Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wegener: Brian and Councillor Karen Finzel in the room attending. We also have Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Amelia attending as well. This is hard, you guys. It's hard. I just want to do the whole thing just clean. Okay. Can I have any mover and a seconder for the confirmation of the minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of January? I'm happy to second. Okay. All in favor? Thank you. Unanimous? Okay, so we're off to the first report. We have no apologies with you. Confirmation of the minutes. We have no presentations, no deputations. We are now to the reports for consideration of the committee. Number one, MCU22-0048. And OPW22-0089.
00:01:00 Representations to be developed and approval for a landing and prescribed co-title work situated at 222 Gimpy Terrace, Noosaville. And we have Patrick in the room to talk us through this. Speaker 1: So just over the past week or so, or just less than a week since the agenda's come out, there's been some discussions with the applicant. Deb advised that the operator is actually happy with the conditions and has withdrawn the representations. So there's no matter to decide today. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Well, let's see. Yes. So I'm happy to move that Council note the report by the Development and Planning of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 7 February 2023 regarding the representations made in relation to application number, which the Chair just read out, for a development permit for material change of use, landing, commuting, etc. and commercial and operational works, prescribed co-title work situated at Jetty 222 Gimpy Terrace, Noosaville.
00:02:00 And note the application has been withdrawn by the applicant. Councillor Finzel: Patrick is second. Councillor Wegener: Seconded by Karen. Any need to discuss? Any need to discuss? No. Seconded by Mike. All in favour? That is unanimous. I would like to compliment and say thank you. Thank you for your appreciation for Patrick's emails concerning this. You know, they were absolutely fantastic. We asked questions before and you did such a wonderful job answering them. So I think that we really appreciate that. Speaker 1: Thanks, Tom. And just recognise that's a collective team input to that kind of communication as well. So in that regard, Lisa was very helpful too. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Jeff. Councillor Wegener: Really, really. Yeah. Good. Okay. Now to number two. MCU 19 slash 0017 dot 03 and RAL 19 slash 0004 dot 03.
00:03:00 Minor change to development approval for commercial business type 1 office, commercial business type 2 medical ancillary dwelling and units for reconfiguring a lot. Assessed easement at 36 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. And Patrick, would you like to talk to us about that? Speaker 4: Yeah, so I'm happy to give a summary. The applications for a minor change to development approval for medical offices and ancillary dwelling unit at 36 to 45 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. Amended plans have been lodged which remove the third storey, the ancillary dwelling use and the basement. It also reduces the gross floor area of the approved building and reduces the car parking requirements on the site. The proposed changes generally align with the current approval in terms of the site layout, landscaping, setbacks and design and are consistent with Noosa plan 2020 as well as Noosa plan
00:04:00 2006 for which the application was approved under. Therefore, the applications recommended for approval and recommended changes to conditions are in the report to reflect the amended plans. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Any questions? No. Councillor Finzel: Now I have no questions. I think there's a little written report and a good verbal explanation out there. So, yep, I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor O'Reilly. Just a quick question, Lisa. A total of 50 bicycle parking spaces is conditioned with this application. Is that now being most used? Are there any bicycle parking spaces that would have been allocated in regards to development applications? Fantastic outcome. And I've never seen that many bike spaces.
00:05:00 Is this a burst? Speaker 4: Comparatively, I'd have to look into that. But it is a high number. It is a large area in terms of the parking. So, they're able to accommodate that. So, yes. So, that was part of the original approval, the 50 spaces. Councillor Lorentson: And they're end of trip facilities. They've been at a scale that I've never seen before. And, yeah, I just think it's brilliant. Yeah. Thanks, Lisa. Councillor Wegener: Hey, do we have a mover? I think it's been a long time. Can I get a second? Oh, yeah. Did you move it? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Moved by Councillor Finzel. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. All in favour? Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: So, we're on desk. Item three. MCU22 slash 0154. Application for a material change of use.
