Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This will be my last time as chair, so I'd like to think about what that actually means, being NAIDOC week last week, and what it means to actually pay respects to the elders past and present. And it does mean about caring for country and paying deep respect to every decision we make, to make sure that we're taking steps towards bringing this pace back to where something like it was before European settlement. So, we move on to attendance and apologies. We have an apology from Councillor Finzel, and an apology from the Mayor. We have the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Frank Wilkie, in her stead at the committee. Welcome, Frank. I'm sure you'll equip yourself well. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Confirmation of minutes. Does anyone like to do that? Move, Councillor Wegener. Seconded, Councillor Wilkie.
00:01:00 I'm guessing there's no discussion. All in favour? That was unanimous. We have no presentations, no deputations. And we then move on to the reports committee, and the first one of those is a reconfiguration of the lot application for lot one. So, we've got eight lots and two lots at 9 Maple Street, Croy. And we have with us... Kerry, go ahead. This is Georgina. Georgina Schramm. Speaker 5: Yeah, and Schramm. So, she started with us in January. Comes from a rural council and is doing really well. I'm very happy to have her with us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, would you like to give us a brief overview of this application? Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. So, we've got a reconfiguring a lot application. It's a subdivision of one into two lots. We're out at Maple Street, Croy. So, at the moment, we've got the Hinterland Playground on the northern side of Raya Street. And we've got the existing library on the southern.
00:02:00 Purpose of the subdivision application is solely just to formalise Raya Street, the existing division of the lot. Yeah, so we're just essentially formalising the existing division on there. No new changes to the boundary. Just dividing, basically, where the road is. Very good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I will remind councillors that we can't consider the merits of the applicant in this case. Because I realise the applicant's case has a dodgy history. No, no, no, it's council. No. Speaker 5: So, that's why this matter is being reported to council. Because it is a council application. So, just a fairly straightforward application. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So, if the applicant had been an independent person, it wouldn't have triggered anything. It would have been concerns. And it would have been approvals. Speaker 5: Yes. It would have been decided by delegation by officers. Yeah. Because it's fully compliant with the planning scheme.
00:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: So, it's been elevated to the committee system because it's in the public interest. Speaker 5: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: And greater transparency. Speaker 5: Yeah. Exactly. Councillor Wegener: Okay. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we have any other questions? Councillor Wegener: People understood. So, the split is between where the library is and the park now. And they're just saying that there are two lots. The road shouldn't be running through the middle of a property. One particular property. But . Yeah. Speaker 2: So, essentially, it's just for greater land management, I suppose. And we also have different zoning on each side. So, on the southern side, it's community facilities. And then on the northern side, we've got open space and one of the environmental zones along the creek. So, now we just get to formalize that division. Councillor Wegener: And the environmental zone along the creek there, there's this line here. So, is it still part of the park? Or is it separate from the park, the environmental zone? Speaker 2: Yeah. So, it is a part of the park, that section.
00:04:00 So, where that line is, that was an existing access easement, which one of the conditions was to get surrendered, relinquished, essentially. So, that was a bit of a historical easement associated with the industrial state on their northern side. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, part of the subdivision. Yeah, part of the subdivision is about including part of the road reserve into the allotment. Now, that would require the approval of the state. The natural resources. Yeah. And so, we've got the resources. Yeah. Speaker 2: So, that was in association with the previous MCU oversight. Okay. So, that was for the parkland there. And so, there's essentially... So, we've conditioned that we've got to get approval for that pre-closure prior to signing of the survey plan. So, we'd be looking for that before it comes into our survey plan team and check compliance
00:05:00 for that to make sure we've got approval for that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Just because. Okay. Thank you. Are we aware of any native total invocations of that process? Speaker 5: No. No. It's not something we have investigated there, but it will have to go through the process with the state and follow their requirements. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm aware that in early days, very close is trigger. Speaker 5: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: . Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Believe it or not, I used to go down that road and pick up wood with my father-in-law when the wood mill was still there. Yeah. So, that he would actually know. That he would have walked out and picked up wood and throw it in the back of the ills. It's just scrap wood. Fun fact. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I used to drive my car to the back and pick up the sawdust. The sawdust of a veggie garden. Oh, I'm going to do. Okay. So, do we have anyone who wishes to move the staff regiment? Oh, sorry. We have Councillor Lorentson and her question.
00:06:00 Councillor Lorentson: Hi, and welcome to Noosa Council. Thank you. Question. On page 13, there is one point of non-compliance with this application that it doesn't comply with the Noosa Plan 2020 in relation to the subdivision of land relocated in the riparian buffer of the biodiversity borderway and wetlands overlay. Can you explain that a little bit further for me? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. So, the land is relocated in the riparian buffer of the biodiversity borderway So, essentially, we're not changing anything structurally. We're following the existing boundaries. So, in this instance, it was considered that we could comply with the corresponding performance outcome. So, we're not, essentially, introducing any further prescribed clearing matters or anything like. So, at times, you can have clearing rights to follow an existing fence for, I think, it's 1.5 either side. In this instance, they've already got those existing rights to go through with the exempt clearing.
00:07:00 So, we're not, I suppose, further impacting that. Speaker 5: Yeah. So, essentially, there's no new boundaries through the riparian buffer area that causes, you know, a significant conflict with the planning scheme. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. So, now Marriott, Marara Road, or Marra Street, is that part of the road reserve for council? So, does it shift, is there some sort of ownership from council to council, or maybe the road reserve area? Is that? Speaker 2: So, it's an existing council road, from my understanding. And it's just a lot that's, it's like a balance lot. So, I think we've got, we've just got a figure of the aerial, and it'll show you the highlighted sections. So, we've got existing Mariah Street. Yeah. Sorry. We're not changing the ownership or anything like that, if that answers your question. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, a lot must have been going across with binculums or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. Fairly common in rural areas to see, you know, large land parcels which have a road through the middle, but they're actually still one lot.
00:08:00 And there's exemptions under the regional plan in rural areas for subdivision of those, those sorts of lots, to create those two lots, recognising that the road places some constraint, potentially, on use of those lands. Speaker 3: Figure three highlights that, Chair, the binculum. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thanks. In terms of Maple Street, the area going into Park, it's unlikely that it would be needed for any other road corridor purposes. I seem to recall that Maple Street's a little bit of a bullet-grade area. It's a little bit of a turn around in that. But the reason why it's so wide, I don't think there's too many bullet grades that have been put in there anymore. But, yeah, the theory of the question is, we've had a look at the future road corridors and stuff and we don't think there's any. Speaker 5: No. As we all know, roads in Cooroy are particularly wide and, yeah, we don't consider there's any need for it to be maintained in road reserve. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The history was that bullet grades came down with the timber into the tombs.
