Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 1: I'm going to start the chair because we need to elect a new chair, but before I start I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. In terms of attendance, again this is a new meeting, so we have Councillor Tom Wegner, Councillor Brian Stockwell, Mayor Frank Wilkie and we have Councillor Amelia Lorentson online who is still incapacitated with a broken bone I believe in her foot. So welcome everybody. We do need to allow Amelia to attend my teams. I'll move it. I second it. Mayor Wilkie: And the motion is that Councillor Robertson be approved to attend the meeting dated 7th May 2024 via Microsoft Teams in accordance with section 245 K of the local government regulation.
00:01:00 Speaker 1: Yes. We'll come back to the vote. All in favour? Thank you. That's carried. So now in terms of attendance and apologies, we've gone through that. First meeting of this term of council. We need to appoint a chair for this committee, for this group. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move that Councillor Lorentson be appointed as chairperson of the Planning and Environment Committee in accordance with section 267 in brackets 2 of the local government regulation of 2012. Speaker 1: Thank you. Can I get a seconder? Councillor Tom. Would you like to speak to it? Mayor Wilkie: No, I think it's, Councillor Lorentson is more than capable of chairing the meeting. And it's a good experience for all councillors to have an opportunity to chair meetings. That's how schools are developed.
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:02:00 Speaker 1: Councillor Amelia, can I ask, did you accept being a nominee? Councillor Lorentson: I do accept. And just looking at sort of a bird's eye view of the meeting at the moment, I think it's also just lovely balance to have a rubbish amongst this lovely rose garden. Speaker 1: Fair enough. We are a table of males at the moment sitting around the table. We look forward to having you back in the room with us, Amelia, as well. Councillor Lorentson: I'm missing the contact, but working very focused and very hard online. Thank you. Speaker 1: Very good. So if I put that to the vote, all in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. So Amelia, we'll chair this. We'll chair this meeting. Now, Amelia, you take, we need to, because you're online, we need to appoint an acting chair for this meeting,
00:03:00 just for this meeting until you're back, if that's okay. Can I have a nomination for that? Councillor Wegener: I nominate the Mayor. Speaker 1: Okay. I'll second that. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. I'll put that to the vote. Oh, sorry, thank you. Thank you, that's unanimous. So, Frank, if I can ask you now to take over the running of this meeting. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. CEO. Thank you, councillors. The first item we have on our agenda is an application for a minor change to the Minutes, Frank, sorry. Pardon? Confirmation of minutes. Oh, confirmation of minutes from the previous meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So moved. Mayor Wilkie: Moved by Councillor Stockwell. Seconded. I'll second. Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. All in favour? That's carried. The first item before us is the application for a minor change to the Development Approval
1.1 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
00:04:00 for Food and Drink Outlet Shops and Offices at 214 David Lowe Way, Peregian Beach. We have Richard MacGillivray, Patrick here, and also Samuel. Thank you. Samuel, this is your report. Would you like to speak to it, please? Speaker 2: Yeah. So the original application was approved by Council in February last year at its honorary meeting. So the approved development was for alterations to the existing beauty and just in Peregian Springs, within the established commercial, but just fronting David Lowe Way and backing onto the village grain. The application included two retails of food and drink premises on the ground floor, with an additional story, which was proposed to have food and drink premises and an office on the first floor. So this change application maintains exactly the same thing with minor internal reconfiguration, which also includes a basement level for storage purposes.
3 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
5.1 MCU22/0154.01 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET, SHOPS AND OFFICES AT 214 DAVID LOW WAY, PEREGIAN BEACH ¶
00:05:00 There's no change to any of the approved use. The original application was subject to an infrastructure agreement in lieu of car parking. The new proposal doesn't increase the GFA and as such the infrastructure agreement remains valid. The change application contains the approved five tenancies, the use of the tenancies and the basement doesn't constitute cross-floor area, so that maintains the car parking. The only supposed issue we raised was the fact that they introduced external beauty materials, which was a bit hard and did not comply with the local plan area, with the outcome sought for the local plan area. However, we've been able to work with the applicant up until a state where we've conditioned plan amendments just for minor changes, including reducing the masonry and improving the façade treatment so that it complies with the outcomes sought for the local plan area. Mayor Wilkie: So the changes involve some aesthetic improvements?