00:06:00 Food and drink outlet shop offices at 214 David Loway, Crescent Beach. And do we have any questions? Oh, we have a report. Oh, yes. A report. Speaker 3: Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? This is an application for a material change of use to redevelop an existing building on the corner of the Peregian Beach Village. It's on the south-western corner. They're proposing to retain part of the existing single-storey building on the ground floor and do some renovation to that, and then put a new second storey on the upper level. The proposal was originally for, had it involved a caretaker's residence, but due to some of the concerns with... Well, the non-provision of a car parking space for that use, the applicant modified the application to convert the upstairs into another food and drink facility and offices upstairs. The uses are consistent now with the planning scheme.
00:07:00 It generally meets everything. There are some areas of non-compliance due to car parking, landscaping, and... Well, there was another setback. Setbacks. But generally, we believe that due to the small size of the site, the redevelopment and the existing character of the area, that these areas of non-compliance were appropriate. The applicant has also signed an infrastructure agreement for a contribution for four car parking spaces. We've discussed the ability to accept a contribution down in Peregian at length, with both strategic and the engineering section, and there were some questions raised about that. Unfortunately, there are no more public transport stops that are able to be redeveloped with additional money. However, the engineering section has indicated that there are a range of pathway initiatives
00:08:00 that they're looking at, and cycleways and cycle streets that they're looking at, and as well as reviewing sort of existing roadside areas that could potentially be used for additional parking as well. So in that regard, we've indicated that we would accept a contribution of four, or we would recommend accepting four spaces. Councillor Wegener: That's it. Thank you, Mindy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Questions? Councillor Sumner. Yeah, I'm looking at the elevations, and I'm just... Of course, I can't see any detail. Just checking in terms of melody and character. The... The... The louvers on the western elevation, are they timber? Speaker 3: They are an aluminium, which is to look like timber, like a white timber lookalike. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And is that then the same for the stuff down the bottom? Speaker 3: Yes.
00:09:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I won't repeat my views on the aluminium timber lookalike. I just don't think it is in character with the Noosa design principles. Okay. Thank you. We're aware that timber has a higher maintenance cost, et cetera. But my view is that we should always be pushing for natural products in public spaces of high prominence. But we can't, I suppose, require the public to develop... To do it if we didn't do it ourselves on the community building. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just making the point that I just think that this is something we obviously are working on. Yes. As we... As we... How do we reinstate some of those core principles? And one of the core principles about Noosa is about the natural material. And going for timber. I'm not sure it's pointing up to you anymore. Going for the timber lookalike aluminium is really... Speaker 3: They have gone for a quite a neutral palette.
00:10:00 So the development is more a... It is quite a grey with sort of the neutral vertical elements that they're proposing on those pergolas. And those... Those screens. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Look, I think it was a good report. I think the facts that you provided are really good. Because I see, you know, mitigated risk. You've negotiated well. I think it's perfect for the Peregian Beach area. I think anything where we can bring people together to engage and, you know, build strong social connections and, you know, spaces provided. It's good common sense. Councillor Wegener: Can I come to the vote then? Councillor Lorentson: Hi, Nadine. Can I just clarify? So my understanding with this application is on the existing level, they're going to
00:11:00 renovate. Two of the existing shop tenancies, they're going to stay and the remaining three are going into a food and drink outlet. That's correct. And then upstairs, there's going to be another food and drink outlet. Yes. That's correct. So my question relates to land use. So part of the application, I note, you look at surrounding land uses. Does that take into account the number of food and outlet businesses in that precinct? Speaker 3: It's a consistent use. So in terms of the number of tenancies, no, we can't restrict the number of food and drink outlets proposed. That's not within our council scope. So, you know, they can put a food and drink premise there and utilise it for that purpose. Councillor Lorentson: So we can actually regulate the number.
00:12:00 I was there yesterday and there's a lot of food and drink outlets. So for me, what concerns me is... Speaker 3: We can't regulate it. Councillor Lorentson: Do we need a knowledge for food and drink outlets? Speaker 3: No, we can't do that. We can't regulate it. It's a consistent use. It is a consistent use. And, you know, the only aspect, I suppose, would be if you want to refuse it on the basis of the non-commissioned car parking. Speaker 1: And it is noted that the application, I mean, it does provide two tenancies for retail. It has office. And it does have two food and drink outlets. So it does have a combination of uses and employment types that can be generated. Speaker 3: And the other thing is that once it gets an approval for this, it can change between a food and drink and shop and office. So if the food and drink fails, it can go and be used for a shop. It can be used for an office.
