Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 5: OK, welcome to the November Planning and Environment Committee meeting and we, as normal, will pay our respects to the First Nations people, the Kabi Kabi people and their Elders past, present and emerging. We have a somewhat brief agenda today, but we welcome a new Interim Director of Environmental Standards, Leo Jensen here, with Kerry Coyle and Acting CEO Larry Sengstock. So, we promise to be on our best behaviour. So, the first item is we have a full attendance, therefore there's no apologies. Would someone like to move to confirmation of Minnesota? So, it's moved. Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Tom. All in favour? That's passed unanimously.
00:01:00 There's no presentations or deputations. So, we move on to item number one of section five, which is a minor change to existing approval for multiple dwellings at 680 to 86 Hilton Terrace in Noosaville. So, Councillors, questions of staff? Well, firstly, the new practice of giving a bit of an intro to each item. Would you like to give us a bit of a background? Speaker 3: All right. This is a proposal to make a change to a development approval for the dwelling unit from Noosaville Terrace. It's a very minor proposal in that the extension is 50 square metres. And the recommendation to Council is that we actually refuse it. So, even though it's very minor, this building is the biggest building on Hilton Terrace. And it already exceeds the maximum floor area for the area, having been approved under some
00:02:00 of the planning schemes. So, the recommendation is that it be refused. The works have already been approved. They've been carried out. They've been carried out. They've been carried out without a building approval or a planning approval, which is unfortunate. So, yeah. That's the recommendation. Speaker 2: Is that a big error or something? Kerry, how much does it already exceed the count floor area? Speaker 3: Yeah. So, that's put out on the table. Yeah. So, yeah. The development was developed over two lots. There's actually two planning approvals. And they've only made applications to change one of the approvals. So, table one on page eight is the most relevant. Okay. So, you can see that the proposal, which includes the extension of 15 square metres, is 1,005.
00:03:00 And today, under the lease of time 2020, the maximum plot ratio would be 858 square metres. Similarly, there's this drawing on the board. So, you can see that it's not quite exceeding 15 square metres. Speaker 2: But it did divide the 1990 planning structure. Speaker 3: That's right. That's right. So, the 1990 scheme, the time it was developed, will add a slightly higher G fame. That becomes pretty obvious when you have a look along Hilton Terrace, the aerial photograph on page nine. Yeah. Have a look at the varying building sizes along there. But it's certainly the one that . So, for me, this is... Even though it's a minor, I think... I don't think people should be rewarded for building things without the proper approvals in place. It is contrary to our scheme. There is a maximum GSA under our planning scheme. It's not intended to carry that maximum G fame.
00:04:00 I can't say that it's consistent with the street space in any way. So, it's not intended to carry that maximum G fame. It's not. In favour of the applicant, the extensions really are not going to be highly visible because part of the extension is out the back and part of it's to an internal courtyard. So, it's quite internal and not visible. So, you know, it's difficult to show that it has any significant impact because it is very minor. So, it's not something council members wish to consider. Okay. Speaker 5: Any further questions? You can request. So, I would think it probably is one that would go to the General Committee and myself. I think the things that I'd want to just consider, I would say that the
00:05:00 fact that you don't believe that we should be rewarding the prospective applications as being consistent. On the other hand, the query about whether the overall outcomes for this zone could be argued to be achieved or at least not further offended by the small change in both internal courtyard and to the river. My concern would be, is it worth a potential legal cost if they were to deal with decisions and have some sort of thinking about that before Monday? Speaker 3: Well, I'm not sure it's something that would make comment on how we go in an appeal. Yeah, no, no. Speaker 5: Just about in terms of that overall outcome. Is that something we'd have to consider? Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I just pointed to the overall outcome, the relevant one, which is on page eight.
