Planning & Environment Committee - June 2024 Transcript

Start of recording ¶

00:00:00

00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'm sorry, the Planning Environment Meeting, and I declare the meeting open at 9.30. I want to begin firstly with an acknowledgement of country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of our beautiful Noosa region. And we pay respect to Kabi Kabi elders past, present and emerging, and to their enduring commitment to pursuing a strong and healthy future for First Nations people. Attendance. So there are no apologies, and I note everyone is in attendance. Councillor Tom Wegener, Deputy Mayor. Stockwell and Mayor Frank Wilkie. I also note we have two councillors in the gallery as observers.

00:01:00 Welcome, Councillor Nicola and Councillor Jess. And we have, I think, Councillor Finzel? No, she's done. Stop. I'd like to please request before we commence the meeting that everyone have their phones on silent. And I'd also like to remind the councillors of their obligations under the councillor code of conduct to treat fellow councillors and council officers respectfully. I'll start with confirmation of minutes. Can I have a mover and a seconder, please? Mayor Wilkie: I'll move it. I'll make a second. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. No discussion at all in favour. Thank you. Thank you. Presentations. Deputations. I note we have a deputation in front of us today by Rhett Duncan on behalf of UNV Order.

00:02:00 I welcome Rhett to stand in front of us in the public. Thanks. Thank you. I'd like to remind, before you start, I'd just like to remind you, Rhett, that speaking time is limited to 15 minutes and that's quite strict. Thank you. Rhett Duncan: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for coming here this morning. Unity Water is the water and wastewater services provider for the Noosa region. My name is Rhett Duncan, and in my role as executive manager of customer delivery, the operation and maintenance of our network is my responsibility. So, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. After ensuring the protection of public health and the natural environment, our most important priority is enabling economic development that allows communities to thrive. I'm here today to convey our very clear position This is our second deputation on the matter, and our opposition to the proposed location

15 minutes in ¶

00:15:00

00:15:00 There's a reference to the code principle. And I understand that not much weight can be given to the draft considering what stage we're at. Yes. My question is, even if we were at, say, a more progressed stage with the amendments, an amendment is simply, a draft amendment is simply that. It's a draft amendment. My question is, does it carry any legal force if it's just a draft amendment? And would the decision be indifferent if this application came, say, two months after we put out the publication for amendments for notice of the amendments? Speaker 2: Consideration for the draft scheme. More weight can be given to the draft scheme as we move through the process. So we go through the notification process, and then there's consideration for those

00:16:00 submissions that may be made. And then if Council seeks to adopt the draft scheme, then it certainly allows us to place them away from that draft scheme. Mayor Wilkie: Could you talk a bit about the reason why we asked property owners of dwellings to prove existing use rights? Speaker 2: Well, that relates to the short-stay local law. So as you may be aware, properties that have been used for short-term accommodation are required to obtain the short-stay local law approval. And there's a pathway of entitlement, so to speak, before they can obtain an approval. And that is to have an existing DA, which allows the use to occur. Or if it's a dwelling, that they demonstrated that they had existing use rights prior to the commencement of the 2020 scheme, because dwellings that were constructed prior to that date were able to be used interchangeably for permanent or short-term accommodation.

00:17:00 Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of the approval, short-term accommodation is supported in our planning scheme. Visitor accommodation in the hinterland is supported, and for these conditions, it's got to be low density, small in scale, depending on the actual size of the property. So it's not just a small amenity. My question is, how many short-term accommodations already exist in the hinterland? And was that considered or backed into the decision-making? Speaker 2: To give you a specific number, I'd have to go back through some data to give that to you. But certainly the prevalence of short-term accommodation in the rural areas is significantly less than what we have on the scene.

00:18:00 So as I said, we have a number of short-term accommodation in the hinterland. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of strategic intent and outcomes of both our MESA plan and also our tourism strategy, the application falls within that intent. Speaker 2: I think it's consistent. The new scheme has been sought to sort of diversify our tourism opportunities within the hinterland area, and so it's certainly cool with the scheme at the moment. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Tom, you've got some questions. Yes. Councillor Wegener: So it's assessed against the whole of the planning scheme. But then we bring in the tourism NUSA report, which talks about wanting to diversify the economy out into the hinterland. How does that fit in? How does the tourism NUSA, the 2017 document, influence this decision? Speaker 2: So you're saying it's a document prepared by tourism NUSA?

00:19:00 Councillor Wegener: Yes. Speaker 2: It's not part of the planning scheme, so it has no influence in our determination of the application. We can consider the document and review its intent, but it's not part of the planning scheme. Councillor Wegener: So when it says that we want to diversify in the hinterland area, it's not part of Speaker 2: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the document informed the Noosa Plan at the time of the 2020 plan was introduced? Councillor Wegener: It could be, because it's quoted in the report. So there's all sorts of plans we have out there, we have the corporate plan, we have We have the housing strategy plan, and I was just surprised to see that this plan, the 2017 plan about bringing more business to the hinterland, the tourism plan, why it was in this report.

00:20:00 So that's why I'm asking. Speaker 1: There are economic development benefits of obviously generating further activity in the hinterland, and obviously accommodation is one element of providing that diversification. But as you're aware, the current funding scheme amendments are seeking to make some changes there, and that largely relates to your way around the housing piece around that SDA should be taking up that time. Thank you. That housing supply, so it obviously does encourage the new scheme amendments, but not at the cost of losing that permanent housing supply. So I guess that's where the housing strategy is seeking to influence on the new funding scheme moving forward.

00:21:00 But the current scheme, as the team have identified, it is a consistent sort of activity, and obviously impact assessment also requires assessment against the entire planning scheme, and all of those factors within the planning scheme could be considered as part of this decision. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Next question is evidence for not disrupting amenity. So I didn't see a study or anything that suggests that would prove or have any weight to show that this would not disturb the amenity because the opposite has happened around the beaches where it's pretty much understood now that short-term accommodation does affect negatively the amenity. And so I didn't see any, the evidence around us says that it affects the amenity.

00:22:00 But there's no evidence here that it will not affect the amenity. There's no study that I've seen. Speaker 2: Supporting this application? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 2: So in that regard, we will look at the site conditions to see where it's going to be situated. So in that regard, we will look at the site conditions to see where it's going to be situated. So the kind of separation that's afforded, and then that would be reflected through the conditions of the approval, which I think in this case have limited it to 9pm, that occupiers of the dwelling for short term accommodation would be able to be outside after 9pm. Councillor Lorentson: I made in the report, Patrick, the closest residence, 17 metres from this resident, and it was the saluter that had no problem with the application. You were saying that went to 270 metres. Continuing from where Tom is, in terms of noise, rural noise amplifications, so my understanding is when you live in like isolated locations like in Kin Kin, noise amplifies. Is that an amenity? How do you assess that amenity?

00:23:00 Speaker 2: Certainly recognising the rural areas that noise can carry from a range of activities. Including agricultural activities, so we do have a standard suite of conditions that we do apply to these approvals or recommendations which do address amenity. Again, noting that the 9pm I think is a reasonable time for occupiers to be inside. Speaker 1: And also the scale, obviously being limited to four bedrooms in that person's instance, the decision to control the scale of that particular activity. To your point, though, it is difficult to... particularly with guests around, you know, how they'll behave and the noise that they may or may not make during this day, which is why the team have put some recommended conditions on there around controlling the time that they're outside, which is likely to create that noise emitting beyond the site boundaries.

00:24:00 Speaker 2: And with the extra layer of, for short, say like more approval that will be required to follow should they obtain this approval, will it enable someone to be able to contact the hotline 24-7? Councillor Wegener: So, say that this person at this time was... What I'm worried about when an STA is out there is once you give the approval, then you have to enforce these conditions forever. And if this person was opening up, at this point, a small business making jams from local fruits, that would be... an impact-accessible decision, wouldn't it? It would be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The... Councillor Wegener: Okay, well, the reason... Okay, I'm just going to speak to this. I'm not going to... You know, obviously, I think that... Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, I will give you leniency to speak today, Councillor Wegener, but I do remind you that in communities...

00:25:00 I agree, this is an information-seeking committee, and debate is left possibly too general. Yeah. I know you're quite passionate in this space. Councillor Wegener: When we have to enforce these obligations that we put on them, the conditions, it goes forever. So, it's not like a business, like, you know, if somebody's going to make jams right now, it would be impact-accessible. We'd look at it and say, okay, the person's there, you're making too much noise, the same person's there. So, the business is permanent there, and the same person runs the business. With an STA, and they could easily cancel that business. Where an STA goes on and on, where the visitor comes in, makes all sorts of noise, people call up the hotline, and really nothing really happens. There's not really enforcement. Monday comes on, those people are gone. The owner is someplace far, far away.

00:26:00 And so, it's not like the person making jam in their kitchen, who you go back and say, hey, you know, that was a bit noisy. The visitor's gone, the next set of visitors come in, and that's our problem with STAs, and it's the problem we have with enforcing it. And that's why I'm very, I have a very hard time giving further STA approvals, especially out there in Kin Kin, and especially in the next one. We have that long driveway, where I really don't want officers driving up that long driveway, trying to enforce the conditions that we imposed upon them. I don't think we need to be in the business of enforcing local laws. On STAs that we approve, out in the hinterland, where the owner is far, far away. I think there's just a massive problem there, in philosophy of the way we do things. But then, when it comes to the high-value tourist, well, we know that's not the case. We've proven that's not actually the case. There's no link, definite link, between high-value tourists, which is what the planning team wants, and an STA.

00:27:00 And we know that the amenity will be distributed. It will be disrupted, eventually. And it's just forever. And so, I don't, and of course we have our housing policy, which is a big one, where we just realized that we have a housing crisis in Noosa, around the whole Sunshine Coast. And here, we're taking two properties out of the rental pool, and giving it STA status, while at the same time, we're breaking our bones to make housing over here. It's just going exactly the wrong direction. And then, earlier, when we'd look at STAs in town, we would say, oh, it's near restaurants. It's near a bus stop. It's near, it's right in the middle of where we want to be. That's where we want the tourist sector to be. This is the complete opposite. It's an STA way out there, making it hard to enforce the conditions, and they'll have to be traveling, and so forth.

