Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wegener: I declare the meeting open, and I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Kabi Kabi people, and I pay my respects to the elders past, present, and emerging. We have no presentations. We have no deputations. We may have a mover for... Actually, no. I note that all committee members are in attendance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stockwell, Mayor, and we have Amelia Lorentson in the gallery. Can I have a mover and a seconder for the confirmation to the planning and environment meetings from January? Speaker 3: Okay. You got that clear? Councillor Wegener: All in favor? It's unanimous. Okay. We're off to the first report for consideration. We have... It is RAL23. RAL23-0015, development application to reconfigure a lot, one lot into two lots and access easement at 11 Billabong Way, Tewantin.
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
00:01:00 We have Georgina Schramm to talk us through it. Give us a brief overview. Speaker 1: Beautiful. Good morning. So the application we've got in front of us is a one-into-two-lot subdivision with access easement over the existing established driveway. So the two key items of topic with this application... So the application as contained within the report includes the non-compliance with performance outcome four of the reconfiguring a lot code, as well as the bushfire hazard identified over the lot. So as you can probably recall, a couple months ago, we had a similar application within the estate for a one-into-two-lot subdivision alongside an A Drive that was recommended for refusal. I just thought it might be worthwhile touching... Touching on a couple of the key variations between the two applications.
5.1 RAL23/0015 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (1 LOT INTO 2 LOTS & ACCESS EASEMENT) AT 11 BILLABONG WAY, TEWANTIN ¶
00:02:00 So with the Saturday application that was refused, it was refused on the grounds that it wasn't consistent with the predominant character of the area, as well as the bushfire risk present on the lot. Whereas the application that we have today is it's an anomaly in the area at 7000 square metres, it's a one-into-two-lot subdivision with one of the lots, I believe, is 5,000 square metres, the second one, 2,000 square metres, so we're well and truly larger than the minimum lot size of 600 square metres within this area. In terms of the non-compliance with the performance outcome four of the reconfiguring a lot code, the outcome refers to no additional lots being created with access off Griffith Avenue. In this instance, because the intent behind that requirement is that the subdivision is to remain in character within this area, after consideration of this application, because of the lot size, the impacts and the changes to...
00:03:00 of the application from the street side are going to be very marginal, we're maintaining the existing access, there will be a new fence line, assumed fence line, to existing dwellings that are remaining to the best of our knowledge as well. In terms of how they have addressed bushfire hazard, they've been able to demonstrate and we have enforced through conditioning two building envelopes to capture and deal with any future development on the site, and those envelopes, I suppose, justify and can demonstrate that they have adequate separation from the hazardous vegetation along the rear of the, what is that, our eastern, along the eastern boundary, as well as the park that adjoins the property. So I suppose for these reasons, as, in addition to what is contained in the report, the application has been recommended for approval subject to conditions. Councillor Wegener: Okay, anybody have questions?
00:04:00 Brian, Amelia? Well let's see, well Joe's asked us to be moved to the general meeting. Do I have a mover? I'll move it. I'll second it. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? Okay. Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Next we have 5.2, which is named 51901.3614.03. Next we have 5.2, which is named 51901.3614.03. Space, 51901.3786.04, 51992.479.03, 51994.1048.03, 51994.1249.03.
5.2 51901.3614.03, 51901.3786.04, 51992.479.03, 51994.1048.03, 51994.1249.03, MCU13/0081.03 – MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR 47 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, ENTERTAINMENT & DINING - TYPE 1 FOOD & BEVERAGE AND RETAIL BUSINESS - TYPE 1 LOCAL AND TYPE 2 SHOP & SALON AT ‘NETANYA’ - 71 HASTINGS STREET NOOSA HEADS DESCRIBED AS LOT 0 ON BUP101500 ¶
00:05:00 I have dyslexia. So this is actually torture. MCO 13 slash 0081.13. Minor change to development approvals for 47 multiple dwellings, entertainment and dining type 1 food and beverage and retail business. Type 1 local and type 2 shop and salon at Natanya, 71 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads, described as lot 0 on BUP 10. 1500. And we have Patrick here to walk us through the application. Speaker 5: Thank you. Okay. So the application relates to property at 71 Hastings Street, which is the site of the Natanya Resort.
