Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 4: So, good morning and welcome to the July Planning Environment Committee meeting. I'm operating from home as a result of being a bit under the weather, but before I proceed with the meeting, I'd like to do a judicial acknowledgement of the country and do pay respects for elders past, present and emerging and particularly on this week, NAIDOC week, recognise the theme for 2021 which is Heal Country and that calls on all of us to continue to create protection for our lands, our waters, our sacred sites and our cultural heritage from exploitation, desecration and destruction and in our role as councillors, I'm sure we all pay due respect and attention to the need to consider that in relevant decisions. Speaker 4: So, as I'm operating from home, I don't think it's appropriate for me to continue as a chair, I think it would work more efficiently if I hand over to someone else to continue
00:01:00 the meeting. Speaker 3: Thanks, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Stockwell has indicated that, and it is a bit difficult to chair a meeting online when people are in the room, so he's done the right thing by suggesting he step down, so we did a new chair, I'm just looking to see if someone would like to... Speaker 6: I'll move that Councillor Finzel... Councillor Finzel, take the roll. Councillor Wegener: I second it. Speaker 3: So, Councillor Stewart moved that Councillor Finzel chair this meeting and seconded by Councillor Wegener, are you happy to do that? I'm happy, strong word. Yes, yes. Prepared. So, all those in favour? Thanks. Carried, carried unanimously. So, Councillor Finzel will chair the meeting and away we go. Speaker 6: Away we go. So, I note that everyone's here in attendance today. Do you want to make any changes? Speaker 3: No, that's fine. Just a few minutes of those meetings.
00:02:00 Speaker 6: Second item on the agenda, confirmation of minutes. I'll move the minutes. Thank you. And seconded by Councillor Wegener. And do we have any... All in favour? Oh, all in favour? Oh, I'm in favour. So different sitting in this room. Okay. Okay, second agenda item, confirmation of the minutes. Speaker 3: We've done that. Oh, sorry. Speaker 6: Presentations, do we have any to present? Speaker 3: No, no presentations and no deputations. Speaker 6: And no deputations. So, that takes us to item number five, reports for consideration of the committee. We'll move to item one, MCU 1901-1902 on page four of the agenda. Speaker 3: So, Chair, there's been a request for these to go to General Committee. There's three reports dealing with short-term accommodation. But I think it would be useful for the committee to take any questions or any further information you might need
00:03:00 or any issues you want to ventilate today in preparation for the General Committee. So, I just wondered if there's any queries from any of the members? Speaker 6: Do we have any questions for the staff? I do. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, on page five, can I take this one? On page five, we say at 2A, the reasons for refusal are the proposal is located in an area that is not predominantly home to permanent residents. But then at 3A, it says additional visitor accommodation in the area is likely to result in detrimental impact on the residents. It's a residential amenity of permanent residents. And similarly, on page 11, it says, as the proposal is located in an area that would be not considered predominantly home to permanent residents.
00:04:00 I'm just wondering, that statement and the statement at 2A contradicts 3A. Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it contradicts it. Thank you. What we're suggesting to council, or recommending to council, is the planning scheme seeks that areas that are zoned median density residential should remain predominantly home to permanent residents. Now this area is already largely visitor accommodation, but nevertheless there are a number of properties that are still being used by permanent residents. And I think continuing to allow more visitor accommodation in the area is not appropriate. It will further erode that area for those permanent residents. Mayor Stewart: This is though, under state planning policy, South East Queensland, South East SEQ Regional Plan, Planning Regulation 2017, and the Noosa Plan 2020, if it does, it is consistent, isn't it?
00:05:00 Speaker 1: There's no problem with that. Our policy is really at the state level that are applicable to the application. So really the state provisions are really around just identifying that this is urban land and so it should be developed for an urban purpose, which it is. So it's consistent in that way. It's council's planning scheme that identifies and seeks to manage short-term accommodation and where they're located. And the important part of the planning scheme is it seeks to limit the extent of visitor accommodation in the area in order to maintain residential neighbourhoods, recognising that visitor accommodation can significantly impact on residents' amenity, but also the fabric of the neighbourhood. Mayor Stewart: But this is not low density, this is medium density, where under the new Noosa Plan we did say that short-term letting, such as this, could be applied.
00:06:00 Speaker 1: Absolutely. The application is identified as a consistent use for the zone, but that's not the end of the story. Yeah. There are a number of requirements that short-term accommodation is still required to meet. And the recommendation to council is it doesn't meet those requirements. Mayor Stewart: With so many other short-term letting in this area, which is medium density, and it is allowed under the scheme, or provided for under the scheme, it seems to me that it's a little unfair that we're just saying, well, you can't do it, but five other houses in your street can. And what is the impact potentially legally, or what legal recourse would that owner have down the track if we made a decision that he can't, even though he's compliant with everything, he's in the correct zone, and five of his neighbours are doing exactly the same thing? Speaker 1: Well, that is the way our scheme is structured at the moment. It says, yes, you can do visitor accommodation, consistent use, but only where you can maintain the areas being predominantly visitor accommodation.
00:07:00 And the reason it does that is we have a high amount of visitor accommodation in the area. And there is a need to maintain residential accommodation for permanent residents. We're all aware that we have a housing crisis at the moment. It's difficult for people to find accommodation in Noosa. There's many stories out there about people having their rent prices increased. And I think part of the problem with housing in Noosa is the expense. It's not the standard visitor accommodation that we have. So in the coastal areas, we have 23% of our housing stock is being used for visitor accommodation. Now, that is a significant number. Mayor Stewart: I don't disagree with you, Kerry, but it would be fair to say that this house located in Sunshine Beach would not be affordable accommodation. This is going to be at least a permanent rental. This is not affordable. Would you agree with that? Sunshine Beach, sorry. This isn't Sunshine Beach. Sorry, sorry. Beg your pardon.
00:08:00 Sorry. In where it is, this would not be affordable. Noosaville, this would not be affordable accommodation. Speaker 1: Oh, I didn't suggest that it was affordable. I'm suggesting that this is permanent accommodation. And that's what we need to maintain in the Shire. Yeah. Speaker 3: This one's probably more affordable than the other two. Speaker 1: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Okay. My question is legally, though. Recourse. Speaker 1: The recourse is, the applicant has the option to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court, as with all development applications. Yeah. So that option is available to them should Council choose to refuse the application. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 6: Any other questions as well? Councilor Wagoner? Councillor Wegener: When looking at it, this is two units that are going up for short-term accommodation that are in the process of being made right now. That's right. And next door, the same owner owns four. And they are already, can be used as short-term accommodation. When I look at six big units like that, all in the short-term rent pool, it starts looking
00:09:00 a lot like a resort to me, when they're owned by the same people. Is that a perspective that staff has? Trying to, it's a resort by stealth. Speaker 1: Well. Certainly the next door sought an approval under the 2006 scheme and received that approval because there was no requirements under the scheme around then about the extent of visitor accommodation. They do read as quite separate developments. So I'm not sure that they will act as one sort of resort development. So I probably perhaps don't agree with that observation. Okay. Excuse me. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. But when it comes to looking at, okay, now we're looking at what's predominantly residential because medium density to be predominantly residential and when you have four short-term stays and then you're going to add two, is that kind of like just a straw that broke the camel's back or a way to saying, okay, wait a minute, we've kind of hit a threshold here
00:10:00 where, you know, four short-term, two, we can't make two more short-term accommodation and really throw the vibe, the amenity of the neighborhood in that area out by having six STS on the same street in this little area. Speaker 1: Yeah. The area has a lot of visitor accommodation. So that's recognized. It's, you know, shown in the maps and the reports. But I don't think we should just throw in the towel and say, oh, there's so much visitor accommodation. Let's not worry about maintaining permanent residency. It's very important that we continue to maintain housing for permanent residents. So our suggestion is no, despite there being a lot of visitor accommodation in the area, that we continue to uphold the planning scheme in terms of its requirement to maintain permanent residential accommodation. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I remember Noel Clayford once saying that, you know, you don't want the whole Shire to
00:11:00 be for tourists. You want good people. You want residents to live in the really nice areas as well. Speaker 1: Absolutely. It would be, I think, a lovely area to live, being close to the river. Traditionally in that area, you've had a lot of visitor accommodation along sort of Gympie Terrace and near the river. And over time, I think what I've observed is certainly that visitor accommodation has extended further and further away from Gympie Terrace into the back streets, which traditionally has always housed permanent accommodation. So I'm suggesting to Council that we shouldn't be continuing to approve visitor accommodation in the area. We should maintain it for permanent residents. Councillor Wegener: It's a great area for kids to grow up. You go into the river, you know, just like we did, basically. Beautiful. Our generation. Speaker 6: Thank you. Before we go to Councillor De Rensnick, I'd like to ask if there's any questions from Councillor Stockwell, please.
