Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: Good morning everyone. I declare the special meeting open. I would like to acknowledge that today we are meeting on traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. I note that everyone is in attendance and there are no apologies. Councillor Wegener is in attendance via Zoom. There are three items on the agenda this morning. Turning our agenda to page three, the first item is the proposed road resurfacing work on Haydenburg, Hastings Street and Coord Baton Drive, Noosa. There's also a staff recommendation on this page. Do I have a mover and a seconder for this? Moved. Councillor Finsel, moved. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Finzel: I support this motion because I think it's a good time during the COVID to get this job done and that's all I have to say.
00:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to concur with Councillor Finsel's sentiments on this decision. I've got some questions for staff. Can you tell us a bit about the talks going on? I've got a question for the Hastings Street Association about this project, how they feel about it. And also give us some idea about traffic volumes in this precinct at normal peak times. Speaker 2: Through the Chair. Councillor, we've been in heavy discussions with Hastings Street Association from the get go. They were probably the main instigator in saying, you know, is there an opportune time to look at works in the precinct? And we highlighted the fact that Claude Batten Drive and, at the time, potentially Hastings Street needed to be done.
00:02:00 And as a result, we did do some investigations and identified that they both needed to be done. So they fully support it, their understanding of the timeframes and are on board for us to start as soon as possible. Ron, I think the other part of the question was about traffic volumes. Yes. In regards to traffic volumes, we've got some figures there. We've got around 10,000 vehicles day movements on the eastern side heading up to Park Road. I don't know whether we've got any more that we're following that up, but I can take that on notice and provide that back to you. But we do know that those traffic counts were taken at peak times during tourist peak periods over the Christmas and Easter break. And we're not experiencing any of those significant volumes at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Brian. So just to clarify, that 10,000 traffic volumes a day from the Park Road end, is it likely to be busier down the stretch of Hastings Street?
00:03:00 Speaker 2: I definitely would think so. Yes, definitely. It would be further, more going there because Park Road's a dead end, as well as Claude Batten. But there's more parking opportunities to the west of the Noosa Drive roundabout that intersects with Hastings Street. I'd envisage it to be double. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So would you say it's one of the most highly used roads in the Shire? How does it rate? Speaker 2: Definitely. The Hastings Street is actually on a, as it is actually only at the end of, I suppose, it goes to a dead end. But Hastings Street segment is actually on a local roads of regional significant program. So it is, it has been identified as a major road for us. And it is obviously, it's a bit of a jewel in the crown in regards to the streetscape and the location. So yes, it is highly used.
00:04:00 Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Brian, could you tell us what other roads and resealing work's being done, other roads around the Shire at the moment? Not just Hastings Street, but other projects you're undertaking? Speaker 2: Definitely. We've actually completed the 19-20 program already. And I actually wrote those figures down. I'm having to close my page. But we've undertaken $3.4 million worth of reseal work to date. We only did three roads in the coastal area, which included Noosa Drive, which was again works that required us to do because it was, had reached its end of its life on the surface. We did Bicentennial Drive in the Sunshine Beach Precinct, the school precinct there. And we did part of Moorindil Drive. And then we, that totaled, those works totaled $2.2 million. And the remainder of the work was on 17 roads in the Hinterland at $1.2 million.
00:05:00 We obviously can do more roads in the Hinterland because it's a different treatment that we use. They have a different surface and we can get more kilometres and distance from that as well. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. At yesterday's services and organisation meeting, I asked whether the Hinterland and in particular Pomona is included in Council's high priority infrastructure projects such as bus shelter renewals and footpath and road infrastructure. And I was told they were. So, in front of us, I believe we've got an opportunity for Council to deliver on this commitment. So my first question is, why has Council prioritised Hastings Street and Coord Batten Drive over what I consider other high priority road resurfacing projects within the Shire? For example, roads in Pomona, Cooroy, Noosaville, Noosa Springs
00:06:00 and Marcus Bridge. Speaker 2: Okay. Through the Chair. I guess it's come down to us is where we look at the road network from all the roads as a network analysis and we prioritise that based on the road hierarchy, the traffic volumes, the need to intervene to optimise the life of those roads. And Coord Batten and Hastings Street are nearing that end. And it's an opportune time for us to do works because these works will actually cost us more if we're at peak periods or during a normal return to normal operations. And so therefore, this has less interruption on the Hastings Street, which is a big economic driver for us within the community. And we also have not taken away from any of the work out into the Hinterland and particularly Pomona.
