Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee for April.
00:01:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And as is tradition, we pay our respects to our traditional owners and the leadership of this land in the present and the future. And since we've had a wet weekend, I was digging through my archives and I came across a little bit of history written a couple of times ago about the Shire and the Council Public Action and it talked about the thousands of years of bark canoes of Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people were the only visitors to the Noosa River and lakes and a lot more because around these days we enjoy the same things. They roamed the area from the north bank of the Pine River to the Johnson River, north of Meribah and west of the Even and back along the eastern side of the range to Woodford. The Noosa River with its lakes and the upper cataract provide a gentle river system with no great surges of water. It's a great place for the Kabi Kabi to support themselves on the coast and when a cyclone
00:02:00 or bad weather came they would travel more than 100 miles west to feast on bunionuts, a most valuable food for the people. Speaker 1: And I think that was quite fitting considering we're having a bit of a weather event and Deputy Mayor Stockwell: we're all adjusting to the weather and even our agendas are like the weather because last month we had a flood of applications and there's been a flood of applications and there's been a flood of applications and this month we have a drought and so we've only got two items on the agenda of any significance and one of those has been asked to be referred to the General Committee. But we will start. We have the first item being the confirmation of the minutes. Do we have a mover for the confirmation? And we have a second. That was Councillor Stewart and Councillor Wegener. And we don't need discussion on that I don't think so all those in favour? And that was unanimous. We don't have any presentations nor do we have deputations. So we move on to item one. And that's about notification two. A change of use of residential care facility at 32 Buland Drive Noosa Hills.
00:03:00 Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, recall the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter. I, Councillor Stewart, recall the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter. The applicant disrupted Charitable Foundation for Young Care and I am abhorred of taking over Youngcare. I am abhorred of taking over Youngcare. As a result of my conflict of interest I will now leave meeting room when this matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councilors, so this item has been requested to go to the General Committee, but is there any questions or queries of staff or matters that you'd like brought forward in this direction? Councillor Wegener: I hope that these people, you know, for the disability people that are saying that, that they actually have a view. And I couldn't tell from the diagram whether there's actually views from the rooms, because they're on the side of the hill.
00:04:00 But I couldn't tell. I just, you know, that's part of a, I think that would be a really important aspect to this facility, if the people with disabilities actually had a nice view to watch the birds and the sunset and, you know, the most glorious picture of all. Speaker 3: I'm actually not sure whether they have any views, or we'll get some views. The site's highly vegetated at the moment, so it's a bit hard to tell. Speaker 4: I can't tell, yeah. I just suspect that once they start building it, all of a sudden the views over there. Councillor Wegener: You can't tell, yeah. I just suspect that once they start building it, all of a sudden the views over the, you know, over the Medusa Junction and all that will start to appear. And I hope that they take that into consideration with, you know, the client amenity. Speaker 3: Would you like me to try and have a closer look at it to see? I can stomp it over the site and try and work it out, but at the moment it's very hard to tell with the amount of vegetation there. Councillor Wegener: No, I think I can, but maybe just ask the people, you know, will they have a view of the buildings?
00:05:00 And the other question is that there's quite a few respondents, you know, putting in, not complaints, but concerns at the end of the report, but they seem to be kind of generic, like, you know, smoking, affecting the people, traffic, parking, noise, all those things. But they're, it doesn't, you know, each one of them is promptly dispelled. Or, you know, arguing, saying, well, if there's, you know, if there's a complex of Airbnbs or something else there, you would actually have equal, if not more. Speaker 4: So it seems like a pretty sedate actual sort of business for that area. Yeah, sure. Speaker 3: So, yeah, we've had a number of letters come through. From residents who are concerned about the proposal. So, yeah, we've had a number of letters come through. The application hasn't been publicly advertised, but it's only required to follow a cohesive process. The application hasn't been publicly advertised, but it's only required to follow a cohesive process. That does mean, as COO is suggesting, that those residents will not have the right of appeal.
00:06:00 That does mean, as COO is suggesting, that those residents will not have the right of appeal. And we think that, we believe that the Code, the planning scheme does address those issues regardless. But the development is, you know, it's a very low traffic generator. While there's 20 beds, the people don't drive near the sites so the track is coming, going. While there's 20 beds, the development is, you know, it's a very low traffic generator. While there's 20 beds, the people don't drive near the sites so the track is coming, going.
00:07:00 And I suspect that probably some of the staff members from PEPFAR's are parking in the street and creating some of the parking and traffic issues that the residents are raising that are not related to this development. Speaker 2: Can you just explain a bit about the environment and the value of vegetation in respect to the main procedure? Speaker 3: So the site is pretty well covered in vegetation. There's a lot of vegetation on the site and they've undertaken it. Speaker 2: But the site is pretty well covered in vegetation. Speaker 3: In the report to council, just look at the page number, there's a plan there that shows the trees that can be retained as part of the development. And that's on page 18 of the report.
