you. Amelia Lorentson 25:57.595
Councillor Stockwell, move that. Thank you Sally. And seconded by Mayor Wilkie. This is just unusual unusual in in that that we rarely get such applications, technical details to address, but as the staff said, this landowner's been trying to resolve this issue for a number of years. I have been on site and had a look. to go through the other property with an easement are constrained because of the very steep nature and the waterways that have to be crossed. There is evidence of historic access along the paths which this one facilitates. It probably was an old farm And four-wheel drive access when there was dairy on the site so it's a fairly straight forward issue and the landowner is aware of the need to construct to the appropriate extent but all we're doing is staff the authority to assess the application and approve or otherwise. Any further discussion? I'll put it to a vote. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Sally. Thank you Patrick, thank you Richard and stay at the desk. We'll now move to item 7.4 planning applications decided by delegated authority. Thank you. Patrick Murphy 27:26.485
For the applications decided under delegation for the month of January of 2026, there were 20 applications that were determined, sorry there was 20 that were approved and that there were two that were refused. The applications that were refused, one related to construction of a swimming pool within the coastal protection setback area, a five metre setback area. In the last couple of days that refusal has since been appealed to other application was a combined application of DPW and an early referral response and the setback components which form part of the early referral response were not supported so it was approved in part effectively. Frank Wilkie 28:13.250
Setbacks to which boundary? Patrick Murphy 28:15.590
Ah, to the front and side boundary. They were a portico extending within the front boundary and also additional covered car parking area. Frank Wilkie 28:24.688
So it so what was the ultimate outcome? Patrick Murphy 28:26.628
Works to the rear of the building which was effectively a terrace area and some minor modifications to the existing dwelling were approved but those additions to the dwelling which encroached within the setback were not supported. Amelia Lorentson 28:44.108
To the front of the building? To the front of the building, yeah. Further questions around the table? Thank you. Can I have a seconder, please? Thank you. So that's Mayor Wilkie. Seconder, Councillor Tom Wegener. No further discussion. discussion. All those in favour? All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Sam. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Thanks, Richard. And there are no reports for noting, no confidential session, and this has been a really short meeting. I now Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