00:06:00 There's seven approvals on the site which are being changed through this application. You may recall a couple of years ago, a few years ago now, we did another minor change. We changed those same approvals, which sort of revitalized the site. At that time, it left out the southeastern corner, the tenancies within the southeastern corner of the lot. That's primarily the nature of the subject application, seeking to change the roof form and invigorate those buildings. There's also some retrospective approvals sought for some pergola roofs. The original application provided a car parking layout plan, and one of the car spaces actually has a pole in it, and it cannot be used as a car space. So it's proposed to enter into an infrastructure agreement for contributions for that car space, which has been accepted. There's also another condition about car parking, about car parking complying with Australian standards, but there's an issue in terms of existing car parks not necessarily meeting those standards, but meeting the standards at the time.
00:07:00 So we're proposing to change that condition so that all new car parks achieve the Australian standards. So that's been accepted. And one of the primary matters of concern with the application has been the intrusion into the setback on the park road frontage associated with the awnings of the roofs, and how they impact upon the capacity to provide landscaping in that area to provide meaningful landscaping as required by the scheme. The awnings prevent the capacity to provide landscaping in that area to provide meaningful landscaping as required by the scheme. The awnings prevent the capacity to provide street trees and again, meaningful landscaping that's expected in that location. So it's recommended that a condition be included requiring amended plans for that setback to be two metres. And I should say it's recommended that that should be approved.
00:08:00 Councillor Wegener: Okay, any questions? Ryan, Claire? No. I've got a series of questions. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the way it looks, and it's probably not our remit to judge on the way it looks, but it looks very, very different. It has a very different feel to it than what's presently there now. And so we... What... If some of the councils didn't like the way it looks, do we have any input on the aesthetics? Speaker 5: Well, you certainly do. Council's making the decision on the application, and there are provisions within the scheme around the design outcomes that were sought throughout the Shire. In this regard, I mean, it is an existing building that's being revitalised, so there's limited scope, I dare say, in terms of what can be achieved, but not within the scope.
00:09:00 The proposal does provide extensive awnings and, you know, outdoor areas and vegetation throughout the site that we would consider that is consistent with a subtropical lifestyle design elements. So if you're disagreeable with that, I'm sure you could put a motion to seek a change to that. Councillor Wegener: Because the columns in the front are very heavy set. And in concrete, where presently it's a very light... And of course, it is dated, you know, there's no argument that it shouldn't be changed, because it is well and truly passed, it's used by faith. But I have the... Can we go to the report on page... No, figure six, please. Speaker 4: Oh, the one right now? Councillor Wegener: Yes. Speaker 3: What page is it? Councillor Wegener: That's on the report.
00:10:00 It's page 33. Speaker 3: Can I see it? Councillor Wegener: I don't know if you also look at the page, the four, it's a much bigger... Like this, like we're stepping out like that. Councillor Lorentson: 33, did you say? Of the agenda? Yes. Councillor Wegener: There we go. You want it picked? Yeah, that's perfect. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Cathy. Councillor Wegener: And my... It just... It seems very heavy in concrete versus what it is now. And I have a photo of what it's like now, and there's also a photo on page 35 of what
00:11:00 it looks like now. And it just... It's much... It's a much bigger, more permanent structure here. Of course, it matches what Netanyahu is... Is... Looks like. So it's kind of the same architecture flow. But I agree with Patrick and staff that that huge awning right here, there's no flower area here, but as of right now, there's a very nice raised garden bed right through there. So it's very heavy. And then, of course, I worry about when they have a huge awning like that, is will the business make its way out onto the sidewalk? Will it all of a sudden start coming out onto the public property? And that is obvious, you know, that to be in my bonnet is private use of public property. Speaker 5: So that's the elevation which we say the awnings project too close to the street frontage and are requiring them to be brought back to two metres.
00:12:00 So they... If it were to be approved in line with the recommendation of the officer, then that would be limited. Speaker 4: It's reduced further. And would require a redesign there, Councillor Thom, to shift that back. So that might result in those columns potentially being reduced in size and scale because they'll have to be set back a further two metres. So they may need to revisit that roof form design, given they'll need to set that back further. Which also prevents being able to get any street trees, any real substantial growth in there that might provide some shading and some softening as well. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Because you've got to worry about that. That outdoor garden bed there is really attractive and I think that it gives a nice amenity that is there presently. And a couple of pages past you can see it. I'm sure you can still look at it in the reports as well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can I ask a question then? Yes. Is it the flat awning with the, say, metre wide pillar, is that where you're worried
00:13:00 about the encroachment? Or is it the... Speaker 4: It's actually figure four and five are the good ones to have a look at, councillors, that show where those encroachments are. Okay. You'll see we've done an estimated line of where the two metres, which is consistent with the existing built form. And obviously we're requiring those further encroachments to be actually pulled back and lined consistent with the existing two metre setback. So it's essentially the corners of each of those roof forms that do that. So it's the corners of each of those roof forms that do protrude into that two metre space. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's still awning set. So is the new building still truncated on that corner?