00:08:00 So yes, there are a large number of trees that will need to be removed but also there's a number that they will be able to keep. So I think that's a reasonable balance that the applicant has come up with in terms of the site is marked for development, they're not required to keep all the trees there. They are allowed to go on the site. But they are doing it in a way that they can keep quite a number of mature trees on the site. Speaker 2: But they are doing it in a way that they can keep quite a number of mature trees on the site. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Hi, Kerry, I've got a couple of questions. I understand that we have had to demonstrate that the site is actually suitable for its intended use. And you just mentioned suitable for its intended use. What if they don't drive in, they don't turn the engine now? Well, my residents don't drive in, they don't bring their own wheels. Some of the residents will have just in the track wheelchairs and other residents will have quite dry, hollowed down, blue wheelchairs. My question is how do they cross the road if they're in a condition they're not aware of?
00:09:00 Is that how they cross the road if they're off the road? Speaker 3: Is that on the opposite side of the road? There is no footpath on the same side of the road as the property. There's none that exists until you get further down the bottom of the road and drive. Speaker 2: It's quite a stretch. Speaker 3: So we haven't required the development to provide a footpath on this side. So you're right in that residents who have a high pile of wheelchairs will need to cross the road. And I believe there's a pram rack that I'll have to double check so I can come back. Councillor Lorentson: So given how significant parking and congestion issues are, and how significant parking and congestion issues are in that drive, was the appellation given to provide a curb ramp or a footpath? Speaker 3: Certainly consideration was given to footpaths and whether we should be requiring upgrades there.
00:10:00 I'm just not sure of the exact answer around the ramps I'll need to check. I'm just not sure of the exact answer. Councillor Lorentson: My other question is that there's a line marking that will be required in front of the site. It's a line marking that will be required in front of the site. Speaker 3: Kerry? There's some work to do with the frontage required to make sure there's the same access. Fairly limited works. There will be some stormwater pipes. There will be a lot of works going in from the street. But the development itself is not required. It's not required to upgrade Viewland Drive in any way. This is a very low traffic generator. So there's no requirement for them to address the existing situation of, say, Peppers, who I think start parking in the street. Councillor Lorentson: My question, we are always going with my question is will the line marking My question is, we are always going with my question is will the line marking
00:11:00 at the front of the site become understood if yellow masks on both sides of the site are potentially to result in off street parking? Is that right? And if so, does it matter given that there are no line markings on that street and it's all ad hoc? Speaker 3: Yeah. Sorry. I will have to come back to you on that one. I'm not sure. Speaker 2: Yeah. I just have another question. I haven't seen reference to duty of care. The Aboriginal Cultural Act, as we see on page 17 here of the report, it says there's no post-settlement cultural heritage has been identified on the site. It's revealed further on that. It may be revealed on the site. It's subject to the further requirements around that act. Can you give me a little bit of clarification on what that refers to if something's revealed,
00:12:00 if there is no post-settlement? Yeah. Speaker 3: We have no record of any likely artefacts on the site or the like. The cultural heritage requirements in Queensland are not rolled into the development assessment process, anyway. The applicant is required to undertake their own investigation through, before commencing works on site. So they're required to have a cultural heritage management plan in place. So on all our different sites, there's no post-settlement cultural heritage. So on all our development applications that we issue, we have an advisory note that goes out there to make sure developers are aware of that requirement. But at the moment, there's no requirement that it's actually rolled into the development assessment process in Queensland. Speaker 2: So the developer here has provided that information? Speaker 3: No. They're not required to lodge it. Oh, they're not required to? No. No. So that's a process that they undertake themselves before they commence development.
00:13:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just one last question from me, Kerry. The applicant made a statement, and I've got his statement in front of me. We anticipate that all parking demand will be accommodated on site with no, underlined no, the lines upon kerbside parking. Has Yunkare built a similar development in a tourist destination with a similar footprint to prove that the property is safe? Is the proposed level of parking is sufficient for intended use? I'm just wondering how they can make that statement. Speaker 3: Yeah. They have suggested that they have built a similar one. I'm not aware of the details. But certainly when you look at the development and how it will operate, we consider that they have met the required parking. So residents of this development are all permanent residents.