00:07:00 We have program works and we'll continue to come in and intervene and maximise the resealing works in those areas as they're required. Councillor Lorentson: In regards to the draft 2020 and 2021, I've been advised that this report's not been completed and that council is still finalising sections of the road. Again, in keeping with the new council's commitment of better community engagement, I would like to recommend that we actually ask the community for their input. Again, I understand the reasoning you just gave. Brian, why Hastings Street and Coord Batten Drive were chosen. But again, I've got to express that I don't actually agree. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Madam Chair. Is there a question there or is that a statement relating to the council's opinion on where spending is best achieved at this point in time? Councillor Lorentson: Yep.
00:08:00 So my question is, will the community have an opportunity in the draft 2020-2021 to be invited for their feedback for works to be included in this draft report? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a matter for council. Obviously, the budget process is separate to the decision today in terms of whether or not we bring forward this particular item. But that question about what consultation happens through the budget process is a matter for council. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to budgets, Mr CEO, normally we would have a series of budget reviews going through the year. I notice this is talking about bringing forward a project from next year's budget allocation. But what's the implications for this year's budget allocation if we add a $765,000 rotary ceiling program at this point in time? Speaker 3: Yeah. So what this report does is authorise the council to start over the works now within this budget. And effectively what we're saying is we're not then, this is a project, or the project was proposed to be a next year's budget and to bring it forward in the year for the reasons that Brian talked about,
00:09:00 which is one of timing for access to H3 and so on. So it's not intended to then do more work into 2021. It's really a process of bringing it forward by this council's decision. Councillor Jurisevic: Don't believe that was the question. So my understanding of what your response then is that we'll bring forward $765,000 out of next year's budget to this year's budget to compensate. Yeah. It'll be funded out of the 2019-20 budget. Mayor Stewart: What's the expected time and impact on the business and residents around the area for those works? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Alex. Speaker 1: Sorry. Thank you, Chad. The works were called button drive. We've got them scheduled. They're scheduled to take three days because effectively that's a very straight, simple run. And that includes the speed car park, which will also be quite a simple process.
00:10:00 However, so the stretch of Hastings Street, it is quite finicky with the car parking sections that an asphalt paver can't run through there. So they have to be sort of done by hand. So that will take, I believe it'll be seven days, seven working days. Okay. Thank you. No worries. Councillor Jurisevic: So following on from that, what's the implications as far as road closures go and exits during that period? Speaker 1: Yeah. So I, we will have full traffic management in place. Obviously with whether the decision gets made today, we'll only have from today, which the BMS boards are all there ready to go. So the variable message. So to, to communicate with, with the public. I believe Brian, if you want to speak to that. Brian's sort of been in regular discussions with Hastings Street. So it is, it is well known that the works could potentially come. But it is, as they are quite, quite significant, it will, will involve sort of closures of, of those roads.
00:11:00 Speaker 2: I can add to that too, if you like. We are planning on just closing half of Claude Batten for the day and then working back from the river back to Hastings Street. And then it'll just be partial road closures through the, through the Hastings Street. Thank you. I guess that's where I was. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Brian, you stated in the report that our current road resurfacing contractor has indicated his availability. There's no mention of the tender process nor the selection criteria in the report. So these are my questions. Did the job, the $765,000 job go out to tender? And did Council include a local content selection criteria? And was there any material for this contract, given that it was above $750,000? Sure. Speaker 2: So in answering that, we went through a tender process for the contractor about two years ago for a lengthy period. So it was like a three-year contract with multi-year options on that.
00:12:00 And so this is for them to run the program. And they then, it's cost up against what we've, on what sections of road, against based on the unit rates that they've provided in that contract. So we've gone through the whole procurement process prior so that we don't have to go to this point when we're looking at individual sections of road to go out to tender every time. So that procurement process was done two years ago. And it will be reviewed again once that period finishes. Councillor Lorentson: During the negotiations with the contractor, did Council ask the contractor to provide cost savings? Throw it back at him where he can offer to Council opportunities to save money. And also, did Council negotiate a discount in exchange, say, for instance, early payment? Speaker 2: I don't believe we're only things that we looked at in regards to cost savings
00:13:00 because we do have a contract and an agreed rate in what we're asking for here already in a contract. So they may have been done in lead up to that contract being awarded where there may have been savings already provided by the current contractor for this service. The savings that we've looked at is that we were looking at options between night and day work and timings and getting other relevant work around curb and channel repairs that need to be done. But that was about it. It was really about whether it was going to be done. There's greater savings at doing work at daytime over nighttime work. Councillor Lorentson: Given that these works are going to be done during the COVID period and cord batten drives going to be closed, it to me seems a good saving in not having traffic controllers or at least Council relaxing the need for as many traffic controllers. Who absolves the benefit of that?