00:28:00 It just, it's going the opposite direction from where we are with our housing policy. Mayor Wilkie: Question. Question. Under the STA approval on the local wall, the manager needs to be within 30 minutes. Speaker 2: 20 minutes. Mayor Wilkie: 20 minutes of the property, and to attend, it needs to be. That's correct. So, that is correct. Speaker 2: And if I might just add. Council witness comments that people were in the hotline, and has nothing, and nothing happens. I don't think that's a reasonable comment in terms of the operation . We are finding that calls are made to the hotline, and in most instances, the issue is resolved at that time. So, just a bit to clarify that. And also, importantly, the calls that we get to the hotline, they're not coming from the same areas. They're coming from the areas which are.

00:29:00 Which are more populated. And so, we do have a number of STAs operating in the rural area at the moment, and certainly not getting calls to that mode. Councillor Lorentson: Could I request for the general meeting, Patrick, would you provide some data in regards to complaints made in the hinterland? Just so that we can put some facts to arguments. Yeah. Continuing with Councillor Wignaw, I'm going to add a question to your debate. Does supporting rural tourism conflict with our housing needs assessment and, in fact, our destination management plan? Or is it the reverse? Does it, is it, you know, is it the balance we actually want to create, you know, with our destination management plan, with rural tourism, and short-term accommodation and housing diversification as part of that puzzle and balance? Speaker 1: I mean, I'll just add the comment that, obviously, with this, you know, there's a lot of issues

30 minutes in ¶

00:30:00

00:30:00 that we're seeing change that are being proposed, and seeking to, obviously, reflect the housing strategy, which is, which is about ensuring that the, there's either a 4 and 60 available, where it's not the resident's principal place of property, or where it is the applicant's or the, the resident's primary place of residence, that they can STA on the, on the site. So it does, the scheme moving forward is seeking to have a bit of both, if you will. So to, to accommodate housing, but also the ability for STA as a, as a consistent use in the, in the rural zone. So it's seeking to, to cater for both. In this particular situation, obviously, taking up that, that housing supply for just STA is not what it's seeking moving forward. So that's where part of the compromise at the moment with that, that strategy is moving forward. So the scheme, the scheme is seeking to accommodate both elements. So the, the tourism economic development element, and also to maintain the housing piece.

00:31:00 Mayor Wilkie: It's a, it's a really good question. My understanding is that planning scheme amendments will allow home hosted short stay accommodation. Yeah. So we're, the direction we're heading, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we still want to encourage short term accommodation uses and home stays in the hinterland, to contribute to the local economy and the visitor experience. Yeah. But also, if it's only home stay, you've got onsite owner, and you'll have a resident or a resident's family in that accommodation at the same time. So not detracting from permanent residency. Is that correct? That's correct. That's it. Councillor Lorentson: To me, this sentiment, to me, that's probably the most valuable indicator for me about impacts. Interesting, this application had no objections, and in fact, won the person's support.

00:32:00 Is that a neutral in places like Kin Kin, and say, other hinterland regions where you find the opposite of what happens if the application is made in a coastal area? Speaker 2: Well, yeah. I mean, you, you can certainly get a number of objections to short stay applications, and we do find that. An application is put under the local law. When the community become aware of that in the coastal area, we do receive a number of complaints or submissions about that application. But I think in the hinterland area, the responses to notification is probably generally less. But it's good that we've had it, you know, we've been able to provide, to take the effort to give us a round of appreciation. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, we're basically knocking fellows, yeah.

00:33:00 If I brush my hair. Just a question about refining or clarifying the nature of our deliberations under the Act. So, correct me if I'm wrong. If this site was four hectares, reading your report, it would meet all assessable benchmarks, and therefore become code assessable. Therefore, the Act would say we must approve it. Is that right? Speaker 1: If it's on four hectares? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So, the reason it's now an impact assessable application, because the scheme says if it's not four hectares, it becomes an impact assessable, which turns it into a material change of use. Now, material change of use says you don't need it. You can consider more relevant factors. The report suggested your assessment is that while not meeting the acceptable outcome,

00:34:00 it meets the performance outcome in terms of amenity, and therefore that the four hectares is not a significant issue. Does moving to an impact assessable allow us as Councillors to consider the competing objectives within the strategic outcomes? Are we bound by the outcomes of the scheme between tourism and housing choice, or are we bound by the nature of the performance benchmarks about the particular development? Speaker 2: The impact assessable application allows us to consider the whole scheme. Speaker 1: And other relevant matters as well. So, there's a bit broader in the Act in terms of other relevant matters. But I think it is important just to come back and reference at the comments, particularly in the report, that it's important to consider the impact assessable application. Because there's a lot of talk around the Code of Principles and the timing of when the application is lodged and into the decision phase, which was actually well before the scheme was publicly released for comment.

00:35:00 Which is when essentially the starting point is for Council to start considering some weight. And obviously, as Patrick alluded to earlier, because where we are and when this application was lodged and is due for decision, it's very early in the process, so very little weight can be given to the proposal based on the scheme amendments. However, if it was lodged after the amendments had been released and went into decision later in the process, potentially substantial weight could be given to the scheme intent as to the changes. Councillor Lorentson: Subsequent question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In the medium density residential zone, or in the area of the residential zone, or it might be in the Eastern Beaches Cove, there's provision about retaining the dominant residential nature of the zone. Is there anything similar that Council could rely on on the grounds of refusal within the rural zone? Speaker 2: The medium and the high density do make a reference to predominantly permanent residents.

00:36:00 That is not provided within the rural zone. We don't believe that there's a minimum density residential zone within the rural zone. Councillor Wegener: The question of amenity, to me, it's very, very interpretive. It's fuzzy. And to say that it's not going to disrupt the amenity is very much a judgment call, it seems to me. Like saying, yep, amenities throughout the town plan, we do not want to disrupt amenity. And it's assumed that our town plan is going to disrupt the amenity. And that our conditions will ensure that the amenity is not disrupted. And that is the assumption behind the acceptance of the application. It seems to me that that's the cornerstone.

00:37:00 Because amenity is the fundamental principle of this application. Speaker 2: Well, I think as Richard referred to earlier, there is a limitation on the amenity. The amount of people that we stay on the permits, and limitation on the outdoor areas, the times that they can be used, and noting the separation from the surrounding areas, and the letter of support to the application from the neighbour, there are factors that lead us towards a reasonable conclusion that the amenity outcomes will be reasonable. Mayor Wilkie: So, Councillor Wegener, are you disagreeing with the recommendation in order to be referred to the general? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I would like to. Yeah, I'd like to have the move to just be referred to the general. Councillor Lorentson: Due to the significance, happy to refer it to the general. But can I request information in terms of how many STAs are already in Kinpin?

00:38:00 How many complaints have been made through the hotline? And also, I'd probably like a little bit more information in terms of the coding principle, and in terms of, you know, how many people are already in Kinpin, and how many people are still in Kinpin. How much weight? I understand where this application was made before the draft amendments, but I'd still like to understand what are the re-applications if we did put more weight on the coding principle in this instance. What are the potential re-applications, legal re-applications? Also, I'd like to understand super, the superseded plans in compensation. Speaker 3: How much weight, I can understand where this application was made before the draft amendments, Councillor Lorentson: but if we refuse this application, is it in contradiction with SPS adverse change in compensation?

00:39:00 Kalima, I'm throwing my head around, like, what are we, what happens if we refuse it? So just maybe some information in terms of what we're going to do. Speaker 1: The superseded provision wouldn't apply. Yeah. So essentially the decision as is is not subject to any superseded provision. So if Council were to not support the proposal, the applicant would repeal rights regarding the decision. Just repeal rights. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Any more information before general meeting? Thanks. Tom. Councillor Wegener: We have one more to go through. Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Council, have you disagreed with the recommendation? Yes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just in terms of other information, I've already asked for it. I'm just looking at the potential to have a notification if it is approved that acknowledges the rural nature of the block and the potential for agriculture related nuisances to be visited

00:40:00 upon this particular use. So if you are writing a report rather than just providing information, if you could include that, that would be good. Otherwise, I'll just add it if there's an approval motion going forward. Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: So could I have a mover please that be moved to the general meeting due to the significance of the matter. Councillor Wegener, a seconder please. Councillor Stockwell and all in favour. Thank you. Thank you. So let's move to the next item on the agenda. Again, another short-term accommodation approval in Cabarabra. If you could just bear with me. MCU 24 slash 0003 development application for material change of use for short-term accommodation

00:41:00 at 428 Cabarabra Road, Cabarabra. And Tara Patrick-Richard. Thank you. Speaker 4: So this one's quite similar to the previous application. So it's an existing two-bedroom dwelling. The applicants are proposing four people on site as an accident. There's no works proposed on the site. It is noted that the site is heavily vegetated and is a biodiversity overlay. They're not proposing any vegetation removal within the overlay at all. The application has triggered impact assessments. Again, for a due to a loss of property. So it's 3.16 hectares. So it doesn't meet the four hectare threshold to make it code accessible. No submissions were received for this one. Again, it's very small in scale. A two-bedroom dwelling with four people on site. It's consistent. It has a short-term in the rural zone under the current scheme.

00:42:00 There's a recommendation for approval, which includes all of our standard conditions regarding the number of people on site. Bedrooms limited. Outdoor area of use limited to 9pm. So in terms of this particular application, again, very similar to the previous. Councillor Lorentson: So I'll wait for Councillor Wilkie to come back. Any questions, firstly, from the table? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Stockwell? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: If this was refused, they would still be able to apply for the four times at 60 days a year. And that would be an easy application, I would suspect. Speaker 4: If it's their principal place of residence? Councillor Wegener: If it's their principal place of residence, right. Councillor Lorentson: So the question is, is it their principal place of residence or is it their principal I would have to consider that. I'm not sure I have that information. Speaker 2: The service address is not for the property. It's for another property. So I would suggest it's not their principal place of residence.

