Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Welcome to the September 2021 Planning Environment Committee, and we pay our respects to the traditional owners, First Nations people, Kabi Kabi, their Elders past, present and emerging. And we will kick off the meeting with attendance and apologies, I note we have a full complement of councils in the committee, plus we have one observer, Councillor Lorentson. Confirmation of minutes. Who would like to move the confirmation of minutes? Anyone like to send it? Councillor Stewart and Wegener, all in favour. That is unanimous. There is no presentations, no deputations, so we move on to reports, item 5, and the first matter is the application for building works accessible against the planning scheme works within 4.5 metres of revetment wall, glass fill fence at 12 Topstiles Place, Noosaville.
00:01:00 Councillor Wegener: Do we have any questions? Was there any community input suggesting that it shouldn't go in with the wall? Were there any neighbours that were... There were no submissions. No submissions. Speaker 3: Yeah, so we have had a number of complaints from Noosa Waters Association raising these to our attention, and so they have made complaints about them just in terms of them not having approval and being in the 4.5 metre setback. So that's really why we've put them to council. So it is a minor thing, but we haven't previously approved fencing near the revetment wall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. And so the criteria we're applying this time might provide guidance in the future, is this the first one that's come to council? That's right. That's the first one. As long as it doesn't impact on the flood retention capacity, and I presume there's mendigate aesthetics? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. So yeah, because it allows floodwaters to flow underneath, and it's glass
00:02:00 construction, so fairly transparent. We don't consider it... We consider it meets the planning scheme requirements. Councillor Wegener: So if it was a wood or concrete, that would be something different, but in this case, it's not required? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. So the right thing to do if you've got a fence within 4.5 metres of the wall is to apply, is that right? Speaker 3: That's right. So, and look, I think there's good reason for residents to have a fence. People are citing that they want a fence there to keep their grandchildren safe and don't fall into the water. So I think it's very reasonable for people to make that application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, good. So any more questions? Someone would wish to move the recommendation? I'll move it. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Seconded? I'll second it. All in favour? That's unanimous. We move on to Item 2 now. Item 2, along with others on short-term accommodation, has been
00:03:00 requested to go to the General Committee. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Matt. Thank you. Speaker 4: For further consideration? Just on this one, Councillor, obviously the short-term accommodation issues have always been, how can I put it, contentious over the last couple of months. So what we've done is what I've asked Kerry to do is for Monday's meeting, if there's a majority of councillors who wish to move an approval to have conditions available at the Monday meeting rather than going for the Thursday night, then the councillors can make that call on Monday rather than waiting for the Thursday, depending on which way you want to go. Thank you. If you have those options available. Speaker 2: Thank you. I just have a question, Brett. With the refusal of the short-term stays and the data that's collected from these decisions, is that heading back into the amendment to state, won't be part of the data collected? Speaker 4: So the council hasn't made a decision about changing that. We're obviously collecting data at the moment in terms of housing. So we've got a report, Anthony and Kerry have
00:04:00 got a report coming up in the next month in response to the housing issue. And that will include a lot of statistics, which will probably include statistics about what has been through the last couple of months. Okay. Thank you. Council, I assume it's nice to have further information. We've been round this path a bit on this issue. Councillor Wegener: So this is, I always worry about having four units, considering basically a resort, with just four short-term stays in one, you know, on one basic block. Do you think that this can be termed as something like that? Speaker 3: That's a good question. I actually consider that having the four units used for short-term is better than having the mix, because I don't consider that visitors and permanent residents are very compatible when they're situated close together. So, because visitors can tend to have impacts on amenity. So I actually consider it would be better for the whole development to be
00:05:00 used for short-term accommodation than having that mix. Councillor Wegener: I guess the reason I term it a resort is because when there's a resort, you have all the other requirements in the building code, you know. Fire alarms, you know, windows, doors, all that stuff. And so it seems as though it, the playing field between the accommodation, you know, places that are made for accommodation across the road, and here, there's just an unequal level, unequal playing field, because one is just basically built as an apartment, which otherwise is built as a visitor accommodation or, you know, a hotel or a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, a resort. That the two codes are different. There must be differences. Speaker 3: Yeah, we have looked at that with our building section. Because if there was different building requirements for these, we could impose on the decision notice that they have to obtain a building works permit for change of classification to make the appropriate upgrades.
00:06:00 But talking through with our building section, a lot of these can sit equally within the same class of building without any improvements. So there's a few criteria. It comes back to the number of people being accommodated. If there's large numbers of people, then there would be potentially changes of classification. But for these ones, there's no additional requirements under the Building Code of Australia for fire rating if they're all used for short-term accommodation. Councillor Wegener: And then these aren't real big units, are they? Like sometimes when we talk about the short-term accommodation, there's units that are overlooking the water and are relatively big units, very expensive units. These are set back a few blocks. They're not that. They don't have a view. You wouldn't think of them as being a part of the accommodation area. What should I say? They're more affordable.
00:07:00 They're more affordable places where your workers would stay there because they're not high-end accommodation. They're not high-end places with a view that are right next to the restaurant or overlooking the river. These are several streets back, smaller, compacted. Speaker 3: Certainly, traditionally, we've had our visitor accommodation closer to the river. And we are finding they are moving back further away from the river. Being used for short-term accommodation. In terms of size, they are three bedrooms. Price difference, I would imagine, you know, there would be a difference in price compared to ones that have view of the river to these ones. But I'm not sure I would classify these as necessarily affordable. I suspect, particularly in today's market, the prices are still likely pretty high. Mayor Stewart: Tom, to give you an example, I ran into a lady recently for a low-set, three-bed, unrenovated house.
00:08:00 Broke. One bathroom, $8.90 a week rent. And that's not even in this area. It's right at the back of this hill. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just one thing, as you're aware, I look at the plan a little bit differently to you on these. And the maps we produced of this one and the next one show different clustering around the short-stay approvals. They're only the ones we mapped as of April last year. Speaker 3: That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is it easy or hard to also have a map that shows which where superseded scheme applications have been approved in the last year? Speaker 3: We would have to map them manually, if you like, individually. And there were 300 this year that could be done. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Could we have a look just around? Speaker 3: I think the other consideration, the full picture though, too, here, is there's a number of approvals that would have been issued prior to the 2006 scheme.
00:09:00 And those approvals would allow the uses to be used either or. So, to get the complete picture, you would need that. And that would be very time-consuming for offices to produce. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll just have to go by what I can see rather than... That's probably, for me, the next item is probably more of an influence, but I think... Anyway, that's all. Any other questions? Speaker 2: Yeah, I just have a question with regards to your comment in your opinion that visitors and residents are incompatible. We're currently spending a lot of money on developing local laws and trying to address the needs around amenity, noise and all those things. Do you think they're going to address this incompatibility? Speaker 3: I think our local law will go a long way, particularly on some properties that are causing issues for the community in addressing the amenity impacts that permanent residents are citing. But I still think, fundamentally, permanent residents and tourists don't go together. So, before the advent of, you know, Airbnb and the extent of short-term accommodation that we're seeing in the Shire,
00:10:00 we were seeing a number of sites around the Shire that were built as resorts and permanent residents mixing in. And there was sitings of incompatibility within those developments. So, typically, you go on holidays, you don't necessarily respect your neighbours. You know, you may stay up to, you know, midnight, you're only there a few days. You know, on a Wednesday, Tuesday night, you stay up late. You have a good time with the people you're with and you make a little bit of noise. Whereas residents tend to, you know, they might stay up on a Friday or Saturday night, but typically they're a little bit quieter and more respectful of neighbours because they're people they see regularly. So, I do consider generally that visitor accommodation and permanents are not compatible, that they do give rise to potential impacts. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: So, I asked the question, Kerry, during the Noosa Plan 2020 planning process,
00:11:00 short-term accommodation was permitted in unit zones. Unit zone areas where people resided. The Noosa Plan allowed exactly what you said is not compatible. Can I ask why? Speaker 3: Well, I'm not the strategic planning team, but essentially the council decided that they wanted to protect our residential low density areas and not have increases in short-term accommodation in that area. But I guess in response, they cited that our medium density areas and high density areas were more suitable for short-term accommodation. And I think that comes from the point of view as you typically have, those medium and high densities are typically located in and around services and facilities and some of our sort of tourist areas, our beaches and the river.