00:14:00 Speaker 2: I personally don't see too many savings with the traffic control because we still have to turn vehicles around and it's only going to be partial closures. It won't be full closure of cord batten drive. We want to be able to keep people accessing the western part of Main Beach as well. So it may just be the sections from one part to the spit for one period or one day and then the rest of it will all be opened in business shoes. So there'd be very little savings there because we still have to have all the forewarning and traffic control staff ensuring that people are veering off into car parks and not getting into a dead end situation and get gridlock. Speaker 4: Does anyone else have any comments or questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I haven't got a question. I'm going to talk to it. I thank the staff for bringing forward this proposal. Re-sealing is perhaps the most significant asset management strategy we have for our roads.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 There's no doubt that doing that, doing it in a timely fashion extends their life and reduces their maintenance costs in a significant way. The report highlights that this was scheduled for next year and we've heard today that we have completed this year's planned works for resealing. So there's no change in priority. There's no them and us with hinterland versus coast, which is a nonsense. It's about doing the work that will prepare us so that we avoid the worst case scenario, which is that when the recovery of the Hastings Street accommodation precinct starts, that we then go and interrupt it with what will be a significant amenity interruption for the street. There'd be no worse outcome than doing these works when they're scheduled next year,
00:16:00 in my opinion, because you'll have a whole lot of struggling businesses and unit owners crying foul as the media starts to report to people having difficulties, whether it's done at night or during the day. So to me, it's a perfectly logical outcome. We have got the ability to expend the additional cost in the current year's budget without adversely affecting the bottom line and therefore I support it. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to the motion or a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Likewise, I support the motion. I think this is a good opportunity in a downtime period to take advantage of the situation. Probably a little bit later, I would have liked to have done it earlier when there was even less traffic in there and we were actually closing off those roads would have been ideal and those car parks would have been an ideal and opportune position then. But whilst traffic flows are down, whilst volume of tourism is down, this seems a logical place. I dare say that if we didn't do it at this time, if we tried to do it during a more prevalent time of interaction with tourism,
00:17:00 that it would take even longer and be done at night and cause more inconvenience than the opportunity this presents to us. So I commend the staff on bringing it forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Kinsley, you're fine to reply. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You don't have to. Councillor Finzel: You don't have to say anything. I'm fine to reply. Yeah, I do support this. Thank you, staff, for the recommendation to bring this forward. I do agree that during this time of COVID is a good decision for all the things that I've mentioned here today, especially looking after a major infrastructure asset as we move forward. And I think that's good use of finance. And I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention with regards to the hinterland, I had a meeting with the infrastructure staff yesterday just to understand how roads are prioritised in the hinterland. And I'm happy that we can proceed forward based on information from that to help us make decisions in agreement moving forward around hinterland roads.
00:18:00 Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: We might vote on that. On the recommendation on page three, the staff. All in favour? Very good. Thank you for your answer. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thanks, guys. Thank you. Thank you, all of you. Let's push the button and go. Councillor Jurisevic: We've got the trucks ready to run. Literally. Thanks, Brian. Mayor Stewart: Thanks a lot. Thank you. Moving forward. The second item on the agenda is the application for a minor change to development approval to reconfigure a lot at 191 Hollett Road, Noosaville. Councillors, there is staff recommendation on page eight of the agenda, which has been superseded by a further report. This updated report has been prepared as a result of legal advice recently received. The updated recommendation includes an additional condition number eight. So I'm assuming everyone has a copy of the updated report.