00:13:00 So, you know, there will be variations. And it's like any of those other tenancies down there. They can change between uses as well. So there's an existing shop down there on the ground floor. It can convert to a food and drink as well. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the infrastructure agreement that has been agreed to, can that money be spent towards a traffic management plan for the Coorijin Beach Precinct? I don't know. Again, I was there yesterday. And I struggled. Nothing was happening. It was outside the busy period. And it was still hard to get parking. Can we use that money to help the Coorijin locals to, I don't know, just better traffic management or traffic flow? Can that money be diverted directly to the Precinct? Yeah. Speaker 1: Given my understanding, it has to go towards infrastructure.
00:14:00 Such as the pathways and bus shelters and the like. Councillor Lorentson: I had a look at, actually had a look at the criteria. And you're right, Patrick. Yeah. But I'm wondering, given the situation down in Coorijin Beach, traffic issues, is there an opportunity for us to look at, go outside that scope, the criteria, and maybe look at a management plan? Speaker 3: I do note that there have been, talking to the interviewees, there have been a number of engineers. They were talking, in the design section, they were saying there was a number of recommendations that did come out of the walking and pathway strategy. So they're looking at those. And they were also looking at, there was comments about a high priority corridor. So trying to provide those alternative linkages, like pedestrian and public transport linkages, into the centre. So there are certainly, I understand, from their section, they are looking at why there
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 is a need to reduce the car parking impacts. And preparing a further study. I don't know if there's further you want to comment, Kim? Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 5: I mean, the Dean's pretty much covered it. But the contributions to car parking and law of car parking can't be directed to that. It can be used for things like public transport, cycleways, walkways, other public car parking, those sorts of things. Yeah. If we were to look at a traffic management study for Peregian, it would need to be just through the budget process. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Look, I would look forward to a personal view that if councillors are concerned about traffic flow in Peregian Village, they will support the fast tracking on the upgrade of Plover Street, in terms of cycleway and pedestrian access. And also King Fisher Esplanade, as well, which is part of the cycling and walking strategy.
00:16:00 It's not rated that highly. But it has been flagged consistently by the Peregian residents and the community down there as being in need of urgent upgrade. So there will be a discussion for the budget. I welcome the interest in Peregian. And I'd urge councillors to consider fast tracking Plover Street and King Fisher Esplanade in terms of the cycling and walking strategy projects that are listed there. Yeah. Thank you. I do have some questions about the report itself. Could you explain the... Could you clarify how the awnings are non-compliant? So I'm looking at the picture on page 38. Are the awnings going to extend any further than the picture on page 38? Into the road, is it? Speaker 3: Yes.
00:17:00 So that's the Plover Street. If you look at... Speaker 4: If you look at page 33. Speaker 3: And that has the site... That one? Page 33 with the site plan? Yes. If I can... So the building actually goes... Their site is... There was a dark line. And the awnings extend beyond two and a half. And they go over the council's footpath. So the building itself is going to extend beyond two and a half. They're existing. So that's existing. And that's the council's footpath. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So is it proposed to extend beyond the existing? No. Okay. That's my question. Does it extend... No. ...into the road reserve beyond what's happening already? No. That's... Okay. The other non-compliant aspect that I'm interested in is landscaped open space. Where... Again, using page 38 as a reference. The photo on page 38 is a reference point. Where would the landscaped open space be required to go under the planning scheme?
00:18:00 Speaker 3: Under the... Councillor Wilkie: In an ideal world. Speaker 3: In an ideal... Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 3: It's very difficult because Peregian has a zero setback requirement for the ground floor. Yeah. So... And there's a requirement for a percentage of landscaping. So... Yeah. On a corner site like this... It's not practical. It's not practical. No. And they have... With the design... Councillor Wilkie: So it's not over-reached by the landowner. It's just... It's impractical. It's impractical. Speaker 3: And none of the other sites... If you have a look at Peregian... Yeah. None of them... The existing infrastructure... The existing built form... None of them provide enough landscaped open space. I think the only one that would be is the captain's daughter on the other side. But if you look on that whole line of shops, there's actually no landscaping provided on site. Yes. So they've provided... They've converted in the centre on the ground floor.
00:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 3: They've converted tenancies in the middle there. And that's become an open foyer area with some ground level landscaping in an attempt to soften the building. Speaker 1: With the planter upstairs? Speaker 3: And there's a planter upstairs. Correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So it's in the centre. Speaker 3: That's in the... It's on the southern side. Sort of in the centre of... On that centre of that frontage. Councillor Wilkie: And just to clarify, could the contributions in lieu of parking, are they being required here? Yes. Can they go towards cycling and walking projects? Yes. Yes. Thank you for the answer. Yes. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question. With that level of non-compliance, is there any ability of us to condition vertical gardens, green walls, more green... Speaker 3: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: ...in different levels of the building? Because I think that's something that we would probably seek to do incrementally in three years with a much more green natural wood third. Other than that, it is a product of the time it was developed.
00:20:00 And, you know, where we see our centres going forward is perhaps got a little bit more green in it. Would that be something that we could request? Speaker 3: I suppose, yes, I could always ask the applicant. I actually thought in terms of the character and amenity, the presentation on the southern elevation and the provision of that length, the length of the garden, the length of the small area of landscaping... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's hard that we haven't got really good renderings in the... Speaker 3: They're not great... No, they're not great renderings, yes. I agree. We have some troubles with plans. But I actually thought the presentation with that ground floor ability for a tree and the upper level plantings, I thought that was quite appropriate. Also noting that there is a nice pandanus to the south of it within Council's walkway that hopefully will... There are conditions on there that it has to be, you know, not touched and that that
00:21:00 will also assist in sort of breaking up that built form. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What about on that big, long balcony that's not compliant? Speaker 3: To the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we just have a nice thing that they should be fucking with? Speaker 3: Yeah, I can always... I can always ask it. We have asked for that balcony to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're west-facing, so that'd be pretty... Speaker 3: Oh, west... No, it'd be east. East? The balcony faces east. East? Yes. It faces internally to the square. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. So the... Oh, I've still... I haven't seen the square. Speaker 3: So the western elevation, that's mainly office with windows. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the east elevation is the one. Speaker 1: The awning might... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, the awning's going to come out over... In PWS towards the... Yeah. Yeah. I thought that was coming out. Yeah. So, yeah. Okay. So in this case, I reckon... I just think in future, it's something we can continue to look at. If we're giving any sort of advice...
00:22:00 Yep. ...green can go in various phases. And I think, you know, green walls is both... Speaker 3: So would you be talking about green walls on the external part of the building? I would be. Are we talking internal or...? I would be. You would be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: External. I just think it's just something we have to look at. If they can't be in landscape open space... Mm-hmm. ...in a conventional sense, then, you know, the technology around green walls and the benefits from both the city can for a climate, you know, heat production, et cetera, are considerable. But this has got to an end of the process, so it's not going to be appropriate, I don't think, to come in at the end. Councillor Wegener: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: Brian, I'd say that's a really good idea. Is it worth deferring to general receive staff and have the discussion with the applicant in the meantime? Probably could. Because it has been done internally on the main development right next door, the green wall. Has it? Yeah. Speaker 3: Okay. I'd have to investigate that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Well, could we refer this to general committee?
00:23:00 Yeah. Have you... Councillor Stockwell's idea is... Yeah. ...investigated further. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Stockwell, would you like to move to refer this to... Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll refer it to the general committee for... Further... Further information. Okay. Further... Councillor Wegener: I'll take it back. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Not for further report. Just for further information. Further information. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What was that? Before you went away. Oh. Oh, no. Speaker 3: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. I know. I'll keep what I was going to say until... I have a question. Councillor Wegener: Yes. So, you have a... Mostly single-story buildings in there, in Peregian. And so, this is... This is going to be a two-story building. I would assume that a lot of the buildings could be... Could apply to become two-story buildings where... So, you would have more people there, more businesses there, but still the same amount of parking in general. Like, there's not going to be a magic wand to create a lot more parking, even if you
00:24:00 do... Do the parking on the side street. Yep. So, is that... Are we facing a potential problem in the future with other buildings saying, look, if they put a second story, we want a second story. How are we going to deal with parking or that... The evolution of Peregian in that sense? Speaker 3: Yes. I agree that there are a number of single-story buildings in there, and yes, it'll have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. So, when they are putting in for a second story, they'll need to put in internal infrastructures such as stairwells and lifts and lobby and a ground... And all of those three, ground floor, lobby, a lift and stairwell, they don't generate car parking. So, if you remove a ground floor area like this, like they have done, you have technically ability to create additional floor area at an upper level with no car parking contributions required. So, there'll be that side of things.