00:12:00 So, that was the, I guess, the decision by council. At the end of the day, though, it's not the end of the story. When you make a use a consistent use, it still has to comply with the planning scheme. And there are a number of provisions in the scheme, which we say a lot of these developments short-term are not meeting. So, whilst it was made consistent, we say they're not meeting the scheme requirements. Because that's important. It's not the end of the story when a use is made consistent. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll help with the answer to that question. I had a look back at the workshop we had and this obviously was confidential and probably remains confidential as to what we discussed. But staff put up a number of scenarios amongst the zones. And while it's not apparent within what virtually came up, it was councillors who advocated for the scenario to make short-term accommodation consistent in the medium and high density residential zone, with some reservations from strategic planning staff
00:13:00 along the lines of what we have the bait on. And my recollection, as I said, not clearly stated in the plan was the entire intent was there's large areas within the medium and high density residential which are the traditional tourist areas. Noosa Sounds, close to the river and close to the beach. And certainly my position in advocating for it to make consistent was we wanted to focus short stay on those areas to reduce the pressure on the areas that were predominantly residential in nature. Councillor Lorentson: But in essence, what we did was move always two days in medium and high density areas, making them hotel zones and failing possibly to recognise that a lot of our affordable housing is actually located in those precincts. And I'm hoping that that's part of the review we're going to do at the end of two years to actually look at that and see whether or not that was in fact the right decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Great. Certainly in the light of what's happened,
00:14:00 we could suggest that the staff suggestion of making an inconsistent medium density residential zone would have been better for our housing outcomes right now. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Or leave it as it was is another option as well. Yeah. Speaker 3: As councillor aware, the staff in strategic planning are working on updating the housing study. And so I would suspect there'll be recommendations that come out of that study around short term accommodation. Councillor Lorentson: Because the intent at the moment when we're looking at the reports and the recommendation given by staff and correct me if I'm wrong Kerry, is that we're almost signalling that it's possibly better for short term accommodations to be located outside where people live, not inside. Is that, that's sort of where I'm reading all this and I'm thinking did we, is our messaging getting confused? Is there not enough clarity in the NUSA plan? What is the intent
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 of the NUSA plan when the process was, when the planning process was underway? What was solved to the community? Speaker 3: Yeah. I think this is a really complex issue, short term accommodation. You know, we are really the first council in Queensland, if not Australia, to try and address it through its planning scheme. You know, we advocated for the state to have a statewide solution. So it's a really complex issue when you're dealing with existing use rights and existing approvals that allow it. Have we got it right? I think, you know, I'm on record saying I think there's some improvements to be made and we need to look at it. So, you know, I think through that housing study, there'll be recommendations that come from staff for council to consider. Mayor Stewart: Kerry, I just have a question. Just where Cockleshell is, it's directly parallel to Thomas Street, right? Is that, that's correct? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: And Thomas Street is zoned,
00:16:00 what's Thomas Street again? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I like the business, but it's too, isn't it? Yeah. Mayor Stewart: So, so every house that backs on from Cockleshell, every dwelling, backs onto a business. There's not one, am I correct in that? There's not one residential home on the premises. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Certainly along Thomas Street, I think just about all, or close to, commercial type uses. That's right. So their rear boundary backs onto commercial. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: And it's in close proximity to the Islander, which I know you've said here's in the tourist zone, but also quite close to the New Bounce. That's correct, isn't it? Speaker 3: Is that right? Sorry, just. Speaker 4: No, it's not. Sorry, that's the other one. Have a look on page 26. All right. Which has got the zoning map. Yep. Which is probably the best. Speaker 3: That's probably the best map. Speaker 4: Yep. Speaker 3: Can we get that on the screen? Yeah. I think just a little bit of history
00:17:00 with Thomas Street. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 2: It's on page 26, yeah. Speaker 3: And Mary Street. The intent in the planning scheme recognised the commercial over the road with the shopping centre and the showrooms there. And unlike other schemes, rather than using a road as the boundary between the change, they actually said, well, for Thomas Street and Mary Street, we will allow some small scale commercial as a bit of a transition between that commercial and the residential behind. So a lot of those buildings in Thomas and Mary Street are smaller in scale, more domestic in character. They're limited in the type of commercial use that can occur there in order to provide that transition and, if you like, a bit of protection for residential amenity. But there's certainly, you know, a range of commercial uses in Thomas Street. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Up on the screen, Speaker 4: you can see the zoning map there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Except the green's not shown in the legend. So...
00:18:00 Speaker 3: It's blue, but it's got a precinct over it. Because it's got special requirements around that domestic scale and the type of uses that should go there to provide that transitional nature. Speaker 2: What are the special requirements and why is it not on the map? Speaker 3: Well, it is flagging it by including it in a precinct. It's not... It's flagged as being different to the blue where the shopping centre is and having particular requirements. A design preference for it to be domestic in scale and character. It also seeks to not allow... Only uses where people need to make an appointment. So there's not a lot of traffic coming and going, movement from the site. So offices, for instance, you know, people make an appointment. Unlike a shop, a shop is, you know, much more higher traffic generation rate. So it has particular requirements in order to try and achieve that transition between that commercial and the residential behind.