00:14:00 They don't, none of them drive. So visitors to the site would be expected to have a parking permit. Obviously family and the like would come. So that parking will be predominantly for those visitors as well as the two onsite carers onsite. So the car parking numbers are also consistent with our scheme in terms of the minimum number that our planning scheme sets. We haven't gone into whether the applicant's statement is correct or not. They've just cited that, that their own experience suggests that this parking is sufficient. That's not something we have verified or checked. Councillor Lorentson: So six car parking spaces, which is the minimum that's required. Two are for the carers that are living onsite. One's compulsory for the ambulance. So that leaves three for the remaining 18 residents for the families and friends to visit. Again, I ask the question, is that sufficient given that this is a very small area?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 The location of this particular site isn't a tourist destination in the street which has already significant parking issues. Speaker 3: Well, I think we need to remember that this development is not required to resolve existing parking issues. So that would be an unreasonable requirement for this development to do. So what we need to be sure of is whether this development provides sufficient parking or it's likely car parking demand. And as I've suggested, they meet the minimum requirement. So the scheme's minimum requirement. They've also set out and suggested that it will be sufficient for the development based on other uses. So I think three visitors at a time, that seems a reasonable number from my knowledge. Councillor Lorentson: With aged care facilities, so I'm trying to sort of set a comparison, is there similar
00:16:00 calculations made if this was an aged care facility, Kerry, and they were on-site carers? Speaker 3: I'll have to go back and check to see whether the rates are the same in the planning scheme for retirement aged care compared to this development. Councillor Lorentson: And do you think that's a fair comparison to make or not really? Speaker 3: I would think it probably is a fair comparison. Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great if I could get some information. Speaker 3: Yeah, but I can check the same numbers for you. Speaker 1: All in favour? That's unanimous. Those are in the room. I'll get the man back.
00:17:00 Speaker 3: Just so council is aware, while there's a low number of applications on the agenda, application numbers are particularly high at the moment coming in. We've got a lot of applications coming in every week. So typically we would receive about five applications a week. We're receiving 16 at the moment. And we have done for the last few months. We're receiving 16 at the moment. So my team is very busy. And there's a lot of development happening out there. Speaker 4: Did you ever use that number yet? There's a lot of development happening. Speaker 3: Did you ever use that number yet? We replaced Len at the moment. We've gone out for advertising. And there was a few good applicants. So we're doing some referee checking. And there was a few good applicants. Mayor Stewart: We're doing some referee checking. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. We'll move on to the next item. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: We move on to the next item. Item six. And it's planning applications decided by delegated authority. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest
00:18:00 The council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it. It is only for noting of a decision that has already been made by staff. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Do we have any questions of Chancellor Stewart? Someone might move that one of the two options. I'll do that. I'll move that the council note the terrible conflict of interest by Councillor Stewart and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates and votes on this matter
00:19:00 because council believes that Councillor Stewart does not have a close personal relationship with Mr Gillard and the council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it only to note a decision that has already been made by staff, a reasonable person to trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Thank you. The seconder for that motion, speaking by Councillor Finzel, do we have any discussion? Speaker 2: Yeah, I just have a question. I don't know which number it is on the thing. Just with regards to the approved delegation. Oh, sorry. This is just about Claire. Sorry. Speaker 1: It's all about Claire. Yeah, sorry. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, if there's no further information, all those in favour of that motion? Speaker 1: There we go. Please vote. And it's noted that Councillor Lorentson has left the room as well. Okay. So, now you have a question in regards to the Broyer issue. Speaker 2: Yes, yes. May I proceed? You may. Thank you.
00:20:00 So, it's just regards with lot one, SP 230-058, Moosett Trail Blazers at the Mountain by Club Inc. So, approved by delegation for a clubhouse there, I believe. It does have a bio. It does have a diversity overlay. How did we go about approving that? Was that land excised from QPWS or? Speaker 3: Sorry, are you able to tell me which number we're looking at? It's number four. Number four? Thank you. Thanks. Speaker 4: I can probably answer that. Speaker 3: Do you want to answer it? Speaker 4: Yeah. The area is cleared. Yeah, I was going to say that. The area that the place we've gone on, it's already cleared. It's a cleared site. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Speaker 4: You know the area where you come into the car park?
00:21:00 Yes. Yeah, so there's that area on the left there, which is a cleared, it's got some picnic tables and things like that. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. In that area, it's all been cleared. Okay, thank you. Speaker 1: Any other questions? If someone would like to move to motion, Councillor Stewart has moved and seconded by Councillor Finzel, is there any further discussion? All those in favour, unanimous, and we can clear the meeting, closed. Speaker 4: That's a lot easier than the agenda from the last month. That's the biggest agenda we've had and that's the problem with all of us. That was massive. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: All right, she does it because she knew she was on holiday. Thank you.