Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Stewart: We have an apology from Councillor Tom Wegener who is currently overseas, Councillor Stockwell and myself are in attendance and we have Councillor Finzel who's online so I will move that Councillor and we have to pass a resolution to ensure she's allowed to attend via Teams so I move that Councillor Finzel attend this meeting by Teams. Speaker 1: I need to be the Chair. Mayor Stewart: Oh I beg your pardon, I'm not normally the Chair of this meeting so I've just taken over as the Chair because I'm the last man standing. Okay. Sorry Larry. Speaker 1: So yeah, SEO, because Councillor Wegener is not here today is an apology. I'll start the meeting off but we do initially have to elect a Chair for the meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we'll have to do Councillor Finzel first otherwise we won't have a call. Speaker 1: Right.
00:01:00 So we need to, we need to, we need to vote to ensure that we allow Karen Finzel, Councillor Karen Finzel to be available online which we can see her, she can see us. Karen, can you see us? Speaker 4: Yes, good morning and thank you to the Chair. Speaker 1: Okay, can I have a mover for that please? I'll move it. And a seconder? Okay, so that's fine. So Karen, you're online. All in favour? Yes, sir. Yeah. There's only two of you so I'll have to get with you later. Speaker 2: Sorry Larry. Speaker 1: Okay, so now I just need to, as the CEO, because we don't have a normal Chair, Councillor Wegener, we need to elect a Chair for this meeting. Can I have a... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think Councillor Stewart's sitting in the same time. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: So you're moving it? Speaker 1: I'll move it. I'll move it for Councillor Stewart. And second? Speaker 4: I'm happy to. Speaker 1: Second. Councillor Finzel. All in favour? Mayor Stewart: Do I go? Yes.
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:02:00 Speaker 1: Yes. There you go. Yep. All good. So... Thank you, Larry. Over to you. Mayor Stewart: We'll welcome everyone. So confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover please for the Planning and Environment Committee Minutes dated the 12th of September, 2023 and the Planning and Environment Committee Minutes dated 10th of October, 2023. I think we need to do those two separate motions. Can we do them together? Can we do them together? Yeah, we can. Councillor Stockwell. I'll second it. Happy to second. Oh, okay. Councillor Finzel. Second. All in favour? Yes. Thank you. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Kath. We have no presentations and I believe that deputations have been withdrawn. So reports for consideration of this committee meeting. We have a number that have been asked to be referred to general. 5.1 has in fact asked to be put forward to general, but we will call up our staff in case there are any questions. And this is the development application for material change of use, short-term accommodation at 94 and 142.
5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶
00:03:00 Noosa Drive. Noosa Drive. So I'm actually out on this. No, this is RACB. RACB, thank you. Thanks, Patrick. Thanks, Richard. Speaker 1: Do we have any other conflicts of interest for this one? No conflict. Mayor Stewart: No, Councillor Lorentson is leaving the meeting room. Thanks, guys. Speaker 3: So you've got Tara Norris. Norris is our senior planner. We've also got Will Lowe, who's our environment officer today. Speaker 5: All right, so we've had a material change of use lodged for this one for an extension to the existing RACB resort. So the applicant's seeking approval for short-term accommodation at 94 and 142 Noosa Drive. So they're proposing eight new buildings comprising 15 separate units, self-contained dwelling units.
5.1 MCU22/0118 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 94 & 142 NOOSA DR, NOOSA HEADS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
Deputation: DARREN MCCLENAGHAN - RACV RESORT, SHANE ADAMDSON & JUSTIN ¶
00:04:00 All of them will be elevated. Above ground level, and they're all connected by an elevated boardwalk. The proposal also includes 18 additional car parks and removal of 71 and up to 82 native trees on the site. Of those, 27 koala trees, up to 33 potentially have been removed. The access will remain from Noosa Drive, as is. They are proposing to amalgamate the lots as part of this development. So the existing access easements would no longer be required. The site's actually over two lots. Both of them are split development. So, sorry, split zoning. So the predominant development is over lot three, with the site being predominantly short-term, sorry, tourist accommodation zone and environmental management and conservation. So the proposal does include development in the environmental management and conservation zone, which is outside of council's urban boundary
00:05:00 in the strategic framework in Noosa Plain 2020. So we are recommending refusal for this one. There is significant ecological impacts on the site. There is, the whole site's mapped as koala habitat. The proposal has been designed to try and lessen the impact as much as possible in terms of what they're actually proposing. However, we don't think that that outweighs the impacts of the development, essentially, building outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management and conservation zone. That zone is contrary to the requirements of the planning scheme. So, any questions on that one? Could you say that last sentence again, building outside? Outside of the urban boundary in the environmental management and conservation, a short-term accommodation in that zone is inconsistent. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell, do you have a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question.