00:06:00 And that's really, you know, if it wasn't to go to trial, the court would be looking at . So, it's valid in the statement. It just talks about by maintaining a character. Kerry, in, sorry, this, 1998, a building was issued. So, it did comply then, didn't it, under that 1990 planning scheme? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, for a long, for years, the planning scheme in Noosa has always set maximum GSA, site cover, building type of stories, and things being written in a way that is not intended to the river. I feel like that's an archaic string of things. Speaker 2: Kerry, if they've built with no building approval, what's the consequence of that as well? Speaker 3: They can be reported to the QVSA. But then, they would likely have to go to trial. So, they, they likely just to the direction to the commission, which is what they're
00:07:00 doing first. You know, they, the building certifier is not in a position to approve this extension. And that's the way to approach approval, the finding that . Speaker 2: Okay. What was the, where would they be reported to? Can you what? Speaker 3: Think on building services authority. Alternatively, council's own building section can take action. Okay. If there's no compliance with the building code. Okay. Speaker 2: And have they taken any action to date? Speaker 3: No. This has been managed by planning to date. We've just been looking at this, this planning issue. But certainly, youth council are not to support this. They would have to progress. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 5: So. Speaker 3: I'm happy to move it to general. General meeting? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 5: First consideration. I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's unanimous.
00:08:00 So we move on to item two. Application for minor change to development approval, multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multi-function room and gym at 75 Resort Drive. Move ahead. We've got a number of conflicts of interest to declare. I'll go first as I'm in the chair. I would like to make a motion to approve. I make a motion to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Constructions. On 24 February 2020, I saw the review of an independent council election observer as to the public claims of the future Noosa team of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because the ICO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and my queries at the time were in the public interest and neither I nor Ms McCready
00:09:00 could personally gain or lose from the advice. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. However, we need to pass over to the acting CEO to appoint a chair for the purpose of Speaker 1: the meeting. So, I believe we have other technical aspects and conflicts of interest. So, I think we need to potentially understand what they are and who they are in this case. So, in that case, I think there is only one person left who is eligible to be the chair. Would you do counselling on that? Yes. Speaker 6: So, I am now the acting chair, for a sense. And now we will... Pardon me. Speaker 3: Yes. I'll move. I'll move. I'll move. No, no, no. That's a... Speaker 1: I need to appoint, don't you, because no one else is eligible to actually declare
00:10:00 this point. Speaker 6: And then we have further conflicts of interest. Speaker 3: Yes. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have declarable conflicts of interest in this matter in relation to the application by ultimate instructions. I have a close personal friendship with Lee and Rob McCready, who are associated with the applicant. As a result of my conflicts of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and closed on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 6: And, Councillor Finzel. Speaker 3: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by ultimate instructions. I have a relationship with Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, as Mrs McCready was involved with my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group
00:11:00 known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entry. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: Something I need to consider. I will consider that Councilor Stockwell should stay in the room, and that is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter, because Council believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss
00:12:00 Speaker 5: I think since there's such a small number of people on the table, I'll just refer it to the general committee. Unless you've got any specific questions you want answered or skipped for next Monday. Speaker 6: Just the one question that sticks out is the charges on page 35. So is there a doubling up of payment, have these charges already been paid once, which is the infrastructure charge notice will be issued to the estimated amount totalling $597,563. Speaker 4: The infrastructure charges have been paid in full for the development. The development has been constructed and has been used, so payments have been made
00:13:00 in accordance with the applicable charges for the development, however, there is additional GFA associated with this application, so they're only being charged in relation to the additional area. Speaker 6: So it's charged to the additional area, and does that mean that it goes down to $280,000 on the top of page 36? Speaker 4: No, what page 36 is, they were the existing advisory notes, so they were the previous infrastructure charges that have been paid, so the change doesn't relate to those charges. Additional advisory note 12 is the details related to areas to be charged. I don't have a dollar figure at hand as to what that will be. I think my conversations with the opposite might have been around $5,000 additional. Oh, so that's not enough to have over half a million.