00:06:00 Correct. Yes. To do with use of wooden louvers? What else? Speaker 2: So the changes we've included as part of the plan amendment was to include some sun protection to the façade. It's also, so the western screen previously included some wooden louvers, which they've taken out. The architectural treatments on the upper level and the lower awnings, we've recommended they change that to include some wooden cladding. And then the building façades were not glazed, must be provided with sun shading and various kinds of material just to reduce that masonry feel and improve the timbalo cladding feeling. Mayor Wilkie: Questions, councillors? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Rob? I've got one just for clarification. In figures 9 and 10, which is on our page 6 and 7, we have comparisons between the approved elevations and the proposed changes. The only problem is it doesn't say which is which. So can you just outline on the, if we can have it up, Cathy, those diagrams just so
00:07:00 I can, can you, I'm guessing I know which one, but I just want to be sure and then perhaps talk to that designer. Speaker 5: You're looking at attachment. That's in 9 and 10. Page 6, the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7. So the bottom of page 6 is the approved plan and the proposed plan is to the top of page 7. So you'll see that the timber treatment has been removed. There's a lot more hard surfaces, a lot more masonry proposed with the new layout. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the timber treatment you're talking about up top, that's at the top level to the right? It's not immediately evident.
00:08:00 What's timber and what's not between the two diagrams? Speaker 5: It is to the top right, there's timber treatment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's what I thought. And for the western elevation, same thing, the left-hand side is the approved and the right-hand side is the proposed, which is, that one's probably a more stark contrast of the design, isn't it? That's correct. Correct. I'd hate to be sitting there in the western sun being that proposed design. Very smart. Yeah. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Mary, did you have a question? Councillor Lorentson: I do. It's in relation to the inclusion of the basement level storage area. Sam and Patrick, if you can just clarify, does that, is going to be an addition of a basement parking? Speaker 5: No, it's not basement parking. It's only accessed internally. And it is a small area that's to be used for the storage of equipment.
00:09:00 Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Thank you. So in terms of construction impact, there'll be, it's negligible? Speaker 5: It would be limited. That's right. It's away from the boundaries. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener: Tom? Just, I'd like to continue where Amelia's gone, and is it, like, we don't, we say you can't go up, but is there any regulation about going down? And is this going to set a precedent for everybody saying, oh, you know, geez, I could add more GFA by going down, and it doesn't? Speaker 5: There is no limit on basements. They're not considered to be a story. In this case, it's storage area, so we wouldn't be including an in-use area. If they wanted to put an underground bar or the like, then we would look at that from a car parking point of view. They wouldn't get a free tip or something like that.
00:10:00 And interestingly enough, we have an application in another township at the moment, which we're assessing, which includes a subterranean bar. Councillor Wegener: Interesting. It just seems as a new, as an opening that I didn't see coming anyway. Yeah. Speaker 4: There are elements with any underground excavation, and obviously there's things like acid sulphate soils can get triggered as well. And obviously it can be very expensive as well to construct. Sheep piling and digging out an excavation for basements and the like. And often it can be cost prohibitive for people to dig too deep into the earth to establish uses under the natural ground level. So obviously in this case, it's merely just for the inclusion of a storage area for that particular purpose. Councillor Wegener: And so is there, if we approve it, and they dig down and it fills up with water, are we looking at any liability issues? You're saying, well, council approved it, look what's happened.