00:06:00 I understand our grounds. I understand our grounds. The state government, the SARA response, with respect to koalas, can you outline their perspective? Speaker 5: So they've approved the development, but they have put a covenant around the entire site outside of the building footprint. So essentially, the entire development site would be covenanted, excluding the building footprint and the boardwalk. So I don't know if you have any more to add to that? Speaker 6: Yeah, I think the state government also conditioned the requirement for some signage north and south of the development. Speaker 3: And you've asked for a construction management plan to reflect how that would be implemented? Yeah. Speaker 5: So they've given us a basic understanding, but not the full detail of how the actual development would be constructed and then maintained in perpetuity without disrupting that covenant area.
00:07:00 Speaker 3: Okay. That's fine. So notwithstanding the impact in the footprint, where there's 77 trees to be removed and the number of those that are koala trees, what's that number? 27? 27 up to 33. We considered that to be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just trying to understand why they approved it. So I agree with your arguments. Was there an offset requirement or is it because of the level of mapping there's no offset required or where it is within the urban footprint? That's the SARA response. Does SARA have an offset requirement? Speaker 5: I don't believe it required one, no. Speaker 3: Which is different to that Lucid Springs proposal where when they were proposing to remove the koala habitat trees, they were just seeking a financial offset. Speaker 2: And that was also outside the urban boundary, that area. The team could make further inquiries with SARA in relation to that query. Oh, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It'd be interesting to see what they're going to do.
00:08:00 Speaker 2: I'm just trying to understand why they sought offsets. One could assume that the signage proposed, and I understand that the illuminated signage installed to make drivers aware of koalas in that area may have offset the need for vegetation offsets. Speaker 6: There's a portion of the site that they were looking at re-vegetating, so maybe they thought there was no net loss. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finsler, do you have any questions? Speaker 4: Yes, just through the Chair. Thank you, Ben. You say SARA's approved with the covenant. Who writes the covenant then? Is that up to SARA, or who develops the covenant and complies to that? Speaker 6: Essentially SARA would become the owner of that covenant with the developer.
00:09:00 So that would be SARA's responsibility to ensure that. Compliance was met at all times with those covenant terms. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Thank you. Anything further for Councillor Finsler? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One more. No, Captain. If you are talking to SARA, they're responsible for balancing or coordinating responsible departments. It might be interesting to see whether there was differences in the opinion between, say, the Department of Environment and Science and the Department of Tourism, whatever that's called. It might be interesting to understand whether they were actually trying to weigh up different state interests. Speaker 2: They may or may not share that advice with us, but we can ask the question, noting the different internal focuses of those different state departments to appreciate the question.
