Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 2: I stand in chair for this meeting, and as the acting CEO, I take nominations for that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Nominate Councillor Finzel. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel, would you like to vote for all? Councillor Finzel: I'll second that. Councillor Finzel, would you like to vote? Yes, I'm happy to accept. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You can vote. You can vote. You haven't got a conflict. Speaker 2: Okay, carried unanimously. Okay, carried unanimously. Councillor Finzel: Good morning and welcome, everybody. Thank you, Gary. Good morning and welcome, everybody. Thank you for the staff, and I know that all the councillors are present, including the Gary and Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Before we start, I'd like to acknowledge the country on which we stand, and I'd like to acknowledge the country on which we stand, present and emerging. The elders past, present and emerging. So, let's start with item one. So, let's... Sorry. The motion item one.
00:01:00 Confirmation of minutes. I'll move. I'll move. My apologies. Yes. I'll second. I'll move. Thank you. I'll second. Thank you. Carried unanimously. Carried unanimously. There are no presentations. No deputations. There are no presentations. The reports for consideration before the committee today are one. 132008-17604, application for extension to currency period for a development of the material change of use of premises, resort development comprising a multiple dwelling, 109 comprising units and accommodation building, 90 accommodation units and facility facilities at 3 and 7 Serenity Close, Noosa Heath. Staff here to vote with us. We've got Kerry and Patrick. Staff here to vote with us. We've got Kerry and Patrick. Would you like to give us an overview? Speaker 1: As you said, it relates to an application to extend the currency period of...
00:02:00 Speaker 3: As you said, it relates to an application to extend the currency period of... Which was the 1985 planning scheme. So, since that time, we've had the Noosa Plan 2006 has been implemented and since then, the Noosa Plan 2020. So, a couple of planning schemes prior for the assessment of the application. So, the intent for the site is consistent with... You know, under the current planning scheme as to what the intent for the site was under the superseded 2006 scheme and the 85 scheme. However, there are some concerns with the currency of the approval. It's noted that mapping has changed in relation to koalas and to bushfires. No material has been provided by the applicant in support of those matters as part of this application. Furthermore, there's been some change to the surrounding area insofar as some dwellings
00:03:00 have been developed nearby. There's been, I would assume, some change in ownership that's occurred over the period of time. So, we consider that the community awareness for the proposal would be quite reduced. And accordingly, we recommend that the application not be changed. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Patrick. Patrick, the council has become aware yesterday that a change application was lodged. Speaker 3: That's correct. Mayor Stewart: And in that application, that deals with some issues in regard to some concerns raised. So, they will be advertised and it will be public submission of 15 days. So, people will be able to have a say. And it is then assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020. So, those changes will enable some of the concerns here. Thank you. Is that correct? Speaker 3: It is correct that another change application has been lodged. It was lodged yesterday. Another change application does require notification and it does require, in its assessment, it's
00:04:00 to be assessed against the scheme that it was originally approved under with regard to the current scheme. So, in terms of some of the definitions, they would relate to the, say, around basement and around the actual area. In terms of land uses, they would still relate to the original planning scheme that was in place at that time. So, and really, another change application is, the intent for another change application was when you had a development that occurred on the site and there were some significant changes that occurred over time, it gave the opportunity to do that as a change. So, it stayed under the one approval. Under the previous legislation, you could only make a minor change to an application. So, anything that was more substantial than that, it needed to be a new MCU and that created issues in terms of having multiple development approvals for the one site. Mayor Stewart: So, sorry, there will be under this new change application, you did confirm, is that correct, there will be 15 days where residents can make submissions and it will be advertised? Speaker 3: It would be notified, that's correct, for 15 days.
00:05:00 Yes. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got some questions. Yes. We are going to probably, we will move it to general because it's a significance issue. The technical dealing with other change applications submitted before an application lapses and lapses during the period of assessment is, have we looked at what that means? Speaker 4: Yeah, we have given it consideration. So, the applicant is essentially asking us to put this extension to the currency period on hold, not decided, until we have dealt with the other changes. I would suggest to Council that's not really appropriate, we have a 30 business day time frame for extensions to currencies, we are obliged to make a decision now. So, if Council were to refuse this extension to the currency period, the applicant would have the option to appeal that decision to the Planning and Environment Court by lodging
00:06:00 an appeal, it would mean that approval remains current until the court makes a decision afresh on the extension to the currency and that would enable that other change to be processed. I would suggest to Council that that's highly risky for the applicant and really that if the application to an extension to the currency period, if I was the applicant, I would just get on and lodge a new MCU. Okay. Really, the process for another change application compared to a new application is the same, really, under the planning legislation, it's the same process for the application and it's the same cost to the applicant in terms of application fees. Really we're saying this is an outdated approval. It was lodged under a very old planning scheme, over 30 years old, and it's got outdated definitions,
00:07:00 that was delayed. And it's not allowed to apply including the fact that a basement is allowed to be out of the ground, only has to be in the ground by a meter which is just nonsensical and it's really appropriate that a new proposal such as lodged yesterday is assessed against the new Planning Scheme and we're not required to have regard to an old scheme done in 1985 or 1990. It really needs to be, those provisions are outdated, it really needs to be assessed against the new planning scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's just one more, and I'm just trying to get my head around the technical aspects of it, and this was the advice from the bushfire consultant, and in the summary just above traffic he talks about, therefore it is my opinion based on a review of the current SPP bushfire hazard mapping site inspection and a review of the WBM bushfire management plan that the extension of climate protection cannot be approved as the current SPP bushfire hazard mapping site inspection.