00:43:00 Councillor Wegener: One big thing that concerns me is the long road in there. And my apologies for misstating, saying that nothing happens during the hotline. But what I fall back on is, say they ring the hotline, nothing does happen, and there's a wild... There's something going on that is disruptive, that disrupts the local amenity, and the hotline people, the people that are supposed to amend the situation, don't. Is it an obligation of council to step in and send our own officers in there? Speaker 2: If it was occurring at night, we wouldn't have officers that we'd be able to send in. If it was occurring during the day, we could be contacted, and we would make the effort

00:44:00 to contact the owner. We'd likely try and contact the police, also request that they contact the police. But I think it would be... We'd just have to assess what was happening at the time to see if it was safe to send officers in to talk about this, like any other complaint that we would receive. We'd have to make sure that there were safe officers to come out there. Councillor Wegener: If it was... If it wasn't an STA, and there was a party there, and reducing amenity, they would call the police, the state police. As an STA, there's a problem with amenity there. They may call the police, but really, the conditions that we imposed upon them are being violated, so it would be our responsibility to enforce the conditions that we imposed upon them. Speaker 1: That's a good point. There's two elements there, as you write. There's the approvals that we issue, and if there's conditions, we can enforce those,

45 minutes in ¶

00:45:00

00:45:00 but the police have also got their own powers as well that they can enforce, so not dissimilar than other multi-government agencies have different jurisdictions and ability to deal with issues such as nuisance and disturbance, so we would be able to enforce conditions in approval if they were breached. But also, the police can deal with disturbances, you know, in residential areas, you know, the commercial areas, and a lot of these concerns from residents, so they'll act on those issues as well. Councillor Wegener: So if there's eight cars there, you know, quite often, and it's not a police matter, the police are saying, well, but it is a big deal to de-amenity the people, so then our local law's officers would be, you know, it would be their obligation to go and enforce the conditions. Speaker 2: If there was eight cars parked on the side, I would... I don't think that would be an issue, because it's a big site, and I don't think anyone

00:46:00 would know. So are you saying if there was eight cars full of people that were partying there, or... Councillor Wegener: Eight cars of people full of, you know, partying there, but it's not a police issue yet. Councillor Lorentson: Isn't it section 260 of the plan that probably that's partying houses, and that would probably fit within that definition, so that's probably better to... Councillor Wegener: Or lighting, you know. I guess the reason, we are taking on responsibilities when we make, when we give it the SDA approval, and we put conditions on, we have, we are accepting more responsibility for our officers, our law enforcement officers, because if we didn't approve it, then they wouldn't have these conditions that we would have to potentially enforce. Question. Is that right? Yeah. The question is, do we take on more responsibility as Noosa Council when we approve an SDA with

00:47:00 conditions? Speaker 2: Any approval that we issue of conditions, every time we issue an approval, we take on responsibility, whether it be for an industrial use, or a restaurant, or whatever it might be, ultimately we are responsible for enforcing those conditions, so it's part of what we do. And then... Councillor Lorentson: Oh, sorry. Can I just add, this is where I think the data is really quite important, so I think the best way to answer that question is understanding how many complaints, what time of day, and how many properties. Do you understand the significance of the issue, if it is significant, or if it's not as huge as what we think? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I just, yeah. Obviously I've got an issue with taking on more responsibilities that increase the pressures upon our own staff to do their jobs. Speaker 1: And to that point, just to add to Patrick's comment, obviously when conditions are applied to an applicant for a position which runs with the land, the obligation rests with that

00:48:00 applicant, the person, the permit holder, to ensure that they do comply, because if they don't, then action can be taken against them. So what's the take on your point that every approval we issue that's got conditions adds an extra imposter on Council, and you're right, we need to regulate and manage complaints and issues where conditions may be breached, but those obligations lie with the applicant to ensure that they adhere to those, and if they don't, we can take serious compliance action where a breach is detected. Thank you Richard. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Chair. Councillor Wilkie. Has there been any incidents of complaint about this property being illegally used, as a short-term accommodation property? Speaker 4: Not that I'm aware of. No. Mayor Wilkie: And this application before us, you have assessed it under the current settings of the Planning Scheme, which makes short-term accommodation a consistent use in the rural setting? That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I note the property's in a high bushfire area, and you talk in the report about a

00:49:00 building certified can certify the dwelling. My query relates to the fact that access and egress to the site is through a high bushfire hazard area, and that the short-term use by visitors may be from people who are unfamiliar with rural fire issues. In urban areas, there is higher levels of fire protection required, say for units in a resort complex. Is there anything in our scheme which would allow us to consider higher levels of consideration of bushfire risk as a result of, as Councillor Wegener suggested, a long driveway through a high bushfire area? Speaker 2: I'd like to come back to you on that, Councillor, on the scheme, and some of the discussions with the world about that.

00:50:00 Councillor Lorentson: The Condition 22 actually has bushfire management as one of the conditions, Councillor Stockwell. It references an accessible dam swimming pool water tank in addition to day-to-day water supply with an on-site water volume of not less than 5,000 litres must be available for fire-biting purposes located within reasonable proximity to building. So I looked at that, thought about that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's probably enough to protect, but as we know, with the severity of bushfires these days, generally the advice is to get out. So I think that's a good point. Looking where the dominant, remnant vegetation is, it's all to the north, so via the other side. Maybe there's a road. I'm just thinking, is that something we should be thinking about in this case, in that you're introducing a use where they may not know the local situation and may have an impact? Councillor Lorentson: So maybe a condition in terms of evacuation process might, or I'm not sure if that's captured

00:51:00 under bushfire management. It's not spelled out. But maybe spelled it out a little bit. Perhaps it should help them. Speaker 1: Could you give us some further information for that? Councillor Lorentson: Any further questions around the table? We've got a question. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's, once again, it's one that I've already raised with staff and we're in discussions, but for the general committee. The site is under the biodiversity overlay and has a riparian corridor as well mapped in the scheme. If I compare that to a recent approval in Borean Point where we put in conditions where we sought to achieve conservation outcomes because we wouldn't have a resident, you'd have visitors potentially bringing cats, dogs. It's just something that I've asked staff to come back to have a look at because of the change in the nature of the use, should we be having conditions in there that will maximise the conservation outcomes as well?

00:52:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Wegener. Yeah, well, that's a good question. Question, please. Councillor Wegener: Question. Well, that is interesting. Have you considered dogs in that so many people, you know, tend to have an STA and they go there and is there an obligation to have a dog fence area? Speaker 2: As Councillor Stockwell alluded to, it has been in communication with us and we are looking at potentially bringing back an amended recommendation that incorporates the conditions from Borean Point, the approval that we did out there. Sure. And it did address cats and dogs through those conditions. So we'll present that to you at the general meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Nicola. Councillor Jess, any questions? No. Just a thought bubble and a note, probably not a question. So again, I ask that everyone just bear with me. I keep thinking we're approving and spending a lot of money with our trail, our

00:53:00 upgrades. We have events that are going out in Juro, out in the trails, which are attracting thousands and thousands of people. We're sitting in the space with destination management plan where dispersal is part of the solution. And I don't know where I'm going with this. But I think there's a lot of work to be done. So I just keep going back to balance. We need to be able to balance when these, whether it's visitors or people visiting family and they're here to land, whether it's people that are in need of affordable short-term temporary accommodation because they're fleeing from domestic places or they're here for the week or weekend for these trail things. Where are they going to stay? And are we going to exacerbate the already volatile situation we have here in coastal

00:54:00 areas? So I come back to balance. And the question I'm going to be thinking about is 60 days. Is that going to be enough? And possibly it is, because that's available for everyone. But just a thought that I just sort of want to leave with the table today. Speaker 1: The four and 60 is pretty much the same. The four and 60 is where it's their primary place of residence. And they had to. So they, essentially, they need to, it needs to be their primary place of property. So they're away for, you know, the 60 days per year. And then they get more STA. Obviously in this case, it appears that they don't live on site. It's not their primary principal place. Councillor Lorentson: So it's not established there? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 2: So they, the only way they can undertake STA on this property is through a planning group. Yeah. And they don't have the accepting, the opportunity for accepting development.

00:55:00 The current owners and their current abatements. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Any further questions on the table? Great discussion. And we'll continue at the general meeting. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can I move that the matter is moved to general meeting due to the significance of the matter? Yeah. I'll move it. Thank you, Councillor Wilkie. Seconded. Seconded. Councillor Wegener. Please. Please. Mayor Wilkie: Look, I want to thank the staff for correctly assessing this application under the current settings of the new planning scheme. The discussion you've heard around the table is principally driven by the, the change in community set, well, community sentiment and scrutiny around each and every short-term accommodation property that this Council is, approves. That, that community concern is reflected also in the amendments, which will ensure

00:56:00 that in future, in order for any sort of short-term accommodation to be approved in the rural and rural residential areas, it has to be home hosted so that it's not taking away a permanent place of residence, but, and it'll be onsite. And for the reasons that were discussed here, it is a balance because we do have a, we're aspiring to create a national class, some say even a world class, trial network eventually out in the hinterland and we do need accommodation for mountain bikers, hikers, runners, equestrians to, to stay in if, if they're wanting to access that trial network and for a host of other reasons. So, again, I, I want to finish by thanking the staff who have undergone a lot of scrutiny here this morning, but you have correctly assessed this application under the current settings of the Noosa Planning Scheme. You've done that diligently. You've taken into account amenity.