00:19:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, we do. All right. Excellent. Mayor Stewart: Has everyone got that? Yes. Anyone like to move the motion in this regard? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the motion. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, look. This subdivision's been a long time proposed and coming and has certainly not survived the test of time. Conditions have changed. The state regulations have changed in relation to the subdivision. This is a subdivision of this nature, and I support staff's position on this with regard to refusing the application. Councillor Wilkie: Question, Madam Chair. On page 11 of the agenda, it indicates there's been three refusals or three applications, all of which have been appealed to this particular property. Effectively, there are three current appeals against three council decisions on this property
00:20:00 alone. Can... If this new... If this new application is refused, how will that impact on the three other appeals that are underway? Speaker 4: So if council resolves to refuse this application, it's likely the applicant will appeal this matter... That decision. And what is most likely to happen in court is all four appeals would be rolled together and heard in one trial. So there wouldn't be individual trials for each one. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a more efficient and cost effective way of doing it? Is that the most effective way of managing an issue? Speaker 4: Certainly it is for both parties. It would be more efficient if they were all dealt with together. And it's typical of what the court does in these circumstances. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Hi, Kerry. Given that in refusing this application, it's likely to... That the applicant's going to lodge an appeal.
00:21:00 My question is simple. Have we, as a council, exhausted all the applications? Have we, as a council, exhausted all the application processes? And was there an opportunity for council to have asked more from the applicant to address some of the reasons that have been listed in the refusal? Have we done enough to stop this from going to court? Speaker 4: I think this matter is one that all the issues can't be resolved. We're going to be fundamentally opposed because our site... Because the site is zoned rural and doesn't support any subdivision on the site. It's also under the regional plan, doesn't support any subdivision under the regional plan. What we have done during the process is to look at potential changes they could make to reduce the number of issues in the appeal to try and minimise those that will have to be considered in a trial. So that's something that we have done. But at the end of the day, for this one, there's fundamental opposition in that our scheme
00:22:00 and our state regulations don't support any subdivision. So it's difficult to resolve this one fully. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. This was an interesting one. Certainly time wasn't of the essence for these people, I feel. I mean, this development is not consistent with the South East Regional Plan. It conflicts with the requirements of the Planning Regulations 2017. It's not consistent with the NUSA's plan strategic framework. There are koala habitat concerns. There's proposed problems with the developments concerning risk management. There's a risk to people and property regarding bushfires. As I said, I think the real issue is this is a development which received approval in 1997, some 23 years ago. They had ample time to develop the site. Clearly at no point, as I said, did the applicant seem that time was of the essence. And if it had been developed, it should have been developed at that point before there were new factors, legislation and frameworks. I also note under the South East Queensland Regional Plan, the NUSA Shire population
00:23:00 is expected to increase by 9,000 from 54,000 in 2016 to 63,000 in 2041. The number of NUSA dwellings in NUSA Shire are expected to increase by 6,400 by 2041. And the new NUSA plan states that it has been prepared with a 20-year time horizon. So I don't think taking all that into account, there seems to be no need for this development. So considering all of those aspects, I support staff's recommendations. Speaker 4: If I may, I have received some correspondence from the applicant, which I just need to make councillors aware of. Speaker 3: Sorry, Kerry, could you please speak up? Sorry, I think I missed that. Speaker 4: Sorry, Councillor Tom. I have received some correspondence from the applicant just this week, which I need to make councillors aware of. And I just wanted to say thank you very much. They have indicated that their, as we know, their application included or sought to change
00:24:00 condition five, which is the sunset clause on the approval, which the further report deals with. This, the correspondence, though, suggests, and the recommendation to council is that we can't change condition five, because it's subject to other appeals or related to other appeal matters in terms of the currency period. The applicant has come forward and said that they would like to change condition five. I would suggest they no longer seek to change condition five around the sunset clause. Talking with council's solicitor, I would recommend that council continue with where we are at. The report was on the agenda based on the report, based on the application in front of us at the time. It's too late to be changing their application when the report's finished and on the agenda, and that this matter would be dealt with during an appeal if they wish to drop off this requested change. So I'd suggest to council, council continue on as recommended, but noting that the applicant
00:25:00 is looking to change their application in part. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. So just to clarify that, if the applicant wants to change the application in part, that can still take place during the appeal process? Speaker 4: Yes, they can do that through the court process. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll speak. Thank you. The Mayor was quite comprehensive in the reasons for refusal. The application's for a 40 lot subdivision on land zone rural. It's outside the urban footprint of both the South East Queensland Regional Plan and the Noosa Planning Scheme. Had there not been a rezoning approval, which is no longer current, given back in 1997, I understand this application will not be able to be made under the current state and local government frameworks. The applicant has had adequate time to act on their original approval, given back in 1997 and again in 2013. The subdivision is not needed to meet Noosa's population capacity of around 64,000, set by the state, which will be achieved through densification of existing urban centres, close
00:26:00 to services and transport to minimise the need for car travel. A new subdivision outside the urban footprint will not only exceed Noosa's mandated population capacity, but unnecessarily increase daily traffic on the road network. I fully support the staff recommendation. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Wharton. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion? I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think Councillor Wilkie made a very important point. If this application was put to Council today, we'd hand it back and say, sorry, you can't apply. It is proposing a development which is prohibited under the statutory context of the regional plan. That's really important. And to my understanding, there is very few, if none, that have had the exemption from the state government required to achieve that. But it's really important to understand that under current situation, there is no need The applicant couldn't even submit an application for a subdivision outside the urban footprint, outside the rural living area that proposes rural residential development.