00:12:00 Speaker 4: I'll send through any questions I can. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. I invite Councillor Durazovec to bring his question forward to the table. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor. Kerry, there have been a number of short stay applications under the old scheme, particularly in the last 12 months with the schemes changing at this point in time. Would it be fair to say that there's been a significant amount of feedback from local residents in the area with regard to the number of applications and approvals of short stays in the area? Speaker 1: Absolutely. We're receiving objections to short stay is the highest number of objections we're receiving to any development application. So we're receiving objections both to the superseded planning scheme applications that are being launched, which people are able to do for 12 months,
00:13:00 as well as to our new applications under our new planning scheme. There will be a further report we're putting to General Committee and that's got 80 submissions. So people are really voicing their dislike and concerns around these short term accommodation and the impacts it's having on them. Councillor Jurisevic: And the change that occurs here in the way that these short stays are being looked at now is the fact that there's a new scheme a new planning scheme to set new parameters and these applications from this point on are being assessed under that new planning scheme, is that correct? Speaker 1: Yeah, there's two types of applications that we're receiving. We're receiving applications under the superseded scheme, which will finish come the 30th of July. So 12 months after the new scheme was launched and then applications under the new scheme. Applications under the superseded scheme, the process under the planning legislation
00:14:00 is really about compensation. So quite a different consideration. Under the new planning scheme, it's about whether those applications are consistent with our new planning scheme. So quite a different process and a different assessment and consequently different conclusions reached. Thank you. Speaker 6: Do we have any other questions from the councillors to the staff regarding this matter? Mayor Stewart: No, I do. Just on, there are another, there are a number of short stay accommodation in that area. When was the last one that was approved, you know, Kerry, in that area and how long ago was that? Speaker 1: Under the superseded scheme or new scheme? Mayor Stewart: Under either. When was the last approval that you gave? Speaker 1: I'm not sure. We're looking at a lot of superseded schemes, so I'll have to come back to you on that. Yeah. But certainly under the new planning scheme, there have been three applications that have been decided by council and they've all been to a council meeting.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 3: Not in this precinct though? Speaker 1: Only one in, only one in this precinct and that was the one at Robert Street, which went up to. That was approved. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 1: And that went to council in February. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. And was your recommendation for approval? Speaker 1: It was for a recommendation for approval. And I'll perhaps point out what has changed because it is a different recommendation today. Yeah. And different consideration. And really what has changed is we are really in a housing crisis and that's become more and more evident as the year progressed. We're seeing, you know, a lot of stories being told where people are having to move out because their rental prices are being put up. We're seeing the Regional Movers Index is suggesting that Noosa has seen the highest migration from urban areas, the cities, to our regional areas. So we've had a huge influx of population in recent times.
00:16:00 So yes, our recommendation has changed but it's really responding to the fact that we have a housing crisis and there is a greater need at this point in time to provide and protect our permanent resident potential accommodation. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, you're not a real estate agent and so this is maybe not in your realm of being able to answer, but I agree that we are in a housing crisis. We're in an affordable housing crisis, rents. But I would suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong, that something like this in a position that's in close to the river, nice new build, would not be affordable. Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting it's affordable. I'm just suggesting that we should maintain accommodation for permanent residents. In the coastal areas, as I said, we've got 23% of our housing is being used for visitor accommodation. Now, I find that astounding. And I think we've tipped the edge.
00:17:00 We have too much visitor accommodation and we need to look after our permanent residents. Mayor Stewart: I suppose you can afford it. Councillor Wegener: When you say tipped the edge, just off the top of your head, what do you mean by tipped the edge? Well, the mayor has made the motion passed by the mayor unanimously, recognizing that there is a housing crisis. What are the other determinants that sort of shift your thinking? And like you say, the level, the playing field hasn't changed. We didn't change the goals. The whole playing field has changed from council's perspective. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, there's not, I can't access a lot of data at this point. So it's really just been the, you know, the increasing stories that we're hearing about how hard it is to find accommodation. We do know the extent of the population growth that's been occurring. People moving from the city to Noosa, we're the highest area that's, you know, we've experienced
00:18:00 the highest growth due to that migration. And so that's really what's changed. So we need to change that. We need to do a bit more work around this. We need to have a look at what's going on to make sure we can provide the affordable housing. And I know our strategic planning section is looking at that. And I expect that one element of that study will be to have a look at the impact of the extent of visitor accommodation that we're having in Noosa on permanent housing. Councillor Wegener: Would you say that with the housing crisis, with the, you know, young people having, trying to get our workers, like our hospitality people, you had, they used to live closer to the beach, but then that became short-term stays, so they're pushed back a little bit. So these people with money moved back a little bit and they just were progressively pushed out of Noosa. Yeah. That seems to be the wave of that's happening.
00:19:00 So even though this might not be an affordable housing, it has that knock-on effect down to that other person way at the other end of the line. Yeah. Speaker 1: Absolutely. It would be, I think, a shame to see all our coastal areas dominated and taken over by visitor accommodation. And that seems to be the trend. We've always had holiday accommodation along the coastline and close to our rivers, but it's moving back further into our areas that have been traditionally permanent housing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: So Kerry, my concern, sorry, Tom, my concern with this is I think we absolutely, affordable housing, but I keep coming back to if I don't think this is affordable and if it's not, then what does the owner do with it? If he can't short-state, does he just leave it closed up? If he can't rent it out, look, that's my point, if it's, this is not affordable accommodation for permanent rentals and that's where we need to be focused. I just don't see how this can be. Speaker 1: The owner is certainly not saying to us that they can't rent it out for permanent accommodation. I would expect it would go very quickly.
00:20:00 Mayor Stewart: But at a, probably at a high price. Speaker 1: Yes, that's right. And there are a lot of high prices. So I'm not saying that we should refuse this because of affordability reasons. I'm saying that we need to maintain our stock of permanent residency. Speaker 3: The whole thing would be different is that the rate of return would probably be different from the short-term. Yeah. For sure. Sorry, Tom. Councillor Wegener: No, so before we were mostly looking at the rules concerning medium density and short-term stays in medium density, but now we're looking at the, we've noticed the hierarchy of assessment benchmarks and we're looking at the Noosaville purpose and overall outcomes as a part of the planning scheme. So it seems that we're looking at a more broad view of what our new Noosa Plan 2020 has to say about amenity and predominantly, what predominantly residents means.