00:25:00 But, yes, in the future, we will have to assess each application on its merits and see what level of car parking is required and can we utilise the money that's required, that would be, I suppose, required for such an extension. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to it. I might say, be careful, Wilkie, but you can come in. There is only one solution to the congestion in Peregian, and that's to make sure that you don't make the village a place that people walk and ride to. And that is what Councillor Wilkie was talking about before, making Plovera a friendly, odd street so locals are happy, they can go down and get a coffee or a loaf of bread or whatever. It's about then discouraging long-term parking for people who aren't frequenting the businesses. So, if you're a worker, you shouldn't be anywhere near that, you should be over at the council car park that's always got spaces at the back.
00:26:00 It is about, you know, with the increased population in Peregian Springs, using it as their local place to have a coffee and eat, and obviously the beach being close by, we aren't going to design car parking and we shouldn't necessarily just try and limit development. What we should do is make conditions right for people to think it's natural just to walk there, catch the bus there, or ride by. And the other aspect, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is I think there's only three scooter parks in Peregian. What we have done in other places is actually progressively increase the number of scooters that can be parked. I tend, if I can, to ride with a scooter there, or have a bike down there the other day. So that's my view on it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you, Brian. I'll take up where you left off. And you're quite right, there's always underutilised car parks over in the Rufous Street Precinct, and we could do a better job directing both visitors and also staff to use the parks that are underutilised in the Rufous Street Precinct.
00:27:00 The Business Association has been very good in working with Council and encouraging their workers and staff to always park over in the Rufous Street Precinct. Perhaps this time we'll touch bases with them again and work with them to urge their staff to start doing that more frequently. The other thing we could probably do better is signage to make visitors aware that there is always underutilised car parks available over in the Rufous Street Precinct, which is linked by the Beamey Walk, which has golden arches which are lit at night. They're not at the moment because of the development going on next door. The whole idea was that one of the disincentives for staff parking over there was that they didn't feel safe walking back and forth at night, and so the lit walkway was created for that purpose.
00:28:00 So what we could do there was signage and communication with the Business Association to encourage staff to park over there, in the short term. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just raise this, because I actually got off the phone just before I came into this meeting, by speaking to a Peregian Beach resident, who spoke about the fact that the Rufous Street Precinct permits, local resident permits, maybe this is not the forum for discussion, but that, you know, I think there's some merit in the conversation where if you're a rate payer living in Peregian and you're struggling to get a park to buy a newspaper, a dress, a coffee, then, I don't know, I think the debate or discussion about, I don't know, you know, we should bring it to council. Speaker 3: I think that's probably another.
00:29:00 Councillor Lorentson: A seminar. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can I go now, Tom? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're on to number four, MCU19-0089.02 and OPW19-0160-02, Planning Environment Court Appeal Number DB928-2022, Application for a Modern Change to a Development Approval for Service Station and Shop, Operational Works and Signage at 54 Mary Street, New Zeville.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 So, we would like to, I'd like to move this to the General. Okay, well. Give me one minute to say something. Brian, would you like to say something? No, I'll second it. Second, yeah. Speaker 2: Go ahead. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Patrick, what do you have to say? No, I don't. First up, I'll talk to it. Councillor Wegener: Do we need a reason to move it to General? No, the first consideration. Okay. Further consideration. Okay. All in favor? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: All in favor?