00:27:00 The other thing that's really important is when you look at the strategic framework for both the current Noosa scheme and the Noosa Noosa scheme, it highlights what Council thinks is the highest and best use for this site, and it's not rural residential living. It has some very highly significant endangered vegetation on site. It has koala habitat on site and it has good quality agricultural land in other areas and also underneath that. These areas that are zoned rural are best used for rural purposes, and that is conservation of the natural resource and some sort of production. Very close by, we have a typical peri-urban agricultural pursuit on a similar country, which is a turf farm. There is a whole lot of other opportunities for good quality agricultural land in the cleared section that all around the world are used. So for me, the developer is living in the 1990s when they think this is an acceptable outcome for Noosa Shire. It's not. What's acceptable is what is in the current and in the proposed scheme, and this doesn't
00:28:00 comply in a whole host of areas as outlined for the grounds of refusal. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to make a comment or have a question? Speak to the motion. Councillor George. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I think staff and I think councillors have clearly articulated the reasons behind supporting staff's position on this. The application is no longer, or the development is no longer appropriate under the scheme as it stands and under the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We might put it to a vote then in regard to the staff recommendation on page 8 of the revised report. All in favour? No. Thank you. The last item on the special meeting agenda is on page 23. I move that we go on to a closed session for this.
00:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: Seconded. Thank you, Councillor. Mayor Stewart: Again, for the second time, Newsy Council finds ourselves in unusual circumstances and the potential need to close this meeting for the duration of discussions pertaining to this agenda item. This is unusual. And let me say it again. This is an emergency. However, it is a necessity due to the fact that the matter that we are considering is subject to current legal proceedings. Section 275 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 specifically allows a council to close a meeting for that purpose. Rest assured that no decisions can be made in a closed session, but it is an opportunity to get advice on legal proceedings without disclosing that advice to the other parties in the appeal. To do so would disadvantage council in those legal proceedings, which is not a sensible outcome. The decision of council will be made in the open session. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: All in favour of the motion? Speaker 3: Thank you.
30 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
45 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
60 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
75 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
90 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
105 minutes in ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
120 minutes in ¶
02:04:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So to give people the chance to digest it, that council note the report by the manager development assessment to the special meeting dated 13th of May 2020 regarding application number MCU 20 number 28 and reconfiguration of a lot 2005. For a development permit material change of use, detached house and reconfiguration of lot one lot into two situated at 20 Middy Street Noosa Heads and refuse the application for the following reasons. Number one, the proposal is not consistent with Noosa plans reconfiguration a lot code as the proposed
02:05:00 lots are not suitable for their intended use as they do not contain house side areas 100% above the 1% AEP flood level with lot one subject to significant flooding from an overland drainage path. The proposed lots are not consistent with the Noosa plans Noosa Heads locality code as the proposal will not maintain the safety of people and will not achieve a high level of residential amenity for residents given the overland drainage path that traverses the property. Number three, the proposed development will cause offsite flooding impacts contrary to overall specific outcome 02 of the detached housing code and specific outcomes 019 and 020 of the reconfiguring a lot code. Number four, the proposed reconfiguration will ultimately place more people within the area which has a clear risk of flooding compromising people's safety. Number five, the proposed lots do not comply with the Noosa plans reconfiguring a lot code
02:06:00 and Noosa Heads locality code as the lots are located within 50 metres of Noosa National Park which is mapped as having very high to high values under the biodiversity assessment version 4.1. Further, the site is part of a wetland complex that is in proximity to a record of an endangered oxalian pygmy perch and vulnerable honey blue eyes aquatic species whose range may include the development site. Number six, the proposed new dwelling house is fully located within a palestrine wetland and is a groundwater dependent ecosystem and therefore is inconsistent with the overall outcomes sought by the detached housing code 14.51.2. A and B are not consistent with the overall outcomes sought by the detached housing code and H as the land is not suitable for a detached house and the proposal will adversely impact on the site and surrounding areas' environmental values including environmentally sensitive areas. Number seven, the proposed detached dwelling and second lot would increase the potential development footprint and allowable site density exacerbating known impacts and resulting