00:11:00 Now, council, now you have to fix it. Speaker 4: They have to ensure that the construction methodology imposed prevents water increase into the facility as well. So that's where a lot of the cost comes into it, is when you go under the ground, particularly where there's a high water table, they need to ensure that it's got the appropriate bunding in there so that water can't seep into the structure itself. So it is the responsibility of the applicant. We'll condition to ensure that it meets code. And obviously the building approval, which is a separate process to what council issues, will deal with the mechanics of how that is approved to meet building codes to ensure that it's waterproofed appropriately. Councillor Wegener: And then of course, it's all sand there. And I'm always worried about when you start digging around in the sand and putting construction around sand, the earth starts shaking while sand turns into a liquid form with enough shaking. Yeah. You know, again, they would have to be, you know, the next property starts sinking or something. Speaker 4: Correct. It's normal procedure for dilapidation reports to be undertaken.
00:12:00 So that is where they'll need to do a, you know, a current site evaluation before any works are undertaken to ensure that there's no movement. And these days, construction methodologies are very significant, I guess, in terms of putting sheet piling in so that there isn't any impact to rejoining premises as part of that. So they take photos, user photos and investigations usually before any works are done to ensure that there's no movement on adjoining premises at all, including public land as well as private land. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions? Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? Of course. Sorry. In terms of GFA, the proposal says that there is a slight increase of, I think, eight of the approved GFA, Patrick. Can you explain, that's considered negligible, but I think there's some detail in the report that says, that makes the, works on the formula, you take the 50 square metres from the basement,
00:13:00 you take, excuse me, you take out a piece of title and it still forms within the compliant GFA of 378 square metres. Can you explain that? That rationalisation? Speaker 2: Just confirming on the, what report are you referring to, in terms of the increase to the grass floor area? Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the basement area. So, so the basement area is 50 square metres. And that is, I've understood, and maybe I just read it in the tracking documents, but I feel that that 50 square metres does then, it pushed the GFA up slightly, but it's considered minor. And have I misread that, or is that correct? Speaker 2: So the planning scheme definition of a grass floor area does not include basement,
00:14:00 as a basement is not a storey. So the whole 50 square metres is completely excludable as part of GFA, as it doesn't constitute a storey. Speaker 5: And the actual, the actual, and the changes internally have also changed, the GFA, such that it's brought it down 25 square metres from what was originally approved. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you for clarifying. Thanks. Councillor Wegener: One question. Is there a planning scheme to discuss basements? I don't think I've submitted that. Speaker 5: There are provisions about what constitutes a basement, in terms of it not protruding more than a metre out of it. So the ground, it also talks about how the opening to access the basement can be no more than six metres wide and only one access. There's also provisions in the scheme around setbacks for basements,
00:15:00 basements to comply with setbacks associated with the zone. But in this zone, for the lower level, there's no setback requirements, noting that this basement is well set back from the boundaries as well. Mayor Wilkie: So it's only if the storage area starts to be used for some other commercial purpose that that will affect GFA and car parking requirements? Speaker 5: If it was part of the use area, it would. So there's elements of storage and kitchen areas are excluded from gross floor area, of use area for a food and drink out of that storage area. Mayor Wilkie: Any other further questions, councillors? Anyone care to move the recommendation? Move Councillor Stockwell. May I have a seconder, please? Second. Councillor Wegener. Any discussion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. I support the staff recommendation and I particularly support their continued advocacy
00:16:00 that the type of design we want in Peregian is the subtropical, more varied landscape, more use of natural materials. So I think the proposed changes were definitely a step backward to a point, which I think is very important. I think it's important that we actually hold up with the principles of good design. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else wish to speak to the... Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Okay. Congratulations, Sam, for your first report to council. And, you know, Brian's exactly right. We do have to uphold these principles of making it look... We do not want it to look as stark, you know, as other places want it to be. We have to make it look as dark as possible. And that's not what we want. And that's not what the residents don't want either. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Mayor, I can't see if you've got your hand up. Do you wish to speak? Councillor Lorentson: No, I don't. Okay. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. All right. I'll put the motion to the vote.