00:19:00 Mayor Stewart: So are those two sort of little in Cockleshell, those sort of... They look a bit shaded, I guess. Yeah, they're the two. That's the... Speaker 3: Yeah, right. Yeah, so there's two properties there. The duplex was built on both with a sort of central-wise driveway. Mayor Stewart: And those have... Those buildings in Thomas Street, a lot of their car parks are at the back. So that effectively at the back of that would be facing the overlooked people's car parks potentially, wouldn't it? Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. The car parking is at the rear in order to achieve that sort of street-scape outcome. But again, the limited... The uses are tended to be limited to try and limit that movement coming and going. But definitely a commercial car park. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just a question. In my mind I'm thinking of something about a criteria of being 100 metres from the river. Was that a rule of thumb or was that in the past or previous scheme? So you're looking at me, it must have been a rule of thumb. Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't recall Deputy Mayor Stockwell: that one. I just remember that being cited several times
00:20:00 in the past but it might be just... Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't recall that one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you look at the tourist accommodation zone there, that's probably 100 metres from the river. If you look along there. Speaker 3: Yeah. And you know, through our scheme amendments we might choose what we can look at. Councillor Wegener: One last question. When we're deciding whether to approve or deny short-term accommodation, one of the things that we look at is the probability or legal invalid. And one of the things that determines whether we will approve or not is whether we would use it if they appealed it. And one of the key things is that they actually have to show damages. And with these very high, you know, with these high rentals, does that offset, I mean... Speaker 4: Tom, the issue
00:21:00 of damages as you call it only arises in the event of a superseded scheme application where there might be a claim for compensation. If it's a straight out application under the Act, then the only right of appeal is to appeal against that refusal and then that court then determines whether or not it should be approved or refused. There's no compensation claim per se on the assessment of the development application. So that's just the superseded application? That's right. Compensation claims only arise on superseded planning scheme application. Great. Or potentially arise. Speaker 2: We might move on. I just have one more question. One more? It's written, there is no need for additional short term accommodation in the area. I'm just wondering how is this determined and what informs that statement? Speaker 3: Yeah. So, as we've previously talked about on other ones, we have data from our DMAP model
00:22:00 that was done in conjunction with Unity Water looking at the number of houses in the Shire that are used or dwellings, not just housing, so units as well. Looking at the number of dwellings being used for permanent accommodation and those that are being used for visitor accommodation. So that data tells us that 23% of housing or dwelling units are being used for visitor accommodation. I think that's substantial and I think it's a reasonable argument to say there's no need for any more. Speaker 2: And is there any other data that informs that or only the DMAP model? Speaker 3: Only the DMAP model. Obviously, we've got data now that we know the number of superseded planning scheme applications that are being approved through that process. Council has approved a number under this scheme. Is that the 300? We've had 300 this year. Not all of those have been approved. Mayor Stewart: But we don't know, Kerry, do we, who's just already has those existing use rights
00:23:00 and formalising them and who is then protecting land use with no intention of it? We don't have that. No, we don't know that. Speaker 3: And we know that a number of those short term superseded scheme applications were already properties with existing use rights. So we don't know the exact numbers around that. We do know that there are a lot of properties in the Shire that were built under the prior to the 2006 scheme that those approvals allow people to use their property for either a short term or permanent residence. So it is really based on that 23% plus there will be additional to that is the expectation. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One more. Councillor Lorentson: Quick question just following up on Tom's question about just legal implications. So compensation can't be claimed in a case like this because it's not an application made under a superseded planning act. This was to be challenging to go straight to planning and environment court.
00:24:00 How important is consistency in decision making and can a decision that's contrary to a like case can that be used as a basis or premise to dispute the decision? Speaker 3: Yeah. Consistency is very important in appeals. I've said that many times. And so the first three ones that we approved in the coastal area would be certainly raised in the appeal and wouldn't assist us in the appeal. It would go against us. So we would have to show that circumstances have changed and that's why we're making a different decision. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Now it's time to move until we refer this to general so we can have all this discussion again. Moved, Councillor Stewart. Seconded, Councillor Finzel. All in favour? We move on to item three. That was unanimous, Kabi. Speaker 3: What page was it?
00:25:00 Speaker 4: Thanks for having me, Brian. It's a pleasure. It's lovely to be back. Rock and roll. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone have any hard questions for Will? Speaker 3: What are you Speaker 2: in favour of? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: He gives me a hard time occasionally. Me? Yeah. Speaker 3: Just look after him. I don't want him going anywhere. I need his help. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Wonderful report, Will. It's so great to see the professionalism and... Is that better? Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. I'll stay another week. Is there anything additional information you'll need? Is it going to be referred to general committee or is this different to any of the others that you might need any additional information or further otherwise on Monday? Do you think that's a good statement? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 4: Sure, Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Who would like to move that we refer this to general committee for further consideration? I'll do that. Moved Stockwell, Signal and Wegener. All in favour?
00:26:00 That's unanimous. And we go to item four Speaker 1: which is Deputy Mayor Stockwell: a pre-response request to change conditions of P&E court order for development and damage for mature change of use for multiple dwelling core units at 269 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville. And we have had an email this morning suggesting a suggested change to the recommended condition. Speaker 4: And just to read that out is that the only additional change which is on the screen for those who are present is the shade structure must not be white. That was the Can I suggest at the beginning just to outline Patrick the you know how this relates to a previous court case and why this application pre-change application how that process works. It's a little bit unusual. Speaker 1: Okay. So back in 1999 we received an application for this development that's currently
00:27:00 there at the moment and in 2002 it was resolved to actually refuse the application. Page 61 of the agenda details the grounds as to why it was refused. There was some concerns around the scale and bulk and some setbacks particularly to the third story. Ultimately through the appeal process there was a negotiated outcome where the application was able to be supported by council or an amended proposal and it was resolved through that process to approve it. So the planning environment court is the responsible authority for that decision sorry the assessment manager and when we've had a minor change application come in they sit as the assessment manager for that minor change where there's been submissions to the original application and in this instance there were submissions to the original application. So
00:28:00 the applicant can come to council before going to court to change the approval to get what's called a pre-request response. So if this is supported they still have to go back to the court and go through the process to actually formally change the approval to incorporate what they're proposing here. Speaker 4: So in other words they're asking to change the conditions that the court originally approved and this is what this reports about. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So we had councillors had an email from an adjoining resident who was concerned about size and colour so I presume that the colour one is what we're responding to there. Yeah. I take it white not white because it would make a glare flag or whatever. That's correct. But we normally want everything to be in muted tones is that elsewhere in the because you might not want a bright green either. Not that most of these sales are but it could for example a dark colour which contrasts
00:29:00 with the rest of the building would also not be possible. So that's my question is does the existing approval already talk about being in muted tones? Speaker 1: I'd have to clarify that for you Brian. The conditions around what structures could be in the front setback particularly umbrellas didn't limit it to that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be easy just to add that the stage structure should be in muted tones but not be white. Yep. Speaker 2: Is that talked about in the design principles? Would you comment on those design principles to inform that? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Speaker 1: So you'll see some photos at page I can't read pages 68 and 69. They were taken from that property. I was out taking photographs and I saw the gentleman on his balcony and I asked to come up and discuss with him what was proposed
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 and so those photos were borne out of that meeting. Subsequent to that meeting he has the issue of the glare and accordingly I've sought to amend the recommendation. He's had some discussions with the person actually operating the business on the site and I think there's been a bit of confusion that has arisen from those conversations because that person is not the applicant and I'm not too sure how familiar they are with what has been presented to council. So there's a bit of confusion as to the size of the shade structure but I've clarified with the person next door that what is detailed on the plans and what I've provided him is what's been proposed and put to council. And yeah so again those photos on page 68 and 69 show the views from that. Mayor Stewart: So on page 69 where the current
00:31:00 Speaker 1: umbrellas they wouldn't be going closer to the front boundary but there'd be more extent of coverage. So Less green. There's going to be impact on the view down the streetscape across the other side of James Street to the restaurant. I think that'll be taken out but when you look at page 68 you'll see that the view out to the river and the river mouth is unimpeded. Speaker 2: But I understand that blocking of that view was raised by the gentleman that you spoke to in that street? Speaker 1: The blocking of the streetscape? Yeah. Yeah. It was. I mean he would prefer not to lose it but in my opinion the main view is of that river. The important view is of the river and the river mouth and as I said the main view is unimpeded. Councillor Lorentson Deputy Mayor Stockwell: had a question? Councillor Lorentson: Patrick, was any consideration given to a retractable awning?