00:14:00 It looks like it's truncated. Oh, that might be the awning at the moment. It's truncated. Truncated. Yeah. Sorry. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So it's figure four is exactly. There's the way it is now. And the encroachments. Speaker 4: Yep. And then figure five just sort of shows the truncation there of the actual tenancy layout there. Councillor Lorentson: So just in terms of clarity through the chair. Can I approach that? Yeah. There is a condition that's been imposed to require plans to be amended to provide a two metre setback to Park Road. Will Council get an opportunity to have a look at those amended plans? I think is where all this conversation is sort of leading. How does that work?
00:15:00 Speaker 4: Usually if we support the motion, recommendation as it is, it wouldn't necessarily come back to Council. But Council can request that item be circulated for advice from Councillors. But usually the method would be that officers would undertake a design assessment of that revised to meet the compliance. Yeah. So potentially wouldn't be brought back to full Council. It would be a decision that officers would make based on the revised design and meeting the setback requirements. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Seeing that the applicant is the body corporate of Natanya, which is the entire structure of the big block of land, I've sent some photos to Cathy to bring up. And I have some questions about Natanya, the body corporate, and sort of the use of the
00:16:00 pushing into public land. So I have a question about the other side, the beach side. And where the actual property line is. Because I sent some photos out to the Councillors. Speaker 2: This is not relevant to the current application. Councillor Wegener: So it's not relevant to the current application. Speaker 2: Yeah. That's a different issue. We can't necessarily discuss it here. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. That's part of it. That's a separate, to me that's a separate item. If you want to bring that to the table, that's a separate item. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Can I ask the question? What I remember about Natanya when we, and I very forcefully argued for the application, to approve the application. And one of the things that they said was, well, the body corporate takes care of the public property out in front of Natanya.
00:17:00 And so that was kind of a quid pro quo. Like, yeah, then we'll look after that. And they have, they're not doing that now. The, the, the front, the public land that they sort of said, yeah, we'll look after that. We'll, we'll mow it, make sure it looks nice, is atrocious. And so they, they, they failed their, their promise, so to speak. And whether that goes into this, whether, if it has any application to this. But it seems to them they're asking for a further encroachment on the public property. And it seems to me as though all of a sudden their attitude towards encroachment into public property comes into question. That's why I bring this up. Although it, you know, it, it has to do with the larger body corporate, but does it have to do this particular application? I'm not sure. I'm not sure where the balance are. Speaker 3: I don't think it has anything to do with this as a question. Speaker 2: The only thing I could throw you to would be that, that your concern is that they've, you've given them allowances to look after the public property in front of the building, in front of their, their, their lot. Your concern is if they're not doing that as well as they possibly could, what's the,
00:18:00 what's the position if we give them the same opportunity at the back on, on Hastings Street? Speaker 3: So Tom, cause I, what, what, where are you referring to? Because that, there's always, are you doing it along the boardwalk? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 3: That's always in great condition whenever we walk past it. Councillor Wegener: Could you bring it up, Cathy? The photos again? Sorry. Yes. Just to answer the question. Speaker 4: And, and it's important to highlight there is a, there is a lease arrangement where there's a footpath dining permit for the structures that do encroach and that's been in place for a substantial period of time and I understand it was followed up as part of a recent issue was raised with Council, I think in 2020. Speaker 5: In October 2020, when this was, minor change was decided, there was a couple of elements that was asked to be looked at and one was near that lawn area associated with the hotel where there was a barbecue and some structures that were off the site. That was addressed.