00:10:00 Mayor Stewart: Anything else, Councillor? All right. Well, this has been referred anyway to Generals, so no doubt we'll have a little debate on Monday. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. Thanks, Patrick. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I'll text Councillor Livingstone. Do you have to move it? Yes. I'll move it, but most to General. Speaker 1: Second. Mayor Stewart: For the significance of the matter. Councillor Stockwell has seconded. And all in favour? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. You know this. Thanks, Councillor. Speaker 1: Okay. Mayor Stewart: Item five. Do we want to get another one of those? Speaker 1: Do you like Sean Collins? Do you like that one? Yes. Thank you. Thanks, Madam. Mayor Stewart: Thanks, Sean. Item 5.2 has also been asked and referred to General, but we've got staff here to answer the questions anyway. Application for another change to a development approval for a roadside stall to include a food and drink outlet at 201 Mary River Road, Cooroy. Thank you, Patrick. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 5: All right. So the applicant was issued a commercial low use permit for trading for the original bus
5.2 MCU21/0194.01 – APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A ROADSIDE STALL TO INCLUDE A FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT 201 MARY RIVER RD, COOROY ¶
00:11:00 stop proposal in June 2021. Once they started trading, they did start operating from outside the site, the subject site at Mary River Road, which was not in accordance with that. It was in accordance with the actual permit approval, which allowed for trade in the Cooroy industrial area. So Council received a complaint regarding the operation of a cafe on the subject site. So an MCU was lodged following compliance action regarding that complaint in November 2021. The application went to Council in April 2022, with the officer recommending refusal for the roadside stall under the recommendation it was considered that the roadside stall was actually a food and drink outlet, so that the use that they were proposing was not in accordance with how the use was operating. Council approved the roadside stall at that ordinary meeting. On the decision notice that was issued, there was a notation regarding the current cafe
00:12:00 that was operating on the site, recommending that an application be lodged within six months, if they would wish to continue the use. The notation also required that the use not create any negative impact on the operation of any impacts. So Council did receive a number of complaints in the past six months regarding the cafe that's been operating on the site, predominantly in regards to parking in the road reserve and safety concerns, entering and exiting neighbouring properties. There was also an issue just regarding amenity for neighbouring rural properties. So the current proposal is looking to include a food and drink outlet, as well as the current approved roadside stall. They're looking to expand the range of goods permitted to food and drink outlets. They're also looking to include coffee, bread and milk products, including drinks and ice cream. And that's in addition to the already approved honey, eggs, fruit and vegetable and juices. They're also looking to have on-site dining for up to 12 people.
00:13:00 So the proposal plans do show some seating area totaling 50 square metres. The applicant is also seeking a retrospective approval. So a small building has been constructed on site for use for the roadside stall. That's a 26 square metre building and approval for the bus, which is 24 square metres for the food and drink component. In total use requires five car parks on site. The applicant's proposed eight. One of those car parks actually doesn't work. So essentially, we're looking at seven on-site car parks. The request includes changes to some of the conditions and deleting some of the conditions. Speaker 2: So we're looking at seven on-site car parks. Speaker 5: So those conditions predominantly relate to the operation of the food and drink outlet, as opposed to the roadside stall. So the report does recommend refusal. The development is considered an urban activity.
00:14:00 The plan scheme looks to consolidate those activities into our centre zones and does not encourage those sorts of uses in our rural areas. So in terms of the development, it's about two and a half kilometres from the Cooroy town centre. So it's about two and a half kilometres from the town centre. It's inconsistent. It's outside of the urban boundary, the Cooroy urban boundary. So in terms of the plan scheme, it's an inconsistent use in the rural zone. Under the South East Queensland regional plan, it's also outside of the urban footprint. So the SEQ regional plan looks to consolidate those business activities as well as the planning scheme. So essentially, it's not consistent with both Noosa plan and the SEQ regional plan. From Council's perspective, from Office's perspective, it's not consistent with both Noosa plan and Office's perspective. One of the major concerns is the car parking. So the way the cafe is operating at the moment, the car parking that's proposed on site isn't sufficient to meet the demand that's currently being seen on that site.
00:15:00 So Council's infrastructure team has had a look at parking in the road reserve. It's not wide enough to have a formalised car park provided in that area. So there would be issues with continued parking on that road reserve, the way that it's currently operating. It is causing damage to the road reserve at the moment. So local laws have confirmed that the parking is lawful because it is outside of an urban built up area. So people are lawfully able to park in that area. But formalised parking could not be provided due to the width of the reserve at the moment. So essentially, at the moment, the way that the cafe is operating, it is causing impacts on adjoining properties in terms of humanity and safety concerns, as already outlined. In terms of the use itself, it's it's not so much as a tourism focus, which the planning scheme does allow for limited uses in those areas that do sort of promote tourism. This is more of a passing trade type use with limited tourism potential.