00:32:00 We've got one at home and it's brilliant and it's quite big and it's just electric and that way it's more win-win with the gentleman that's having some issues with the streetscape being structured. Yeah. Speaker 1: There have been the applicants being consistent in their approaches to the kind of shades structure that they'd like to have and so no, there hasn't been a real investigation into having a retractable blind. Councillor Wegener: In the case of strong winds do you feel so that the new shades there will be safer and more stable than the umbrellas that are there? Speaker 1: It'll certainly be stable because there's going to be pillars essentially into the ground to support it. How the wind affects these umbrellas, I mean they are large umbrellas whether they've got some weights at the base of them
00:33:00 I'm not too sure. Councillor Wegener: Do the umbrellas retract at night or are they are they always out? Speaker 1: Every time I've seen them they've been open but I mean I don't frequent that street at night so. Councillor Wegener: Any further questions? So the glare issue you're going to look into that to make sure that the glare isn't Well that's what that change ignition is it's muted Speaker 4: muted tones and nothing white noise or anything like that. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are we happy to move that motion? I'm going to have to move it. Second is Councillor Wagner. Any discussion? And CEO you're happy with the minor change that's still going through here? Yep. Yep. All those in favour? Okay.
00:34:00 Speaker 2: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Got the system all locked. 73 is the mature change use development application for office at 4 number 216 David Boway in Peregian Beach. So it's converting a caretaker's dwelling back to an office. We have questions. Councillor Wegener: So they're paying for the parking spaces, but they're paying 12,620 for each for three car parks. And then that money will be used for our just exactly the general rate. So will that go to our transport? Speaker 4: It gets held in reserve for the specific purposes going to be used for that transport. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We use the credit
00:35:00 additional car parts otherwise or infrastructure associated with public transport for bicycling or walking any Speaker 4: questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I Speaker 2: think it's straightforward. Yeah, it's just a minor internal channel works. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. If you like to move it, then Councillor Finsil. Speaker 2: So, Councillor Finsil, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: second Councillor Stewart. All those in favour. Carried. So we move on to item six. Speaker 4: Kin Kin, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: KJD, which is a representation of development permit from a change of use short term accommodation 75 Williams Road. And council's already called as a councillor intervention when this initially came up to put this condition on. Not what staff recommended. And the applicants come back. Do we have any questions?
00:36:00 Speaker 4: It's been requested to go to the general committee by the council. So. Is that yours? Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's okay. Councillor Wegener: It's complicated, isn't it? Oh, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If it's going to general, I'll leave my position. I have had another look at it. So, we move to go to the planning board and we go to the general committee for further consideration. Speaker 2: Sure. I move Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finsil, second Councillor Stewart. The next item, item seven, is representation development permits from pure change of use for short-term accommodation 29 Ferguson Street. This one's been asked to be referred as well. Does anyone have any questions or request for further information for Monday's meeting? Mr.
00:37:00 CEO, conflict of interest if . . . When I saw a representation, this person is using the same designer as I'm using, is that a conflict of interest? . Look, Speaker 4: this is not about you, Councillor Stockwell. . It's totally inappropriate for councillors to start asking for conflict of interest advice halfway through a council meeting. You need to check beforehand and deal with that. . It was only because The decision about whether or not you've got a conflict of interest is yours, not Pat. My advice to you was, on the very brief information you provided, it seemed very tenuous at best. That's all. I do apologise. Councillor Wegener: Kerry. Actually, can I ask you a question? That's okay. That's because it's just a committee meeting. Just ask Kerry. I don't have to say anything. Okay.
00:38:00 In the past, you know, they've been very scrupulous about roofs, for example, in Latanya, on Haysing Street there, where the roof structure, you know, going too far out, you know, past where you'd like it to go. And you're comfortable with this, that it's still going past where it should be, within the plan, but it's not... You're letting... No. You're going from six metres to five metres, and that's okay. You're okay with it. Because, obviously, you've agreed to it. Speaker 3: Yeah. Look, setbacks in the planning scheme is an acceptable outcome. So it's a performance-based assessment that has to be made on each individual case and circumstance. So the Latanya one, it was about roof terraces and roof. And that was really all about whether it was going to give the appearance of another story on top. So it was really the assessment. This one is about streetscape and how it will fit in the street.
00:39:00 So there are a number of properties in the street that have structures in that setback already. And I think, for that reason, a reasonable position is to support the five metres. Speaker 1: Well, yeah. I mean, in terms of streetscape, there are a number of carports. And it's probably historical that they've been placed close to the front boundaries. It's quite an older area. Some of the housing and potentially garages have been converted into habitable space, and then it's pushed the need for garages to the front boundary. They've been approved. There's been a lot of work done. A lot of look through our records. And some of these are very, very old approvals. And more recently, development that was occurring within the street would have been allowed
00:40:00 to have the facade at six metres, and then an encroachment of eaves 600 mil into the front setback. So there's probably some newer development that's reflective of that as well. So that existing streetscape was a strong factor in my assessment. Okay. Speaker 3: What is different about this one is the roof is almost a second storey, if you like. It's of a height in the street that has not been previously approved or agreed to. So the carports are all single storey, whereas this roof really sits at almost a second storey level. So that's why we're not fully supportive of the applicant's proposed setback. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. So it's a little bit of a trade off there. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: It's about balancing up what's going to be reasonable and in keeping with the street and not look out of place. You know, they've cited a number of reasons for their roof to provide some protection.
00:41:00 And that's a reasonable position. Although I do think there's a number of ways they could achieve protection better than putting a roof at a second storey. You know, at that sort of height, it doesn't offer a lot of protection. But I think it's a reasonable solution to achieve a building that will look and keep a nifty character. Mayor Stewart: Patrick, with all the plans that have been submitted, has it always been, has the two metres been picked up on before recently? The fact that it is two metres and there's been a requirement now for it to go back a metre? Speaker 1: Well, originally, when the matter came before council originally, it was discussed in the report. And there was a condition included to have the setback at six metres for the roof. So it was certainly acknowledged in that original assessment that it was encroaching two metres within the setback. And that condition is what the applicant's now making representations to and seeking a relaxation to that condition to actually have it at four metres from the front boundary.
00:42:00 Mayor Stewart: So with the roof, we're currently allowing a one metre pitch, sort of that they want a two metre pitch. Speaker 1: Well, we're saying the roof has to be back five metres from the front boundary. If they wanted a two metre roof, they could make a two metre overhang. They could make modifications to their building to allow for that, but not come closer than five metres. It would mean pushing the building back or modifying the size of the building by a metre to allow that, if that was what they wanted to achieve. So I'm not saying they can't have a two metre overhang, but what I'm saying is where the overhang finishes can be no closer than five metres from the front boundary. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question which I've just picked up on. On page 93, you've got the image and the subject's side with the existing houses in the red rectangles.
00:43:00 That would appear to have a quite substantial boundary, front boundary realisation. Speaker 1: Yeah, that is quite close to the front boundary. So the overhang finishes can be no closer than five metres from the front boundary. Mayor Stewart: That's existing, Patrick? Speaker 1: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: And how close is that to the front boundary? Speaker 1: I could not tell you. I'm sorry. I'll have to go back. Just not having done the original application, I'm not intimate with the existing conditions on the site. Speaker 3: We can come back on that one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, for Monday. If you just... Yeah. That will be the issue. It was about... Yeah. ...the consistency with the current street scape and... Mayor Stewart: And this house is quite... I mean, it's smaller than a lot of other houses in the area, isn't it, already? At 182.4 metres squared. So if they were to take that extra metre off, I guess it's making a smaller house small.
00:44:00 Speaker 1: Well, the way they've designed it, they've got a sort of pavilion style, almost. They've got a large space in the middle, which also... Yeah. ...spatially creates an issue across the site for the... It enlarges the footprint of the building, essentially, whilst it might only be 182 square metres internally. Speaker 3: Yeah. If you look on page 96, you can see sort of the layout of the house. They have got quite a large rear setback, which, you know, Patrick's comment about if they wanted the overhang, they could push the building back from the front boundary. So they're scoped within their current zone without changing anything. Councillor Wegener: If they were going to push the house further back... It's on a hill, isn't it? Would they be digging more and more...