00:19:00 And so those structures were looked at. The structures were removed and there was some landscaping provided within the site. There is some landscaping that might have been perceived to be part of Natanya's side that's actually off the land and is in Council land. So they address what is occurring on their land and removed any structures that they were using from Council land. There was also another element around sales restaurant and that had been investigated through the CEO to ensure that the, the extent of the area was looked at. The area that they're using was lawful. And in the resolution of that request, the property department got sales to provide a survey area to determine the extent of area that was being used outside and have subsequently amended their agreement with sales in terms of outdoor dining and charged the fee appropriately. Is that public information? Councillor Wegener: Can I get a copy of that? Speaker 5: Well, my understanding at the time, there might have been some communications that
00:20:00 were made with our property department with you around that. We can speak to them and to get them to forward that information. Speaker 4: I'm happy to provide a briefing to Councilors on that particular footpath dining permit, if that would assist. Speaker 3: So coming back to the, what's in front of us at the agenda, is that, where is that, Tom? That's, that's in front of Natanya. On the beach side? Councillor Wegener: On the beach side. Speaker 3: Well, I've never seen it look like that. Well, that's this morning. Yeah. And it, and it looked like that. Is that our responsibility? Is that Council responsibility? Or is that, it's like what falls? Where's? Yeah. It's Council responsibility. Councillor Wegener: That would be within Council responsibility. Speaker 3: That's Council, Tom. Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wegener: Well, that's, that's definitely a question. Sorry. You know, if, if, if Council property, and see, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm a stickler for this kind of stuff, because if they, if they were, if they had offered it to look after it, and that's what I distinctly remember from the last discussions, and I said, great, if Natanya generally does that, but does do a really good job out the front there, and I'm there almost every day. But when it does start looking like this all the way through the Christmas holiday, um.
00:21:00 Speaker 3: But that, Tom, that's our responsibility. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's our responsibility. Yeah. If, if my experience didn't go by, that was probably made four days ago. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. And we are, and we are struggling. Speaker 2: Yeah. I know, I know that we're struggling. Yeah. So, I'm, I'm, I'm more than happy to take that away, Councillor, and, um, and look at that. That was there last night. And the bins there too, Larry. I didn't see that. That was there, the bins. So, but um, yes. Um, so I'm happy to take that on, and, and come back to you. Yeah. And if you want to defer this until. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 5: What they're proposing to do is go beyond the allowable setbacks within their site and go to within 120 mil of their boundary. They're not proposing through this application to go off their land. What we're seeking is that they pull their buildings back to comply with setback Deputy Mayor Stockwell: requirements. I looked at that figure six as well and it's a little bit the same as
00:22:00 Councillor Wegener. Could we have a look at what might be some slightly enhanced weeding to put in any potential condition to actually make it a little bit more nusified? Speaker 5: We can look at that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We always struggle not to make things look like they're in Melbourne and that one was a little bit wrong. I saw that it's not huge, like the roof, lots of roof, but just a little bit. Speaker 3: Big improvement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it just might be just something that for them they're designed to have a think about and say have we really thought about what the look and feel of the pasting street's about, look at the design guidelines, etc. Councillor Wegener: I recommend everybody walk down there and walk the premises because it's a very, very important part of Noosa, that corner there. So many people enjoy it, not just tourist residents. I'm out there a lot. My best part of my week is going to Mossimo's and getting
00:23:00 an ice cream. It's really good. Yeah, so that's so I can take this very seriously. So I'd like to move this to the general meeting for further discussion. Okay, second time. Karen. All in favor? Unanimous? Okay, thank you very much, Patrick. Thank you, Richard. Thank you, guys. We have 6.1 planning applications decided by delegated authority December 2023. Councillor Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish to clear up the described confidence in this matter as follows. Suncast building approvals are identified in number 14, 15 and 16 please.
00:24:00 Cathy. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I've got that written. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh okay, the long form, sorry. All those items 14, 15 and 16 as outlined there. I contracted the Suncast building approvals to undertake building certification for my proposed residence in Boreen Point on 29 November 2021. This process is currently underway. The total fees associated with the completion of the certification inspection regime is $5,904, which includes the council plumbing and drainage fees. As a result of my conflict, I'll now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wegener: Okay, thank you Councillor Stockwell. Any other questions concerning the delegated authorities? There's one applicant here, Noosick Council. What a problem this is on number 20. Just kidding. It's a combined application maturing to be used for operational works code.
6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY DECEMBER 2023 ¶
00:25:00 Mona Crescent. What's happening? What's happening at Mona Crescent with the car park and boat react where the Noosick Council is the applicant? Speaker 5: Well this application is actually for dredging. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. Speaker 5: Yeah. So I might have to come back to you Tom with the details but it was, yeah, so I believe there was a previous application that was approved but they got their volumes incorrect and it changed the nature of the application to a threshold where it actually required an approval. It became an environmentally relevant activity and that's why they had to come back because of the volume of material that was being dredged. But in terms of where the material was going, I'd have to give you further clarification if required. Councillor Wegener: No, no problem. Yeah. Any other questions? No. Speaker 3: Okay. Councillor Wegener: Would somebody like to move?
00:26:00 Speaker 3: I'll move. I'll do a second. Councillor Wegener: A second voted by. Okay. All in favour? Aye. Thank you. That brings us to the end of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. We will end at 9.59. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you Mr. Chair.
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.