00:14:00 No. Okay. Speaker 3: Now, we can come back to you and let you know the exact additional charges from that, but it's a little bit complicated in the approval, because we're changing in all approvals. Yeah. And the approval at the time of issue, we have claims and policies and claims. So we can let you know what the additional charge was. Speaker 6: That'd be great, yeah, and I just want to know that it's not over half a million dollars. No. Okay. Go ahead, Ryan. No, no. Speaker 5: You've got further questions, or? No. Okay. So I suggest that the matter be referred to the general committee meeting, and that 's a consideration. Speaker 3: Yeah. Just before we do, there are some things that we need to read, and we haven't got the feedback from the opposition. Yeah. We'll discuss it now, but we'll talk to it. Sure. Speaker 4: That's all. So you'll see as part of the recommendation, there's an additional condition proposed around the cooking class, which were not to be used as part of the approved entertainment and
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 dining business use. That condition was added because this development changed under 15. When it was originally approved, there were function rooms and facility buildings associated with the original approval, and there has been throughout the course of the approvals. And it was originally proposed to be used as a resort, and those facilities building, facilities, rooms would be shared by people that were occupiers of the resort, or now permanent residents of the resort. So we could just see that there was a movement in areas, that the restaurant was starting to dominate that building, and we were concerned that the amount of space that was available to the residents would have for their own use, and that building was being marginalized. So that's why the condition was applied. Subsequent to that, the developers contacted me and said the way they want to actually
00:16:00 use the room is for a signature chef, who will oversee the restaurant, the restaurant, the restaurant, to provide a more intimate cooking class experience within that cooking class space. So there is an element of relationship between the restaurant and how they're proposing to use that room. Having looked at the acoustic report, it does factor in the use of that room for a cooking class perspective. So that's been covered off. It also would not impact on car parking. So we've had a further consideration, and we're looking at that as well. We've also been invited how the understanding that in the future, the room could still be used by residents of the premise, that it would be resourced to meet that condition. Okay. Speaker 5: Is that something we can think about on Monday? Speaker 3: So I think that we should do probably a little further reports in January. Sure. We'd love it. Yeah. Just to explain that. Yeah. Speaker 4: It would be good to have that. Speaker 5: Obviously, the grounds for the decision. Otherwise, the council should have that.
00:17:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. That's a good suggestion. Yeah. No more than 10 pages. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 5: Okay. So we can... Have we voted on that yet? I don't think so. Would you like to second the motion to move to general? Councillor Wegener. Speaker 1: And for a further report now. Speaker 5: Yes. All those in favour? That's unanimous. And we can invite . Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. So you have two minutes to ask your question. So will we hand the chair back over to you now? No, no. Speaker 5: The chair's already been handed over. Soon as always. Speaker 2: Is that okay? Speaker 1: Is that on the table? Is that on the table? Yep. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
00:18:00 Speaker 5: All good. So we're on to item three, and this is Planning and Environment Court Appeal number D12 of 2021, application for extension to high-end storage building at Jetty 256 Gimpy Terrace, Noosaville. Questions? Oh, I keep on forgetting to do the intro. Speaker 3: All right. So this report reviews and recommends settlement of an appeal against council initially refused an application for extension for a boat storage shed along the interior. So through the course of the appeal, the applicant provided additional plans amending the shed, improving its presentation. They also demonstrated, importantly, that the number and size of craft could reasonably be contained within lease area. The report originally raised a lot of issues around the number of fines being issued to the captain, but continually offer shaping the unjustly.
00:19:00 We went through a process of making sure that their craft would res safeguard in lease land and have an agreed layout and number of boats within lease land. All right. And also to add on, theещ toe ratio within the lease area. The applicants demonstrated that these small extensions weren't really resulting in a significant increase to the scale of the operation, that there was an extension given to the actual jetty itself back in 2015, and that's had no more votes in that experience since that time. So I think it's reasonable that we're going to end up presentation-wise with a better outcome. We'll end up with conditions that can assist in controlling the scale of the operation. Obviously, to a length of period of time, the applicant tells me they're happy to comply with those. And so it is definitely worth considering.