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Speaker 3: Well, they're digging a basement for car parks. There's quite a lot of earthworks that will occur on the site. Mayor Stewart: They're doing that for, I guess, amenity and keeping cars off the road. And I believe they're putting the laundry in the basement to stop the noise, because noise can emit from the laundries and washing machines and dryers. These guys are spending $60,000 or $70,000, maybe even $80,000, I believe, last time we were looking at vegetation to try and put vegetation around the house to make it look aesthetically pleasant and, again, impact noise. They're doing quite a lot, aren't they? Speaker 3: It's a very nice design, and certainly I imagine it's going to cost quite a lot of money to build. But that's not really... The design is relevant, but the cost is not really relevant to considering the setback issue. Speaker 2: No. Was the setback issue discussed at any point during the discussions with the applicant at the beginning? Speaker 3: So you'll recall this one was managed by Tara Norley, one of our other planning officers, who is not with us at the moment. Okay.
00:46:00 So we're not across exactly what was discussed, and certainly it was her position in the original report that she didn't support the setback. Okay. I'd suggest the bigger issue was the use at the time that we all focused on, rather than the setback. It was recommended for refusal. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry? It was recommended for refusal. Speaker 3: It was recommended for refusal. That was one of the reasons. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you have a look on Monday, submissions from 31 and 27, if they make any submissions? So we'll have a chance to have a look at that. Speaker 3: They're the neighbouring property. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We'll have a chance to have a look at that, the designs, and see if they raise any of those issues. Speaker 4: There were five submissions originally of them, just checking whether they came from Deputy Mayor Stockwell: those properties. Okay. If they were, did they raise the issue of the reduced setback, and what that might or Mayor Stewart: might not do to their community. So just across the road, we've got a setback of 2.2 metres, a setback of 3.3, a setback
00:47:00 of 3.7, a setback of 2.5, a setback of 4.5, a setback of 2.2, a setback of 2.1. So why the 6 metres for these guys? Speaker 1: Those setbacks were provided by the applicant. There might be slight variation as to what's detailed there, but generally there are reduced setbacks. The report certainly acknowledges that there's a number of reduced setbacks in the street. Again, as I said before, mainly associated with carports. Again, older style development in the area, so further additions that require that to occur. The original report did address the setback, it wasn't just put on as a condition, it was certainly in the body of the report that was put to council, and I believe it was the opinion that it was so, the height of it was so significant, then not consistent with other conditions. So there's a number of reduced setbacks in that regard.
00:48:00 Mayor Stewart: But they're obviously subject to height restrictions like everyone else, so they haven't done anything out of the ordinary in regard to height, have they? They're in their requirements. Speaker 1: Yeah, but they're within the setback. Speaker 3: They're all basically single storey, predominantly single storey, and what we've got is a roof that's sort of at a second storey height, if you like. Mayor Stewart: This is a one level, this has just got a basement cow park, this is a one level. Speaker 1: But it protrudes out of the ground, the basement, so you've actually got to go upstairs to go into the dwelling, so that elevates it a bit. And then the roof has got quite a significant pitch on it, so the peak of the roof is quite high. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Perhaps, Amanda, could you just give us whether it's an elevation or just the above natural ground level type measurements? I don't think it's in the record. No, it's not. Speaker 3: The height of the structure? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's above the natural ground level. Speaker 2: So just to clarify, if the height is within a setback, it's not an issue?
00:49:00 Speaker 1: They're two separate issues. So you assess height based on whatever the height of it is, and then you address that as well. That's quite high in the setback. It impacts on your assessment. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think if you imagine a single storey building compared to a two storey building coming further forward, they do have quite different impacts. Yeah. And so that's why we're raising the issue that this is a bit higher than others, so it does read a bit differently to the others in the street. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: General Committee? Yeah. Sorry, anyone? A question from Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can I also request some information? You said that Tara was in charge of this report. I've spoken to the applicant, and my only concern, and what I'd like some clarity around,
00:50:00 is whether the setback issue was raised as a concern 10 months ago when the application was put through. I think that would give me a little bit of clarity in regards to the process. Can we get any information from Tara's records or any other information from her? Can we get any communications made with the applicant in regards to this issue? Not really. It's unlikely. Not unlikely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I used to have a saying when I was a development trial planner. If it's not in writing, it was never said. Speaker 3: I'm not sure that's a good policy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But I don't think we can go back and make our decisions based on what an applicant or a staff member might have said. We have to say what's in writing is the report, and that's what we assess it against. And we look at the information that has been formally transacted between the two parties. If there was an email, for example, that could have been identified, but it was only verbally.
00:51:00 Speaker 3: We'll have a look at what's on record. But I have to say, whilst it's pretty common for applicants to raise poor process as a reason why councillors should support something, but process isn't going to help them. This building is going to be there forever and a day. This building is going to be there forever. And we really need to consider if this is the appropriate outcome. So whilst it's really nice to have good process, and that's what we strive for, and it's been difficult this year because of the high workload offices have, and we haven't been able to fill two positions, the important thing we really need to look at is the outcome. Are we happy with this building in the setback? Mayor Stewart: What's going to be there? I agree with you Kerry, but we also need to look at fairness and justness for a party. And if at no time they were told this could be an issue, and they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on design and architecture, when at no time they were alluded to, or that wasn't raised, perhaps it was, as I said, it would be good to know if we have any of
00:52:00 that. Because this is people's time and money. This isn't, and I understand it's going to be a dwelling that's going to be there for a long time. But these are people's library goods. Speaker 3: Yeah, I absolutely agree, process is important. We need to get it right. But a court will not consider process when deciding whether this is appropriate. And that's what I'm just bringing to Council's attention. It's really the outcome that's most important. Speaker 4: They will assess, if the court looks at it or Council looks at it, we assess the application against the Planskin. The applicant. The application of the applicant we look at. What is the application? Does it comply with the scheme? Does it not comply with the scheme? Do we need to be consistent? What else is in the context of this particular application? That's what we assess as part of the development assessment process. Mayor Stewart: And whether or not conditions are onerous, if you've got those setbacks across Speaker 4: Yeah, reasonable and relevant is the better term. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, if you've got a 2.2 minute setback directly across the road and you're saying six, that would be good. Speaker 4: The question is whether the condition's reasonable and relevant in terms of what the application is about. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think, Monday, there is a significant, I'll put it in the question.
00:53:00 We are constrained under the Building Code of Australia in terms of setbacks for carports and Class 10 structures, aren't they? They're something we have less ability to impact through the Planning Scheme than our units. Speaker 3: Yeah, there's certainly allowance in the Building Code to build some of those, particularly on the side boundary. But they can still specify a setback of six metres from the side boundary. So the side boundary that we're... Yeah. But different schemes have had different obligations. Yeah, different approaches to setbacks. And I'm not sure about carports in the past. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My last thing that could we have on Monday is the landscaping plan in terms of, I'd just like to get a feel if the intention is to, you know, it's unclear whether these, the vegetation you see on the image on page 93 is on the side or adjacent, but whether there's an intention to keep any native vegetation at the back to mitigate that. Yes, so they're pushing it back. Yeah.