00:57:00 Thank you for your, thank you for your work. Councillor Lorentson: Well said, Councilor. Thank you and thank you for staying with us because, you know, this is a really tricky one. So, thank you very much. Okay, so I've got a minute, I've got a seconder, all in favour? Thank you. And now we're going to move to the next item on the agenda, which is NCU 220094, Development Application for a Child Care Centre at 28 Eney Creek Road. Welcome to the desk, Nadine Gordon, and I'll hand it over to you for an overview. Speaker 5: Okay, thank you. Good morning, councillors. This is a report about a development application

00:58:00 for a child care centre at Hopman Drive for 96 children and 17 staff. The applicant is proposing to house the child care centre in a single storey building located roughly to the rear of the site, and the building has a setback of approximately 10 metres with a 4 metre landscape strip and car parking down the western side. As separate to the MCU, there's also a reconfiguration application just to slightly move between the subject site and the site next door, to slightly move the boundary eastward and slightly down by two metres to accommodate the child care centre and to provide appropriate support. The site we're looking at has quite a bit of history. It was created under a subdivision approval back in 2018, which created 23 lots for the Noosa Civic area. The subdivision

00:59:00 application was quite a protracted application and ended up in appeal, where there was a negotiated outcome, which addressed a number of aspects. There was a significant aspect relating to the creation of a park-like setting for Hopman Drive and the surrounding streets, and that required a condition for a 10 metre landscape buffer to be provided along the street frontage. Those works have subsequently been undertaken by an operational works application, which in some instances is doing well and other needs a little bit of work. The site is located, is zoned under the Noosa plan. It's a new site, a major centre, and has a business park precinct. This zoning and precinct is envisaging employment and commercial uses. The proposed child care centre is an inconsistent and impact-accessible use in this zone and precinct. A child care centre, notably, is a consistent use in the

60 minutes in ¶

01:00:00

01:00:00 zoned village mixed-use zone, which is directly to the north of this site. In this regard, we've assessed the application and we consider that it fails to meet the requirements of the planning scheme in terms of the zoning. It also fails to meet the requirements under the reconfiguration approval, the condition which requires the maintenance of the 10 metre setback, which was required to maintain a park-like setting. There are a couple of other sort of minor aspects as well. The biobasin, which is in the south-western corner of the site, further erodes the ability for landscaping. There are a couple of other minor aspects as well, and the bicycle location impedes some of the movement around on site. So, for those reasons, the application is recommended by staff not to be supported. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Nadine. I'm just going to ask the first question. In terms of the appeal settlement

01:01:00 or the negotiated outcome between Council and the applicant back in 2020, 2019, 2020, is an appeal settlement final and binding? Yes, it is. Speaker 2: It is, but it can be subject to an application to make a change to the approval. Yeah. So, in some instances where there is an application that was notified and there were submissions, that change would need to go back to the court. Council can do a pre-request response. In instances where it's a code-assessable application, like the reconfiguration application, a minor change to change conditions or lay out that approval can be assessed by Council. Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just one for clarification. The Artist Impression 1 is looking from the south-west,

01:02:00 and I presume the VISTA includes the initial, that's the pathway off the site? Speaker 5: Sorry, is that in the attachments, or is that in the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Speaker 5: Artist Impression, sorry, is that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's one. You got it? Speaker 5: Yeah, that one, yes. That's from, that's actually looking, that's the Council pathway. That's right. That's the pathway, so that's the south-western corner where the biobasin is. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, where they've got a seat is actually where the... Biobasin is. Biobasin. Yeah. Does the Artist Impression therefore accurately represent what we've been asked to approve? Speaker 5: No. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, thank you. Because I, last night I was having great difficulty working out where that was. Speaker 5: I think... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And Artist Impression 3, that vantage point, that's the one with the wooden deck and the

01:03:00 children. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, can we have that up on screen, please? It's page five of the first attachment one, page five. Speaker 2: This way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's the one looking from the east. Speaker 5: Yes, it's that one. Is it in the... I'm sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Attachment one. Attachment one. Speaker 5: Attachment one. Councillor Lorentson: Page five. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's probably all... Yeah, yeah. Councillor Wegener: Page five. Page five. Next. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Keep going. Councillor Lorentson: Next one, this one. Speaker 5: I believe this is at the back of the site. Oh. That's actually the back of the site looking towards... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I don't think so. Because if you look at the proposal plan, that wooden deck is up front in the 10 metre zone. Speaker 2: But that's the entrance, yeah.

01:04:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if you look at site plan 3D, that's along Hofmann Drive. Speaker 1: Yes. Looking back... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Looking to the west. Yeah. Looking west. So basically that's a view where six metres of that is meant to be in a park-like setting, and they... Rather than a park-like setting, they've got roads and a deck. No, not roads. Grass and a deck. Yeah. Does the landscape setback preclude shade trees and use as part of the childcare complex? Speaker 5: The condition requires a 10 metre landscape buffer. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that means it should be separate from the use? Speaker 5: Yes. So they have a four metre landscaped... Dense landscaped area. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And at the moment, the canopy trees in that planting appears to have failed, and there's mainly just small loess shrubs and a few... Yeah. A lot of... Like I think it's either Calismans, Lignis, or Melaleucas that have...

01:05:00 Speaker 5: But we understand that might have just been the planting. I don't think it... Mayor Wilkie: If you could give us an idea of the site to... Figure two site plan, an attachment one, could you just... I'm having trouble reading that on a small screen. Could you point out where the 10 metre buffer is meant to be, the road... Where the green is. Speaker 5: So that's... This is Hofmann Drive here, Hofmann Drive. Mayor Wilkie: Can we see the hole in the... Where we go in this? Speaker 5: Oh no, that way. Can we... Yeah, there. So this is Hotham Drive, Council Pathway here, the Hoth is here, Council Pathway, this is where the bioretention basin is, driveway, that point there is about 10 point something, and that's the 10 metre setback, and that's a 4 metre setback here.

01:06:00 4 metres, so 10 metres to that point. Mayor Wilkie: So ideally where should that 10 metre setback be? Speaker 5: So 10 metre landscaping of what's existing and what's approved should go to that area, and this is all play area that they're wanting to utilise. So they need it as flat area, whereas this is all to be densely planted out with trees and understory species. Mayor Wilkie: Is that where some of the plantings depart? Speaker 5: Yes, oh yeah, yeah, yes. Mayor Wilkie: Well, they're premature. Yes, yes. Immature. Councillor Lorentson: Immature, yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Can you outline the reasons why the applicant is submitting these proposals? I'm thinking in terms of childcare regulations and number of kids allowed in childcare centre. So there is a regulation that stipulates that this is a minimum amount of open space or recreational area for the school.

01:07:00 So... Speaker 5: So... So we have been, we have been trying to, we have been negotiating with the applicant. They were advised as part of the preliminary pre-lodgement meeting that there was a 10 metre setback as part of the information request, so that's being conveyed to the applicant. They've indicated that for sort of financial viability of a centre you need up around that 100 children roughly. And with that, yes, then there's the number of staff that are required and then each child is required to provide X square metre of open space. So for a centre of 96 people, they need this area of open space for each child. So there is, as you note, they are looking at moving the boundary two metres across.

01:08:00 I have asked, could they not widen, widen or change the configuration? To, to accommodate and give us the greater setback, but that wasn't part of their, part of their option. Speaker 2: We'd certainly like to see a childcare centre in the overall development of the Noosa Civic, noting that it is a consistent use in the visitor mixed use precinct to the north. It would suggest to me that this is not a suitable site for this use on, on a number of levels because they can't, you know, we've had the requirement for the landscaping and so they've gone into this with, in the knowledge that it needed to have that landscaping, so they're trying to fit this use on the site with those constraints. There is an application at the moment that Council is assessing for the visitor mixed use zone.

01:09:00 So that's something that we're looking at. So there's no development that has occurred there at this point and certainly if they're intending to develop in the future, it's an opportunity for them to look at their development in the visitor mixed use zone to see whether they can accommodate the issues. Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Mayor Wilkie: Is there the capacity to fit a 96 child childcare centre in the mixed use area? Is there a lot of sufficient size that would allow the open space required? Speaker 5: Not in the current, so we've got the proposal in with us at the moment. We've gone through the information request for the site to the north, the village mixed use. No, there's no, based on their current design, which is the cinema, the shops, the supermarket, offices. No, there's no sort of space available there. Speaker 2: But if. It is a four hectare lot. Yeah. It's a four hectare lot. Yes. So there is a lot of space available. Mayor Wilkie: But the way they've configured it at the moment, something would have to come out to fit a childcare

01:10:00 centre. Yes. That's right. But if that was done, would that, would a childcare centre fit in there at this size? Speaker 5: Oh, as Patrick said, it's 4,000 square metres. Yes. Four hectares. Four hectares, sorry, four hectares. Yes. 40,000 square metres. Yeah. Speaker 2: And the size? Speaker 5: What was the question? About 2,500. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, because of the applicant seeking a childcare centre, if we put aside the inconsistent use side, and just look at the development design, in essence, the, if we were to achieve the 10 metre setback. Yes. Then we would say to forego the fact, I think you, you, you previously advised that because of topography, the, the bioretention basin can only go there. Yeah. And there's a driveway.

01:11:00 So if we say forego the 10 metres to the west of the driveway, we're looking at a fairly small area to meet the current scheme requirements in terms of the 10 metres. It's what, is that 15, 20 metres by six metres? So that's. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, roughly. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So about 120. Yeah. So, the other option, as you say, is rather than going out to immediate, you could go, extend the block in a different direction and, and get that setback. Speaker 5: Noting that the, the village mixed use site to the north, the application that has come in has got an area that's currently undeveloped on that village mixed use site. At the rear of the site? At the rear, yeah. So they haven't got any plans for that as of yet. All that we've seen. Councillor Lorentson: And Dean, so I'm going through my head about childcare centre, whether they can reduce the numbers.