00:21:00 Is that right? Because we're looking, we're looking, I'm seeing different parts of the plan popping up more than before in the report. Is that right? Accurate? Speaker 1: I'm not sure different parts. I think we're certainly having a very close look at our scheme in terms of, you know, what does it, what's it actually trying to achieve with saying that medium density residential neighbourhoods are predominantly home to permanents. We're certainly having a closer look, you know, we're having a closer look at our strategic framework. Obviously the tourism industry is a key sector for us, but strategically we're also trying to diversify our economy, so I don't think we need to keep increasing visit accommodation at the expense of our residents in order to support our tourism industry. I think it's doing very well and there's not really any need for further visitor accommodation in the area. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. It's all about good management. I just, I'm so happy that we're being flexible and looking at our management.
00:22:00 When we look at the town plan throughout it, it constantly speaks of the incredible amenity that we've achieved over generations of good planning and this seems to be just a terrific example of good planning. Speaker 6: Councillor, we've got a question. Councillor Wegener: That was, that was a question. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 6: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Oh, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to go back to superseded applications and consistency in decision making. I, we're approving a lot of superseded applications for short term accommodation in the area of low residential precincts and the basis, as I've understood it, is that the risk of compensation being the number one factor. The overall outcome of the Noosa plan, whether it's the applications made under the superseded planning act or the new Noosa plan, the overall outcome is to maintain residential amenity.
00:23:00 So I'm struggling a little bit with that being the reason why we're approving short term accommodation. Okay. Why isn't maintaining residential amenity and the overriding reason, why is that coming secondary to the risk of compensation, particularly after the compensation we've just had here? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, as I pointed out, they are two different types of applications under the legislation. And they are two different assessments. And that's why we're coming to different conclusions. Ultimately, if council is, you know, there is a risk of refusing superseded scheme applications in that the owners can ultimately seek compensation from council.
00:24:00 Now, that's not something we should ignore because we have had some huge compensation claims against Noosa Council in the past for changes in planning scheme. The last one was settled or finalised. Speaker 3: In 2015. Speaker 1: In 2015 or 14. Speaker 3: And that related to the 1997 scheme. Speaker 1: And that related to the 1997 scheme. And it was a claim for $37 million. So now I'm not suggesting that's the sort of claim we would get from refusing these short term. But it's something we have to take very seriously because we are getting a huge amount of money from council. And I would expect could potentially result in some significant claims against council. But ultimately, that is for council to sign the amount of risk they're prepared to take. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Can I ask residents that are making applications under the superseded planning act, once approval is given, are they then subject to the transitory rating provision, the new transitory rating
00:25:00 provision? Regardless of whether or not they use their house portion to accommodation? Can I do a question? Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll come in with the rating question. The answer is yes. Under the budget the council has adopted, it relates to the use of the land. Whether you were under the previous scheme or the new scheme or whatever, it doesn't really matter. It's what the use of the land is. So if you're using the land for 100%, often use that term of transitory accommodation through the year, then you would be paying the use later. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. And also... Speaker 1: Sorry, just to expand on that, if I may, these superseded scheme applications have six years to commence. So six years in which to commence that use. So if they get an approval under the superseded scheme, they have six years to commence that use. And it would only be at that time that they would be then subject to those, the new rating category. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So the abandonment of rights doesn't apply when you make an application under the superseded
00:26:00 planning act. So my understanding, 12 months you haven't used your property for the purposes intended, which is short term accommodation, that's deemed an abandonment. That doesn't apply, you're saying? Speaker 1: No. It's quite complex, but essentially their approval under the superseded scheme allows them six years to commence. If they commence and then later abandon it, then it's abandoned and they can't recommence at a later date. Okay. Speaker 3: So going back even a step further, you need to apply for superseded rights. If you don't do that by the 3rd of July, you don't have those rights enshrined for one of the better priorities. If you do make an application and get that approved, you've got six years to be able to take that up. If you start to use it at some stage in the future, within that six years or immediately, and you abandon it, you decide you're going to use it yourself or whatever on a permanent
00:27:00 basis, then those rights also will lapse. Councillor Lorentson: And during that six year period, is that right transferable if you sell your property? Yeah. Speaker 3: So the rights to land run with the land, not with the owner. And that's the same for all town planning approvals. The approval binds to the land and it's able to be used by a successful entitle, not just the current owner. Councillor Lorentson: So it goes back to my first question is, why isn't residence rights put above risk of compensation? The potential this has of approving so many properties under the superseded planning act, risk of compensation, again, I go back to, should be secondary to rights of residence to enjoy peaceful living. Enjoyment. Speaker 3: Did we check, none of these won before council decided superseded applications? No. Councillor Lorentson: No. But we're having a general conversation about short term applications. Yeah. Speaker 1: Look, ultimately, if council are not happy with decisions being made about superseded scheme applications, we can put them to a council meeting for a council decision.
00:28:00 We just need to be mindful of the timeframe for them. Councillor Lorentson: And last question on this. So have residents then got a right of appeal if they're not happy with a delegated decision made under a superseded planning act? Can they go to the AAC and put in a complaint against a decision made by council in this regard? I'm just sort of understanding appeal rights for residents. Speaker 1: Yeah. So there's no appeal rights to the planning and environment court that's provided for under the planning legislation for superseded scheme applications. That doesn't apply. Okay. But I would expect that any resident is able to complain about council's actions the way it operates to the Ombudsman ultimately. Speaker 3: Thank you. That's the same green type of superseded scheme application? There's no appeal rights? There's no. Yeah. Speaker 1: But yeah, the Ombudsman can't overturn a decision on a development application. Speaker 6: He can't overturn. Thank you. Thank you.
00:29:00 Councillor De Resnick? Yeah, Kerry, just one last question. Councillor Jurisevic: On the designated visitor accommodation area, is the designated visitor accommodation area clearly articulated in the new Noosaville area? Speaker 1: Absolutely. There's areas in Noosaville that are zoned. I think the zoning's called tourist accommodation. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And to clarify, this clearly sits outside that area? Speaker 1: It's clearly outside that area. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Just a last question. Just in page eight, 3.3 statutory instruments, the quote is, the application must be assessed against the whole of the Noosa plan 2020 to the extent that the provisions are relevant to the development. There's a gradient of talking about big picture stuff and an amenity and where we're going and diversifying the economy. I mean, that is still relevant to a development to some extent, do you think?
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, so there's different types of applications, and this is an impact-accessible application. So it is assessed against the whole of the scheme, it's not a bound scheme, bound assessment. So council is able to consider the whole of the scheme, which includes this treaty framework, which is quite broad in its discussion, but has some key points in there. Council can also consider the question of needs. Because our scheme raises it, in terms of wanting to maintain the area for permanent residents. So the question of need also arises, whereas that's more difficult to raise in a code-accessible application. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, so it's important for councillors to know the entire plan, the scheme, the direction of the plan even. Speaker 1: Yes. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison?
00:31:00 Sorry, one more question. I've just got a big question. On page 12, the applicant put some incorrect images as part of the public notification signage on the subject site. Council considered that just minor and didn't adversely affect the awareness of the site. Can you explain that a little bit to me, Kerry? It seemed quite significant. However, you've said otherwise. Speaker 5: Can you explain that a little bit to me, Kerry? Sorry. No, that's all right. So basically they put the wrong render image up. They actually put it up from the next door neighbour property, which, as was discussed earlier, is owned by the same owners. The building's currently under construction. It's sort of at the end of a little bit of a cul-de-sac. So that image probably wasn't seen by a whole bunch of people, to be fair. It's on a back street, essentially. So it would have only been people that were going past it.
00:32:00 So there was no image displayed in the ad that was in the paper. And there was no image displayed that was sent in the letters to the surrounding property owners. So in terms of impact on understanding the development, you're standing in front of the development when you're looking at that sign. And you can see what's actually being constructed. So I think the image that was displayed, although it was incorrect, it was pretty obvious when you were standing there what was actually being constructed. All the details were correct in terms of what was being applied for, the property address, things like that. So I think in the grant scheme things, that image was almost irrelevant when you're standing in front of the building being constructed. Speaker 3: So the application was about the use, not the building? Speaker 5: Not the building. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 6: Any further questions? I just have a question. Can you tell me the date, how many student-received applications have been approved?