00:09:00 Speaker 5: Ah. So that's the width. Yeah. Since we don't travel by bullet train anymore, I think we should be right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, there was one that still used to go into town in the 80s. Speaker 5: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think it was the Hollis, I think it was the only one at the time. Yeah. I remember seeing it about three times in town, bringing a bullet train in. Okay, so we had our questions, someone would like to move the motion? Moved, Councillor Wilkie, seconded, Councillor Wegener. Any discussion? All in favour? That's unanimous. Did you raise your hand there, Councillor Wegener? Yes, I did. So we move on to item two. I need to declare a conflict of interest. I wish to inform the meeting of a conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Elkland Properties Group listed in, I think that might be the wrong item number there, item two.
00:10:00 Let me go up to... And if we go up into my declaration, if you just take out the reference to item 28, put item two. And take out the rest. And councillors, I won't go into the detail, which is next, I've declared it so many times, you're aware that it relates to an issue during the campaign. That I sent to the independent advisor for assessment. Councillor Wilkie: Mr Chair, because there may be people listening who haven't tuned in before, would it be all right if you read it out, please? Oh, I'm lucky for not being in New York. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I sort of...
00:11:00 I sort of review by the independent council, extra observant of the ICO as the public claims of the future Noosa team, of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a noose. 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 the perception of bias because council's consideration on this application is not to approve or reject it. Oh, yes, it is. Ah, that's what it is. Yeah. What perception of bias? Yeah, perception of bias. Just take out that after bias. Just take a full stop there. Full stop. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting room on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. They're lucky I read it out.
00:12:00 Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Always helps. And you have the process. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: I'll now assume the chair. Yeah. And you refer to, I think, someone else. Yeah. And I'll refer to Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Oh, yes. Try to read it. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. So, Councillor Wegener, I'll refer to you to be chair and then vote on the matter before us in relation to Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stockwell's conflict of interest. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that a reasonable person could not have a perception of bias because the ICEO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process.
00:13:00 And Councillor Stockwell's queries at the time were in the public interest and neither he nor Mr. Creedy stood to personally gain or lose from that advice. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wegener: I second that motion. Do you object to discuss it? No. I think it's self-explanatory, Mr. Chair. Okay. Should we vote on it? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. That's a great idea. Councillor Wegener: We'll put it to vote. Okay. It's unanimous. Carried. Councillor Wegener. Councillor. No, sorry. Just shaking. Not moving. Okay. It's a stress. No, this is a very big issue here with the altar here. So, let's carry on. So, back to you, Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, thank you for your excellent sharing. So, we have an item. It has been requested to go to General Court. So, we will submit it.
00:14:00 But if there are questions, I'll start. But we might start with an outline by staff first. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. So, the application we've got in front of us is a change representations. So, it's material changes use as well as an operational works application. So, it's combined. The material change of use component is for three multiple dwelling units and an office, as well as the op works component is for road works, drainage works, landscaping, stormwater, earthworks. So, the applications made representations because essentially they're looking to, I suppose, appeal and negotiate some of the conditions of the prior preliminary approval. It was issued a preliminary approval earlier in the year, so in April. That was due to a couple outstanding non-compliances that could not be resolved. Okay. Prior to a decision being made, essentially. So, that was the best course of action moving forward. Those matters related to non-compliance with accessibility requirements.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 So, the multiple dwelling units, the three units are on the upper floor and they're all accessible by stairs. And that was, there's a requirement in our scheme. There's an acceptable outcome saying that it has to be step-free access, essentially. So, there's an acceptable outcome saying that it has to be step-free access, essentially. As well as having a wider doorway and a bathroom, which is accessible from that area. And I suppose that's just to make sure that we're catering for that wider section of the community that has mobility access issues, concerns. And in this instance, that hasn't been resolved. So, the applicant has put forward representations in relation to the relevance of the, the relevance and the accuracy of that. So, we haven't resolved those matters. So, that's still put out for a refusal in part.
00:16:00 And that's relating to condition 2.1. And then, another condition that has not, another representation that has not been agreed to is in relation to the currency period. The currency period condition is referring to the material change of use. So, that's condition 5. It's consistent with the Planning Act. So, we haven't resolved those matters. So, we have continued with that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. The, thanks, Georgina. One of the sticking points seems to be the condition requiring the inclusion of a lift to enable access to one, at least one of the top four units. And the applicant contends that, they're talking about Performance Outcome 9 in the Planning Scheme. It says, multiple dwellings can be accommodated and visited by a wide cross section of the community, including those that are in the planning scheme. Including people with limited mobility. So, the condition requiring a lift is helping to achieve this outcome and make sure people
00:17:00 with limited mobility can access at least one of the units. Correct? Speaker 2: Yes. So, the acceptable outcome doesn't necessarily specify a lift. Normally, with our multiple dwelling units, there is at least one of the units when, where it exceeds three, that is on the ground floor. Yeah. So, you kind of, at times, you comply with that without even realising. But, in this instance, this isn't the case because of the design of the development. So, they're reliant on those three separate stairways. So, yes. It's just the one unit that has to have that step-free access. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Now, the applicant in the letter contends that Performance Outcome 9, or the requirement that are, they're contending that a lift is required. Yes. Basically, illegal to require a lift. Can you give your perspective on that? Yeah.
00:18:00 Assertion, please. Speaker 2: Yeah. So, we've discussed it within the team, as well as spoken to the Strategic Planning Department and Building. And the inclusion of the acceptable outcome and the performance outcome, it is just, it's a higher order requirement than what the National Construction Code requires. So, we've discussed it within the team, as well as spoken to the Strategic Planning Department But, I suppose, it's essentially just that higher outcome, then, that would normally be prescribed by that NCC and that construction code. Speaker 5: So, it's Office's position that it is permitted and not in conflict. I mean, our planning scheme has been signed off by the State. And the State is very careful to make sure we cannot put additional requirements in that conflict with other acts. So, they're signed off on this scheme. I mean, they're happy that we can actually impose a higher order requirement in this respect. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. But it doesn't articulate the need for, does it talk about lifts specifically? Speaker 5: No. Yeah. No.
00:19:00 No. An option would be, as Georgina's indicated, to actually just have a ground floor unit. Councillor Wilkie: So, the applicant's still able to have a ground floor unit? Speaker 5: With the size of the site and the development, I think that might be difficult if they're going to look at commercial on the ground floor. That may not be achievable. And that's really why our Office originally recommended a primal approval, because the design solution's not obvious in the current proposal. There's going to be some change needed and there's potentially a variety of ways they could do that. But it is constrained by the size of the site and scalability that can be put on the site. Councillor Wilkie: But there's nothing illegal in Council? No. No. Speaker 5: No. No. No. That's certainly our position and the advice we've had from our building section, who administers the building code, the National Construction Code, as well as our strategic planning team, who are obviously responsible for drafting the scheme.
00:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. The applicant also contends that that condition would make the accommodation there unaffordable. Can you give the team's perspective on that? Yeah. Speaker 5: So obviously it is a real consideration for the applicant. And I imagine it does add to the costs. It's interesting, in the last, I don't know, maybe 10, 15 years, lifts have become more affordable. We're seeing lifts being installed in houses for people. But yeah, no doubt, I imagine it would add to some costs for their development. But nevertheless, I think that's important where we're providing for a section of the community that has limited mobility. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. How important is accessibility in the scheme? Providing accessible, ensuring that unit development provides easy access for people with limited mobility? Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Is that a key plank of the scheme?