01:12:00 You mentioned that it may not be economically feasible. Can I understand that a little bit more? So at what point does a childcare centre, and, and I know that's true, I know that there's a certain number where it's just not economically viable to, to monitor childcare setback. Can I understand what that number is? I, I can't tell you. Speaker 5: Yeah, that, that's what the, the applicant has advised me and that's what their provider has advised them. So, I'm assuming it's government funding and costs and, and staffing. Yeah. Speaker 1: And, and it's not really a block of funding consideration. I know it is for an applicant to make it stack up from a numbers perspective. But we don't look at that in terms of suitability for, you know, median funding schemes, whether it's a viable project. Because I guess that comes down to what level of profit margin you want to, you know, make out of a project. So, yeah, I guess that's what we've just put the question. And, and hasn't it been, we've been seeking to try and negotiate to get them to either

01:13:00 reduce the scale or modify the layout to try and get that buffer to the 10 metres, which is set out in those improvements. Obviously, they haven't moved on that, which is why they're, they're sticking with the four metres as proposed. And, and the outdoor areas, we understand is the minimum area that they're required to have based on the number of children that they will be capable. So, if they were to reduce the scale, say to 80, that that would potentially shrink the building slightly and may provide that sufficient space to get the buffer to the 10 metres. But obviously, they're not seeking to, to do that. The other option is, is with, they're able to modify the lot boundaries to provide them that extra bit of space and land to cater for that. Noting that they're really seeking to adjust the boundaries. Yeah, you can just see it on that. By two metres. By two metres. They've already made some adjustments there to alter the boundary across. So, that's another option for them to be able to, to take a little bit more of that extra land off the lot to the, to cater for that extra space.

01:14:00 Councillor Lorentson: So, Richard, the 10 metre buffer, that's non-negotiable from what I'm, I'm listening to. From our perspective. From your perspective. Yes. And the social outcomes, I don't know the wide scripted nature of the plan, because there are other options to the developer. Which. Make childcare a consistent use. And I think that's, that's part of the reasons for, that's a significant part of the reasons for refusal is that it's an inconsistent use for the site. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Yes, last. And, and having that, that 10 metre buffer is really an essential part of our Noosa landscaping and, and our field. Because when we go out to the aquatic centre and then there's a tennis court, you have those really nice buffers. And it, you, you don't, you don't, you feel as though, you know, you're in nature basically.

75 minutes in ¶

01:15:00

01:15:00 You're not feeling like it's one parking lot from one to the next. And then one area where there's not a 10 metre buffer is in Pacific, right behind Sandy Bolton's office. And I always find that that's very, it's just, it's not big enough to, to really give the Noosa feel. So is, is that right? So that, so that the buffers are really important for our Noosa feel that we're, that we want to adhere to. Speaker 5: My understanding with the appeal, it was a very significant factor in terms of the subdivision appeal that it was to achieve a park-like, like setting. And the council has very much pushed for that, that landscape buffer to be provided. Noting that it's not just for this site, that it goes to the sites next door and the innovation zone further to the south as well. Councillor Wegener: So it, that's consistent with the, the aquatic centre and that, that, that area there. Speaker 2: Noosa's certainly established about having built form within a vegetated environment. That the vegetation is a very dominant element and not the built form.

01:16:00 And, you know, when Noosa Civic was created, they created the open space covenants or areas around the site to provide that buffer so that you didn't have a, a dominant built form in that area. And the park-like setting concept has been a consistent theme through the master planning of the Noosa Civic, NV1 and NV2. And certainly the conditions are reflecting that long-held intent. Mayor Wilkie: Can you talk about the car parking provision? Are the car parking provisions on site? And are they adequate or not? Speaker 5: We had, they're slightly under, but we did have Stuart Holland, who we use expensively and he's been used in a lot of the, he's very familiar with the Civic and has been a party to a lot of council's appeals. He reviewed the car parking and had to go back twice, I think, or once to them and he was satisfied that the numbers would be sufficient for the proposal. Okay. And the layout. Yeah. He also raised, however, there are the, there's the bike parking, push bike parking.

01:17:00 Which is where? I just can't, I just can't hear that one. Mayor Wilkie: I apologise, my screen is too small for me. No, that's all right. I don't understand a lot of these elements. Speaker 5: It's in front of those four here. It's in front of those four here. It's in front of those four here. The bike parking. So this is a pathway. It's, it's all in here. Okay. That's the, the bicycle parking. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And how do these car parks work here? Are they? Speaker 5: The tandem ones. And so their scheme. Mayor Wilkie: It's meant to be, it's meant to be parking. Yes, that's correct. Speaker 5: Yeah. The planning. Standard arrangement. That's what our planning scheme requires. Or allows. Okay. Allows for. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Stuff to potentially be parked in at, at times by visitor cars.

01:18:00 Well, it's, yeah, I suppose so. Speaker 5: Well, most of the time they're going to be there. I suppose if a, if a centre lasts from, you know, it's open, most of the stuff will be there. So yeah, that's what our planning scheme allows. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Just interesting if, if stuff, if a spot is vacant and a visitor pulls up. Yep. Councillor Lorentson: So Nadine, if we refuse the application, there's been a lot of expense. Yep. These applications don't just happen. There's a cost. If the applicant is agreeable to suspending the currency period and working with council for a mediated outcome, that would be of benefit to him. And potentially, you know, we might reach a win-win situation. Have we passed that point of mediation? Or is there still opportunity to work with the applicant?

01:19:00 Speaker 5: We've been, through the whole process, we have indicated that we, you know, we desire a 10 metre landscape setback. So we have tried. Prior to this meeting, the report being finalised, I asked if they could increase the setback. Because it would have changed. I think, you know, there might have been some changes. They indicated no. But a decision hasn't been made. So we can go back to the applicant. But it has been extended until this round of meetings. I can ask. Councillor Lorentson: That's about all I can do. That would be great, Nadine. Because I think the sentiment is from, not necessarily from all the councillors, is that we'd love a child care centre. But it's, again, got to work within, you know, within the, you know, you know, the parameters of the NUSA plan and community expectations. Speaker 5: If our top councillors would.

01:20:00 Councillor Lorentson: Can I, can I throw that at the table? Maybe a discussion for the general meeting. But just to go back to the applicant to see if there's any appetite to negotiate. Mayor Wilkie: Well, I think that's, that's implicit that we always want a good outcome. But I think we can't condition that at this. No. No. We're the only recommendations we can make. What we can make here is to move it forward to the general committee because of the significance of the issue. We can condition that recommendation from the general. Councillor Lorentson: Or we can just ask the applicant between now and the general meeting if they have any appetite to just consider some of the issues that we've discussed here tonight. Mayor Wilkie: Sometimes it takes a refusal to send a message. Yeah. That we're serious. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I can do that. Yeah. So I'm going to move that we move the application to the general meeting.

01:21:00 Again, due to the significance of the matter. A mover please. I'll move it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie. Seconder. Councillor Wegener. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just before you do. Oh, excuse me. Just for the general. I've just been looking at the mappings. It would be good to understand the width of the buffer for the Walter Hay Iny Creek component of the Noosa Business Centre. Just measuring it off, it appears like 10 metres is the tree cover in there. Plus there's also in that case. Speaker 5: Yeah, it's 10 metres as well. Councillor Wegener: It is 10 metres? Yeah. Yeah. Before we vote on it, we should probably ask the fellow councillors. Councillor Lorentson: They have indicated they wanted to speak. So I'll... Councillor Jess? You're allowed to ask questions. Councillor Phillips: Questions. Councillor Lorentson: Questions. Not to speak. Always nice to meet you. Councillor Phillips: That's right. Can I ask some questions? Couple of questions please. I might have two or three in this. During the assessment, maybe first from my own knowledge and anyone online, during the

01:22:00 assessment for refusal for this, is there a needs assessment done on child cares within the area? Like part of my local knowledge is that there's Appleberries and Little Lambs nearby. However, they're both at capacity. Little Lambs, Feeds, Good Shepherd, Appleberries, it's more with government subsidy. Is there those things taken into consideration around why we would need a child care in the area, given that we know there's going to be more people, workers in that area in the future? So... Speaker 5: No. A needs assessment hasn't been undertaken. But we know that the planning has been done. The planning scheme is supportive of a child care centre in the village mixed use zone to the north and not this side. So there is the capacity to have a child care centre in that locality. Councillor Phillips: Okay. But we don't know if, I think that was something you said, if there isn't, there's space there,

01:23:00 but they haven't... Speaker 5: The current design doesn't facilitate a child care centre in that village mixed use zone application. Speaker 2: We've had this application for what, nearly two years? Two years. At that time, the application was received. There was no application for the visit of mixed use. We didn't know what was happening there. That site hasn't been cleared at this stage. No. But the mix use happened. It was... Yeah. So as things have evolved, we've become probably a bit more informed of their capacity to develop that site, their intent to develop that site. We see that there's a good opportunity for them to align the development there with the things in the juices. Speaker 5: And as I said, there is, with the current application we've got in, so the village mix used to say that big. Yeah. And the current application proposal only comes to, you know, two thirds of the site. So there is an area there that hasn't been, that we haven't seen.

01:24:00 There's no application over that. And that would be a consistent zone for this use. Councillor Phillips: Right. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Councillor Phillips: I guess, yeah. And also just with assessments of this, I start thinking of like the transport around the area. If all of a sudden we don't have a childcare in that area and people are driving through Tewantin and Sunshine and the impact that has on our traffic management. So does that, is that considered when we look at refuse all of this as well? Speaker 5: Again, I think that comes back to our basic, our basic sort of premise on this one, that there is an area that we can use. There is an area within the civic that is zoned for a childcare centre. So there is a zone. So I think we, we accept that, yeah, it'd be great to have a childcare centre within the precinct. We support that. But again, this site, this development, this proposal hasn't quite got there for us. Okay. Councillor Phillips: And my last question, I guess, potentially around that 10 metre buffer is childcare.

01:25:00 I look at the operational perspective of that. They're obviously wanting outdoor play because we want our kids outdoors. Yep. Is that, do you believe, is that why they're not willing to move on that area? Yes. Because they want outdoor play. Speaker 5: That's correct. Yeah. They need that outdoor play area out the front. Councillor Phillips: Of course. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Nicola. Yep. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And can I remind councillors in the gallery, if you have any questions, please raise your hand and I'll ask. Thank you. Yes. Okay. So all in favour, please. Thank you. Okay. So let's move to the next matter on the agenda. Sorry to interrupt. So NCU160070.01. Okay. There is an application for a minor change to development approval for a material change of use of premises. Commercial business type three.