00:33:00 Speaker 1: I can, but I'll have to come back to you on that one. Take that on later? Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 3: We ought to get that from on there. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 6: If you have a question, give me an answer after that. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 6: And with regards to the strategic planning work that's currently being done, do you have a date when you can expect that to be completed? Speaker 1: Yeah. Strategic planning are working on it at the moment. And they've indicated potentially around September. But I really need the officer who's working on it to confirm for me. So I'll come back to you. Affirm that up to you. Will you take that notice? Yeah. Speaker 6: I'll take it. Speaker 3: Make sure I do. Speaker 6: Thank you. And also, you've quoted the population growth. We've had the largest migration in the area. Can you please provide me the evidence of that and where you've collected those data? Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm happy to send that to councillors. It's from the Regional Movers Index. So I can send that to a councillor. Thank you.
00:34:00 Speaker 6: Also, where did you arrive the fact that 23,000 people were affected by COVID-19? I think it was in the area of the St. Gallagher stock back in February when this issue was first raised with the property in Noosaville. Concern was raised again about the intensity of short term accommodation approvals. We requested at that time for the staff via through the CEO to provide records of the assessments as they went along. Have those records been kept for the number of approvals? Yeah. Speaker 1: Certainly, we have good records in terms of all the approvals issued or refusals issued for superseded scheme applications, as well as any approvals under the new scheme for short term. Council has seen all the applications under the new scheme.
00:35:00 There's only been three to date other than the ones on the agenda, and I'm happy to provide that. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 1: So the data, the 23 per cent comes from the DMAT modelling, which is related to the infrastructure charges work that's done behind infrastructure charges. And coastal areas includes Tewantin, Noosahad, Noosaville, and then Sunshine Beach all the way down to Peregian. So it includes quite a broad area, it doesn't include our hinterland areas. And it basically comes from that DMAT modelling, which was produced in conjunction with Unity Water. Speaker 6: Thank you. So at what point, after this was raised, that staff have come to the point where you think it is saturation point in your opinion? Has that been in the last week? Was that two months ago? What do you think? Based on the figures you've been receiving, have you felt that it was heading towards
00:36:00 that? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, the other three applications for District 1 Council, they were considered in January, February, and March. So it's really since that time that officers have been observing the changes that are happening in our Shire. There was some evidence at that time, even, that there may be a problem, but I don't think it was as evident as it is today. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 6: Any other questions? Moving forward to staff? No? Speaker 3: If not, there's a resolution there to refer this matter to General Keyes, if you're doing it for the issue. Okay. Speaker 6: So do we have a mover for that resolution? Thank you, Mayor Clare. Do we have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. And all in favour? Thank you. Thank you to the staff. Speaker 3: Councillor, that conversation, there'll be similar issues as well.
00:37:00 So we can work out whether there's anything you need about those particular applications if you want to answer that as well. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. So we'll be moving on to agenda item number two, page 22. This is application for a referral agency response for a dwelling house filling beyond three metres of the footprint of building at 11 Church Street, Hermeyer. Is there any questions for the staff regarding this matter? No. Councillor Wegener: In the report it says that floodwaters don't actually reach the property or make it to the edge of the property but that's the one in a hundred year flood basically still doesn't reach the wall of this property so it's not in a floodplain because the concern from the community is that it's in a floodplain.
00:38:00 Speaker 5: No, so it's not, so the mapping that's showing in the... The map on page 27. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, it is. Speaker 5: If you go around there. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 6: Question, is that a wall of corridor through there and a waterway? Speaker 5: So there is a waterway mapped just north of that lot. It's actually, they've got a driveway that's been constructed for the two adjoining lots that is actually between this lot and the waterway. It's not mapped with the riparian lot. So it's not within that buffer area. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. Can you go to question? Brian, put your hand up. Oh, Brian. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Yeah, a question for Kerry. Speaker 4: The, it is quite a sizable, visible mound in the back slope. None of the conditions have looked at sediment erosion control or any relocation to save lives there.
00:39:00 Of course, that would be further in the lane to say, it would have been just our last chance to require a position like that. Speaker 1: So, no, there's no further operational works application required for the works, so this will be our last chance. Speaker 4: So, there is a general condition, condition 10. Speaker 1: Are you looking for something more specific? Speaker 4: No, I'm not looking for something specific. I'll take it up, but I can't do the multiple screens while I'm over here. Speaker 1: No worries, thank you. Speaker 4: And if I do need that, I'll request it and go to that ordinary meeting. Speaker 1: Okay. Or general? Speaker 3: No, I don't, I think Councillor Stockwell just said that he'll have a look at that condition 10. If he has any, sorry, I think Councillor Stockwell said that he will look further at condition 10 and have a talk with staff.
00:40:00 If he has any other further concerns, he will raise the matter at the ordinary meeting, so he doesn't need to require it to go to general committee. Is that correct, Councillor Stockwell? Speaker 4: Yeah, I can see his position there now on the screen. I'll refer there to be a specific condition on sediment erosion control. Speaker 1: Sediment erosion, okay, we can draft one. Speaker 4: We can add, if you want to just add words into the community pathway, we can just add words in there, or otherwise we can get out of that too long. Speaker 3: I'd rather not do the conditions on the fly, it's a good practice, so if we do need to have further conditions, then you're better off taking it to general committee. Speaker 1: Can I, yeah. Okay. Okay. That's interesting. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson? On page 28. Okay. Thanks, Kerry. Comments received on application. There seems to be a lot of matters that were raised opposing the application, and I note that staff had replied to all the comments, and it seems like misinterpretation or misunderstanding or a bit of confusion over issues.
00:41:00 My question is, and we received an email from all the councillors this morning from a resident in Pomona. Again, raising concerns that residents have raised over this development. My question is, this application was code assessable. Can you explain when a matter is of significance to a precinct, when does it become impact assessable? Speaker 1: Okay, so the planning scheme identifies and the assessment levels are the same as the So it's at that point the decision is made. When an application or a development is proposed
00:42:00 that's not made by offices, it's identified by the planning scheme. So the planning scheme tries to make dwelling houses and matters associated with dwelling houses simple for residents and so that's why it hasn't been made impact accessible. But essentially the planning scheme identifies when things are code accessible or impact accessible. This matter being for a house, relates to a house, has actually gone to a building certifier but we are triggered as a referral agency to the certifier to make comment and provide either conditions or direct the certifier to refuse. So for this type of application it's not publicly notified. Obviously all our applications though are online for people to view and to use. So please feel free to make comment if they wish and we will have a look at their comments. Speaker 6: Thank you. Question with regards to a dwelling house and the scheme and the impact. I have a question
00:43:00 regarding the heritage carriage of that area. That street across the road is all old Queenslanders apart from one which has also been built in the waterway. How has that been identified? And is that eligible to be conditioned for this development to proceed quality? Speaker 5: So this area is not mapped under our scheme as being a heritage character area. So there's no requirement for the owner to address the heritage aspect of that area. Speaker 6: Given that the whole Pomona town is recognised as a heritage town and promoted as such, how come we have no heritage mapping for that area? Speaker 1: Well that's something really that has to be considered in the next scheme amendments.