00:21:00 Speaker 5: It is. And I think it's really important, because our scheme is about providing housing choice for our community. You know, that's a key fundamental requirement of the scheme. So this is really catering for a section of the community who need housing. Who need assistance and, you know, aren't able to use the stairs and are requiring the lift access. Councillor Wilkie: I note that this development is quite close to the centre of Peregian. So it's close to public transport and close to the services as well. Where someone with limited mobility would probably like to live. Speaker 5: Yeah. I think that would, exactly, I think that would also benefit them, given their proximity to the centre and some services. Exactly. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So in your view, would this, the inclusion of a lift, make this type of development a more attractive proposition for a buyer? Speaker 5: I think that for sections of the community, yes, it will make it more attractive. And I think it's important that we cater for a housing choice.
00:22:00 I will just point out that under the Planning Act, it's not permitted for us to have consideration to a person's personal or financial circumstances. Mm-hmm. So whilst it is a relevant consideration for an applicant, it's really not relevant to consideration of an application. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So when I had a look, the inclusion of the office on the ground floor has generated car parking, which would take up that area that maybe in other developments it wasn't the excuse would have been the ground floor unit. Mm-hmm. So there's no real spare site capacity to have a ground floor unit, is there? Speaker 5: No. It doesn't appear that that's practical in the current layout. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And in terms of the performance outcome, we're talking about lifts. Is that generally accepted minimum standard? I'm thinking, you know, in this case, if it's got its own staircase, the modern things of
00:23:00 just chairs going up the staircase, that sort of thing. Is that something that is an option, or is it, if we're looking at meeting a certain standard, that a lift would be an option? Speaker 5: Well, I'll just draw your attention to the condition, condition 2.1, and it's on page 20. So the condition itself doesn't actually specify a lift, the wording is reflective of the scheme. So if the applicant comes up with some alternatives that provides that access, we can certainly consider that. But there's been no sort of options put forward by the applicant, they're just looking for the condition to be deleted. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Any other questions? Councillor Lange? Hi, Kerry. In regards to process, and my question to you is, the applicant has actually, in letter form, told us that it was very late in the process before he was notified of these concerns.
00:24:00 Yep. That, that these issues weren't raised at pre-lodgement meeting, nor in an independent information request, nor in further requests. My question is, is that normal process? And why weren't they notified earlier of these quite serious concerns that are going to require, in their opinion, significant changes to design and cost implications? Speaker 5: Sure. Yeah. So the report to council acknowledges that we've raised it late. We're not trying to hide from that. It has been raised late. And in terms of good practice, it would be ideal to raise it earlier in the process, at the pre-lodgement meeting, in an information request, so not raise it during the decision notice. Officers acknowledge that. But I would also suggest to council that there is a level of responsibility to the applicant. Our planning scheme is widely available to people on our website.
00:25:00 The requirement is quite clear, and I frankly, I think they've ignored it because they didn't want to do it. So I acknowledge that our process hasn't been squeaky clean. But there is a level of responsibility that the applicant has. Why has this occurred? Simply, the workload is too high for officers currently. So officers have 25, sorry, officers should have about 20 files. They have 37 at the moment. So their workload is too high. And that is leading to us missing things and making some mistakes. So I'm not trying to hide from that. That's, you know, we've had some struggle for a while in finding new staff. Councillor Wegener: In one of the letters they mentioned from Eltham saying that this is going towards affordable housing. However, this is not affordable housing in that we defined affordable housing as being
00:26:00 housing where one third of the persons that's living there's income will pay the rent, will pay food. And there's no, actual real affordable housing hasn't been considered in this application, doing some horse trading, so to speak, with providing affordable housing for the community, real affordable housing. Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't think the proposal constitutes sort of social housing or the like. You know, there's no rental scheme or the like that's proposed by the applicant. There simply are smaller units. And that tends to lead to a lower price. I don't think they've given real consideration. Councillor Wegener: They're not working with cost today? Speaker 5: No. They're not working with any housing providers or the like to achieve, you know, what I would call social housing for people. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So it's been requested to be referred. I'll take it just for further consideration. That's moved by Council Wilkie.
00:27:00 I'll second it. We don't need to discuss it. All in favour? That's unanimous. So we're moving on now to a minor change of use for a development for a commercial business, type 1 office commercial business, type 2 Mexican, well used and good consideration of a lot of access into the services of quality option drive, Noosaville. The applicant has requested that the amount be deferred for consideration. I'm happy to refer it to the general committee. But I don't think it's a good idea. I'm also happy for staff to outline their position and for councils to ask for any information or clarification they might want for next Monday. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll get the outline first. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. So just on that, I wouldn't recommend that council defer the matter. There's been a lot of discussion with this applicant right from the outset about the issues we see. They're not proposing in their request to defer the matter any changes to the plans.
00:28:00 So I don't, you know, the applicant has time to talk to councillors before the ordinary meeting and present their position, which is also detailed in the report for councillors to see. Councillor Wilkie: Just ask, when was it requested to be deferred to? Or just deferred indefinitely? Speaker 5: It's just deferred indefinitely. There's no date on it. Councillor Wilkie: So if it was deferred, so they put a stop on the application? No. Speaker 5: They can't do that because it's a minor change application. Councillor Wilkie: So if it was deferred, what would that mean? A deemed approval? Speaker 5: A deemed refusal. Deemed refusal. So they would have to lodge something in the court, appeal the decision with basically a deemed refusal. So there's no risk that the matter would be approved in that respect. Councillor Wilkie: So it could be to the detriment to the applicant if it's deemed refused. Speaker 5: It's never a good way to start. Because, you know, they may actually get an approval from council, you know, support for the additional height that they're looking for. So I wouldn't think the applicant would go that way.
00:29:00 It's very unusual. Councillor Wilkie: The applicant's choice whether to go. Speaker 5: Applicant's choice, that's right. Councillor Wilkie: I just don't understand whether they want it deferred to, though. Speaker 5: They haven't made that statement. They've just indicated they'd like it deferred in order to have further discussion with councillors and present their position on why council should support the proposal in full. Councillor Wilkie: So given there are no decisions being made today or even next Monday, the decision meeting will be the ordinary meeting on Thursday the 21st. Speaker 5: That's right. Councillor Wilkie: There's plenty of opportunity between now and then for the applicant to meet with councillors and put their positions up. Speaker 5: I would suggest that to councillors at this point in time. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. This application seeks to make a minor change, a material change of use for an approved medical office and ancillary dwelling unit. It's before council today because council originally approved the development in 2019. The proposal seeks to increase the height of the building from the approved 10.2 metres to 12.15 metres with a lift overrun at 13.25 metres.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 In a zone where the maximum height limit is 10 metres. The increase of height of an approved three-storey building where there's a limit of two storeys by approximately two metres is not supported. It doesn't comply with the architectural, it doesn't enhance the architectural outcomes of the scheme and it doesn't comply with performance outcomes and NUSA plan. The proposal also includes a new building. It does include some facade changes while the front entry changes complement the existing building. Other facade changes don't consider to complement the approved architectural style of the building and those facade changes are not supported either. Proposed changes to the gross floor area and motorcycle parking are supported. They're minor in nature and they comply with the planning scheme.