02:07:00 in additional impacts on the amenity of locality contrary to specific outcome 026 of the detached housing code. Number eight, the proposal is not suitable for a detached house and the proposal will is contrary to the draft Noosa Plan as it proposes to establish a lot and a house site within a groundwater dependent ecosystem which is defined as an ecologically important area. Specifically A, the development fails to meet the outcomes of section 9.4.8 water quality code and drainage code in that it does not protect ecology and groundwater dependent ecosystems nor maintain fish passage. B, the development poses draining lines and does not propose to reinstate or revegetate disturbed areas. And is therefore inconsistent with specific outcome in P05. Number C, the development is not designed to be located, designed, constructed and operated to protect and enhance environmental values and water quality of waterways, wetlands, lakes, groundwater and drainage systems and therefore is inconsistent with outcomes P06, 11, 12 and
02:08:00 13 relating to stormwater quality and protection of receiving waters. D, the development poses new infrastructure excavation and fill in a groundwater discharge zone. And is therefore inconsistent with outcomes AO13.1 and 13.2. Number E, as such the development fails to meet the overall outcomes for the coastal communities section 7.2.6.2 as it is neither sited nor designed to protect ecologically important areas and retain landscape elements. I note following in B there that the following reasons are for adopting this decision. One, the Noosa Plan does not support the establishment of a separate allotment with a separate land within 50 metres of the National Park. Two, the proposed lot is flood affected. Three, the proposed development will cause off-site flooding impacts. And four, the proposal does not comply with the outcomes of the Noosa Plan and the draft new Noosa Plan. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.
02:09:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't think I need to say much more than what the conditions of refusal are. I wrote down two different dot points. One dot point simply said planning needs to be improved. The other dot point is planning principles. And that's what this is. This motion to refuse is about standing up for the principles inherent within the Noosa Plan and standing up for those which we have foreshadowed in the new Noosa Plan. It's about putting the applicant asked to double the current entitlement by adding a second lot and a second detached dwelling in a highly constrained site. And my opinion, for all the reasons listed in the motion, should not proceed. And I think I ask for your support based on those grounds. Councillor Lorentson: This is a complex matter and the question to refuse or approve the application is a difficult one. What concerns me is how flood immunity has been addressed in this proposal by filling
02:10:00 and the fact that the proposal simply does not comply with the outcomes of the new Noosa Plan. Or the current Noosa Plan. To therefore approve the application would be contrary to our planning scheme and create problematic precedents. This does not sit well with me. My other serious concern is about the extension dwelling in Mini Street and its questionable approval by a private building certifier. The structure had breached building approvals. It was built in a sensitive environmental area. And almost 100% of the building was built in a sensitive environment. Over the last three weeks, I have been approached by residents who have had extensions approved by a private certifier and yet refused by Council. This is quite worrying. Is it because our planning scheme is too complex and that some building certifiers simply have difficulty in identifying the requirements that relate to the building applications that
02:11:00 they are assessing? And is there an opportunity, therefore, to address this in the new Noosa Plan? Or is it the case that we just require that some, not all certifiers, some certifiers, look to undertake extra training and education to ensure that they do not overlook local government requirements relating to sites of proposed building work? The question I think that the community needs an answer to today is, how did all this happen without Council's knowledge? Speaker 1: I'll go first. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to support the motion before us for all the reasons that the motion outlines, but also because we're known for defending the Noosa Planning Scheme. And one of the elements of the Planning Scheme that this proposal does not adhere to, that's not mentioned, is that both lots, in a battle-axe nature of which they are, neither one meets
02:12:00 the minimum lot size for battle-axe blocks in the Noosa Plan. And that if this development application as a subdivision came before us in its own right today, there would be no way that we would support it under the new Noosa Plan. So I cannot support the ways and means in which this development proposal has come before us to be accepted. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I don't support Councillor Stockwell's recommendation. This is a really difficult one. This is a head and a heart one. My heart says absolutely support it. My head says no, and this is why. The application in front of us today, when assessed against State Planning Policy and Planning Regulation 2017, is consistent. The reconfiguration of the lot has no effect on the flooding behaviour of the land. We have to realise that there is a dwelling already there. There is nothing we can do about that. We are not looking to develop or approve a development that hasn't come up.