00:54:00 Okay. So... Oh, Councillor Wharton. One more question. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, can you explain to me Section 45 of the Planning Act 2016? So when we look at an application, we assess it against assessment benchmarks, like you said, of the Noosan Plan, but it also makes reference to other relevant matters. Can you explain other relevant matters? So planning means, I mean, it's not just about planning. So I'm imagining is relevant indoors policy, that's another relevant matter. So can you explain what other relevant matters applications are assessed against? Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, this is an impact assessable application. So just to begin with, start with the easy bit. It's assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. So not just particular codes in the planning scheme, unlike the code assessment, which is a bound assessment. So it's assessed more broadly. So it gets a strategic framework. And all the provisions as applicable in the scheme.
00:55:00 So it's that. And the Act does say that Council can consider any other relevant matters. And that's pretty broad. And it's probably going to vary quite a bit. You know, if we consider relevant might be considered, you know, if we're looking at a proposal that is contrary to the scheme, that there is a significant need for that proposal in the area. So need is a relevant matter. You know, it's going to benefit the community. So there's reason for us to go against our planning scheme. Because there's going to be an overall benefit to the community. So that would be a relevant matter. Speaker 4: And that's the most common one that would come up with Council. So the question of need, about the reason why you want to go outside your planning scheme because it's going to fulfill a particular need. Speaker 3: Yeah. So that's probably the one that comes up the most that I can think of for relevant matter. This one, we're still really assessing it against the planning scheme code. Does it comply with the code performance outcomes for Set Park? And that's about whether it maintains a consistent streetscape with the area.
00:56:00 And does it look out of place with the character and amenity of the area? So it's, that's why we're considering what else is in the street? Does it look out of place? Is this something that we should support because it meets the performance outcome? Or as officers are saying, we don't consider it meets that performance outcome, but we're okay with five metres given the other setbacks in the area. We think that will reasonably sit in the street without looking out of place. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So there's a recommendation there that would be referred to the general committee for further consideration. Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener, all in favour? Speaker 4: Aye. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we move on to item eight. Thank you, Patrick. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 4: A short term accommodation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks Patrick. This is a down street. Do we have any specific questions on this one or are we happy just to go to general committee? Mayor Stewart: Happy to go to general committee. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll move it.
00:57:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Stockwell and Stewart and all in favour? That is unanimous. We move on to item nine. And this is a request to apply superseded plans for material change of use for community use, wellbeing type two, social, page 123, social and ancillary dwelling caretaker's residence at 7 Woodland Drive, Breguen Beach. So this is an interesting plan. It is. So this is the old Telstra site. It is. It's like the land just to the west of it. So it hasn't got the existing structure on it? Speaker 3: No. No, it's next door. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's vacant. That's right. And so the zone under the superseded scheme was for community use. In the new scheme it is for part of the innovation zone. Speaker 3: Innovation zone. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the community use they're saying is a meeting space of some sort at the final level. And they suggest that that warrants a caretaker's residence above some significant size.
00:58:00 Is that? Speaker 3: Yes. That's essentially it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we don't agree. Speaker 3: Yeah. And I think the primary reason they're seeking it to be under the superseded scheme is around car parking location. It seems that they feel that that has adversely impacted how much floor area they can achieve on the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So yeah. We're not really considering that. Well, if we agree to accept it as a superseded, then we would consider the nature of the development subsequent to that. Speaker 3: Yes. So the report sets out a comparison between the two planning schemes to try and look at how the scheme changes have impacted this property. And the scheme has different requirements. There are clearly different requirements, but there's some pluses and minuses. And on balance, I don't think it's a plus.
00:59:00 So, you know, in terms of the use, officers have had a pre-lodgement meeting with the applicant and I think whilst it's obviously subject to an application, the primary advice that officers gave was that we thought that would be a reasonable use for the site, regardless of which scheme it sits under. It seemed to fit nicely with the existing uses and what council is developing in the area, and fit reasonably well across residential opposite. So that's one consideration, but really, at the end of the day, this application is really about deciding which scheme we will accept the application under. And I'm suggesting to council there's really no reason to accept it under the old planning scheme. We've got a new planning scheme in place and it's preferable that all our applications are assessed under that. Mayor Stewart: Does that make it then that caretakers and residents will go from 150 square metres to 65? Speaker 3: Well, not necessarily. So the scheme definition, and that's one of the issues I've raised too, so sorry.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 The scheme definition under the old scheme accepted that they could do up to 150 square metres. Yeah. But the 2006 scheme still required that it remain subordinate and accelerate to the use. Yeah. So it's not an automatic that they would get 150 square metres under the old scheme. Under the new scheme? There's a lesser amount that's suggested as being consistent with the zone, 65 square metres, as I've indicated in the report. Given the residential opposite, I think there's probably some grounds for a bit more than 65 potentially. But the important part is maintaining that the meeting room space is the predominant use on the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And had it been, for example, around the corner in the village?
01:01:00 Speaker 3: I would have to check for you, Brian, but I think it's... Oh, a small dwelling unit, yes. Yes, that's right. It's 100 square metres. Councillor Wegener: Which might be a garage as well. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And being a caretaker's unit is obviously that the person that lives with it has to be the caretaker. It's not going to be a short-term accommodation or anything like that. The person up there is tied to the use. Yeah. Speaker 3: That is their application. So it would be a caretaker. They have to have a relationship. That might be an employee or it could be the owner. Yes. Mayor Stewart: Do we have much more information about wellbeing, type 2 social? Do we have much more about what specifically the use would be for? The proposal? Speaker 3: I've tried to detail that in the report. I agree. It's a little bit... It's just... ...difficult to get your head around. Mayor Stewart: ...to understand what it's actually going to do. Speaker 3: Yeah. The way they described it to me was they are really looking to provide a meeting space
01:02:00 or a base for a lot of different community groups, which I thought was... It's a not-for-profit. Well, I've asked... Speaker 4: It's a $4 million community council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's exactly what I... Speaker 3: Yeah. But the groups that will use it aren't necessarily business groups. They will be sort of the not-for-profit groups. So as you can see in the report, I question whether it really falls within that definition. I'm not fully comfortable with that. But we don't have to decide that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But under the innovation zone, it would give a suggestion that we'd actually want to change from, as I said, as a business group to a non-profit group. And that's something that's not a business model. It's their decision. But we have got a new community building going just down the road. I would have thought that something that was more business orientated would be more consistent
01:03:00 with an innovation zone. That is something we could consider if we put it under the new scheme. That's right. Is that correct? Because we can have a consideration about what the innovation zone intent is? Because it changed... Obviously, we changed the intent of the site as a new scheme. And the intent was to have uses aligned similar to the next door printing digital hub, that it was a space for innovative business to locate. We only had two spots in the Shire where we did try and encourage this. For me, that's the more substantive question. But I'm happy with your recommendation that it's not adverse effects. I would have thought it was a... If you want to do that use rather than one delivery, it would be a use, a change in the planning scheme that was actually quite beneficial. Councillor Wegener: So we don't really know where it's going to go downstairs because it's an innovation center. And where's it going to go? There's probably being innovated right now.