00:20:00 So certainly down the track, if there are breaches of the planning approval, breaching the planning approval applies to much more substantial than what we can issue under the local law. So as fast as the need arises, Speaker 6: Yes, I see that there's a maximum number of vessels stored and available for hire. Sixteen boats, nine jet skis, nine kayaks, and so forth. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 6: Is this the only area there where the actual number of boats is limited? Is it limited by agreement? Speaker 3: Do you have any leaks? Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 3: Well, a bit of history with the leases along the river. Lucifer, prior to amalgamation, had a local law for jetties along the Lucifer River. And under that local law, there was an approval required for jetties. And all the approvals lifted the number of boats that they could accommodate within that leasing area.
00:21:00 During the Sunshine Coast Council's day, that local law was rescinded. I'm not sure of the reasons why, but it was rescinded. It wasn't the best written local law, so that may be the leases. And then the state renewed all the leases along the local law, the state leases. And they removed the commissions which were reflective of that local law, because there's no local law, which included the boat. So I suggest that this is probably the only one there now that will have a limit on the number of boats currently. But under the new scheme, there's been a land use introduced for landing. So as people that relate to the use of those jetties, as people make changes down the track to their jetties, that will be an opportunity for council issues to look at limiting the
00:22:00 number of boats that will be along there. Okay. Speaker 5: Questions or comments? Someone wish to move the motion? Moved by Councillor Stewart. Second? Councillor Finzel. Discussions? I just think the key one for me is that the conditioning of the approval will provide us with a better head of power to control. I wasn't aware of the history in terms of other jetties. We've obviously seen significant growth since the last, yeah, since the amalgamation of the jetties. And so it would be desirable to try and get these sort of conditions that set reasonable limits to the leases that have been placed over the whole of the Portia. I will support that. Put that to a vote. All in favour? That's unanimous.
00:23:00 We move on to section six, reports for noting by the committee, and that is planning applications decided by delegated authority. Do we have any queries or questions about that list? Speaker 6: Is this the end to our short-term stay, or is there a few more coming down the track? Speaker 3: I know that is, I'm pretty sure that's the end, whether we're looking for any more . That's the last of it, because this is for the month of September. And so, yeah, all the things we did. Okay. Thank you. Kerry, I just have a question about, notably this month, there were five applications made Speaker 2: for exemption certificates. Why is that significant or worth noting? Speaker 3: I tried to find something interesting in the report.
00:24:00 That's essentially why I've listed it. It's not something that we've talked about a lot before, so I thought I'd bring that to council's attention, that under the planning legislation, there is the ability for council to issue exemption certificates. We should try and get that to council. It's a little bit unusual. I've seen it in the planning legislation before, but it was introduced in the Planning Act in 2017. But there are quite strict criteria under the Planning Act that we must follow in issuing those. And one of those, these have really been issued because of a mistake in the planning scheme. So they really point to some errors in the scheme that we need to address with our next month. What sort of mistakes? Just some wording in the tables of assessment for some of the overlaid codes. I can't remember what these ones were specifically, but there's two. There's a landslip one where the scheme inadvertently requires an application in an area for a landslip
00:25:00 for a house. You know, it's even tangible. It's just here. It's a very technical, geotechnical way of doing it. And we provide those by way of an application. There's a couple of ones in the planning scheme that we've put down to identify all our expenses. We've put them up in the application. We've changed the draft here. Kerry, I've got a question. Sorry, Karen, do you want to? Yeah, no, go on. Thank you. Speaker 2: Just on, I'm just looking at the refusals here and under the superseded planning scheme Speaker 3: for short-term accommodation, are they on the basis of you taking into account all those, all the considerations that you do with every application in regard to where it is, location, Speaker 2: potential compensation, things like that? Speaker 3: Yeah. So we, with our superseded scheme application for short-term accommodation, we looked at a range of issues, including consistency with the new scheme, impact on neighbours.