00:31:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Lisa. Councillor Wegener: I'll do the table first. It seems that the raised ceiling is not a minor. It would be a much bigger change. But it's still considered a minor change? Speaker 4: Yes, under the Planning Act. It's considered minor because it's an existing use. So they're just making changes to an approved use in the building. So it just meets the test of a minor change under the Planning Act. So it just meets the test of a minor change under the Planning Act. Speaker 5: So I, yeah, I consider it quite a significant change in height that's proposed. But the test under the Planning Act is whether it's a substantially different building form. And I wouldn't consider it's that. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. Another quick question on process. Was this proposed height increase ever discussed in the initial application before it says otherwise? Just, if I can have some clarity around that, Lisa.
00:32:00 Speaker 4: Sure. So the original application, it was proposed in the initial application. It came in at the 10.2 metres, which was approved. So we met with the applicant in September last year in a pre-lodgement meeting where they proposed this additional height that we see today. We indicated within that pre-lodgement meeting that we wouldn't be supportive of the additional height. We also conveyed that in a further advice letter in December last year. So we've met with the applicant in the meantime, where they've presented some perspectives. That helped to understand what that extra two metres will look like. And since then, we've gone back to indicate that we're still not supportive of the additional height. Speaker 5: I think it's pretty important to note that, you know, the building is three storeys. And that's what we've approved. The planning scheme says two storeys. Now if you recall the discussion on this one, officers were supportive of the proposal because
00:33:00 the height remained generally at 10 metres. Which is the maximum height in metres for the area. And it was also a reduced third floor set back from the site. And the architectural, it was a high standard of built form. We considered it well designed and we thought it would work well on the site. But you know, with this proposal, they're changing the appearance of the building. They're, I guess, not achieving the same standard of design that we originally approved. And they're substantially going above the 10 metres. So that's really why we're suggesting Council don't support that part. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to work with it. I'll move that. I'll second it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All in favour? Very unanimously. We move on to item four. And that's a further report on MCE 21803. And that's a motion for a renewal of the multiple development plan. And 10 dwelling units at 25 and 27 Polaris, Tewantin.
00:34:00 Welcome, Patrick. Speaker 1: Thanks, Councillor Stockwell. Councillors might recall this one that was presented to Council in April with a recommendation for refusal. At that time, it was a development for eight dwelling units and there was some issues from an officer's perspective in terms of the exceedance of site cover, plot ratio, non-complying landscapes, non-complying front sets. So I'd set back a range of issues. Post the planning environment committee meeting, the applicant stopped the clock. And then after that extended the decision making period after the ordinary meeting to enable some discussion with Council officers, myself and Mr Jensen met with the applicants to talk through the issues and to seek some form of resolution. There was some agreement at that meeting in terms of what we would consider to be acceptable in terms of front setback. And landscaping and subsequent to the meeting, the applicants have amended the plans and
00:35:00 it's gone from eight dwelling units to 10 dwelling units with eight of the dwelling units being small dwelling units. So now they meet the threshold within the scheme to avail of the bonus provisions for site cover and plot ratio and remain compliant or are now compliant with those parameters. They've pushed the building back. We discussed the building being no closer than six feet. It's now five metres to the front boundary. Most of the building is beyond, you know, the facade of the building is well back beyond that five metres. By pushing back, they've created some rear setbacks that needed to be considered. And as you'll see in the report, I considered that those setbacks to the rear are reasonable and accordingly recommending that the application now be approved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We have questions. Councillor Wegener: So with the accessibility for, you know, the front side of the building, you know, so two rooms of ten people with limited access, is it on the bottom story, as we've
00:36:00 talked about before? Speaker 1: That's right, so the original proposal. They complied with that requirement because they all had access, staff-free access, from the carparks, and they've now created two units which only have access through a set of stairs, but they comply with the one in three requirement. And significantly above that, I believe, the age of the ten comply. Councillor Wilkie: There's an interesting arrangement with the rear setback. It requires normally a six metre, but they're using a covered ground level terrace, which will be, that's the only structure within the setback. So do you consider that's allowable because it's a lesser impact on nooks? Speaker 1: Well, there's more than just the lower level terraces. So part of the original proposal, they did have the roof terrace at the lower level, which was 2.4, 2.5 metres setback from the rear boundary, and that was supported in the original officer recommendation, in the original officer assessment.
00:37:00 They're now proposing that elements of the facade of the building encroach within the six metres, but also, and probably more significantly, two of the units, which are the small dwelling units that are accessible only, which are upstairs units, have decks to the upper level that are set back 1.5 metres from the rear boundary. They're required to have nine square metres of private open space, and that's how they're seeking to achieve that, through those decks. There's an analysis in the report, a bit of a crop of page 82 of the agenda. There's a cross-section of the building that details how those decks sit in relation to the rear boundary. There's some cut occurring in that area, so the building is set down somewhat, and the open decks, the roof of them will be 3.1 metres above the fence height.
00:38:00 The open form of the structures and the general setback of the remainder. The building being closer to the six metres, consider that what's proposed is reasonable. Councillor Wilkie: The second would create an unreasonable impact or loss of privacy for the rear, any living areas to the rear of the adjacent properties. Speaker 1: Overlooking could be an issue. I've been out to the site, and there is some secluded private open space to the rear. This has been raised with the applicant, and seeking how they would like to address that, because it wasn't addressed as part of their amended proposal. They're agreeable to that. There's been some screening treatment to those decks to address the overlooking, and accordingly, a condition has been included to address that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I could just follow on to that, just looking on the site plan on page 77, it would appear that both number 29 Tula and 48 Pointiana would also have had some relaxation in terms of not having such setbacks and boundaries.
00:39:00 Would it be a big precedent? Speaker 1: That's right. There is some built form that's closer to the rear boundary than the six metres, that's right. Councillor Wilkie: So it's consistent with the neighbouring properties. That's correct. Yeah, that's a good point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Have we any other questions? Anyone like to move? I'll move. Oh, I'll take it. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks. Thanks. It's, um... It's a vastly improved application, and if I remember rightly, the original application, it had sought to be, in a certain design, which was, was it called Universal Access?
