Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wellington: Okay, we'll open the meeting. This is a special meeting to deal with two matters. We have some apologies and they include Councillor Jackson who's on leave, Councillor Wilkie who's unwell and Councillor Stockwell who's got other work commitments. We do have a quorum, thank you gentlemen. And the first item of business for the special meeting is an MCU for a development application for entertaining and dining business at Peregian Beach, 6 Heron Street. Councillors, are there any questions of staff on this matter please? Speaker 1: Just before we start, we've just got a small correction that we'd like to talk through in the report. Speaker 2: Thank you, yeah. So if you, page 14 of the agenda, this section at the bottom. At the bottom of that page, at point four, it's titled the draft planning scheme. I've incorrectly advised that the new, the draft planning scheme has the same plot ratio as the current scheme.
00:01:00 I've picked up the wrong point within the table. This site specifically nominated to have an allowable plot ratio of 1.4. Councillor Jurisevic: I was going to ask, I thought it was 1. Yeah, 1.4. You said 0.8 or something. Speaker 2: That's the current scheme is 0.8 and I've said that applies with the draft planning scheme. That's incorrect, it's actually 1.4. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Mayor Wellington: Thank you for that. Any question, Councillor Jurisprudence? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, on page 12 of the report, there's a paragraph I didn't really understand. It refers to the applicant maintains the extent of the roof structure, blah, blah, blah. The corresponding, the paragraph replying to it says, whilst the applicant correctly assesses the amount of areas which exceeds the eight metre height limit, this measurement does not accurately reflect the visual impact. As previously stated, when the development is viewed from the north or south, 44 per cent of viewing plane will exceed eight metres in height.
00:02:00 I'm confused as to how we can have the developer accurately reflecting the visual impact and then saying, well, it's not, when viewed from the south, it's significantly different. Okay. Can you explain the reference in that paragraph, 44 and 40 per cent viewing? So the statement. Speaker 2: So the applicant correctly assesses the amount of area which exceeds eight metre height limit. That's if you're looking at the development from above and you're looking at a percentage of the site coverage. Councillor Jurisevic: Ah, okay. I see what you're saying. And what I'm referring to. Yeah. As opposed to a perspective. That's right. A grand view. When you're looking at the actual plane of the building. Thank you. That explains it far better. I just didn't quite get the reference there. I thought that was a little confusing. Mayor Wellington: Councillor, this is a statutory meeting. So under our standing orders, you should stand to speak. Oh, my reminiscence. Just to combine it and start term. Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr Chair.
00:03:00 The second question I have refers to car parking. On the 22 February 1972, it's on page 14 of the report. On the 22 February 1972, Council approved the existing development with revision of on-site car parking without the provision of any on-site car parking. Additional approval was included for a minimum of 12 parking spaces to be provided within 70 feet of the development. Based on the current planning scheme, the previous use of the site for a convenience shop required 15.2 car parking spaces. Given that there was a convenience store, where were those 15.2 car parking spaces located? The area in Perugia. The area in Perugia is all fairly general and public accessible car parking spaces. And I didn't believe any car parking spaces actually contributed to any one particular development.
00:04:00 Going through, looking further, the development as it currently stands triggers 17.5 spaces. Given the difficulty in parking in Perugia currently, I mean, I can see that nothing could be, expansion is often difficult, but how were 15.2 car parking spaces associated to the previous convenience store? Speaker 2: That requirement is based on, so it's saying that there was a particular floor area for the site, and it's just looking at the current scheme and saying, if that was applied for the use of just a convenience shop under the existing planning scheme, it would equate to a regular parking space. 15.2 car parking spaces. Speaker 1: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: So I'm going to ask a further question. With regard to Peregian Beach as a whole, the Peregian Beach shopping precinct as a whole, and the car
00:05:00 parking available, given the number of developments down there and the number of car parking spaces, what is the current ratio of car parking spaces to approved developments in the area? Mayor Wellington: You might have to take that on. Speaker 1: I don't know the answer to that, Councillor. One of these buildings were built back in 1972, so we have fairly limited records. As you would know, there's no on-site car parking for Peregian Beach. It's all in the street. So this site, when the friendly grocer was built, and they talk about 12 being provided, I imagine they were sort of formed up in the street and constructed and line-marked on the street. And I think that's probably what's occurred for the whole of the village down there. There was really just street parking provided around the green village. So I don't know currently what the rate would be of car parking down there to the total development in Peregian Beach. That would take quite a bit of research to go through.