01:26:00 Vette at 69 Mary Street, Noosaville. Welcome back. Tarik, can you give us a summary of the application in front of us? Speaker 4: So there was an approval issue in 2016 for the Vette on the corner of Mary and Rita Street. The applicant has lodged a minor change to that existing approval to increase the internal GFA of the Vette. So they're looking to go from 183 up to 240 square metres of GFA. They're looking to add an X-ray room, an extra consult room, an office, and just rearrange the internal floor layout just to make it a little bit more user-friendly. Their applicant has actually requested to enter into an infrastructure agreement to pay contributions in lieu of one additional on-site car park that's required. So the original approval required 10 car parks. They provided 11. The current application requires 12 to be provided. So with the current design and layout of the existing site,

01:27:00 they're unable to provide that additional car park on-site without requiring removal of additional vegetation, which is not the desired outcome from our perspective. So the recommendation is to approve the requirements of the proposal and enter into an infrastructure agreement with the applicant to provide contributions. Councillor Lorentson: We've got questions. Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Wegener. No questions? Questions from the gallery? Do we have a busy... Councillor Stockwell, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll just move the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: I'll second it. Great. And questions, Councillor Wilkie? Mayor Wilkie: How busy is this vet clinic? You could suggest that they're doing a thriving business if they're wanting to expand. Speaker 4: I believe so, yes. So I don't think it's to increase the demand. I think it's just to fit what they're currently operating at. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. To accommodate current demand. Speaker 4: Yeah. So I went out on site a few weeks ago

01:28:00 and there was only two or three cars in the car park and then a couple of staff parked on site as well. So there was sufficient on-site parking when I was there, but I guess it's ebbs and flows of pick-ups and drop-offs and things like that where the car parking might be a bit more difficult. Mayor Wilkie: So there's 11 there, 12's required. Have you ever seen a car parked full? Speaker 4: I've not been out there enough to kind of comment on that, but I believe it would be full probably at the pick-ups and the drop-offs, but the applicant hasn't really given any indication about that. Councillor Lorentson: Tyler, I do visit the kink, or should I say my dog, my Labrador Piper does, not me, and I've never seen the car park full. I think there's only a very limited amount of vets there and it's always really well managed. Yeah. Great. Any? No? No. So all in favour, please. Great, no. Thank you. And I think that brings us to...

01:29:00 the last report for consideration of this committee, and it's report 5.5, a further report, MCU21-0110, Application for Material Change of Use, Resort Complex and Ancillary Bar Food and Drink Outlet, Outdoor Sport and Recreation and Club, Minor Extension to Exist in Clubhouse, at 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa, Heads. And if I could start with just an overview. I note the matter will probably be moved to general because of the significance of the matter, so we'll continue asking questions today. But please, a summary of what's in front of us. Okay. Speaker 2: This is a 106-bed resort that is proposed at Noosa Springs.

90 minutes in ¶

01:30:00

01:30:00 It also has an ancillary bar, food and drink outlet, outdoor sport and recreation. And it's brought in club use through the most recent other change to the application. I've also got Will Lowe here at the table. He's our senior environment officer, so he'll be able to assist with questions regarding biodiversity and bushfire. This has got, as you know, this one's been around for a while. It was almost one year ago. It was a year and a half ago that a report was first put to Council with a recommendation to approve the application. It might be worth just bringing up the proposal plans, specifically page three, just so I can maybe talk to the development. I'll let you bring that up. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, so which attachment are we on? Speaker 2: Proposal plans, attachment six. Proposal plans, attachment six, yep.

01:31:00 Proposal plans, attachment six, yep. So, I'll just go through the page three. This is like a site plan, and it shows the split zoning that's applied to the site, and it also has the 2.5 odour unit line. And the site under the previous planning scheme was all open space recreation. That's the 2006 scheme. And when the implementation, or the implementation, of the site was done, we had no additional support. The design of the 2020 scheme was identified that the Park Ridge development, which was intended to be a resort facility, didn't eventuate as such. The approval was a multiple dwelling approval and it allowed for either permanence or short-term residence and the take-up has been primarily permanent residence. So that opportunity or that preference that was part of the master planning for this area wasn't realised.

01:32:00 And so the new scheme addressed that by applying a tourist accommodation zone to this part of the site. It was probably quite opportunistic really because at that time we didn't know that we were going to be getting the Olympics. And so it's a great opportunity for Noosa to provide further accommodation, particularly luxury accommodation that's proposed in this location. The reason for the split zoning was to create a buffer between the series treatment plant and the resort. And also, I think, to recognise the open space activities that were occurring on the land. There was no science that was applied at that time to determine where that line should be. Interestingly, the 2.5 open space zone was not applied. Part of that zoning has allowed for tourist accommodation zoning within the 2.5 open unit line.

01:33:00 And also, importantly, the existing facilities on the site, being the resort building and the clubhouse and car parking, take up the majority of what was zoned tourist accommodation. So in our assessment of this application, it was always a ground-truthing exercise. In terms of the suitable location on the site for the resort to be located. And that was around the ODA buffer. So the applicant has provided an ODA report that's been reviewed by our external consultant. And the methodology used is one that's recommended by DES and also applied in the Planning Environment Court of using the 2.5 ODA unit line to determine that area where it's appropriate for the development to occur. The buildings are fully contained outside of the ODA line.

01:34:00 There is some recreation area associated with some of the tennis courts and part of the pool that's outside of that area. Noting at the moment we've got four tennis courts on the site, which are primarily all located outside of that area. There is conditions that are sort of jumping ahead, but there are conditions that are recommended to address those outdoor areas. And they should be used to make sure that the use of it won't result in many impacts to the users. So very vigorous assessment of the ODA through the course of the assessment. Unity Water did not make a submission to the application. They were not a referral authority.

01:35:00 But we engaged with them as we understood that they may have an interest in the development. And they made comment through the process around the reporting, around the suitability of the site. Again, but no science has been provided by Unity Water in the assessment of the suitability. That science was done by the applicant and reviewed by our consultant. And found it as verified? And supported the location of the buildings and with conditions how the outdoor areas are used. Mayor Wilkie: The consultant is an ODA specialist. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, Councillor Wilkie. Can I ask that we ask questions after the overview, please? Yes. Speaker 2: So ask as we go? I mean, I don't mind. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I'll agree to that. Please. Sorry. Informal meetings. So, yes. Speaker 2: The expert was an ODA expert.

01:36:00 Thank you. That we've used. He's an acoustic and ODA expert. And we've used him on a number of applications and appeals. Yeah. Yeah. So there's a whole range of matters that needs to be assessed through this. And ODA was the primary matter. Built form was also looked at in terms of the appearance of the building. Noting the built form existing within Moosa Springs, within the resort facilities, the clubhouse and Parkridge. The buildings exceed the height allowances. Initially, they were significantly over the height. But they've made modifications. They took a level off at the lower level of the site. They removed the level and put a rooftop terrace in. And that has primarily addressed the height of the building in that location. There is some still minor exceedance.

01:37:00 The open space zone has a, you know, an open space zone. An 8 metre height limit. The tourist accommodation zone has a 12 metre height limit. So the majority of the built form in the open space area is under the 8 metre height limit. There are parts that do go above that, the height limit. That's primarily related to the roof form. There's some setback issues in terms of the double storey car park, which is a new storey above the existing one. And then there's the existing car park on that western boundary. That setback's 0 metres. Both the land, the golf course land and this site are in the same ownership. And there's a covenant that prevents them from being sold separately due to the water treatment that occurs through the golf course. They need to stay in the same ownership. So there are trees within the golf course. This site is really away from any sort of street scape.

01:38:00 So those setback variations are considered reasonable, similar to one of the setback variations to the tennis courts. There's an infinite 20 metre setback. Ranges, I think, from about 15.6 metres to 22 metres on the tennis courts. Those tennis courts were sited in that location because when the initial application came in, it was only proposed to have three tennis courts. And they were sited in an area that's identified as core koala habitat. There were submissions around the loss of a tennis court. So the applicant modified it to four tennis courts. It was still in the core koala habitat area. We were not supportive of that. So they've moved the tennis courts to a location where they're going to be sited above car parking. And we now retain the vegetation that's mapped as core koala habitat. And there is a separate setback.

01:39:00 There's a separate setback variation to the eastern boundary for the topmost building, building five. It accords with the setback requirement under the tourist accommodation zone, but not the setback requirement under the open space recreation zone. Site cover and plot ratio. Again, the plot ratio that's allowed under the tourist accommodation zone is about 15,000 square metres of GFA. This sits at around 10,000 square metres of GFA. Although it's spread out over both the zones, it's still well under. From a site cover point of view, it's right on the threshold. I think it's a couple of hundred metres under what's allowed. If you were to apply, sorry, that under both the zonings, but noting that the amount that's in the open space area is more than what would normally be allowed in the open space area. Again, that came back to our ground truthing.

01:40:00 In general, I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing to determine what was the reasonable area for tourist accommodation to occur on the site. So the mentality that we've applied there. There are a number of reports that were provided with the application, traffic, car parking, bushfire, water quality, quantity. They've all been reviewed by external consultants and found to be adequate. Adequate car parking, adequate bushfire, measures in terms of water quality, water quality, the setbacks of the buildings, the hazardous vegetation, and the capacity for occupiers of the buildings to take refuge in some of the other buildings on site, and if needed, to go and seek refuge on the golf course. There were some acoustic issues that were raised relating to a loading dock near the

01:41:00 – on that service road, so to speak, where the number 6 is. Our acoustic consultant has requested that if we were to approve the application, that we include a condition that requires further assessment of noise impacts and that any mitigation measures identified as being needed through those reports be implemented. What else is there? There's a bit in this one. There's 120 koala trees proposed to be planted on the golf course as an offset to vegetation removed on site, and also 25 mossy feed trees also proposed to be planted on the golf course. I think you don't want to cover it. And sorry, I should – and so to cover it, I'm going to go to the next slide.