02:13:00 This is something that is sitting there. It's not coming across our desk as a green space. The reconfiguration of the lot has no effect on the flooding behaviour of the land. The lot sizes are 711 square metres and 662. Not unusual for that area where some of the lots are 350 square metres in that area. The engineering solutions proposed by the applicant will improve the existing flood hazards on the land and reduce offsite impacts. Look, I'm convinced that the proposals put forward to deal with the issues by the applicant would achieve a good outcome without having to go to court and incur unnecessary costs. And I think that comes back to the head part of this. This is, if we go to court or if this progresses, it will incur potentially significant costs to our community. And I'm hoping that a negotiated settlement could eradicate the need to having to spend further rate payer money. I do, though, acknowledge what Councillor Stockwell said, that it is very important to set a precedent in supporting and defending the new development of the land.
02:14:00 And I'm looking at it from a rate payer cost perspective. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I acknowledge the comments that have been said before about the complexity of the case and also the need to take rate payer funds into consideration. It's not our money. It's not the Council's money. It's rate payers' money. That's always a very important consideration. If it does go to court, there's a need to take it into consideration. There's always an opportunity for a mediated outcome. It's also very important, long term, that rate payers have the confidence that they have a Council that will always defend the principles of the planning scheme. I know many of us campaigned on that, to always defend the new planning scheme where appropriate. I'm personally, for me, this particular application needs to be refused because of the, not only
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 the proposed lots, flood affected, and of course, flooding impacts either side of the property, the existing dwelling that's there, but it's basically a subdivision and a house in a wetland. And I would not like to see the Noosa Council get into practice of giving approvals to dwellings or subdivisions that are essentially in wetlands. I know we're dealing with a difficult situation with an existing dwelling there, and perhaps engineering solutions can be reached. But it's contrary to the, not only to the principles of the new Noosa planning scheme, but the existing Noosa planning scheme. And for that reason, I find it very difficult to approve this particular application. It is difficult. I respect the Mayor's comments about being frugal with the way it pays money. But on this occasion, I think it's definitely worth refusing because of the message it sends
02:16:00 to the developers. And I think it's important for us to understand that this is not an industry generally, that some elements will, that all will go through the, just sends the right message that this is a council that will always defend the planning scheme. They're appropriate. Speaker 4: Any questions? Speaker 3: Just quickly. Mayor Stewart: What about? Speaker 3: Tom? Mayor Stewart: Tom, sorry. I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it is really important and it's clear that we've had an extended period in closed session to look at those balancing arguments.
02:17:00 And it's important. It's important to understand that there are balanced issues to be dealt with here. I do think it's really important to clarify that what we're looking at is an existing single dwelling that had recently had a large extension into a very low section of the lot. Council has previously had reports in the last term of council that raised issues that they, that the staff suggestion was it was being used as two separate dwellings. And therefore in breach of the scheme, which resulted in the initial subdivision application. So this is a development application to double the number of houses permissible on the existing lot. And there is a range of other development provisions that may flow on if there's two lots created. It's also important to clarify that the 350 square metre lots in an area are part of a group title scheme. So it's, it's not comparing apples.
02:18:00 We're not comparing apples with apples. Because if you're in a group title scheme, you have your house light and you have the share of the common property. And it's a way to actually retain more values in that common property. So it's, it's important to clarify that. But on the whole, I think it is a case of making the hard decision to refuse this development to, in order to hold the principles of the planning scheme in high regard. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: We might vote on it. All those in favour? All in favour of Council of Stockwell's motion? Against? Speaker 3: What was Tom? Council of Wegener was for the motion? For the refusal? Councillor Wilkie: I support Stockwell's motion. Speaker 3: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Thank you very much. That is all we have today. The next ordinary meeting is on the 21st of May. Thank you everyone.