00:26:00 Yeah. Any manatee issues that may have made. But we also considered whether there'd likely be a compensation program by councils or council to refuse it. And that was really our primary criteria. So having a look at the short-term accommodation, what we really looked at was, you know, we had some legal advice and value advice originally around, yeah, properties along the coastline. We'd like to see a change in capital value for short-term. But those that are a little bit further removed. Yeah. So these properties, while along the coastline, they won't have any significant use. Get that back a little bit from you. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 5: Councillor Loughlin. Speaker 2: Well, in regards to the abusers or requests for risk-based and attached houses, has council
00:27:00 had any random challenges? I mean, I think that's a really good question. Speaker 3: Yeah. So the no. The answer's no. The first step in seeking compensation for someone who's at a refusing to give scheme application is to actually lodge an application under the new planning scheme. First. And have that person refused or conditionally approved that they feel then impacts the capital value of their land. So we've had one application made to date. And that was for council's new planning scheme. So we do now have an application under the new plan for the one that was . That's our first application. I don't know whether the owners are seeking compensation, or they just really want to build this development. I'm not sure what their intent is there yet.
00:28:00 But I have been advised by our consultants that they are looking to lodge a number of applications for short-term accommodation under the new planning scheme. And then we will report those to our council where they would be able to see the refusal. So when they come in, we will be getting legal advice around those, and we will report those to council for a decision. Speaker 2: I have another question. A resident has raised some concern on page 65 with the approval of no. 8 due to surfering in new surferings. My understanding is that property has existing use rights. Is that true? And I'm just curious why they made an application under the new plan. Yeah. Speaker 3: It is true that they have existing use rights. They've been operating for a long time for short-term accommodation. They did make an application for under the new planning scheme for short-term accommodation,
00:29:00 which was approved. I don't know the reasons why. I don't know. We haven't articulated that in the application. I guess they may feel there's better flexibility in terms of going forward about what they can and can't do. Speaker 2: This property has also been noted. There's been some concerns behind the new cladding and noise issues. My question is, given that it's got existing use rights, do the existing use rights override the local law approvals? So, I don't know. I don't know. Can a local law approval suspend existing use rights over those existing use rights due to negative outfits? Speaker 3: Yeah. So, there's two things here. There's the planning legislation and the local law. So, the planning legislation and our scheme deals with where they can be located. Those existing use rights are protected by the planning legislation.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 They remain in place. Our local law, though, can help manage both the existing use rights and the existing use rights. And if this property breaches the local law, once they have an approval under the local law, they'll be required to get an approval under the local law. There'll be conditions on that approval. If they breach those conditions, council has a number of enforcement options. And one of those is to suspend operation of the property. So, short term accommodation. Especially on the basis of civil renewal process. We are getting those continuing compliance. Yeah. Yeah. But the owners and the applicant will be given the opportunity to address the issues raised. So, it's not to say they'll be suspended forever more. It will be for a period of time to address the issue. Speaker 2: So, with regards to existing use rights, if there's continuation of planning practices under our local laws, can short term accommodation be cancelled, given we've got existing use
00:31:00 rights? Speaker 3: We can't. The local law, we can't. We can never cancel or extinguish their existing use rights. Those remain under the planning legislation. But we can ensure the use ceases for a period of time. We can extend the approval under the local law. And they're not to breach the local law. And I think we just need to be a little bit careful here. I know residents have been long term affected by the operations at this house. But all the evidence we have is that the residents have been affected by the operations at the party's house, because it is separately defined by the planning act and our planning scheme. So, we have no evidence. The residents haven't been able to give us any evidence that it's actually operated as party's house, as defined by the planning scheme and the planning act. So, a party's house is where they continue to offer the house for functions, like birthdays,
00:32:00 engagement parties. But that's different to a group of friends coming for a weekend and saying that's not considered a party's house. Okay. Speaker 5: So, I wish to move the night. I'll set the minister. Give me the name. A couple of minutes. A bit of a stir. There's been no further discussion I presume. All in favour? Carried unanimously. And we call the meeting to a close at 10.33, which is. Speaker 2: 10.03.