00:40:00 Speaker 1: It's liveable housing. It's liveable housing. That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: And that's still... Speaker 1: So six of the ten units? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's able to achieve the gold standard for liveable housing, and now six of the ten are sought to achieve that standard. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. We've tried to present a quality, um, quality development here. Um, I'm pleased with the changes that have been made, so I'm more compliant with the planning scheme now, um, and, uh, yeah, I'm satisfied with the office's, um, assessment of it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I think it's also, uh, a good outcome in terms of the negotiations that have occurred, um, obviously, uh, increasing yield in terms of number of, of dwelling units, but also increasing the, uh, fit of what is supplied to what the need is, um, in terms of, um, the reason we do have the bonuses in there for the number of small dwellings is, that is, that the, uh, way our housing needs assessment identifies as the largest need for the big house, um, in terms of, um, the number of small dwellings, um,
00:41:00 this gap in the housing market is actually the smaller, uh, dwellings that fit, uh, people and, uh, couples that, um, uh, are unsupplied in the market. So, um, yeah, I'm just, I'm certainly supportive of, uh, the high levels of, uh, discretion that are being shown in some of the, uh, performance, uh, criteria, uh, to meet the overwhelming, um, need for an increase in small housing and dwellings in this locality. We move on to item 5, which is a material change in use application for a drawing house at 66B, CB Terrace, Sunshine Beach. I've asked for this one to go to General because of the significance of the matter, considering
00:42:00 the issues around the beach protection area and the building line. But, Mr. Spotskin, Patrick, do you want to give us an outline? Speaker 1: Okay, as you've rightly pointed out, there is a coastal building line on this site, which is situated at 66C View Terrace. There's also the landslide hazard overlay, which applies to the site. They're seeking to construct a dwelling. Because of the issues associated with coastal erosion, the applicant has provided a geotechnical report and a coastal hazards assessment, which have been reviewed by external consultants, and those consultants were those which were used in the previous appeal in Sea View Terrace. There were some modifications that were made to those reports. Ultimately, they've been accepted by our external consultants, and there's recommendations of those reports. Those reports, which are included as conditions of the recommendation, the dwelling results
00:43:00 in some non-compliances with the scheme in relation to front setback, side setback. The cantilevered aspect of the building, which extends beyond the coastal building line, is enclosed, and there's an element of the building that's three storeys. There's a rooftop terrace. As you'll see again in the report, the impacts of those non-compliances are considered to be reasonable, also acknowledging some of the constraints of the site in terms of the developable area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, the reference to the previous court cases were court cases under the old planning scheme. Are we still bound by the outcomes of those court cases under provisions of the current scheme?
00:44:00 Or have we, as we try to do, got a stronger hand to maintain a more realistic buffer to a high CNG problem there and, you know, a greater area? Speaker 5: So, the current scheme provisions relating to the site are essentially the same as the 2006 scheme. You'll recall that at the time we were developing the 2020 scheme, we were also working on the CHAP process, so the decision was made not to incorporate new elements in the new planning scheme until we had completed the CHAP and looked at that more fully. So I would suggest that provisions are essentially the same as the 2006 scheme, so it would be difficult for us to argue differently to those appeals that we've had. So, we've used the new scheme. We've used the experts we had in those appeals to review these, so the conditions have been previously reviewed on those ones by our barrister and they're reflected in this approval as
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 well to make them as tight as we can. So you'll notice some of the conditions rather than often we will say approve the development generally in accordance with the plans, the wording has changed to say it must be done strictly in accordance with the plans, so they're a lot tighter than you see on other approvals. Given the risks around the site. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's two ways to look at this. I think it will be the last vacant plot to concede independence, but then we seem to be being rather generous in terms of fighting stories. I suppose that's a matter for debate rather than a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I suppose the question is, in your consideration of those issues of non-compliance, was it in
00:46:00 relation to purely the design or the substance of other developments nearby that may have similar size, bulk, scale, relaxation of sites, headbacks, et cetera? Speaker 1: Well. I certainly acknowledge the development pattern within the area and the report alludes to CB Terrace and Arakoon as being areas where on the seaward side of those streets that development is quite close to the front boundary and the topography of the site lending itself to there being access issues and therefore generally the garages would be right against the front boundary if in quite close proximity. Looking in terms of scale and bulk, those dwellings generally sort of disappear down the slope, so to speak. You look at them and they look single story or double story from the street and a lot of the bulk might present to the side. I think from a bulk point of view, the high side of the street is quite bulky.
00:47:00 Some of the houses, the way they've been developed is much more visually obvious. So I think that certainly did form part of the consideration. And also the actual impacts of those proposed variations were considered that there wasn't going to be an unreasonable detriment to the streetscape or surrounding properties. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? Councillor Wegener: It says that the water, that the drainage from the roofs and so forth from the property will go back up into the roadway and then down through the pipes down to the creek down below. Yes. And not just run off the property. How will they, is there a pump there to pump the water back up to the street level? Speaker 1: You're right. There's no infiltration to occur on site. That was a requirement of the geotechnical expert and the coastal hazards expert.
00:48:00 In terms of being able to get the fall to the road, they've demonstrated, our engineers had a look at it. And they're satisfied that they'll be able to get the water to the road. The actual mechanism, how they're doing that, I'd have to probably come back to you, Tom, to clarify whether it is a pump. There is some further work that needs to be done as part of an operational works approval in terms of the road at the front of the site not being formed in terms of there being a gutter. And also making sure that any water that does come out onto the road is done in a, it doesn't come back onto the adjoining property. So there's a little bit of work that would be nutted out through the operational works. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Please bring that back as being referred, because that's my thing. I'm very interested in that. I'm very interested in how water disperses off the property where now it goes into that,
00:49:00 you know, into the sand dunes and equally dissipates down instead of being forced into a channel. There's a channel, somewhere there's going to be a channel. I want to know what that is. And the second thing. Speaker 5: Yeah. So just on that. Do you understand that it's important with this site that they not have infiltration at the rear of the site. There have been sites along Sunshine Beach where that was what their solution was for stormwater and they fell away from the site. And because this site is subject to coastal erosion processes, it's very important that they don't actually have water infiltrating into the rear of the site. They have to bring it back to the road. They have to bring it back to the road. Otherwise, they're increasing the risks, they're not dealing with the risks appropriately. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. It has to go back to the road. Otherwise, there's going to be a channel down from the property to the beach. Speaker 5: Yeah. And, you know, we've seen properties at the rear fall completely away where they've chosen
00:50:00 to do infiltration. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And the next. Oh. Sorry. And then, you know, the CBD area is a little tiny street. And the amount of construction vehicles that are on there. Is there a balance between public access to the street and being able to park there and enjoy the beach versus how many tradies and so forth and trucks and things are on, use that street to build this property? Speaker 5: So, do you want to go? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 5: They're required to have a construction management plan. So, part of that is a parking plan for their workers, which will likely mean they have to bus in their workers. Rather than have all the tradies park in the street and cause an issue for all of the residents. But, nevertheless, it's still going to be an impactful time for residents while they are building the house. Because of the nature of the road. Councillor Wegener: Last question. When it comes. It mentions the seismic ramifications of drilling down and shaking the sand.