00:31:00 Speaker 4: Is that currently announced? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, hopefully at the right date. Okay. All those in favour? Councillor Finzel. Speaker 4: Okay, no worries. Councillor Wegener: 5, development assessment fees and charges variations for the 1st of July 2022 to 31st of December 2022.
00:32:00 Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, so as you've advised, it's a report. It's a report summarising the fee waivers that were applied through the period of 1st of July to 31st of December 2022. We get a whole range of applications and a high number of applications through the planning department, as you'll be aware. And from time to time, a request is made by an applicant to vary the standard fees that apply. These are assessed on a case by case basis and you see a summary of those cases within this report. And ultimately, that fee waiver needs to be signed off by the director of the department. And in this instance, this six-month period, it was $66,235 that was waived in fees as per the report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So there was one in there, Patrick, which was RAP 2232.
00:33:00 Okay. So you made an assessment that it wasn't – you reduced the multiplier on the looks of it. Speaker 1: So in that instance, the applicant made – submitted their application to the building department on the basis of it being a setback variation only. Yeah. And that wasn't correct. There were other elements of non-compliance. And it took a little bit of time for that application to go through buildings, to be honest, and to come to planning for us to assess it. And so the applicant said, well, because it's taken so much time, we'd actually like you to only charge the fee for the setback, which is $971, due to the time that they've had to wait.
00:34:00 Because of the elements of non-compliance. The fee should have actually been $3,532 as a RAP made to the planning department. We partially waived that fee. We didn't apply the – Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So it wasn't that – like, my issue was about, you know, not having 75% even to me is a minor – is a major non-compliance, and I wouldn't approve it. But that wasn't the basis of the reduction. It was more a bit of a quid pro quo. Speaker 1: It was a process. It was a process. Any – yeah. Councillor Finzel: No, I don't have any questions. It's good to see the community groups, you know, doing a lot of moving forward and growing in the Shire, and, you know, that we respect that they are community groups. And given that they have approved the fees to be reduced, given that –
00:35:00 So, yeah, I think it was – it was a good report. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: That's what I said. Patrick, under what conditions, if any, does Council approve a full waiver of fees? Speaker 1: I don't believe we've had any full waiver of fees, obviously, in that report. Councillor Lorentson: Have we ever waived it? Speaker 1: Not that I can recall. Speaker 5: Councillor Lorentson, in the time that I have delegation, we haven't waived full fees. We considered variations. We considered reductions. We considered not applying the multiplier. But in the five years I've been here, we haven't waived full fees. Speaker 2: Thank you. We would need to cover the costs, Councillor Lorentson.
00:36:00 So, potentially, a not-for-profit might be looking at putting a piece of community infrastructure in place. That might have consideration. But we would very much want to ensure that we cover that also in the process. Speaker 5: Not-for-profit will get 50% discount. Yeah. Yeah, under our kind of policy. So, yeah. Councillor Wegener: If there's ever one that would be 100% waived, it would be the Katie Rose Cottage, which I just love. And it kind of takes the fear and the edge off of passing away when you know that that's a possibility to end up there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any other questions? Councillor Wegener: Should we move it? Speaker 3: Sorry. Can you second it? Councillor Wegener: No, that's fine. We'll second it. All in favor? That's unanimous. And we're at number six. Planning applications decided by delegated authority. Report December 2022.
00:37:00 Second. And do we have no more conflicts of interest? Is it there? Look, there's a new report. Okay. Yeah, that's it. New report. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Councillor Wegener: We have Patrick Hill. Would you like to speak to any of them? Councillor Finzel: Oh, yeah. I just had a question. Page 66. We've got the LNC Church Street Pomona was refused. Do you want to just tell us a little bit about that? Speaker 1: Yeah. So maybe just broadly, just to recognize the great work of the team. December was a very challenging month, as it normally is for the team. Very high workload. So what you see in front of you is reflective of the great output of the team. Again, a very varied range of application types that we deal with. Specifically, Church Street Pomona. That was a code-assessable application, which we'd had for some time. There was a number of issues with that application that were raised.