00:44:00 If the community feels strongly about that and feel that the whole area should be mapped then we need to hear from the community. Speaker 6: Okay. So what I've heard back from the community is that they have raised concerns around that. I don't know if that goes as far back as I think was it 2019. They first raised concerns around the development of this site. The subsequent town meeting was held at which I think councillor Stockwell was looking after. And they have followed closely this application. So does that have to come as, is there opportunity for this application to now be considered with the heritage overlay or not? Speaker 1: No. No there's not. So this is a bound assessment. We must only consider the application against certain aspects of the planning scheme which does not include any heritage character requirements. Okay. So this is a bound assessment. We must only consider the application against certain aspects of the planning scheme. So we are limited in what we can assess the application against. Notwithstanding residents comments. We would have to change the planning scheme
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 to do that. Speaker 6: Okay. I have raised that before. Where are we with regards to moving that? This came up also in Cooroy when we were looking at the development there. With the heritage mapping being deficient to protect that area and also Tewantin and the Riddles Creek. At what point do we need to look at the heritage map? Speaker 1: I'll have to come back to you. I need to talk to our strategic planning section. But certainly I understand that there's been a number of areas in the Shire that have been raised where residents would like us to give more consideration to the heritage character. But I'll need to talk to our strategic planning at our time frame. Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. And given we're looking at amenity today around short term accommodation and those impacts on amenity, you know, heritage is an important part of amenity to neighbourhood. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? We're going as much. Speaker 3: I would like to think Councillor Stockwell wants to move to go to the committee to allow
00:46:00 a position on sediment erosion control of the attic. Mayor Stewart: Certainly. Okay. I'll second that. Thank you. All in favour? Mm-hmm. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Speaker 6: Yep. Yes. That's carried. So that will take us to item number three on the agenda today on page 35. Speaker 3: Yes. And this is one area to a large extent we've talked a lot about the short term accommodation issues, the general principles that apply here as well. So maybe if there's any questions about this, just to keep in sight of the particular application that probably covers again with all the issues in the previous conversation. Mayor Stewart: Just probably a similar question to what I had carried. In this area, what's the latest or when is the most recent approval in that area? If you can recall that you've given or been granted. Speaker 1: Yes. That I don't recall under the superseded scheme, but we're certainly getting a lot
00:47:00 in that area under the superseded scheme. Under the new scheme, we had an application for Hill Street on the corner, and that was reported to council in January. Mayor Stewart: And it was approved. Speaker 1: And it was recommended for approval and approved by council. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. So again, the reasoning is the same about why you've changed, recommended for approval in January. Absolutely. In our refusal. Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, we've had an unprecedented influx of people coming to Noosa. And we need to look at, we've also had, so we need to look at protecting our permanent residents. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. On the basis that we've all seen emails, I think you've been privy to it as well, that the gentleman called the resident who purchased this property specifically looked at this because it was under medium density residential and he could potentially short-term let it. There is again, though, the risk significantly, I guess, in this case, that there is that compensation
00:48:00 risk, isn't there? Speaker 1: No, there's no compensation. It's illegal. Speaker 3: It's not a, this isn't a superseded application. The compensation risk only applies where there's applications under the superseded scheme. Okay. Sorry. Apologies. This is where someone could take a matter to a planning environment. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. That's, yeah. Sorry. That's what I meant. Yeah. There is legal implications potentially. Speaker 1: That's right. The applicant has the option to appeal council's decision. That's right. Speaker 6: Any other questions at the end? Councillor Lorentson? Sorry. Councillor Stockwell, my apologies. I didn't see your hand. Speaker 4: Yeah. No. Just to follow on from the previous question, were short-term accommodation approval under the old zoning for this site and therefore before the 30th of July for this site to be applied under the superseded planning scheme?
00:49:00 Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear the question. Speaker 3: Just say it again if you don't mind, Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 1: Sorry. It's a little bit echoey, Brian. Speaker 3: Not sure what we can do about that. Speaker 4: That's better. That's better. Yeah. Okay. The application we've got before is under the current scheme. Would the similar application be able to be submitted before the end of the month under the superseded scheme considering the provisions of what was known in 2000? No. Speaker 1: Yes. The applicant has lodged an application under the superseded scheme, I guess in response to the advice that the recommendation was refusal to council, so keeping, I guess, exploring all options in order to secure a short-term approval on the site. That application is currently being considered by officers, but we will need to weigh up whether there really
00:50:00 is any compensation payable. They are looking to build a dwelling on this site. So we will need to consider the fact that they can build a duplex being zone residential medium density and consider whether really there is any impact to the capital value of this site given the ability to put a duplex on the site. Mayor Stewart: So there could potentially be some compensation? Speaker 1: We haven't made any conclusions yet. It's only just come in last week. But obviously, that's what I've said. We consider superseded scheme applications in terms of compensation. That's one of the primary considerations. Speaker 6: Sorry, I think Councillor Wegener. Yeah, Connie should do it.
00:51:00 Councillor Wegener: Just a quick little clarification on page 44. On the very top there, short term accommodation, it says 7.2.4.2.2. And it actually should be 7262. Just to clarify, because when you look at the actual town plan, 7262 says development. Section 0, development of the medium density housing zone accommodation accommodates a greater diversity in housing types, including dual occupancies, multiple dwellings, and so forth. And so it's actually just a little. Speaker 1: We've got the number wrong? Councillor Wegener: Got the number wrong. Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. The wording is correct. Councillor Wegener: The wording is correct. The number is wrong. That's correct. Just in case that kind of goes up onto, you know. Speaker 1: Yeah, we can't change the report now. But thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Yes.
00:52:00 Would staff at any stage during this application process make any representation that would make the applicant believe that short-term accommodation in this site would be accepted and approved by Council? Speaker 1: Well, this application was lodged in January or December, so quite early on and obviously at a time when we had recommended to Council to support it. Obviously the decision period has only occurred in the last month or so and during that time we need to obviously consider the application in detail and finalise the report. So I appreciate that the owners and the applicant were expecting an approval given the past applications and decisions on those and recommendations. But it's not the same circumstances today that we have.
00:53:00 Speaker 6: Thank you. Any further questions for the staff regarding this matter? Okay. Where? Speaker 3: The recommendation is that the Natalie Research and Engineering Division should be giving it to the issues. Speaker 6: Oh, can I take a second? One second. Yes. I'll take a second. Can I take a second? Can I take a second? Yes. Yes. Can I take a second? Speaker 3: Can I take a second? Can I take a second? Speaker 6: Yes. That was Councillor Stockwell who moved that and still second. Councillor Stockwell, just to confirm, are you moving the recommendation to have this referred on to the Mayor? Come here, Brian, to the General Committee, due to significance of the issue. Speaker 4: I'm happy to continue on with my email request and move it, just to say, Kat, I'm typing someone else's name. Speaker 6: Oh, okay, thank you. And to clarify, is that seconded by Councillor Stewart?
00:54:00 Thank you. All in favour? Thank you. Moving on to the next item, that's item number four. Go on. Councillor Jurisevic: Page 16. Excuse me, Chair. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Excuse me, Chair, with what vision of the... Ah, that's so that we can hear Brian. You'll have to look at that. I'll just sit here. Otherwise you go there and... I've got two. There's got to be one. Speaker 6: The matter before us is NCU150069.01, under change to a development approval for a material change of use for multiple housing, type 2 duplex and short-term accommodation at 139 East Street, Sunshine Beach, on Page 16. Do we have any questions from the staff? Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Do we have any questions from the staff? Speaker 4: Oh, Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: Brian has emailed in questions. I've really missed Brian's questions.
00:55:00 Now, will we be able to see the answers in his questions? Speaker 1: Yes, I'll send it to all the councillors. Councillor Wegener: That'd be great, thanks. Speaker 1: Thank you. Is that okay, Brian? Speaker 6: Brian, is that okay if you'll... That's fine. That's fine? Thank you. Any further questions for staff regarding this matter? Speaker 3: I have a question for Kerry. Is there anything different in this application compared to the previous two we've talked about today that would be unusual or different? Speaker 1: This one's a little bit different. It's got a different zoning. So it is zoned high-density residential. We're the ones who've been looking at a medium density. Nevertheless, very similar provisions apply. Thank you. Any further questions for staff regarding this matter? There are some additional statements in the Coastal Communities Local Plan for both the Ferguson Street that we've looked at, and now this one, around where visitor accommodation should be located in the zone.