00:51:00 Because the sand is really wet right now. As they drill down. And that creates vibration and sand liquefying. So, it doesn't affect the surrounding houses and the road and so forth. Are you guys across that? Does that mean, is that important to you? Speaker 5: That one we might need to come back with. Obviously, there's a whole methodology of how they need to construct that, which has been reviewed by our consultants. But, we can read up on it and make sure across the detail that you know totally. Well, it's fascinating. Councillor Wegener: I'm living next door where there's, you know, a couple of trucks and so forth. And the ground is always vibrating. Yeah. You know. And so, I'll always worry about that. Yeah. The next door house going down. And whether we'd be liable for that house going down when we have paid the works for this house. Speaker 5: Yes. Councillor Wegener: And the next house starts sliding. Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: It's a disaster. Speaker 5: Yeah. We are, you know, fully relying on these expert consultants because it's outside Patrick's
00:52:00 and my expertise here for construction. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The line is so clean. I'll go at 10 times if you have to. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. Two questions. First, relating to what Tom sort of referred to with stormwater drainage. And I note condition 35 references that have run off being directed to Council Stormwater Drainage System on Seaview Terrace. Currently, the only erosion that's evident down at Seaview Terrace is at the car park. So, is there also going to be some responsibility or condition placed on Council to help mitigate that erosion? I, you know, there's all these conditions to mitigate erosion. This is half the conditions in this application. But there's also a little bit of responsibility from us.
00:53:00 How is that factored into this application? Speaker 5: Are you talking about erosion from coastal erosion processes? No. From stormwater. Councillor Lorentson: So, so Tom just referenced, you know, where is the water going to run off. And redirecting it to, according to condition 35, it's stormwater runoff from gutters, downpipes, driveways, and other areas. The driveways and paved areas must be collected and directed to Council Stormwater Drainage System along Seaview Terrace. My concern is, at the moment, that there's clear evidence that there is erosion activity happening at the entrance of Seaview Terrace, where the car park is. And that there's got to be some responsibility for us to mitigate that erosive activity. Speaker 5: Right. I think that question's really important. I think we're part of a bigger question. And not so much related to this development.
00:54:00 I mean, what we're doing is making sure this development can manage it as much as they can. But I think there's a bigger question for Council about whether, what responsibility or what they want to step up and take in terms of along the coastline. Councillor Lorentson: I accept that. Thank you, Kerry. My second question is in regards to condition number 20. The design must be accompanied by certification by a registered professional engineer of Queensland, specialising in geotechnical engineering, that the design is satisfactory and will provide a long-term factor of safety concerning slope stability of no less than 1.5. Can you elaborate on that condition? And can I understand how onerous, or how realistic, or how reasonable, the design is? To me, I don't know who would sign off on something like that. Speaker 5: Yeah. We'll come back to you on that one. Okay. Thank you.
00:55:00 We'll get some explanation from our consultants for you. So it's clearly. Thank you very much. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Under the planning scheme, this is under the coastal building line. The coastal building line exists on all building structures and retaining walls. Do not extend sea width of the coastal building line to the site other than uncovered and unenclosed cantilevered balconies that do not extend greater than three metres sea width of the coastal building line. This proposal has an enclosed part of the dwelling within three metres of the coastal building line. That's the cantilevered aspect of it. Speaker 1: That's correct. Councillor Wilkie: Could you give us an understanding of how you've assessed this non-compliance? Yeah. Speaker 1: What's your view on this non-compliance? Well, what the cantilevered aspect is trying to achieve is that you're not impacting on those coastal processes. That you're actually, so you're kind of obviously not touching the earth and disturbing the
00:56:00 earth. The footings are in. That's right. Councillor Wilkie: Westward of it. That's right. Speaker 1: So it complies in that regard. So the impacts on the coastal processes are considered to be non-existent. The fact that it's enclosed and it's not open has the potential, you know, if it's open, people could potentially see through it from a view line point of view. In this regard, the adjoining property doesn't have a view across the subject site because of the existing vegetation that exists on the site. So by enclosing it, they're not going to have any impact on any of the existing views that exist on the adjoining properties. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So the condition for it to be unenclosed is only in regards to the neighbour's views, views, sidelines. Speaker 5: Well, yeah, I'd suggest that's where the requirement, scheme requirement comes from. Because obviously enclosing it unenclosed makes no difference in terms of coastal regulation Councillor Wilkie: practice. Yeah. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay.
00:57:00 Page 105, figure 11. That's our modelling for the raised and prone area. And the legend 2020, 2040, 2070, 2100, they're about the one cent event model. Is that correct? And the darkest one there I take it is the 2040 model, not the 2020? Speaker 1: Just that being the darkest? Yeah. That would be 2020? Councillor Wilkie: Would it? Speaker 1: I think it's 2040. No, sorry. 2040. 2040. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the part of the building that we're looking at being forward of the coastal building line is probably going to go into that 2040 raised and prone area? Speaker 1: I would have to measure. The coastal building line is 10 and a half metres on this property. So the three metres- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll make it as a request for Monday.
00:58:00 The whole site's within the state planning policy raised and prone area? Yeah. Okay. The relaxations that are being proposed, I believe, are in that 2040 area, if I'm just doing a rough estimate. I'm looking at what it says below is that the building's designed for a 1 in 500 new basis. And that's based, like the previous ones, on a pile of the wall. It's six metres long and one metre spacings. So the question for Monday is if we had a one cent event in the first 20 years of life, would this be the case? Are we going to start to look like the American Malibus with houses over sitting on top of? Speaker 5: Potentially, yep. Yes, it's probably yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you just check that that's 2040, how soon that visit is going to be? Soon that will occur, yeah. I'll second the recommendations that you have. Councillor Wilkie: Can you just move it for me, guys? I was going to say, it's been helpful. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move it and it's been taken in.
00:59:00 Any other discussion? All in favour? I was going to leave it alone. Councillor Wegener: Oh, you do have a second question, yeah. I do. I'm interested of the duty of care of council in giving the development application to the neighbours from the work, because it is such a tight area where they're going to be working. It's at the end of a little cul-de-sac there. It's a tiny little road. They're going to make a giant house there. And if we give the development application to them... If we support it, and there's injury to the houses next door, through vibration, through these various elements, do we have a duty of care to them? Do we have a potential liability situation for giving this building, giving the OK for this building? Speaker 5: I'm just trying to... Councillor Wegener: I brought this up in the last one, so it's something that I think is a real danger.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 And of course, that's coming from my own history where... Somebody sued the council, so they could put a building on the side of a cliff, and then the building fell down the side of the cliff, and then they sued the council for letting them build this building on the side of the cliff. And the other properties around it were affected by the building on the side of the cliff, and all the other ones were involved down the cliff too. So it's happened in my lifetime. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Is this... Yeah. Speaker 5: So... What did you say? Speaker 1: So there are conditions. It requires that the design include the protection of the northern and southern boundaries of the site to prevent erosion on the neighbouring properties, exposing side boundaries of the site to erosion. There's also a requirement at condition 22 that a dilapidation survey be carried out on all adjacent properties and structures before the commencement of the construction. Just having a look at the...