00:17:00 Those in favour? Miller? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, in favour. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. If we're not responding quickly, I mean, that's because there's a slight delay in transmission with your broadcast. Speaker 3: No. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. So that's carried unanimously. Next item. This is... Speaker 2: Waste disposal. Mayor Wilkie: Another change to an existing approval for a material change of use, that being expansion of a special purpose waste disposal and recycling facility and ongoing clearing purposes at 561 Eumundi Noosa, Noosad Road, Doon, which is the resource recovery centre. And we have Samuel again presenting the report. Can you give us an overview? Thank you, Samuel. Speaker 2: So, yeah, thank you. So just as a background. In February earlier this year, Council approved an application to allow some vegetation clearing within our recycling facility. The original application sought to reconfigure the existing resource recovery area as a result
5.2 132005.638.03 - OTHER CHANGE TO AN EXISTING APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – EXPANSION OF SPECIAL PURPOSE (WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING FACILITY) & ONGOING CLEARING PURPOSES AT 561 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, DOONAN ¶
00:18:00 of safety and operational issues at the landfill. So as part of the application, we've included two conditions of consent, Condition 40 and 43, that required a vegetation protection covenant to be registered with the Titles Office before any works. Including clearing occurring. And then also Condition 43 required an updated stormwater management plan be provided, which includes the resource recovery area before any works commenced. So the representation seeks approval to amend the timing on when the clearing can occur and when the updated stormwater management plan be provided. So Condition 40 originally required the carbonate be registered with the Titles Office before the clearing commences. The request there will be revised by the City Council. And then the stormwater condition required the updated stormwater management plan be provided
00:19:00 before the construction of the part of the resource recovery area. They just seek to marginally change the condition so the clearing can occur at the same time and that way the safety and operational issues can be addressed immediately. We've recommended the application be approved because it doesn't require any changes. It's just a matter of time before we release the applicant from the obligation to provide the carbonate or protective vegetation claim or the stormwater management plan. Questions? Councillor Lorentson: Sam, given that Council is both the applicant and the assessor, is the report that we're reviewing, has it been prepared internally or by an independent consultant? Yes. Speaker 5: This report was prepared internally. The original application was an assessment undertaken by an external consultant. The reason why we didn't take that path this time is there's no change to the layout
00:20:00 that's proposed. There's no change to any of the area vegetation that's to be removed or anything like that. It's just the timing for certain activities to occur. So the intent and the form of the original application is maintained. We're just making some slight changes to timing for, again, when the vegetation removal can occur and when the stormwater management plan needs to be provided. Councillor Lorentson: And that changed simply that all the conditions of the approval are required before commencing, not after commencing. Is that correct? Speaker 5: It's just for these two conditions, the timing associated with these two conditions. So all other conditions remain as previously placed on the approval.
00:21:00 These conditions are essentially the same. It's just, as I said, a slight tweak to the timing of when it's required. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move it. Mayor Wilkie: Moved, Councillor Stockwell. Seconded. Seconded, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Stockwell is to speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As Councillor Lorentson mentioned, we're both the, in this application, both the applicant and the assessment manager. Under the Act, we can't consider the interests of the applicant or the nature of the applicant. We only consider the assessment. What we're doing here is we're resequencing conditions to allow for the speedier addressing of potential environmental harm if this project doesn't proceed. So to me, there is obvious justification. In making the development sequence more logical to ensure that the level of risk associated with providing a detention, basin, stormwater treatment system is brought on as soon as
00:22:00 possible. Mayor Wilkie: Any other people who wish to speak for motion? Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wigdahl. So obviously, the SWMP, the Stormwater Waste Management Plan, that's in the process of being written right now. But we've got to get going because it's an enormous project, isn't it? I mean, it's colossal in size. Speaker 5: Yes. It's a significant change. Councillor Wegener: So obviously, the report is very light on details of what the SWMP says. But of course, it has to be light on details because it's in the process of being written. That's correct. Speaker 4: Yes. And remembering they already have a stormwater management plan for the site. What the condition does require is an update to that to reflect the new works within that small locality of the particular site where the clearing and the detention basin will be installed.