01:42:00 If you go back to – that was the original report that was put to Council back in July, officer recommendation. At that time, Councils were not supportive of the proposal. There were some grounds of refusal that were prepared. But prior to it going to the – and that was voted on, and a refusal was supported by Councils at the general meeting. It didn't get to the ordinary meeting because they haven't been stopped the clock. When the clock recommenced, we talked to the council. We were told to bring it back to Council with the same recommendation. And the applicant at that time made another change to the application in November last year by bringing in the club use. And so the existing clubhouse is proposed to be modified with an additional 105 square metres of GSA and some internal rearrangements. Because that was bringing in new use into the application, it was another change. It took it back to the beginning of the process. The Council was not able to decide it.

01:43:00 And so that was the proposal. And that brings us to today. So we've got the updated set of plans, including the clubhouse. The officer recommendation remains the same. The grounds of refusal that were voted on and supported by Council have been refined. And they're contained within the further report that was to go to Council in November of 2023. So if Councils are still of a mind to refuse the application, they're the grounds I suggest that you refer to. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Patrick. Questions? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Chair. We heard during the deputation that the sensitive receptors would be affected by odour from the serious treatment plate. Is that referring to, the sensitive receptor, would that be affected by odour from the treatment

01:44:00 We're in this, sorry, on this side of the, this, the zonal line. Is that what it's meant by? Speaker 2: Well, the potential for... Sensitive receptor is a person, is that right? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, that's right. So any person who could be on this side of the zonal line could potentially be affected by it. Speaker 2: That's right, and there is recommendation for the use of those, the times that that area can be used. That it was put forward by our consulting odour expert to demonstrate that if the, those areas we use at that time, that it would be suitable and meet the threshold for not causing immediate impacts. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So all this green area is open space rec? That's correct. Could you just explain what sort of structures these are in the open space rec zone and whether they're consistent?

105 minutes in ¶

01:45:00

01:45:00 Yeah. Speaker 2: So they're not consistent, they're the, they form part of the accommodation and the, it's really, it's a sort of a U shape that's made up of five pavillions that sort of step down the site. So those buildings, the use of those buildings for a resort is inconsistent with the intent of the, well it's an inconsistent use for the open space recreation zone. And the amount of site coverage in, if you were to look at the amount, that's a lot of space. It's 10% site cover, that 1500 square metres, it would exceed the amount of site cover that's allowed, technically under the, under the zone, as I said before, we looked at it from a ground-truthing exercise as to where it was appropriate for that tourist accommodation zone really to be, and hence why we consider it suitable in terms of meeting the requirements under the, under the zone. So if I understand correctly, you're saying this is more suitably, would be more suitably zoned as tourist accommodation?

01:46:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 2: That land is a consistent use in the tourist accommodation zone, but, are you, am I saying that that land would be more suited to be zoned as tourist accommodation? Yes. Well, with the ground-truthing that's been done, yes. Mayor Wilkie: And what do you, planning scheme amendments could solve that issue? Speaker 2: If Council was of a mind to interrogate that further, certainly we, you know, a planning scheme amendment would, could align that zoning to the 2.5-metre, 2.5-odd-unit line. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Interesting. Questions, Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, you commented that you didn't think there was a lot of science in the determination of the tourist accommodation zone, but looking at the mapping, it's very clear to me that no part of that mapped tourist accommodation zone is underneath the biodiversity overlay,

01:47:00 is that correct? Speaker 2: If you don't mind, I'll just have a quick look at the mapping to see if I can see that. Sorry. I wanted to take it on that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, take it on that, because we're going to do it. The other aspect is your comment there that the, that part of the lot would be, could be more, considered more suitable for tourist accommodation zone. For a general committee, can you identify whether we have any other, as a general committee, any other land that we're zoning under the current amendments or under the 2020 amendments where we've put tourist accommodation underneath the biodiversity overlay? Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Councillor Wegener? Mayor Wilkie: I have another question. No, you go. Sorry, Tom. No, no, no. Councillor Wegener: You go. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you, Patrick. You mentioned that the, all of the site was open space recreation under the 2006 scheme.

01:48:00 Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: So, is that correct? And that prompted it to be zoned Open Space Recreation, more tennis courts, more well impacted structures. Speaker 2: The golf course itself is also in the Open Space Recreation area, so that kind of club activity, that sporting activity. I might have to get clarification whether it was just sort of aligning it with those predominant uses that were on the site, the golf course use primarily. Mayor Wilkie: So perhaps extending the golf course up there, that was part of it? Speaker 2: Well, no, no. I was more in terms of just aligning it with the predominant land use that was in that area, as opposed to suggesting that the golf course should be up there. Right. Councillor Lorentson: Council, so can I just interrupt? Just for the new councillors, questions from the gallery are asked after the table has completed their questions.

01:49:00 And I will get to them, putting your hand up. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: So was... The Open Space Recreational area, was that set before the master plan was changed and the big chunk sold off to Elysium? Or after it was, the big chunk was sold off? Speaker 2: I'd have to go back into previous planning schemes and probably the 2016 to understand what designing was and the transition of designers to give you that answer. Councillor Wegener: Okay. To me, that's important. Second point, you mentioned the ownership. And I kind of, I missed a beat there. Is it all on the golf course and the clubhouse and everything, and the new area? Is that all owned by the same... Speaker 2: It's all in the same ownership. And it all has to be in the same ownership because of a covenant that links the water quality treatment for both lots.

01:50:00 Okay. Councillor Wegener: And is it all in the same ownership? Would it... You said it's all in one ownership. Would it be impossible for them to move that and put it on the golf course as the gem life applicants wanted to do? Speaker 2: I'm not sure I understand the nature of the question, but, I mean, the applicant has responded to the scheme as it is at the moment in terms of that's where the tourist accommodation zone is and have sought to put the tourist accommodation on the golf course. And within that zone and within the surrounding area. Councillor Wegener: But, no, you just said the tourist accommodation is also going into the, what do we call it, the open recreation zone. Speaker 2: No. The golf course is owned open space and as is part of the site. So, this development is located in the tourist accommodation zone and it does extend into

01:51:00 that open space zone where the tennis courts were. The golf course is totally zoned open space. The golf course is open space recreation. And so, the applicants, in my mind, have sought to align as much as possible with the existing zoning by putting the resort here, to putting it on the golf course. You would ask the question as a planner, why are you putting it on the golf course when you've got part of the site that's zoned tourist accommodation? Also noting that it would put the resort in close proximity to some of the existing housing houses that are part of this development. Councillor Lorentson: A question that was posed by Rhett Duncan in his deputation and it's a question that's been asked a few times and I haven't got an answer yet. So, I'm going to ask the question.

01:52:00 If the hotel was existing, would Council allow a sewerage treatment plan to be built to reduce the number of visitors from a luxury hotel? Speaker 2: If you could demonstrate that it wasn't going to have an adverse impact on the hotel, then that would be a considerable factor in opening your mind to support it. Councillor Lorentson: It would be an immediate issue that would have to be improved and disproved. That's right. Speaker 2: And in this case, we're sort of doing the opposite. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. The application in front of us, Patrick. Other than the... The application in front of us. Okay. ...inclusion of the clubhouse to the clubhouse, in terms of layout and scale of the application, has there been any change to what was presented to us in 2023? Speaker 2: So, when the application was originally made, it was 112. Yeah. To address that...

01:53:00 106. Yeah. And now down to 106. That was to address the height, that poor chair, and some movement of the tennis courts. This most recent change, the club change of 105 square metres is the only amendment to the plans. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of bush-related risk and consequences, you mentioned there's adequate revision. Community race is a serious concern. That was one of the... Yeah. ...primary concerns from the 415. Yeah. ...submitters that objected to the application. Again, any changes to the application in front of us that addresses or identifies that the applicant has listened to some of the concerns of the residents? Speaker 2: I'll let... We'll answer that. But before I say, before it all starts, the submissions that were received, about nearly

01:54:00 390 of them were a pro forma. So... Yeah. They were all standard. Yeah. They were all standard, and they raised a number of issues. And a number of those issues were addressed through the process, such as the tennis courts, and the koala habitat trees. In terms of bushfire, I thought that you'd maybe talk to... Absolutely. Speaker 3: So, the application provided a bushfire hazard assessment, which was reviewed by a third party on behalf of council. The outcome of that bushfire hazard assessment was that it was a bushfire hazard assessment, a state-run initiative that situated the hotel infrastructure in a suitable location and met the separation distance it provides, part of the state planning policy. And as part of that state planning policy, there's underlying documents, one being Bushfire Resilience Community Use Technical Reference Guide, and that provides guidance with regards to things such as evacuation, which I think might be one portion that you were talking

01:55:00 about here. So there's two options as far as the SPV is required, the state plan policy, where evacuation is or we're limited in this situation. At the moment we've got an evacuation plan for the entire area of the Springs and in relation to the Springs there is a procedure in place to provide alternate evacuation. Routes from the estate are required, so one of those routes will take vehicles straight to Eny Creek Road, the other will take traffic by the Garameen Sports Track and out onto Eny Creek Road. Both routes will only be implemented under the direction of QPS and QFPS. In addition to that, the SPV also allows for a safe assembly area, that's what the applicant has provided as far as safe evacuation areas.

01:56:00 So that's the existing buildings. And then a further evacuation route which will take occupants and users of the site to the golf course outside of the bushfire prone area. Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of concern that if there was a fire that there would be chaos on the roads. That all the occupants of the hotel would dump in their cars and it would become jammed and people wouldn't be able to leave. But that's not what's actually proposed. It's proposed that there is a capacity for people to take refuge in some of the other existing buildings. Noting that the resort drive is between the hazardous vegetation and the buildings and there is a capacity for firefighting fighters to get in there to defend the space. And that the buildings are suitably located for the separation from that vegetation.

01:57:00 But, so further into the site are existing buildings. Which people can go into to seek refuge. But then if that's not adequate, they can also go into the golf course. So that risk of people jumping in their cars and creating that gridlock is being mitigated through that process. Speaker 3: Further, I'll add, the emergency routes out of the estate have been improved to provide some greater confidence in their capacity to handle traffic. This has included removing overhanging vegetation and laying and packing up asphalt residue. Both access routes are due to be removed. We do have gates to normal access but are secured with a simple key and lock which can be used to provide access in an emergency. Councillor Lorentson: We have a question from Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Apologies. I haven't really read the reports. I was in there. You can tell me. The odour assessment is the model based on the current infrastructure.