00:16:00 There's no overriding community benefit to approve this use in this location. And there is a concern regarding setting a precedent of approving an adjoining property as an urban activity outside of the urban boundary in the rural area. Speaker 3: And maybe just a point of clarity, the decision, the recommendation seeks to review, refuse the food and drink component, but supports the amendment to the building for the roadside store. So it's an approval in part. Mayor Stewart: So it says that Patrick said recommend it for refusal, refusal for food and drink. That's correct. So that would be the bus would effectively stop. Speaker 3: That's correct. The recommendation is that the use cease within three months. So yes, the original approval had like a pergola type structure for the roadside store. What has been constructed on site is a 26 square metre building.
00:17:00 We're supportive of that building, which is consistent with the allowable area for GFA under the planning scheme and for that to be the location where the roadside store operates from. Mayor Stewart: So approval for the roadside store, but refusal for the bus stop, so no coffees. Speaker 3: No coffees. No, no cafe element to it. And also not supporting the change to the array of goods that can be sold on site because those that are proposed to be now included are those associated with the food and drink out there in the cafe. And they're not. Mayor Stewart: So roadside store looking at what would, so the honey. Eggs. Eggs. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So just a question on that one, the roadside stall 10 tends just normally to be about what's
00:18:00 produced on site, does the existing approval allow him to be an outlet for honey etc. that is produced off site within the local area? Speaker 5: Yes the code allows some limited locally produced food to be sold through the roadside stall. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Finzel? Speaker 4: Yes thank you, just for clarification, the plan supports the approval of the construction, So, just to clarify, with the construction, just to confirm, with that construction, are we having seven on-site formalised car parks? Speaker 5: The seven wouldn't be required if we were to refuse the food and drink component. So, the original approval already conditions on-site car parking for the roadside stall elements, so the additional car parks that are required for the food and drink component wouldn't be required.
00:19:00 Speaker 4: So, just to clarify, with the construction supported at the moment, how many formal car parks will go with that? Speaker 5: I would have to check what the original approval conditioned. I believe it may have been three or four. Speaker 4: Okay, well, I appreciate that because I think that plays into the amenity and the safety concerns that are being raised. I'd like to have an answer to that question. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy to move to be referred to the General Committee because of the significance of the matter. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. All in favour? Yes. Yes, thank you. Thanks, Cathy Anonymous. Thank you, everyone. Item 5.3, the minor change for development payment for a material change of use for short-term accommodation at 515 Cooroy, Noosaville, TvLR. So, this one did come to General. Speaker 1: Sorry, there's no COI, so I don't see it.
5.3 MCU22/0209.01 - MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION AT 515 COOROY NOOSA ROAD, TINBEERWAH ¶
00:20:00 Mayor Stewart: No, not this one. No, Amelia has left the room. Speaker 5: Okay, so this one did come to the General Committee meeting last month, but was requested to be deferred. The applicant's proposing, so an application was lodged in April, sorry, was approved in April 2023 for short-term accommodation at this property, limiting the bedrooms to five bedrooms and eight people on site. The original applicant application requested 10 people on site, but through the assessment process, it was reduced to eight and conditioned at eight. The applicant has lodged a change to this approval requesting to increase the number of bedrooms to six and double the number of people from eight to 16 that's able to be accommodated on site. The report recommends refusal. It's considered that the application is, in fact, not a minor change. So, the DA rules do have... Information around what constitutes substantially different development.
00:21:00 We believe this actually does not meet the minor change requirement as it is substantially different in terms of the impacts that... The known impacts are likely to increase in terms of amenity impacts and noise. So, we believe this should have actually been lodged as an other change. Additionally, the scale of the development is not compatible with the rural environment that it's located in. So, in terms of the context of the site... We believe that having 16 people and potentially up to 16 vehicles on the site is not compatible with rural amenity. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stockwell or Finzel, any questions? Thank you. Speaker 4: No, thank you. I think it's pretty clear. Thank you for the report. Mayor Stewart: I'm happy to move the staff recommendation on this one. Speaker 5: I'll second it. Mayor Stewart: I'll second it as Councillor Stockwell. I won't talk to her. Councillor Finzel. Sorry, are we taking the vote?