00:38:00 There was a number of issues with that application that were identified throughout the process, in the information request stage, and then through further negotiations that occurred with the applicant. Just to summarize, it was an application for 20 dwelling units to be placed on a medium density zone site in Pomona. The site had previously been reconfigured, and this was developing the undeveloped part of the lot, which was on the northern side of the waterway. There certainly were some constraints with the site, in terms of overland flow. Flooding. There being a riparian buffer. The topography of the site itself. So there was a lot of discussions with the applicant about this application. We weren't able to get it to a point where officers were supportive of the application. The applicant had stopped the clock, and we were hoping to bring it to council. They didn't unstop the clock to an end.
00:39:00 We were hoping that it would enable us to prepare a report and put it on an agenda. So it was necessary for us to decide that on the delegation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: A follow-up question. We'll probably get an opportunity to clarify. It was last month's meeting. I believe we had a deputation on this topic. Yes. Can you just clarify, there's a range of assertions made about conflicts of interest and interpretation of planning law. Are your assessments of those issues, like the importance from an aquatic ecology interest of conflict of interest between consultants internally to their own application, those sort of issues, or would you just like to give a staff opinion about the assertions made in that deputation?
00:40:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a lot of assertions that were made. In terms of the conflict of interest, there was no conflict of interest from a staff point of view or a counsellor point of view through that process. The structure of that planning consultant is that her husband is an environmental consultant. They put forward applications. So that's really up to them in terms of how they operate. There was nothing that we saw from them that wasn't transparent or anything like that in that regard. Okay. In terms of the comments that were made, there was a lot of comments that were made from maybe an ecological point of view around how the application should have been assessed. We had engaged a hydraulic engineer through the process and had someone who has worked with council quite a lot, and we're very confident in the work that they put forward, and our own assessment of the application against the requirements of the planning scheme, noting that it is coded.
00:41:00 It is coded, accessible, and undertook our assessment in accordance with the requirements of the scheme. Speaker 2: And through the chair response, Councillor Stockwell, while I attended online that meeting with COVID, I didn't know that it was put forward in the chamber. And while we do want to be able to allow discussion and conversation coming from their deputations, what's being put needs to be correct as well. So we'll work through a process on that. We referred to governance for governance as oversight and review. And with the information that's been provided by the planning department, we see no issues. And unfortunately, that person made some assertions that were incorrect. And we're happy to work with that individual and explain further if they need. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The planning rule can be complicated, but perhaps, yeah, I'll leave it at that. Councillor Finzel: And what's the opportunities done for the development for that block? I think that's a really good question.
00:42:00 Speaker 1: Well, it is zoned medium density. So there is a capacity for multiple dwelling units to be constructed on that site. But it has to acknowledge and respond to the constraints that are on that site. So in our opinion, the 20 dwelling development wasn't suitable. And obviously, that's been refused. So the applicant or the owner of the property could potentially come forward with an amended proposal for less than 20. So that's the number of dwellings. And that might be appropriate. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And maybe there's a preliminary approval or something to that effect, where the council indicated they would prefer to see a environmental reserve along the Crick Corridor and Iperium buffer. Was that, was that, was that a formal process where we did that? No. Or were there discussions in? Speaker 1: There was no, I mean, as part of that, a part of any assessment of an application on that lot, there could be discussions as to how future tenure of that land in the rock
00:43:00 area ended. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just thought we had, had a little debate at some stage where we, I thought I knew something to that effect. Speaker 1: We'll have to have a look further into that. Councillor Wegener: Any other questions? No. I have one just now. The 62 Gateway Drive warehouse. Is that a property? Is that a property that has some caretaker's accommodation? So the caretaker's accommodation was refused there. We've gone round and round with several different applications for that. So that was? Speaker 1: That was, that site, 62 Gateway Drive, hasn't come before council. There have been maybe other premises where this is, a caretaker's dwelling has come before council. But in that instance, the caretaker's dwelling wasn't supported. There was no, the applicant didn't demonstrate that there was a connection between any of the land uses occurring on the site and the need for a caretaker's dwelling on the
00:44:00 site. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Can I move? Can I move back? Can I slip things off? You've been seconded. Oh, that's seconded. Can I get on with my dinner? Yes. Thank you. All right. Move to a vote. All in favour? Well, that's it. We finished our business here. No confidential sessions. We have this meeting closed. Thank you very much.