00:23:00 Councillor Lorentson: Out of curiosity, when is construction planned? Speaker 4: Council, Amelia, that's a decision for the applicant around timing. So they've obviously got to get all of their approvals in place. And that includes some requirements with the State Government as well. But at this stage, they haven't confirmed the exact timing for commencement. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Just a comment. Councillor Wegener: Well, I hope there's a drought coming up, you know, to some extent, so you guys can get all this done without constant rain, especially in the past few years. Speaker 4: That would be appreciated. Mayor Wilkie: Does the stormwater management plan have to come back to Council for clarification? No. Speaker 4: No, it won't. Mayor Wilkie: That will be assessed by staff? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Correct. Just an update to it. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Just to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Only I thought Councillor Wegener was going to suggest we put it in condition that it
00:24:00 should stop raining. Mayor Wilkie: We're not sure we care. Okay. I'll put the motion to the vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. And then item three, which is application for... Thank you, Samuel. Application for a minor change to a development approval for a material change of use of premises, undefined use, motorcycles, scooter sales and repair of 16 Ring Street, Noosaville. We have Tara. Welcome, Tara. Speaker 3: Thank you. So, this application originally came to Council in December 2021. It came to Council because it was defined as an undefined use under Noosa Plan 2020. So, the cycle shop has been operating in that location since around 2013. There was a little bit of history in terms of an application that was lodged and through that process, it was determined that there was actually no approval in place for that existing use. So, they ended up lodging a fresh application for both the sales component and the servicing
5.3 MCU21/0104.01 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES (UNDEFINED USE – MOTORCYCLE / SCOOTER SALES & REPAIR) – 16 RENE ST, NOOSAVILLE ¶
00:25:00 and repairs component. So, it came to Council for the fact that it was undefined under Noosa Plan 2020. The applicant has since sold the property to a new owner and they've lodged a minor change to that existing approval to change the built form elements of the use of the approval only. So, no change to the actual uses carried out. They are slightly increasing the GFA of both the repairs component and the sales component. So, they've increased the car parking onsite to compensate for that additional use area and consolidated the buildings into one structure. They've proposed an awning over the driveway as well. They were requesting to amend the condition for onsite service vehicle. Parking to actually locate that in the road reserve. We're not supportive of that component. So, we have included a condition that the awning be a certain minimum height so that
00:26:00 service vehicles can get onsite. Any questions? Mayor Wilkie: So, they're joining two sheds together? Essentially, yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. So, they had an approval. Figures five and six, I believe, show the original approval and the current. So, they did have it towards the back of the site. They've just moved it up to join the existing shed. Mayor Wilkie: Providing more car parking onsite. Correct. Questions, Councillor Scott? Tom? Councillor Wegener: So, there's already a repair site on the facility? Yes. So, there's not any need to really change the stormwater conditions for that because it's already there and it's already compliant? Yes. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Wegener: And then the other side. So, you have the awning on one side of the property. It's not clear what's on the other side of that building. It seems to be there's an alleyway or something there? There's an easement. Speaker 3: There's an easement. A stormwater easement. Yeah. So, they're not able to construct any buildings in that easement. So, they do have a concrete pad for their bins that are going to be located on that side.
00:27:00 So, they can bring them out the front from the side of the building. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Yeah. It doesn't mention what that piece is. Speaker 4: Figure five, Councillor, is a good one that just illustrates, yeah, where the easement lies and there's a stormwater main that runs through that area, which means that, yeah, we don't want to see development over that. So, we can get in there and maintain it if need be. Okay. Also provides a buffer separation to the adjoining premises next door as well. Mayor Wilkie: Any further questions? Amelia, any questions? Councillor Lorentson: No. All good. Just in terms of just cost, Richard, I don't know whether you can provide it or not. Operational works approval for a small business, what's the cost? What's the cost of putting in application for operational works?