00:56:00 And it does actually speak to suggesting that it should be located in areas that are predominantly visitor accommodation. So there is an additional statement for the Coastal Communities areas that include Sunshine Beach down to Purdue. So there's... The provisions are slightly different between the Noola Street, Noosaville ones, and for Ferguson Street and this Duke Street proposal. Speaker 6: Any further questions for staff? Ms. Councillor Wainwright? Councillor Wegener: So in... Well, for development in Sunshine Beach... I'm sorry. This visitor accommodation is managed appropriately so not to reduce the amenity of the surrounding permanent residents and to retain adequate supply of permanent housing for the local plan. So that's Sunshine Beach. That is directly applicable to this application.
00:57:00 Speaker 1: That's right, absolutely. That's a different statement for Sunshine Beach than what we see in Noosaville. Yes, different. But nevertheless, it has a similar meaning in that there is an intent to maintain housing for permanent residents. Speaker 6: I have a question on page 61. This is for the question item number four there. It says there's no need for additional short-term accommodation in the area. How have you arrived at that statement? And what facts and figures have been drawn to come to that conclusion? Speaker 1: Yeah, well, the applicant hasn't provided any sort of analysis in that regard. There's been sort of no economic statement provided. And to be fair to the applicant, we haven't asked for it either.
00:58:00 But I think when you look at the sheer number of housing stock being used in the area, 23%, it's really what we're drawing from. I think. 23% is huge. And I don't think anyone can argue there's a need for visitor accommodation based on those figures. Councillor Wegener: The 23%, did you partially get that from the new rates notices going out? Speaker 1: No, it's from the DMAT model that was prepared by staff, council staff, in conjunction with Unity Water for our infrastructure charges. Mayor Stewart: Okay. I'm sorry. Just going back to Councillor Finzel's question, that was, I had sort of flagged that across this agenda too, because there is often the line, whether the applicant has not demonstrated a need for additional visitor accommodation in the area. That was in a previous, is that something that they have to identify in their submissions?
00:59:00 Is that a requirement? Speaker 1: Certainly, with our new applications, we're asking them to come in, given we've identified this problem that we have in Noosa. So we're asking them to, to, to do that and provide an analysis about the need for more visitor accommodation in the area. Just remembering these applications were all lodged early or even late last year. I think this one was lodged in March, early March or mid-March, so this issue hadn't been flagged for us and so we hadn't asked them. Okay. Mayor Stewart: But it's now a requirement you ask everyone. Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. I think it's something that applicants and council really seriously need to consider. Mayor Stewart: Because they need to provide you with data and information and justification. Speaker 1: That's right. Typically that would be prepared by an economic consultant. Okay. Speaker 6: Thank you, Brian. Yeah, I just have a question before going to Brian, if that's okay.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I've just forgotten, at what point did the staff identify that this intensity had been reached? Was that March? When you started introducing these new questions to applicants? Speaker 1: No, we've only recently started asking those questions. And it's really since March that we've been noticing this, this, this trend that we're having of, you know, increased population in Noosa. Shortage of housing that we're really looking at. So it's really since that time. Certainly the, you know, the Regional Movers Index that I referred to before talks about an increase in migration to Noosa from the urban area to New South Wales. And then there's cities to regional areas of 49%. We were the highest area that received that sort of migration. And that was from March. But yeah, it's really just become much more apparent in recent times. Okay. Speaker 6: What's the process around that? What policy are we drawing on when we make those changes to the questions?
01:01:00 Is that you address a policy to help identify where questions change? Yeah. So the policy is to challenge the applicant as what was expected prior to this application in March. When you, the staff now has introduced the new set of questions to the applicant, what guides you in that? Is there a policy? Is there guidelines? How do you arrive at that? Speaker 1: I guess we've really reached a conclusion on these applications. And because of that conclusion, officers have reached, we feel it reasonable to ask our applicants that. There's no sort of policy or guideline. The scheme has always raised, the 2020 scheme, the issue as to whether, you know, or the need to maintain enough accommodation for permanent housing. It talks about let's make it predominantly permanent housing in our residential areas. And I don't think predominant means, you know, 50, 51%. Predominant means a greater proportion.
01:02:00 Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience, Councillor Stockwell. Your question, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, mine was actually a follow on in regards to comments on the DMAP and the 23%. As our consideration will probably have to be focused on a zone by zone analysis, can that model provide us with data in regards to the differences in change from residential to short stay on a split on where those properties are located in terms of zone? Speaker 1: Councillor, I have a question. Speaker 3: Is it based on whether it's, you know, medium residential or high density, or is it based on, I'll call it geographical locality? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think from the way I read the planning scheme, we'll have to consider it based on zone rather than area, but I just wonder if that is data that can be made available. Speaker 1: I did ask that question of strategic planning who were involved in the DMAP model, and they
01:03:00 said they couldn't break it down easy enough without going back to unity water. Okay. And working with them on the model. Speaker 6: Any further questions? Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, just a clarification. That's not to say it can't be done, Kerri, but it needs further time and resources to provide that data? Speaker 1: Yes. And couldn't be done in the timeframe for this council meeting. Speaker 6: Thank you. Given that, I feel like we're going to have to move on to the next item, which is the budget. And the significant changes and what's being raised today, is there opportunity for a workshop or such to be had? Or how do we navigate that? Speaker 3: What we have at the moment on the agenda is three applications.
01:04:00 And the council's going to have to deal with those applications. I've always given the advice that if it's difficult, then I'm going to have to give the advice that it's not necessary to practice to have a workshop about a matter that's on the agenda during the meeting process. I know we've done it once or twice in the past, but I think that's not a great practice where effectively we're taking things offline at a council meeting and talking amongst ourselves without having that conversation in the open council meeting. So my suggestion is we've got to work through these three applications. If there's broader policy questions to be considered, we can look at those after this round of council meetings, look at where we're going with the planning thing and so on. But ultimately, I think what's on the agenda needs to be dealt with. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. So do we have any further questions for the staff? Is there a recommendation? The recommendation is that the Planning Environment Committee agenda item four be referred to
01:05:00 the General Committee due to the significance of the issue that's been moved by Councillor Stockwell. And who would like to second that? Thank you, Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you to the staff. We're moving on to item number five, page 79. NCU 190114. Planning Environment Court Appeal. Application for Seniors, Living, Community, Youth, World Golf Clubhouse and Facility Boundary Realignment and Access. Easiness. Act 2. 114. Thank you. Any questions for the staff, please? Speaker 3: Probably not a surprise, Gary. Speaker 1: Absolutely not. Not a surprise. It will be quite a large appeal. There's a lot of issues involved in the appeal. Obviously, it's very early in the process.