01:04:00 Speaker 3: Well, they're proposing that it accommodate community groups downstairs. Councillor Wegener: And it'd be like a meeting space. Speaker 3: Yeah, potentially. I mean, they've listed all sorts of activities that those groups may undertake there. The innovation zone provides for research and development like the hub and sort of office space there. So it expanded what can be done on the site compared to the 2006 scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the community group one is consistent with the 2006 scheme's aim, but we need to be satisfied that we went ahead. That's right. Satisfied to meet the new scheme. Mayor Stewart: So Kerry, just you said that the improvement potentially does warrant a bit bigger space than 65 square meters. But if we did approve it under the Noosa Plan 2020, isn't it capped at that, caretakers, residents, and et cetera, or is there a latitude? Speaker 3: Under the 2020 scheme? So what the 2020 scheme says is that a caretaker is a consistent use in that area, providing
01:05:00 it doesn't exceed 65. So there is a... Yeah. Otherwise, it becomes an inconsistent use and they've got to follow an impact assessment process. So there is certainly a preference for the scheme there for smaller floor space for caretakers, residents by the new scheme. Mayor Stewart: So it's not Laid-Out Mazaire, right? Speaker 3: No, it's not Laid-Out Mazaire, but as I've suggested in the report, I think there are probably grounds to support a larger caretaker's residence there, given the residential opposite. That would be impact accessible. Impact accessible, that's right. Councillor Lorentson: So trying to understand adverse planning changes. You can claim an adverse planning change if it limits the use of the property and prohibits development. Isn't what we're saying prohibited development? If we're going from a bigger to a smaller space, that's then going to be impact accessible.
01:06:00 Isn't that prohibiting development with some type of financial... Yeah. ...repercussion? I'm just trying... I'm thinking it actually ticks that box. There will be adverse planning changes. Can you explain that to me? Yeah. Speaker 3: So there is a definition of adverse planning change in the Planning Act, which I can send around to the councillors. Councillor Lorentson: If I have that in front of me, yeah. Speaker 3: Well, it doesn't talk about limiting and prohibiting. So it talks about impact on basically the value, the interest in the premises, capital value of the land immediately before and after. So it comes back to the value of the land, what someone could reasonably achieve under the 2006 scheme compared to now, and how that impacts the value and interest in that property. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So if the yield achievable, that's what's meant by the yield achievable. Speaker 3: That's right. Okay. That's meant by yield as well as, you know, highest and best use, you know, some...
01:07:00 Councillor Lorentson: Immediately after. Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Highest and best use. You know, floor areas can contribute to that. That's right. Speaker 2: Just for clarification, did the group at all say why they need, like, a caretaker there in that position? Speaker 3: They felt that it was needed to help manage the community groups, that it would be open until 9 o'clock at night. And so they would provide a supporting role to those community groups. They had, you know, a lot of support from the community groups. They had, you know, a very community sort of orientated approach that were really wanting to give to the... To give back to the community is my impression of how they made it to me. Just trying to understand that because... You know, they would be opening up the rooms. They would be doing cleaning, maintenance, those sorts of things, and making sure it's all shut up and secure at night, at the end of the day.
01:08:00 Speaker 2: So I'm just wondering, like, Pomona Community House offers, from what I've heard in the report, offers the same type of use in their space, but they don't require caretakers. I'm just wondering how that fits with their model of operation. Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think... Yeah, that's the way they've presented it to me in the meeting. And I think it can be argued either way as to whether they really need a caretaker there or not. But, yeah, this is their proposal put forward. And we don't have to decide today whether we would support a caretaker there or not. We're just deciding which scheme we'll accept it under. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I suppose I support the argument that it's not a relevant superseded planning application and it's not an adverse change. So I haven't gone to the Act. I've gone to the tax sheet on the Queensland Government Innovation Zone, and it talks about the innovation zone covers land that's suitable for new and emerging activities that provide opportunities for innovation and creativity. The zone may be located near research and education facilities, so knowledge and technology may be easily shared. Other economic factors may be considered when identifying locations of the zone.
01:09:00 For example, land that provides for innovation in food production located close to... Well, that's not... Other activities that promote knowledge creation, entrepreneurship may also be located, such as start-up office spaces. That's the sort of thing that... That's the context. And to me, that's... As far as an economic proposition, it actually adds to the value of the property, doesn't detract from it. I'm happy to move the recommendation, but if... Mayor Stewart: May I second it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Anyone wish to discuss the matter further? All those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is on page 142. You notice that Councillor Lorentson is leaving the room.
01:10:00 And we have a declaration, do we? Mayor Stewart: Yeah. You're asking to stay on? Yes. Councillor Wegener: Oh, sorry. Speaker 2: Sorry about that. Mayor Stewart: There you go. Councillor Stewart informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have a close personal relationship with Anthony Francis Bell and Kelly Nicole Bell, listed in the report at item 93, application number SPS210 slash 0112, and Robin A Yates, listed in the report at item 127, application ID SPS21 slash 0150. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person from the perception of bias because I believe Council's consideration of these applications are not to approve or reject them. They are only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff.
01:11:00 However, I will be guided by what my colleagues have to say. Sorry. However, I respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain in and participate in the decision. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. And Councillor Wegener, you'd like to also make a declaration? Councillor Wegener: Yes. I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrew St. Baker, listed in the report at item 111, application number SPS21 slash 0134. I am a surfboard manufacturer and Mr. Baker is the owner of Thomas Surfboards and Thomas Factory. I believe Mr. St. Baker has a fantastic job. I have a fantastic influence on the manufacturing of NUSA. In Council, I have often congratulated the Thomas Factory and I have discussed the emerging enterprise zones which Mr. Baker supports. During the campaign, Mr. Baker allowed me to put an election for a flute at the Thomas Surfboard Factory.
01:12:00 I occasionally meet with Mr. St. Baker and the surf and had a few discussions of the NUSA bias here, the history of NUSA and the bring back the fish campaign at his house, which is right above the surf break. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Baker and Council's consideration of this application is not to approve or reject it only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff. I, therefore, will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in and participate in the discussion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Does anyone else have any other conflicts on those range of delegated items? No? So, Councillor Finzel, we are first to decide on the request from Councillor Stewart whether
01:13:00 we're happy to stay in the room. Do you have any questions of Councillor Stewart? The harder the better. Speaker 2: I have no further questions. I'm satisfied that she can reasonably and with an impartial response to any of the Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we both, you know this one. So, Councillor Wegener, so I know this is a previous, these words were previously used in your declaration that did raise some questions both within the community. So I'd like just to ask you a couple of questions to clarify. So, what would, if you're saying that you haven't got a close personal relationship, what was, what do you see as a trigger under the act for the declaration?
01:14:00 The core of the property. Okay, so the assistance with the campaign. Okay. Within the declaration, you have then gone on to a suggestive level of support. And I think there's twice in there where you talked about that, you know, where are we? Fantastic influence on manufacturing. That's about surfboard manufacturing. I have often, there's another one where you talk about what you support. So you support his activity as a surfboard manufacturer. It's not something that you think raises a, a perception of bias, it's more generally about his activity. I'm just trying to clarify those words in there. There's twice, I'm sorry, I'll, so yeah, the first one, it says,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 I believe Mr. Baker has had a fantastic influence on manufacturing in Noosa, and I have often congratulated the Thomas factory and I've discussed the emerging enterprise zone. So, congratulated. So these are about specific issues around specific sites that don't go broadly to a, a, a potential relationship that, that creates bias in your mind, is it? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm happy. I think that's all. I just, I know that the last time you did declare it that way, there were questions asked. Yeah. And it was about with implicit within your declaration is a, a sense that there could be an overarching potential for bias. So we'll go there. So do you have any questions? Speaker 2: I don't have any questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do you like to move? Speaker 2: Sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm terrified he's moving. He can stay. Yeah. So move the recommendation that as the standard that although Councillor Wegener has a relationship with Mr. Simbar Baker Council's consideration of these applications is not to approve or
01:16:00 reject them, but only for noting that a decision has already been made by staff there for a reasonable person we trust to find a decision is made in the public interest. I've seconded that. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Now we have to deal with that item. So does anyone have any questions about the delegated decisions? Speaker 4: Can I ask Dorothy Dixer? I think I'll give Kerry a heads up on this one. Obviously, this is a record number of applications that's gone through in the month, 140 or whatever it is. Kerry, maybe the question for me is, it's around we've got particularly short-term accommodation issues in here which were superseded planning scheme applications and the vast majority are recommended for approval but there are some recommended for refusal. What's the criteria that you use to look at the difference about whether one was supported for approval as a superseded,
01:17:00 or I can go down that superseded planning scheme path, or the others weren't? Just how that worked. Speaker 3: Sure. So the superseded planning scheme applications are a very different assessment or a very different application to those lodged under the Noosa plans and we'll just start with that. The superseded planning schemes is a provision in the Planning Act which started in its heyday under the Integrated Planning Act in 1998, I think, and it was a provision around compensation to landowners. So it provided that if there was changes in planning scheme, there was an avenue for applicants to go through a process where they could, for a year after a new scheme came in, make an application under the superseded scheme. And if they were rejected, they could then go on to look at claiming compensation from the council where it was refused.