00:08:00 Approved bushfire management plan potentially places future residents and buildings at an unreasonable level of risk, as defined in the Bushfire Resilience Community Hazards Risk and Resilience SPP Guide. Is that a technical requirement, or is that if the current, if the, you know, in terms of cannot be approved, is that sort of like a definite, or is it if the, if the change application does address the concerns, is that, obviate that particular statement? Speaker 4: So, the current approval has a very old bushfire management plan, and we have had that reviewed by an external bushfire consultant, who is an expert in this field. He advises us that it does not meet the state planning policy requirements.
00:09:00 And would not adequately mitigate bushfire today, so it's, it's not appropriate, it's outdated, and council has no opportunity to condition a new bushfire report against an application to extend the current SPP. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If we extend it, we would be taking on that risk. Speaker 4: That's right. So it means that, yeah, potentially property and people would not be adequately protected. If we were to extend it. So, I think, you know, the fact that the applicant has lodged this other change application confuses things a little bit, to some extent, but what we've got to be careful about is, we have no guarantee that the application, the applicant will proceed with that change application. If we extend this currency period, we have to live with that one. And it's outdated. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Finzel: Any further questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I've moved, as up there, that the matter be referred to the General Committee.
00:10:00 I'll second that. Please do. Councillor Finzel: Okay, we'll take that to the House. Are we in favour? That's unanimous. Thanks, Professor. Thank you. So, moving right along to item number two on today's agenda. Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D129 of 2022. Application for short-stay letting under local law. Subordinate Local Law Number One and Subordinate Local Law Number One Administration 2015 for 2 Gannett Street, Peregian Beach. So, can I invite you, Kerry, please, to make a comment on that? Speaker 4: So, this appeal relates to an application under the local law for short-term letting of a house at Peregian. And the application was refused because officers considered that it did not have existing use rights to operate short-term letting. The applicant requested a review of that decision, which they were able to do under the local law.
00:11:00 And the review concluded similarly to the original refusal, that the property the applicant advises has been previously used, was made available to friends and family for holiday accommodation, but was not let on a commercial basis whatsoever. So, the applicant believes that is confidential. It constitutes existing use rights for short-term letting. We don't consider that to be correct. So, the applicant has lodged an appeal against that decision, obviously seeking the court to overturn Council's decision. Thank you. Are there any questions for this guy? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Another interesting case. Is that the argument? Speaker 4: We are getting a few different appeals, and they're all slightly different. So, it's an interesting approach. I'm going to turn it over to you, Kerry. In the other argument, the solicitor is suggesting in their appeal documents is this is a house that was used as a house prior to the 2020 scheme.
00:12:00 So, they're saying the fact that it was used for a house allows it to be short-term letting as well. So, there's going to be a few interesting legal arguments raised. So, of course, all these matters were, you know, we did obtain legal advice in the lead-up to the 2020 scheme, as well as the local law. So, you know, it's interesting. Speaker 5: Thank you. Okay. I'll move to staff recommendations. I'll second it. Councillor Finzel: I'll take that to the vote. All in favour? Thank you. That's unanimous. Thanks, Kerry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Number three. Councillor Finzel: So, moving on to item three. Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D1302 of 2022. Application short-stay letting under local law number one and subordinate local law number
00:13:00 one. Administration 2015 for, is it 16? Crank Street. Sunshine Beach. So, Kerry, thank you again. If you could give us a quick overview. Speaker 4: Yeah. So, this is similar to the last one. It's an appeal against decision to refuse an application of the local law for short-term letting. This time, it relates to a duplex that's been built at Crank Street. Now, the duplex was built under the 2006 scheme. And officers say that under the 2006 scheme, a duplex does not permit the use of the property for short-term letting. It was separately defined by the 2006 scheme as visitor accommodation. So, we're saying the property has no use rights to be able to be used for short-term letting. So, again, I think this all went through a review process, but confirmed the original grounds and the applicant has appealed the decision.
00:14:00 So, we are getting a couple of appeals around the short-term local law, and they're all raising slightly different issues. They will be fairly contained appeals and won't involve a lot of expert witnesses for council. It's really a legal argument. So, we'll see what our legal advice says going forward, but essentially, we've been following previous legal advice we've received. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Kerry. So, are there any questions for Stone? We'll take it to the vote then. Oh, move it. Oh, sorry, Councillor Stockwell, can you move it? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to go on the record of moving every motion on the whole agenda. Councillor Finzel: Is that the first time? It would be. Seconder? Seconder. We'll take it to the vote. All in favour? Thank you, that's unanimous. Thank you, Kerry. So, we're moving on to item six, reports noting by the committee.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 What goes in that one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the next one, just reach that out there. Councillor Finzel: And Melinda? Oh, yeah, planning applications decided by delegated authority. Mayor Stewart: Note that it cancels on since I've been reading. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Is there any conflicts on this one? No, straightforward. Mayor Stewart: I'll move it. Oh. Would you like to move it? Speaker 1: No, no, it's okay. I mean, as far as historical precinct, I don't think anyone's going to look back. Mayor Stewart: It may not be bedside reading. So, we'll take it to the vote. Councillor Finzel: All in favour? Thank you, that's unanimous. Thank you. There is no confidential session for today. And that brings us, I note, to Councillor Morrison's back in the room. That ends our session for today.
00:16:00 It's ten to ten. And thank you, everyone, for coming. Thank you, staff. Thank you.