01:06:00 There will be mediation. I'm not sure where we'll get to with mediation. But it's good practice to enter into the process. We'll get into that genuinely. So we will do that. Yeah. It's early in the process. Speaker 6: Yes, Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. I saw you hand that part. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, yeah, my question is about, there was a Court of Appeal decision which basically said a judge doesn't have the ability to override a planning scheme, only interpret it. I would have thought this is one where clearly what's proposed is outside the planning scheme. And we should try and have mediation basically say, well, here's all our grounds of approval, but it's against the planning scheme. I wonder whether we should also be taking other steps to highlight this to the Minister, because I believe we did put a motion to the LGAQ Conference last year about this concept
01:07:00 that the community shouldn't be responsible for meeting the costs where developers want to take us to court because they're there to support us. I don't know whether that's a question to you, Kerry, or to the CEO in regards to this process. Yeah. Speaker 3: This is a good example of why Council took that motion to the LGAQ Conference last year. It's where an application is made that it's clearly outside the planning scheme. Council refuses it in accordance with the planning scheme. The developer then appeals it with deep pockets to try and overturn that decision in court. And you can see that there's a lot of opposition. And if we're successful, which I believe we should be in this particular case, you know, ratepayers would have spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars defending the planning scheme, and there's no ability to recover those costs from the applicant in that jurisdiction, or very limited ways to recover those costs against the applicant in that jurisdiction. So following the LGAQ Conference last year, LGAQ did take this issue up with the State
01:08:00 Government. Their response has been, shall I say, underwhelming in terms of whether or not they want to bring changes. The Planning Environment Court cost issues have been around for 15 years and have been changed a few times. But I'm not too sure that the current State Government's got the appetite to revisit that at the moment. But this would be a really good example of that exact scenario where something is very clearly outside the scheme. That scheme could have been through a public advertising, and a State would be able to review process, be adopted, and we're going to have to file a court case about that, and use ratepayers' money to do so. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So to follow up on that, would it be within standing order to see if we were to add an amendment, we'll probably have to go to another meeting, to this, repeating our call direct to the Minister, that those, that LGAQ, you know, if we were to add an amendment, we'd
01:09:00 have to go to another meeting. Speaker 3: I'm not too sure that the, this item is about the Gemlight appeal, and I'm not too sure we can start referring to matters that relate to LGAQ conference motions. But I'm, as CEO, I'm very comfortable to use this example and to write to the, and prepare a letter maybe from the Mayor to write to the Minister showing this as an example of what we are talking about, and give that vote to LGAQ and to the Minister's office. Speaker 1: I'll just, just make comment to Brian. All good planners love that judgement that the court gave, but unfortunately that judgement was given under the Sustainable Planning Act, and the decision rules around development applications has changed.
01:10:00 And what I'm hearing from my fellow South East Queensland DA managers is they're getting some disappointing decisions, or very unexpected decisions, from the Planning Environment Court, which they're attributing to the changes in the decision rules in the Planning Act. So just everyone's reference, once upon a time the Sustainable Planning Act used to say you must refuse an application that conflicts with a planning scheme unless there are sufficient grounds to justify approving, which is in the community's interest, generally. The decision rules don't say that anymore. They only say that the application must be approved. The application must be assessed against the planning scheme and any other relevant matters. So Brisbane in particular had six appeals that they cited that they lost recently, which they expected to win given these changes in decision rules. So for me that's very concerning because you're getting some decisions out where a community would expect a certain development to occur in the area, and the court is not upholding
01:11:00 the planning scheme. So one example Brisbane cited was in a four-storey area where they had a proposal for a five-storey building. Everything was four storeys in the area. The community opposed this strongly, and the court approved it. So I find that quite concerning because it really undermines planning schemes and community support for its planning scheme and trust in that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. That was certainly something that Brisbane raised with the Minister at the Regional Planning Committee that I stood in for the Mayor in recently, and a range of councils agreed that they were having troubles with those laws. So I suppose it's just reinforcement that I led it to the Minister, highlighting the urgency for that review, considering that I suppose increases. Speaker 3: Good point.
01:12:00 No, I don't think you can actually put it in part of the recommendation. It's a separate issue. But as a Minister of Action, I can take that on. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Greg. Sorry. In that correspondence, Brett, would it be possible to also cite those other examples of previous quotes to show how many examples there are? Speaker 3: There are two slightly different issues. One is the question of costs about defending a scheme against an application that's purely outside the scheme. The second is what's in the planning legislation. The second is what's in the planning legislation. At the moment, it gives authority to judges to overturn or approve matters that are slightly outside the scheme. But, yeah, they're certainly related in the general concern about whether or not the Planning and Environment Court is upholding the Town Planning Scheme. Thank you. Speaker 6: Any further questions on this matter? Can we wait now? Councillor Wegener: Does Patrick feel a bit on the hot seat because you wrote the report for the – that's going
01:13:00 to be a challenge? Are you feeling confident, Patrick? Oh, I'm feeling confident. Good, good. There's no one behind you. Speaker 1: We will engage an expert planner to represent us in the appeal. There's a lot of work that goes into appeals. It's not something that officers are able to do with their current workload. And also, the Court prefers a sort of – a different opinion from the Council. In the past, there's been comments by Court that officers who, you know, represent the Council in an appeal too strongly defended their original decision and weren't really the expert to the Court. So, it's not always well received when a Council planner represents Council. You have to really be an expert to the Court and not for Council. Mayor Stewart: We'll engage Senior Counsel on this one. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. The big one.
01:14:00 Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you. Any further questions before moving on? Then we request that the Council make a report by the Manager of Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 6 July 2021 regarding Planning and Environment Court Bill 970 of 2021 and agree to defend the appeal. Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor STEWART. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thanks Kerry. Thanks Kerry. And to the staff for your contribution today. Thank you. We're moving on to item 6, page 84, Environment Project and Alliance Grants. Speaker 3: Right Jan. So Craig is on holidays at the moment, school holidays, so we've got Jan here today. We'll go through.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Thanks Jan. Welcome Jan. Is everyone okay Jan? Yes, I think so. Speaker 6: Okay, so do we have any questions? We'll start when Jan's on the record. Oh, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I'll declare that I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict in this matter in relation to the application by NUSA. I'm a NUSA and District Landcare. But due to my longstanding connection with the organisation as one of the inaugural members of the unincorporated group dating back to the 1980s. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias considering the community nature of this relationship. Therefore I will refuse 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. Speaker 6: I'll move that Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will add, just a point of clarification. In the past I've declared a support consultancy.
01:16:00 I did with them under the new requirements for conflict of interest that's outside the term of consideration. So those matters don't form a conflict under the new legislation. Speaker 6: Okay, thank you. Mayor Stewart: I'll move that Councillor Stockwell, it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participate in votes on this matter because Council believes that considering the community nature of this relationship, a reasonable person would not have a perception of bias and would therefore trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Speaker 6: Thank you. Do we have a seconder for the resolution? Thank you, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. We're moving forward. Any questions? Oh. Speaker 3: We're on to the Alliance Grants report. Are there any questions for Jan on any of the submissions or the proposed grants that have been put forward? Mayor Stewart: Jan, I've just got a question. Noosa and District Landcare Group missed out.
01:17:00 That's right. Yeah, just on what was the basis of that? Speaker 2: It was mostly to do with the Noosa Trail Master Plan. And I contacted the officer who's working with us. Tourism Noosa on this. And his feedback is that Council's already engaged a consultant to undertake the work, the erosion and sign needs, and that there may be opportunities later on to engage Landcare in this work through that master planning budget and planning rather than taking it from the environment. Speaker 6: Terrific. Thank you. Any further questions? Yes, Council. One note. Councillor Wegener: On page 88, the Noosa Integrated Catchment Enter the Flyer Sphere. Yes. That, and I see that on the bottom, it encourages citizen science and engage residents and visitors
01:18:00 to better help protect the shorebirds. Is that a consideration, the importance of pulling in the community into these programs? Because if you can't do that, how do you do that? How do you get the double or triple or effect when you have community doing citizen science and pushing into these projects? Speaker 2: It's a very big component, Councilor Wagner. The shorebirds at the Rivermouth are really a biodiversity hotspot. And we've had NICA, who are the shorebird study group, they've been doing surveys for 14 years. And recently we've, through the grants, we've had them, I might just take that off, we've had them do a report on their 14 years of data. And that has revealed that there are eight threatened species in that area. So we've got the part of the, so it's the Noosa Rivermouth sandbanks and a section of
01:19:00 the Noosa North Shore, which is a restricted area under the local laws restricting forward drives and horses and people on horses and dogs. Okay. And over the years, that has been breached and not observed. And we're just trying to build up the community value of that area as a biodiversity hotspot and combining this with the prohibitions that we've got on the North Shore, plus the updating of the telescope and signage and some disturbance surveys as well, just to bring up the profile of shorebirds in Noosa and how that area's a particularly special spot. Councillor Wegener: And you would think that there would be a real canary in the coal mine as far as climate change goes, overall on a world scale, because they do travel so far.