00:28:00 And this is just for my information. Speaker 4: Usually around, well, I'd be shooting at numbers at the moment. Speaker 5: Two to $3,000. Speaker 4: Two to $3,000 a year, Councillor Mirriley, I'd say, is sort of the standard minimum fee for operational works. Obviously, that increases due to the larger scale earthworks undertaken, but generally around the $2,000 to $3,000 for an assessment. Speaker 5: And there could be multiple applications that need to be made. So, they'd need to assess each component and what that relative fee was. So, it can increase if you're doing driveways and earthworks and landscaping when you're needing assessment in different areas, the fee will reflect that as well. Speaker 4: And also noting, Councillor, that the applicant has the opportunity to combine the MCU and the operational works into one application if they choose to do so. So, for efficiency perspective as well, often though, some applicants and their consultants may choose to separate out those particular applications.
00:29:00 So, it becomes a bit of a commercial decision for someone to make around timing and cost and the like. Mayor Wilkie: Great. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. May we have a mover? I move it. Councillor Wegener? Seconder? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener, you wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wegener: I move. No. No. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? That's new. Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Tara. Thanks, Tara. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Brian. Mayor Wilkie: Next item on the agenda. Thank you. Item four. Representation to development approval for material change of use. It's a hardware and trade supplies store at 178 Eumundi Noosa Noosa Road, Noosaville. And Patrick, is this your report? Speaker 5: I'll be speaking to this one. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Naveen Sawais. Yes. What can you tell us about this one?
5.4 MCU22/0051 REPRESENTATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HARDWARE & TRADE SUPPLIES AT 178 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE ¶
00:30:00 Speaker 5: So, this is another application seeking representations to an approval that was issued by Council in late October 2023. You may recall there's an undeveloped part of the Bunnings site. It contains vegetation at the moment, and it's been approved that there'd be a new trade supplies building situated in that area. And when that decision was made, there were some conditions requiring some amendments to the plan around landscaping adjacent to the northern boundary, which is adjacent to the driveway to screen retaining wall there. Speaker 2: And gateway? Gateway drive? Speaker 5: Well, the property's access off gateway drive, but it was adjacent to the northern boundary, which adjoins another industrial lot. So the driveway goes up from gateway drive along that northern boundary.
00:31:00 There was a requirement for an eave to the front of the building, and the main issue was the height of the building, and the condition required that the height of the building be dropped to comply with the scheme requirement. So they've made representations. They have provided a landscaping strip adjacent to the northern boundary, a half metre wide. They've taken landscaping from the southern side of the building and put it to the northern side of the building. They have put a 1.2 metre, I think it is, eave to the front of the building. They've dropped the building height so that it has a height of no more than 10 metres above the natural ground level. But it exceeds the height above the finished ground level. It goes to 10.94 metres. So the height of the building is reduced by approximately 1.5, 1.6 metres from the previous
00:32:00 height. They've done this by increasing the excavation. They've reduced the floor to ceiling height and amended the pitch of the building. So we're satisfied that the height of the building being no more than 10 metres above the natural ground level is consistent with the height of buildings within proximity of the site. There are some other representations that have been made seeking clarity around landscaping within the road reserve, around the external colours of the building. They also sought representations around the acid sulphate soils conditions. There was a bit of duplication across three conditions that's been brought into one condition. And they sought the removal of the bond. We didn't support the removal of the bond. We've supported the amalgamation of the acid sulphate soil conditions. We've provided some clarity around the trees to be planted to the site's frontage, not to include the area that's required for the driveways. And also clarified that the original plant, the colours on the original plans met the
00:33:00 condition around the external colours. Mayor Wilkie: And it's going to be quite a shock to the community. This site is clear. Can you explain why you're satisfied that the landscaping plans are sufficient to soften what's going to be included there? Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, there is a minimum requirement for, of areas to be provided for landscaping. This meets that. And notably, the building's well set back from the street frontage and it provides an extensive area for landscaping. So that'll help soften the building. And also the landscaping. So the landscaping adjacent the northern boundary will soften the retaining wall. That's a result of the cut on this side. There's a significant slope on this side. And hence there is quite a large retaining wall to the side boundary. But again, you know, primarily the building being set back does provide an opportunity for some meaningful landscaping between it and the front boundary.