00:22:00 Yeah, we're taking the vote to... Speaker 1: Discussion first. Mayor Stewart: To support the recommendation. Yeah, there were no questions. Speaker 5: You had any questions for this one, Councillor? Speaker 4: No questions. So, thank you. All right. Mayor Stewart: All right. I'm happy to move second. Mr. Councillor, all in favour? Speaker 4: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Councillor Carey, thank you. Thank you very much. 5.4, thank you very much. I'm out of the room for this one, so... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, well, before we do, do we just wish to refer it because there won't be a quorum? Speaker 1: I think we've got two conflicts of interest, so that wouldn't have a quorum. So, I think if we just immediately defer it, that makes sense. Speaker 4: Yeah. There's a question to the Chair. I need to move and second that. There can be no questions if you have got a... Yes, I have. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just regard the process. Speaker 4: I have a question regarding the process. Should we be declaring our conflicts now? Mayor Stewart: Well, if we do, then we leave the room and there's only Councillor Stockwell here.
5.4 FURTHER REPORT - MCU21/0110 - APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - BAR, FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, OUTDOOR SPORT AND RECREATION, RESORT COMPLEX AT 61 NOOSA SPRINGS DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS. ¶
00:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Now, I... Speaker 3: We need to move it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I don't believe... Mayor Stewart: There's no quorum. It's on the screen. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I believe it's okay to do what is proposed, which I'll move it, that the Planning Environment Committee agenda item 5.1 refers to the General Committee as there's no quorum due to the conflicts of interest. And because we're not debating the matter at hand, there is no conflict with that resolution. That's it. Mayor Stewart: I'll second that. All in favour? Yes. We've carried it down the sleeve. Thank you, Cath. That has been referred. Item 5.5, Planning Environment Court Appeal Number D154 of 2023, Enforcement Notice Issued at 1-5 Otunga Heights, Noosa Heads. Thanks, Patrick. Yes. Good. Speaker 3: So, the report details a matter that's now been appealed to the Planning Environment Court. The circumstances surrounding it are that there's...
5.5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D154 of 2023 - ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED TO 1/5 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS, NOOSA HEADS. ¶
00:24:00 And I might talk to both items if I can. 5.5. 5.5 and 5.6, because they're interrelated. The site at 5 Otunga Heights contains three dwelling units, and two of them are owned... Well, they were historically owned by sort of one family, and over time, there was some works that were undertaken on two of the units. Since that time, one of the units has been sold to another party. And there's been some concerns that have been raised around the works that have been constructed. The works were constructed by the parties to whom the enforcement notice has been issued. And they relate... The works relate to the enclosure of ground floor areas of approximately 10 square metres, the enclosure of a room area with a door extending it to an existing first floor balcony.
00:25:00 And a pergola in the front courtyard, which extends to the front boundary, which is a common property. And with the other unit also enclosing, you know, increasing GFA areas. So when we became aware of this, there was contact made with the property owners. And one of the options for them was to remediate the works through getting a Town Planning Approval, a change to their existing Town Planning Approval. They weren't able to obtain a Town Planning Approval. So the application could not proceed. Subsequent to that, a show cause notice was issued seeking advice as to how they would resolve the matter. There was an unfavourable response received to that show cause notice and subsequent to that an enforcement notice was issued requiring them to rectify the work and those enforcement notices have both been appealed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the staff recommendation on the first one.
00:26:00 Mayor Stewart: I'll second it. Councillor Finzel, did you want to ask any questions or talk to this? Speaker 4: No, thank you. Mayor Stewart: Okay, I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Yes. Carried unanimously. Thank you, Councillor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to second 5.6. Mayor Stewart: Yep, 5.6. I'll move it. Yep, I'll second it. And we're up to 5.6, Councillor Finzel. Any questions? Speaker 4: No questions to the staff. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Speaker 4: Yes. Mayor Stewart: Carried unanimously. Thank you. Okay, so reports, planning applications decided by delegated authority, September 2023. No conflicts on this one, anyone? Speaker 4: No conflicts. Mayor Stewart: I have no conflicts. Any conflicts, councillors? No. Okay, I'll move it.
5.6 PLANNING ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO D155 OF 2023 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE ISSUED TO 3/5 ATTUNGA HEIGHTS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 2023 ¶
00:27:00 Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. All in favour? All in favour? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. The time is 9.59am. Thank you.
8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.