01:01:00 Councillor Wilkie: So just on that, it's like a condition assessment that assesses the condition of the house, and so... If there's any deterioration in the condition after the works, it may be attributed... That's right. That's correct. ...to the risk, yeah, be caused by the works, the vibration. Speaker 1: That's right. There is also a condition requiring vibrations to be kept to a minimum, and must be monitored during the construction of the development. So there is a requirement on the developer to comply with these conditions, obviously. Councillor Wegener: Okay. And then we'll do that second question. Yeah. About, I really, I think Aurelia and I would really need to see how the water is going to be taken from the property, put onto, I guess, Seaview Terrace or whatever drainage is there, but it sounds to me like it's going to go straight down Seaview Terrace. And that's an additional amount of water that's going to go onto that street, wash all the way down that steep hill, and down into the creek down below.
01:02:00 And that's, when you look at that, if you look at the... The aerial photo, you see a lot of roofs there, they're big roofs, and so there's a lot of water going down that street at times, and as we know, it doesn't take long for a substantial amount of water to do substantial damage, and then you're stuck with that damage for a long, long, long time, and it's expensive to fill it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if we could have to take that as a question, I'll... Yeah, question. On Monday, can you look at, talk to infrastructure to see whether they believe the additional load on Seaview stormwater can be handled by the existing trunking structure or whatever the infrastructure there might be? Speaker 5: We can ask that question, but... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe there's a pipe between... Speaker 5: I mean, Condition 35 also goes there, because they're required to give us the design as part of an operational work application, so it really will be, I guess, addressed in the next application to make sure that it works, and if there's upgrades required to Council's system, they'll be required to undertake those works.
01:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I think you'll find there is a stormwater outlet above the creek, and I'm not 100% sure, but there's definitely a big pipe that comes down somewhere in that vicinity and exposes... Councillor Wegener: Well, maybe just to ease our concerns here, where is the pipe? And surely there's a Council map of where the pipe is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah, that's what I was going to say. If we get to infrastructure and just say, the main thing is for this belt, we can't consider the accuracy necessarily. If it's a zone for a house, we're going to consider, is it likely to generate sufficient then? Speaker 5: We'll see what we can find out at this point in time, just knowing that there's more work to happen by the applicant. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, so, oh, we've got one more question. Councillor Lorentson: Kerry, we're making it really, really hard for this development to occur. There's a lot of serious conditions in this application. And I understand the justification.
01:04:00 What I'm sort of uncomfortable with, and what I'm comfortable with, because it is a real hazard, but the hazard hasn't yet occurred, and are we, what's my question? My question is, we just had a flooding event. That's a real risk, and that happened seven years ago. Not one in 100, one in 500 years. So I think my question is, are we going to be asking the same type of conditions or applying the same types of conditions in flood-prone areas or high-prone areas, given that that risk at the moment is more immediate than the risk of a house falling down a cliff? Again, a hazard that is going to happen. I'm not denying climate change, but it hasn't happened yet.
01:05:00 And we're in the process of localising and monitoring conditions along our coasts. So is it reasonable? Are some of these conditions reasonable in that context? Speaker 5: Well, a lot of the work has been done by the applicant. You know, they've put forward a geotechnical report. They've done it. They've engaged a coastal engineer to advise them on how best to construct the house to minimise these risks. Now, the life of a house is generally 50 years. So we're talking about a risk whilst, I mean, we're seeing signs of it now, but we're going to see potentially this coastal erosion happen in the life of this house. So it's important that it's built to address those risks when it comes, and they worsen. So we might find they're onerous, but you will recall the legal advice that we've had is we need to take all reasonable precautions as a council,
01:06:00 as we're going to be held, you know, residents are going to come to us and ask us to assist them with their house when it becomes at risk for coastal erosion. And we haven't taken all reasonable precautions. We'll be more liable down the track. So, I mean, we've seen the legal advice before, and this is really what we're doing. Speaker 3: I think through the Chair too, with the urban footprint shrinking in terms of, you know, what's available, it's the more difficult sites that are left. So whether it's coastal erosion, whether it's bushfire, whether it's landslip, I think the requirement for these conditions is reasonable and relevant. As those sites become more difficult to develop, then you're asking for more reasonable precautions. So, you know, there's a lot of requirements to address that sort of, you know, sort of risk-based hazards assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
01:07:00 It's been noted that Council will please return to the room. Councillor Wilkie: I didn't know how much longer the questions were going to go. I have to go. That's okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I would have said yes if you'd done. Councillor Wilkie: I wouldn't. I would have gone anyway. Okay. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All those in favour? That's unanimous. Speaker 1: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're moving on to the sixth section of our agenda, which is reports noted by the community. And number six on the agenda is development assessment teams in charge of variations of 1st July 2021 to the 30th of June. Do you just want to give a quick explanation of what this report's all about? Okay. Okay. Speaker 5: As you're aware, we do a monthly report to Council at each Council meeting, just reporting on all the applications that have been decided by delegation.
01:08:00 This report includes the list decided during July. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did I say fees and charges? Speaker 5: Oh, sorry. I'm in the wrong one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Development assessment fees and charges. Speaker 5: I am ahead of myself. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Page one, two. Speaker 5: Let's just start there. Let's just start again. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And that's the next item you were discussing there. Speaker 5: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Speaker 5: It's been a tough morning already. All right. So this report, number six, is actually about fees and charges variations that have been given from July 2020 through to June 2022. So the last 12 months. So under Council's fees and charges policy, the fees are set for the development applications, but there is a discretion for fees and charges. The fees and charges to be varied where the fee set is unreasonable for the proposal put forward. And that's undertaken by our director or acting director at the moment. So this really just lists those applications where a fee variation has been applied for.
01:09:00 And you'll see, working your way through the list, some have been agreed to or agreed in part, and some haven't been agreed to. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Very good. And I notice the bus stop at Cooroy got a healthy relaxation, which is good to see. Does any of the councillors have any questions, or do you just want to move these up? No. No. All I just want to know is . Councillor Wilkie: Just, yeah, it's good to see that you're applying this discretion, Kerry. With the fee reductions, do you think it's a good thing that you're applying this discretion, and does that, the fee proposed, does that still reflect, does it, does that also reflect the amount of staff time involved? Speaker 5: Yes. It is intended to be reflective of staff time to ensure that the fee is covering staff
01:10:00 time in the assessment. That's, that's correct, so. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just as a matter of this transparency, the application for the small-scale meat processing, given it was quite contentious at the time, can I just have a little bit of background why there was a reduction in the fee allowed for that application? Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, it, it turned out to be pretty contentious, and at the end of the day, I probably wouldn't have given it had I known. But certainly on, on lodgement, we considered it fairly straightforward. There was also some advice given by an officer. Uh, incorrectly, that it was, um, allowed without an application, which put the applicant to some disadvantage. Um, so there was a couple of reasons why we agreed to a fee variation, but as we know, we did spend a lot of time on that application, and retrospective, probably we wouldn't have
01:11:00 agreed to it. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Williamson, did you find any? Yeah. Um, page 133. And it, it, it looks like, again, what, what a, a VMI bond is the difference between calling something affordable housing and a small unit, which, because affordable housing has a definition of, uh, attached to it, and the definition is, um, one-third of the, the person's income will be spent on, on, on paying for the rent, where just a small unit does not actually, isn't affordable housing, it's just a small unit. Okay. And so, it looks to me as though the application, uh, on the top there, for, um, the Sunrise Equities Party Limited, on the very top of the page of 133, they gave them a reduction because of an element of affordable housing, but it's, it's not really, it's just they're,
01:12:00 they added three units to the development, making them small units, and they said, well, we should, we should get a reduction. Because the affordable housing element. Is that my reading that right? Speaker 5: Uh, yes, you are. Councillor Wilkie: If, if I can help answer, Tom, the, the, the officer's comments also say the proposed units are unlikely to assist with the current housing affordability, despite three of the units being below 100 square metres. Units of this size are still selling at a very high price point, and there's no proposed rental scheme in place for these units. So, it sounds like the officers are not agreeing with the applicant's, uh, assertion there. Councillor Wegener: But, but there seems, there seems to be a reduction from 12,805 to 8,502. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We, we might direct that to the director because it appears that his decision is what ruled the day. Well, certainly.