00:06:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So with regard to the current planning scheme, or the new draft planning scheme, there was no work done with regard to available parking in Peregian Beach compared to the available developable space. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. I think I know what you're asking. When the new planning scheme came in, the current lease of plan, there was no further provision made for parking down there. Street parking, council doesn't necessarily try and increase the amount of street parking just because the parking rates may change in the planning scheme. Is that what you're asking, council? Councillor Jurisevic: Sort of. It's more what the opportunities are for the future of the Peregian Beach square space and the areas around it with regard to development. If a redevelopment of a particular site already triggers or challenges the existing car parking spaces. Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. There was a car parking contribution policy developed some time ago with council, which
00:07:00 would allow car parking contributions to be taken from developers and put towards further street parking and rearranging the parking in the village. So if the sites in Peregian Beach were to redevelop, that would be an option for council to look at requesting the applicant to enter into an infrastructure agreement to provide contributions for car parking for their development. So that policy would allow redevelopment in certain instances where that met council's policy. Mayor Wellington: Just to clarify that, Kerry, my understanding is that the contributions in lieu of parking, the money can actually go to pay for public transport rather than public car spaces. And it was very much with places like Hastings Street and Peregian Beach in mind where we knew that it was not possible within the plot ratio to provide more parking that we determined
00:08:00 to make the contribution policy relevant to public transport. Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely right. The contributions can go to car parking in the street, but definitely also public transport. There's a couple of things I'd like to add. There's a couple of places in the Shire where that would be more appropriate, such as Peregian Beach. Councillor Jurisevic: One further question, if I may. It appears to me that the space out front of the proposed building would take up the current loading zone space, which appears to be the only loading zone space. Do I have that correct? As I understand it, I can't see if the loading zone space has been retained within this proposed development. Speaker 2: The loading zone space is a point of discussion in the on page 14 in relation to the works within the road reserve. The plans show that there is a subject of further approval, a proposed outside dining
00:09:00 area adjacent to that loading bay. It doesn't indicate that the loading bay is to be removed. Our infrastructure services team have expressed concern with the proposed outside dining area, because it would cause conflict with the loading bay, particularly the capacity to move from where a vehicle is unloaded to delivery to shops. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'd argue that the diagram on page 16 reflects no loading bay in that area where that proposed external dining is considered. Mayor Wellington: Reminder, Councillor, this is a recommended area. There is no recommendation for refusal. I agree. Councillor Jurisevic: These are the arguments for supporting the recommendation for refusal. With that lading bay gone, there is no other lading bay that I'm aware of in that area, having parked here myself when doing deliveries in that area. I would support the staff's refusal. Mayor Wellington: Please don't make an argument in the structure.
00:10:00 Thanks. Any other questions? Okay, then. I'm looking for a mover and a seconder. I'll move it. Just a card, please. Councillor Martin, seconded Councillor Glasgow. Can you speak to the motion? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, only in a couple of questions that Councillor Jurisevic asked, and staff handled them very well. Just a bit of history, I suppose, and Councillor Wilkie would answer it far better than me, seeing that it's more his turf. But in the past, when we took developers' contributions, I think in the Bridging Master Plan, not that I was privy to that, but we actually created parking down the southern end. We expanded that car park area out of those contributions from previous development. Very good. And the Mayor's quite right. That's why we had a look at our policy with regards to areas, Tewantin as well, to see if we could take contributions for public parking.
00:11:00 So in the past, that's what we did. But you're right. In the future. We'd have to look at that public parking. But that was the old days. Yep. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I just want to briefly point out that the development approval, which is seeking to be changed, the development approval came through during the Amalgamated Council, Sun Time Coast Council days. And I'm not sure that the development approval would have breezed through under a new Noosa Council, because there are some issues in regard to the sort of bulk and blocks type nature of the design that is not necessarily pleasing to the eye. And I think that there would have been closer scrutiny of the design had it come to the de-amalgamated Noosa Council. And thus, we are left with an approval which is seeking changes now, and the changes are
00:12:00 not necessarily improving it. And I note that one of the concerns is that the proposal is to utilise the top floor for dining and entertaining, et cetera, without there being any roof cover whatsoever. So as the report notes out, it would be highly likely that as soon as they started to use it, that we would suddenly find ourselves in a conflict situation where the height was increased again by creating a new roof structure, even be it temporary, on the ground floor. So there are a number of issues here in relation to what we're trying to achieve in Peregian, and I'm pleased that the staff and council appear to be in sync with regard to our intentions for the area aesthetically. Thank you. Councillor Pardon: Mr Close, Councillor Byrne? No, I think you've summed it up very well, Mr Mayor. Mayor Wellington: Thank you. I'll put the motion, all those in favour.
00:13:00 Thank you. That's carried. We move on to the second item, and that is a motion to approve the development of the Planning and Environment Court Appeal with regard to 215 David Lowe Way, Peregian Beach, the Tomco site. Kerry, if you wouldn't mind, please, and I, Councillor, I did forewarn her I was going to ask this, just a brief outline of why this has come before us. Thanks. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay, so the matter has quite some history, which I'll go briefly through. Originally, we had an application lodged in 2006. At that time, it was for 26 multiple dwelling units, which was a permanent accommodation, and 20 motel units, with 12 of those being the permanent full visitors. The matter was refused by council towards the end of 2017, and an appeal was lodged in response by the appellant.