01:20:00 Speaker 2: Well, worldwide, the shorebird numbers are dropping and that's true for Noosa as well. Councillor Wegener: Okay. So I fully, fully support NICA's, that's just fantastic what they're doing. Yeah. They should have been approved just for the name alone. Speaker 2: I know. I know. It's really good, isn't it? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was going to make that point, is that these groups compete on a number of ways to get grants and one's the most innovative name. And I think the fall of Singapore, which has been the ruling leader for many years, has just gone down. I think the end of the flyer sphere is now the grant application name that I've seen for many years. Speaker 6: Thank you. Any further questions for Dan from the councillors today? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question, just a recommendation, or sorry, an applause with the Noosa Environmental Education Hub.
01:21:00 I think for all the councillors who haven't had any participation or haven't had any knowledge with what Dahlia does in this group, strongly recommend it. I think it's a really good idea. As you've noted in the report, it's the only environmental group that delivers education outcomes. So these guys put programs together, environmental projects together, get them included in curriculums at school level, and they start bringing the next generation, the youth, where the most impact, I think, is change in the future. They're hitting the real ground. The real change is our youth. So thank you. That's exactly right. Totally agree with that. I know that they're excited and appreciative. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments or questions before moving on? Okay. Thank you, Dan. Thank you. Thank you. The committee recommendation has been moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor
01:22:00 Wagner. All vote in favour. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Moving on to the next agenda item is item number six. We're looking at planning applications decided by delegated authority, page 91. Mayor Stewart: Council, Council Stewart informed the meeting that after a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application of Barry Taylor, listed in the reported item 31, I attended Mr Taylor's house for lunch and we have socialised together very occasionally. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person would have a perception of bias because I believe it and I don't. The close personal relationship with Mr Taylor and Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject, it's only for noting the decision that has already been made by staff.
01:23:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 6: Can we have a move on this resolution? Thank you, Council. Are they going to move to stay or leave? Are you moving to stay or leave? Speaker 3: So, one move now is if the councillors are happy for Councillor Stewart to stay, then the motion would be... This is on the screen there, if the councillor would like to move that. Speaker 6: Do you have to move that, councillor, or not? I'll move that. Do I need to read it? Yes, please. Councillor Wegener: Okay. That council notes that a declaration of conflict by Councillor Stewart has determined that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stewart participates in votes on this matter because council believes that does not have... That's Councillor Stewart, don't do that. That Councillor Stewart does not have personal relationship with Mr Taylor and, therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.
01:24:00 Speaker 6: Thank you. I'm happy to second that. Thank you. Thank you. That's unanimous. Moving forward, is there any questions for staff regarding the planning application decided by delegated authority for May 2021? Councillor Wegener: You may note that that... Council member? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Number 29, 33, Tewantin Road, Cooroy. One lot into three lots. Question, just how did that happen? Because it's a pretty small lot to begin with, isn't it? Speaker 1: I'd like to say I know it well, Councillor Thom, but I'll have to come back to you on that one. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Speaker 1: So I can forward around the... Very good. ...report done by officers. The delegated report would have a full assessment appraisal of it for you. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. There's a...with this side of Cooroy, you know, Cooroy is split in half and there's an old bridge going over. There's one stoplight which allows for safe access across and then a bridge over the railway line.
01:25:00 As the population increases on that side of town, you know, I know that there's a concern about that railway bridge. People have said, Thom, that that railway...the walking bridge over the railway is old. So I'd like to, you know, just put that on notice that there'll be...there won't be a way to get from one side of the town to the other side of the town if that old bridge, the old walking bridge, deteriorates too much. Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, these are all things we're going to have to look at because there is still a fair bit of land in Cooroy that is zoned for development. So we will see more development occur in Cooroy. So if we're seeing infrastructure degrade, that's something we're going to have to look at because Cooroy's population is planned to increase. Councillor Wegener: It's going to increase. Yeah. So there's the...we've talked about it a lot, but the two sides of the town...integrating the two sides of the town through, you know, the walking strategy is very, very clear.
01:26:00 And it works okay. We just want to keep looking at that, don't we? Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. Any further questions? Yes, Council. Councillor Wegener: On number 32, there's two lots. There's 32 and 33. And again, they're both on Ross Crescent right next to each other. And I'm always worried about...a resort, you know, is happening where you have two lots next to each other, both going for short-term accommodation right on Ross Crescent. You're...I mean, there's our amenity issue, and they were approved, but that...were they under the superseded planning scheme? Yeah. Yeah, of course. Speaker 1: The superseded scheme. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And we'd be looking at compensation if... Yes. ...if we refused it. That would be... Speaker 1: That's right. But in some respects, if you think about our new scheme for the coastal area, it actually asks for, in Sunshine Beach, for them to be clustered together in that way to minimise
01:27:00 impacts from...on residents. So currently, our scheme is asking...our new scheme is asking for them for short-term accommodation to be located in areas which are predominantly visitor. So that's...putting them side by side is what the scheme's asking for. Yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. Council, one of the reasons we do these reports, and we've only started this, oh, maybe four or five months ago, is that, obviously, there's a lot of decision-making delegation to keep things going very, very quickly. And, you know, the reports that come to Council often are reports that are dealing with refusals, the big, the big, difficult things like the Gem Life or some of the short-term accommodation issues you've got on the agenda today. But it's good to know, and it's one of the reasons we do this, is that the community can see that, of the 48 applications, I think 95% or whatever would be approved, it would get things through a lot more quickly. But these are the changes that have all been made. And you can see...it's designed to bring it all into one place, so that Council and
01:28:00 the community can see what's happening. Obviously, these are all available on PD online as well. And we get some of our community to subscribe to that, so it's good to see what's happening out there in terms of the broader development activity. And I think this would be the busiest Kerry's team has ever been in terms of the number of applications they've currently dealt with over the last 10 or 15 years. Speaker 1: Yeah. Team is...we've got a high workload because of superseded scheme applications, but also normal development applications. They've continued to increase. So we're very busy. I'll just make the comment that there is a lot of superseded scheme applications here that we have approved for the last month. A lot of these are coming from local consultants who contacted real estate agents and had a look at the books that they have in terms of what's currently being used for short-term accommodation. So they're all properties...a lot of them are properties that have been used for a long time for short-term accommodation, so it's not necessarily new ones.
01:29:00 Some of them will be new, but others have...that would have existing use rights. Speaker 6: Thank you for the clarification. Given there's a question on loan, is there any need to... Yeah, that's fine. Speaker 3: So if you could answer that. Okay. We'll proceed forward. Okay. Speaker 6: We'll proceed forward with the matter. And Council, we're going to start to provide answers to your questions as requested. Who would like to speak first? Who would like to move this recommendation? Thank you, Councillor Wheaton. A seconder? Thank you, Councillor Stewart. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thank you, Kerry. Speaker 3: Thank you, Kerry. Thank you, Kerry. Now we're going to... Speaker 6: That's it? We've got something else on the agenda? That's it. Nothing. We can close the meeting at 11 o'clock. Thank you, everyone, for being in attendance today.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Thank you to the staff for their consideration. And...