01:13:00 Okay. I know. So, it looks like there's no change to the, the fee. I don't know. But, but I, am I correct in suggesting that the, the, the majority of the words above, uh, what the staff recommendation was for when it came to you, you, you made a determination that it, that it wasn't suitable to apply the multiplier? Speaker 3: Yeah, well, that's how it reads, uh, Chair. To be honest, I, um, I can't remember the detail of that one. It's a little while ago. The manager of DA. But it was a little while ago. Um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do know that, um, that it may be related. The consultant further advises that the non-compliances are very minor and do not justify a 50% surcharge to assess and provide a comparison. And this is a council fee. It can be compared to another council fee. I don't care about that. Um, but yeah, it probably is the case that you might agree with it being minor. Speaker 3: Um, that would have been my assessment in terms of just the, the degree of what level of assessment, hence the, hence the re, you know, hence the, uh, no, no multiplier being
01:14:00 applied. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I'm just, I'm just point, pointing it out because I, I think that's something that, you know, we need to tighten our language considerably when it comes to affordable housing. Because affordable housing is a definition. We have to stick with that definition. Yep. It's not, the definition's not affordable housing. Speaker 5: Yeah. I agree. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Would someone like to move to start the amendment? Councillor Wilkie. I'll second it. All in favour? It's carried. Um, we now move on to the Delegated Decisions, which was really well explained just before by the Managing President. We don't need to do it again. Delegated Decisions in regard to Article 7, which is the Delegated Authority Decisions. Councillor Wegener: Yes. There seem to be quite a few, um, jetties.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 I'll show up on page 145, 146. Um, 17. 17. 18. 19. And I think one other. 15. Yeah. And 15 have to do with, um, minor changes of use of a jetty. What, what's happened? Is there a, is that just, um, a coincidence? Or is there, is there been an influx of jetty people? Or... Speaker 5: Um, I'm not quite sure to explain the number, but they're just private jetties, essentially. They're not commercial jetties along the river. They're just, um, associated with people's houses. Um, and, yeah. Can't explain why there's additional ones this round. Councillor Wegener: And then another is there's, I've noticed in the past few months, there's been, um, relaxation of the 200-meter, um, limit with, close to agriculture land. And that probably, is that, is there a trend going in that direction?
01:16:00 Speaker 5: Um, there is. Um, uh, there is an issue with the scheme at the moment. It's something we've raised with our strategic planning team. Um, it seeks on rural land houses to be, um, beyond 200 meters of good agricultural land. So there's some properties that simply aren't able to achieve that because they're surrounded by agricultural land. Um, so there's, you know, it's reasonable that people build a house on them. And we don't say, no, they can't build a house. So there is some variation to that requirement. So the scheme team have been looking at, um, what we can do to, I guess, uh, change those requirements, but still protect good agricultural land. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, if I can just provide a little bit of an explanation, Councillor Wegener. Um, historically, under the state planning policy, good quality agricultural land was largely, uh, refined, uh, constrained to land suitable for horticulture. And there was an opportunity then to add, uh, if, if, if grazing was a dominant land use,
01:17:00 you could say that grazing land was, um, also good quality agricultural land. Under the last scheme, uh, we actually included those lands mapped by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines at the end of the time, which was suitable for improved pastures, which meant a whole lot of the rural zone land was determined to be good quality agricultural land. So then the whole lot of houses, uh, you know, just in the standard rural block would have this requirement where that really wasn't the intent of that particular mapping exercise. The intent was to show, yeah, we do want to encourage grazing. It wasn't just to stop people putting a house on a block of land when it's all under good quality agricultural land. Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah. That's a good explanation. Good information. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. The only item there that caught my interest was something I hadn't seen before. It was an exemption from code assessment for landslide in Tewantin.
01:18:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Give, we've had 15 landslips across the Shire after the recent flood lands. Can you tell us what's likely to have... Speaker 5: Which number is that one? Councillor Wilkie: Number 14. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: So is, is it subject to a... A landslide overlay? Speaker 5: Yeah. Again, um, yes, it is subject to a landslide overlay and it's, the scheme is calling up unnecessarily applications really. So there may be an existing house and the person's doing a small deck out the side and they're having to go through an application process. So there is the ability under the planning act to not require that application and in doing that, so we're making sure the applicant has a geotechnical report to deals with the landslip. Yeah. But doesn't put them through the unnecessary process of an application with council. So it is something that the planning scheme team will, team will be recommending changes to the planning scheme around to council. Councillor Wilkie: The risk is still... Speaker 5: And the risk can be...
01:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Identified and managed. Speaker 5: Identified and managed by making sure when people lodge an application with the certified they're required to have that geotechnical report and deals with that risk. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: One more question. On page 149, number 29, there was a lot, we configured from one lot to two lots, 15 Jirrima, Jirrima... Jirrima... Jirrima... Jirrima... Jirrima... Jirrima Court. Correct. Is that the same property that we were dealing with about a year ago? Speaker 5: No. No, it's not. I think it's the one next door from memory, but I can identify it and send it to you. So no. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: There was, there was that issue with that, the creek running through the middle of it and you didn't want to... That's right. Maybe this one doesn't have a creek running through it or... Speaker 5: Well, obviously through that process with the last one we dealt with, because we had an appeal, we recall that officers recommended settlement appeal, because the expert knowledge
01:20:00 found that the mapping for that waterway had been incorrectly matched. It really was a level one, so the buffer was greater. So obviously we're now applying those learnings to future applications in Jirrima Court. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I'm right, this one, if it is next door, that would have not had a new road, it would have used the existing access road to the... Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it was. Yeah, so it already had a road through the waterway. Councillor Wilkie: That one came before us too, didn't it? Speaker 5: Not the access road to the... Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 5: So we've been seeing a few applications in Jirrima, because the new supply in 2000 lowered the minimum lot area for that area. So it's allowed some people to come in and look at some subdivision. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll move the list to chair. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second.