01:18:00 And there's a process for that. So these applications under the superseded scheme applications, officers have been comparing differences between the 2006 scheme and the 2020 scheme. We are looking generally at what other short-term location, stays are in the area, we're looking at potential amenity impacts but the primary issue we're looking at is whether there's potential compensation to be paid by council and the reason we're doing that is there's been significant compensation claims against this council in the past with the last one resolved around 2014-15, which was for $38 million. So these claims can be quite substantial. So we've been considering potential compensation. We've been looking at the potential impact on the value of interest in the property,
01:19:00 measured maybe before the new scheme commenced and immediately after. So what we have been primarily considering around that is the proximity of these sites to the beach and what is generally being traditionally our areas where we see a lot of short-term accommodation. So we're looking at proximity to the beach, looking at proximity to our tourist areas. We're looking at whether these properties have significant views of the coastline. So that's why you'll see in some streets, you'll see applications approved and others in the same street where you may see a refusal because there are some properties, some streets in the Shire that have significant ocean views but some properties miss out and so we think there will be differences between the capital value. So that's essentially the reasons and issues we've looked at.
01:20:00 Speaker 4: And how long, someone's got to, if someone has a refusal under a superseded planning scheme application, they can lodge a compensation claim within six months from the release? Speaker 3: No, there's actually no time frame. I'll have a look. So the process that people will need to do, if they're seeking compensation, they will first need to make an application under the new scheme for short-term stay and so we will see those come in and they either have to have that rejected or a conditional approval that they find adverse to their values. Then if they feel it's impacted their value, they would then put forward a claim to council. Council needs to review that and either reject it or agree to pay. If it's rejected, then the matter goes to the court for a decision, so it's quite a lengthy process. I am hearing that we are likely to get some applications for ones we have rejected under
01:21:00 the superseded scheme come in, lodged under the 2000 scheme. Speaker 4: And they'll come to council for assessment? Speaker 3: They will come to council for consideration and we will also obtain legal advice along the way, so we're best informed how to deal with those. Speaker 2: Okay. Councillor Wegener: So they're going to come to council for assessment? It sounds very sticky on the property values and to be able to prove that the value has gone up because there's just so many factors. And I'm sure that you can't explain them or do them now because it would take weeks or a course. Speaker 3: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Huh. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. So there will be, coming to general, we will have two reports for council, two superseded scheme applications for the Shire Business Centre, for commercial sites in the business centre, so they will come for council for general. The applicant evaluation, trying to demonstrate the loss in value because of the change in scheme. And we have had a value also review that for council's consideration. I think they're different.
01:22:00 Councillor Wegener: To try to narrow it down, what is the time frame? So is it, like I think we once said, it's the next day. So you have the 2006 planning scheme, new planning scheme, and the value of the property. At that day, which would be, what was it, March or June? Speaker 3: Yeah. So the comparison, the scheme commenced on the 31st of July, so the comparison is immediately before and immediately after because obviously market conditions can change over time and it's about the change at that time. Councillor Wegener: There's so many variables. So there are property values that are going up while at the same time there's been COVID. I mean, it sounds like it will be quite a bit of horse trading there. Speaker 4: Yeah. The other thing, in terms of timing, Tom, is that the 31st of July is the important date because someone could make an application for a superseded planning scheme application up until the 31st of July 2021, but no more of those can come in. So there's probably, I don't know how many still to work through. Speaker 3: Oh, we've only got a handful now to decide. Speaker 4: It's almost over that hump and we'll know the nature of what might come through if we refuse it. We know how many we've refused and how many of those might turn into an application
01:23:00 and then we can deal with those again. So the sausage machine is sort of narrowing in terms of what might come through the system and we'll manage those as they come through. Speaker 3: So I'll provide the full statistics, if you like, once we get to the point we've decided them all for councillors to see the number that we approved, refused. Remembering we also had a number withdrawn because we have had a practice of where we're looking to refuse it. We would suggest they were withdrawn and then they'll get part of their fees returned to them. So we have had that practice as well. But I'll give those stats when we get there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So on one of the unusual ones, mainly to say that I don't have a funds management trust. A number two, which is a Stockwell Funds Management Proprietary Limited, TTE, whatever that stands for. And declared. No, I'm not. I'm saying that's not me. I wish I did have enough money to have a funds management proprietary limited. The question was, it's a fairly significant site as a business centre
01:24:00 and we've changed the bushfire management plan. So can you just give me an explanation of what the changes? Speaker 3: So I'm trying to remember when it occurred. I think it was the end of 2019. There was a significant fire threat. The area was under quite some threat and the owners of the Shire Business Centre undertook some clearing to protect their property from the Shire Business Centre. And they undertook that work at the direction and advice from their bushfire consultant. But they did not seek approval from council to do those works. They did it because they felt there was an urgent need to protect their assets and property. So we obviously had a discussion with them about that. And so whilst we appreciated there was an urgent threat, they did need to go through the process. And so they did launch an application to amend their bushfire report. So what got approved in the end is reflective of the approved subdivision
01:25:00 and the work that was done through that subdivision to determine the extent of bushfire clearing required. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it wasn't actually changing any of the approval, it was just getting that retrospective approval for what occurred. Speaker 3: So it was changing the bushfire report for... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I noticed the construction workers appeared to be putting their first flush detention or wetland treatment system right down closest to the bushfire area in the innovation zone. Is that sort of my understanding? Speaker 3: Some of it are temporary measures. So it will change. Temporary while they're constructing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are there any other questions about any of the delegated decisions? Just to say thanks to the hard work of all the staff Speaker 4: to get through the 140 applications in one month and we'll be over that hump mid-this month. Yes, yes. Speaker 3: We're celebrating with a bit of lunch together. It's been a big job. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My understanding is Sunday is D-Day? 13th of September?
01:26:00 Speaker 3: Yes, it was around the 13th. But we've got obviously the one on the agenda and the two before Council. We've asked for an extension in order for those to be decided by Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And just for a little bit of history, it's almost two years to the day after we made the motion to make sure it's staying consistent in the planning scheme that was on the 12th or 2nd of 2019. So it took two years to get the sausage factory to come to an end. Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't want a sausage factory anymore. How's that worked out for you, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that being the last item on the agenda, we will clear the meeting. Oh, we haven't moved it. Oh, we haven't moved that yet? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? Carried unanimously. And now we shall declare the meeting closed at...