00:34:00 Mayor Wilkie: Can you explain the difference between what you mean by 10 metres above natural ground level and 10.94 metres above ground level? Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. So 10 metres. So the existing, there's an existing ground level. So when you measure at any point on the land, 10 metres above that, that will reflect 10 metres above the existing. And won't exceed that. It won't exceed that. Yeah. The natural ground level. That's right. Because of the excavation, it results in a building facade that exceeds 10 metres in, when you measure that physical facade. And that goes up to 10.94 metres. Mayor Wilkie: Questions? Councillor Wegener: Just considering the underground car park, seeing it's a bulk trade yard, will there be a problem for people getting their stuff down to the car which is below, if they park in the underground car park? Or is that, there's a loading ramp there, is there a ramp?
00:35:00 Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. So the exit by a ramp, it has been reviewed and considered to be satisfactory in terms of enabling vehicle movement and circulation. That's been internally reviewed. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Which is just when I think of bulk, I'm thinking, you know, people get, you know, going in there with their trailers. Yeah. They are. Speaker 5: Yeah. And it's quite, sorry, it's 7.2 metres wide. It is quite wide. Yeah. Yeah. So we, as I said, we have reviewed it and we're satisfied that the vehicle movement is satisfactory. Councillor Wegener: And just a thought. If people, if the tradies go in there and say, I can't put my trailer in there, well, that's not, that's something that we consider. If they're building it, if they're underground car park and for some reason it's insufficient for some of the tradies, that's not our issue, is it? We don't, we don't micromanage what they're doing to that level.
00:36:00 Speaker 5: Well, we have looked to ensure that circulation is satisfactory, but safe to say there isn't a responsibility for Bunnings to make sure that they can accommodate the patronage that they're going to have. And I must say that the Bunnings that I've been to in the past, I've generally found there is ample room for car parking and vehicle movement. Okay. Councillor Wegener: That's just, it just looks like that to me, but I don't know what I'm talking about. So. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's the minimum standard that council will say. Just to clarify, there is a hard stand anointing at the rear, which would allow for the trailer used to go around and get the large bulky items. And as you say, the big Bunnings down in Ruchydore has all underground parking as well. So. Speaker 4: Yeah. And, and it's generally, they're designed for the convenience of the user. So obviously, you know, getting in their trailer and the circulation movements are generally, there's more than minimum required as part of that. So our assessment will just focus on, does it meet minimum for appropriate circulation
00:37:00 of vehicles through the site? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my question, there's discussion how you've agreed to reduce street trees from seven to two or something like that. Nice. And about, you know, I'm not calculating the number of trees based on the road frontage, excluding the driveways. I understand that. We haven't got a revised landscaping plan. And the bioretention basin that's on, or was it site plan layout one, it's in front of the existing Bunnings facility. Is there another bioretention basin going straight out in front of this one? Yes. There is. So when we talk about extensive landscaping, if we say there's only two street trees and a bioretention basin is between the front facade, then the bioretention basin is there more landscaping
00:38:00 proposed? Speaker 5: There is. So if you look at the proposal plans attachment, it's on page two, you'll see the bioretention basin to the front of the building. And you'll see that there is probably, you know... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that green area in between there is between the boundary and the road reserve, which is... That's right. And that's where they can bulk up the landscape. That's right. Speaker 5: And it is also possible to get some plants within a biobasin that are just not low level. You can have some higher plants in the biobasin as well, but obviously not as high as what Speaker 4: you'll get out of the basin. And there is the opportunity through an operational works application for the applicant to provide further details regarding the landscaping work. So we'll get a closer look at the species selection and the density of landscaping as part of that.