00:14:00 The matter then went to trial last year in May. But it didn't finish, and the trial was then later heard in October 2018. In October, we got partly through the further evidence to the judge, and the applicant put forward a proposal to change their application. Essentially, their proposal was to change it to include all visitor accommodation in it, so there'd be no permanents proposed on the site. So in changing it to all visitor accommodation, it meant that the development was then consistent with what the Noosa plan sought, to have the site provide visitor accommodation to support Noosa's tourism economy, and provide a variety of visitor accommodation units in the Shire. So at that time, the matter, there was a mayoral minute to council, where council resolved
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 to agree. They agreed to settle the matter, and it was subject to a number of terms of settlement, with some changes in design and layout to better fit within the Peregian Beach village. So since that time, draft conditions were provided to the applicant for their review, and the applicant also made the amendments to the plans that the settlement agreement asked for. So that's been going on for some time now. And we are now in a position where both the applicant and the submitter to the appeal from Peregian are in agreement with the proposed settlement conditions. So if council is comfortable and agrees with the proposed conditions, then the matter will go back to court for a final settlement by the court. Mayor Wellington: And just for the sake of completion, this is a situation where there's been a lot of discussion, and we have a significant community association as a co-respondent in the case.
00:16:00 Is that correct? Speaker 1: Yes, we did. The submitter to the application took a very active part in the appeal, engaging their own barrister and expert planner. So they have spent considerable money and time involved in supporting council's case to the court to achieve this better development. So yeah, it's been going on for some time, and I think this is now a good outcome for all involved. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict? Yeah, I noted in condition 55 that I thought something a little odd cropped up, and it regards an acoustic screen that must be constructed around the IGA rooftop mechanical plant to a height of three metres. The IGA isn't actually part of this development. It's part of the adjoining development. It seems to me unusual that we would require a condition for anything on an adjoining property.
00:17:00 How is it that that occurs within this approval, and is it because the overall site was one original site and one developer doing the entire site? Speaker 1: I agree with you in part, Councillor, but the IGA is still on the same parcel as the proposed development. So it hasn't been subdivided. It is still all one lot. And that allows council to impose a condition to adequately mitigate noise from that mechanical plant for this development. Councillor Pardon: Any other questions? Mr Chair? Yeah. In the past, I suppose this is a court case and conditions of a court. In the past, where we've approved temporary accommodation, and you would be well aware of some of them. And then we're finding, well, things coming back whereby Creek people start to live in
00:18:00 them over time. I imagine, this one, being settled through the courts, that that probably wouldn't happen. But it's just a question of how, over time, we protect ourselves of the loss of tourist accommodation in various areas across the Shire. So I'll just ask that question about nailing a dam. Thank you. Speaker 1: Yeah. It is a concern. And it has happened in other developments that we've approved for visitor accommodation in the Shire. The approval and the conditions or the proposed conditions are structured in a way to ensure that there is a clear statement in there that it's only permitted for visitor accommodation. So if we did have people move into the site in the future, we would be able to do compliance and remind people of it. There'll be a requirement for that statement to go in the anybody corporate scheme as well, so to alert people to the fact that this is only visitor accommodation.
00:19:00 A number of the units, the motel units, are really designed. They are quite small scale. They are motel units. So they don't contain the kitchens. So it makes it a little bit more difficult and not as inviting, I guess, to people who live in them as permanents. The 20 units, though, are sort of three bedrooms. So it's a little bit more difficult. It's a quiet size for dwellings. So that may see some people seeking to use them for permanents in the future. But there is a clear condition that we can come back to. And we can remind them that it's only permitted for visitor accommodation. And take action if necessary, because it would be a breach of the approval. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's OK. Yeah. Just in the past, we've had those issues. So I just thought if you could nail it down. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Drew. Yeah. Just to follow on from that question. Short stay accommodation. I mean, these units, a number of these units do have kitchens and the like.
00:20:00 What is the maximum term of stay within the planning scheme for short term accommodation? Speaker 1: The current planning scheme does not put a time limit on short stay. But it says short term visitor accommodation. But our- 90 days. 90 days. Our condition does set that at 90 days. Which is consistent with the South East Queensland Regional Plan for short term accommodation. Mayor Wellington: Any further questions? We're looking for a mover and a seconder. Moved Councillor Glasgow, seconded Councillor Jurisevic. Anyone wish to speak to this? I'll put the motion then. All those in favour? Thank you. That's carried. And that concludes the meeting. Thank you for attendance, everyone. Thank you, Mr Chair.