00:39:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. No, I missed that little bioretention there right in the mid-front. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Just on that, one of the conditions said that it must provide vegetative screening of the post-development from that which I designed such that the development was screened at maturity. So what does that mean? Does it mean there'll just be a softening of the facade, or will it be hidden by these trees once they're mature? What are you aiming for? Because obviously the land is preferable. Speaker 4: Yeah. So it'll be up to just absolutely soften that as much as possible, noting the landscape strip that we've got there. So that's what we're aiming for. So there's sufficient space for that. So that's the plan is to soften that as much as possible. Speaker 5: I don't think it'd be possible to completely screen it with the amount of area that's available. And fair to say that other buildings in that industrial area are not completely screened from trees. No. So it's not unreasonable, I think, in an industrial area to see a building.
00:40:00 But we'll screen this up as much as we can. Speaker 4: The species selection will be important in that too. Mayor Wilkie: And you're saying it's set back a fair way from the road? Speaker 5: 12 metres? Yes. So I don't have that figure in front of me, but I believe it's well beyond the setback. And I think 12 metres is from memory, yes. Mayor Wilkie: What's normally the requirement there, as far as setbacks are concerned? Speaker 5: In an industrial area? Mayor Wilkie: Six or 10? Speaker 5: I might have to double check for you, Frank, but in an industrial area generally there's no setback requirements, but maybe from Gateway Drive there is. So I don't have that. Mayor Wilkie: It's well beyond what's on there. Speaker 5: Correct. It is well, yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: That's legal. Online councillor Lorentson, do you have any questions? Councillor Lorentson: Just one question. In terms of willingness to adapt and work with council, was the applicant good in that
00:41:00 regard? Were they co-operative? And do they willingly work with council? Again, just reading bits and pieces, that's critical when they suspended the appeal process. And I think initially they talked about conditions that we imposed unworkable. So was that, getting to this point, was that a good, easy process? Speaker 5: Obviously I wasn't the officer that did the assessment of the application, so I was sort of second and third hand observing some of the challenges that the officer did have throughout the original process. The officer was certainly clear for a long period of time on the outcome that she was seeking in terms of height, and probably right up until the end of the initial application was getting a fair bit of pushback from the applicant in that regard.
00:42:00 It is noticeable that they chose to suspend the appeal period and make representations, which gave us the opportunity for a bit more discussion and time and a bit more dialogue. And they have, in that period, obviously modified the plans significantly to accord with that 10 metre height above the natural ground level. So I think that's probably kudos to the officer, Nadine, who was assessing the application for holding her ground for a long period of time. And also obviously council for that. Thank you. Thank you Nadine for imposing that condition as well. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic and good on you. Mayor Wilkie: We have a mover for the motion please. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Moved Councillor Laurencson, seconded by Councillor Wegener. Amelia would you like to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: No, just thank you Nadine and all those that have worked to get a really good outcome. I think mediated outcomes are always desired.
00:43:00 Means we don't have a court and it's a moving situation. So well done. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to point, there was a, the major issue that we discussed in the conditioning of this approval was around the height and appearance of bulk of the building. I think the outcome where there is a small relaxation given, but it did achieve, I think, the criteria that we were looking at. The criteria that many of the councils discussed was that it should be no higher than the building next door. So I think that's a reasonable outcome that it allows for the facility to operate in the manner intended but also achieves a better outcome in terms of the streetscape. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. We should close Amelia. No. Put it to those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you.
00:44:00 We've got no reports for noting. No confidential items. So therefore I declare the meeting closed at 10.17. Thank you everybody. Thank you Councillor Lorentson. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 2: Thank you Patrick, Richard and.
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.