01:58:00 Noting that the block has been removed from the property. It has approximately 80 metres closer, the boundary of the existing sewerage treatment lot is 80 metres further away from the last pond, or closer to this resort than the last pond. So the question is, was the odour modelling done on the existing development or the maximum permissible development of the sewerage treatment plant? Speaker 2: It was based on some data from 2016, but there was also some odour modelling done on the existing site. So the applicant's consultant, from reading my report, came back through it again. It does talk about them being out on the site and taking samples of the odour concentrations. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So can we just get that one clarified, because I think that's really important. I'm suggesting that the sewerage treatment plant's got lawful use rights to expand.

01:59:00 And so was our modelling based on that? It is based on the existing infrastructure and treatment processes. Or, for example, if new ponds were established close to the south-west corner of the lot, would that affect the modelling? Councillor Lorentson: Good question, Councillor Stockwell. So, in terms of upgrade, again, raising the amount of the stock. It's based in the deputation that there's a risk for pension plan upgrades because of the proximity of the sewerage plant to the proposed development. That any costs in upgrades would be borne by, or worn by, residents.

120 minutes in ¶

02:00:00

02:00:00 And reference was made to sewerage upgrades. I know we had some intense conversation in this application. Can we just, for the new councillors, just run through who pays if there is odour complaints and there is a requirement or a breach of environmental act that requires the sewerage plant to upgrade? Who wears the cost of a wastewater treatment plant upgrade? I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I'll have a chop at it. Yeah. So, the obligation for compliance for odour rests with the permit holder. So, in this case, Union Water have a number of conditions and their environmental relevant authority and their permit that they have to comply with.

02:01:00 If they're found to be in breach of their conditions and they're not managing the odour correctly, then that's a good thing. If they're required to under that permit, then they can be required, compliance action can be taken by the department to require them to make adjustments and changes and modifications to meet those permit requirements. So, it comes down to first step, if there are issues, is there a compliance with the current obligations under that permit? And if not, then that can then trigger an action which may result in further measures to be instructed. All of those who have managed those particular impacts that have been created. Certainly there is an element that's relevant in terms of urban encroachment. And obviously there's a term when referred to in the Planning Act around urban encroachment where there are existing facilities that need to be protected from urban encroachment so that we don't have a situation where you reverse amenity. We get new people moving into an area and then start complaining about existing infrastructure

02:02:00 that's well-established. Obviously in this case, this is where the science comes into it around testing, is the current facility as proposed adversely impacting on that? There's two elements of it. Is the permit holder complying with their permit obligations? The further issue is whether the urban encroachment piece is creating a situation where the permit holder can't comply with their permit obligations. So that's the two elements essentially being raised. And if they are found that they aren't complying, then you would have been to undertake those adjustments. And as you go to India, is it another similar location where they had to do significant upgrades? However, in this case, obviously there's been a robust assessment undertaken of both the potential impacts and hence recommendation as proposed by officers.

02:03:00 Which obviously, you know, satisfied that it can be addressed. Councillor Lorentson: The deputation also made reference to a new, I don't know whether it's new or not, but Session 391, and implications of Session 391 contravention. Can I get some more information on that? Just to understand that. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Questions around the table? Mayor Wilkie: If I can perhaps ask what I think I have. We've heard previously, in another way, if the wastewater treatment plant was required to upgrade, would, and this was approved in its current form, would its proximity to the wastewater treatment plant prohibit the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant? If it had to expand and upgrade, would it inhibit it?

02:04:00 Speaker 2: It's a bit challenging. I suppose that's not our expertise around what kind of infrastructure is required to upgrade a treatment plant and what technology is available today that's far greater, from an ODA point of view, than what was implemented and is on site at the moment. I'm also mindful that deputation doesn't form part of the common material of the application and that we haven't really had the opportunity to consider some of these things that have been put to us today. I would disagree with that work. Mentioned, I would disagree with it as well. So, in terms of the separation of existing buildings from the site and the new building from the site. So I'm just mindful that we might need a bit more notice or specified questions to respond to there. Mayor Wilkie: Would you be able to clarify your views on what was heard in the deputation? Perhaps at the general? It's an opportunity to rebut? Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Has the applicant met with council officers discussing amending the plans between last meeting and now?

02:05:00 How much contact have you had with the applicant? Speaker 2: I've had a bit of contact and a bit of discussion around... I think I go back to some of the comments that were made at the initial council meeting around the proposal. They've said that they're open to making some changes, but then they've also said they don't want to completely redesign the development. So, you know, I think depending upon what council we're seeking, we'll probably have more understanding of the nature of that, the applicant may as well. So if it's pulling the pullback or something like that, they're probably amenable to that, pulling it away from the proposal. I'm not too sure. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say that the creation of an appropriately-sited five-star accommodation

02:06:00 hotel is desirable under the nursing planning scheme and also could help mitigate the demand for short-term accommodation? Speaker 2: It certainly is a wonderful opportunity for the nursing homes out in Queensland to have a luxury resort. And it doesn't have to be a luxury resort. It does throw your mind to, we have a lot of people that are seeking to use luxury homes for accommodation. Does an offering such as this lessen that demand? That's the question I'm asking. Speaker 1: Well, it's plausible. Certainly, it's plausible, yes. And is it safe to say that there is a huge shortage for high-end facilities across the whole of South East Queensland, particularly in the Sunshine Pass area, where there is limited to no availability of high-end facilities? Mayor Wilkie: I think it would be fair to say we want to get this right, this opportunity right.

02:07:00 Councillor Lorentson: Question to Stockwell. Mr Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The link in terms of the Olympics was raised earlier on in your overview, and the ambition for the SEQ Olympics in 2032 is to be the first carbon-neutral Olympics. Is there any part of this proposal that you would like to see changed? Is there any proposal that would contribute to achieving carbon neutrality? Speaker 2: I'd have to go... They have provided a sustainable building response. I'd have to go back through that to give you the detailed answer. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. And Patrick, one last question for me. Is there any consideration for staff accommodation to be included on site? Speaker 2: There has not been proposed as far as this development. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor... I get this. Yeah, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to... Oh, no. Councillor Lorentson: We have some questions in the galleries.

02:08:00 Just checking the tables. I'm good. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Councillor Jess. Thank you. Probably a close-on from Mayor and Councillor Stockwell's questions around... Because Patrick, you mentioned around the need for five-star at this end of the coast. Is there any way Council can look at conditions around the need for five-star at this end of the coast where it's always remaining five-star? I'm hoping I've questioned this correctly. And we don't have maybe a repeat of cool and quiet. It's probably my... So, is there... My question is, can... If the application was successful, is there a way Council can impose a condition that it always remains a five-star and maybe even that it's always local, not a franchise or something similar to that? That is probably my question. Speaker 2: We couldn't condition how it was owned or operated. Okay.

02:09:00 The compliance would have to come back to the plans and what was provided on the plans. I mean, they're seeking an approval for a resort. We don't have a five-star land use within our planning scheme. So, I would think that would be unreasonable to lock them into the standard of a hotel as a five-star. Okay. So, I don't know. I don't think there's a condition. Councillor Phillips: All right. My next question is then, has there been any consideration around transport management from them, like a shuttle bus like RVs? Speaker 2: Yeah. So, they... Because of the potential impact on the local road network from this development, it was referred to the state. So, they're accepting the application, but as part of their conditions from the state, they have to have a space available for that. We have a management plan for how people are going to be managed around the courtesy bus, so it is nothing that says they actually have to have a courtesy bus, but there is a requirement that they can accommodate it in their parking.

02:10:00 Councillor Phillips: Is that something we can impose, that there's consideration for? Speaker 2: It's probably something worth me speaking with the applicant to get their agreement for a condition in that regard. We'll get their comments on it. Councillor Phillips: And then my last point around the current tennis courts there, and during, again, if approved during construction, has the applicant considered the 150-odd young people that play every week and the community that are using those courts? Is there any consideration they're put to assisting people using that? Speaker 2: There's been no discussion around that. I think that would be quite challenging because of the new tennis courts that are going to be on an elevated platform and the construction activity that will be occurring on the site and the kind of vehicles that will be needing to access it at that time and the very close proximity of those tennis courts to the construction area.

02:11:00 Again, I can talk to the applicant about how they, you know, what the potential impacts would be and maybe the downtime and what they'd be looking to do with people that do get lessons there and the like in that time. That's good. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. I've got time for a bigger one. Thank you. Two questions. First one's a quick one. Are there any zone changes to this site in the current proposed amendments? Mayor Wilkie: No. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. The second one's a bit longer. So we've received over 400 submissions from residents and it kind of feels like they've been almost downplayed or sidelined because of having a pro-format element. I think it's reasonable that people who live in Nursesbury, Elysium, Parkridge would all share the same concerns and it's quite common for one or two people to put forward a draft submission and share that with others to make the process more efficient for people who might be a bit nervous about submitting to council and just help them along the way.

02:12:00 So I just want to be sure that those submissions, just because they were all similar, we're still taking it seriously. And the question is, are there any changes? Do we commonly get that many submissions on a development application? And with the changes that have been made to this submission or this application, if we were to put this out to public consultation again, do we think we'd get the same concerns or would they have been addressed? Speaker 2: We certainly don't downplay any submissions whether they're on a pro-form or otherwise. The report deals with the issues that are raised in the submissions. There's a section which talks about the notification and the submissions that were received. The report itself also addresses a number of those issues. The applicants are asked to provide a response to the submissions which they did and that the application was also amended through the process. So all submissions are considered and provide us valuable guidance as to the community sentiment on an application and also potentially raising issues that we wouldn't necessarily know about,

02:13:00 because we are living in close proximity. So we certainly value those submissions. The question around whether we would get the same number of submissions again, I think it's fair to say a number of the elements that people were concerned about have been addressed and maybe the report would alleviate some of those concerns. I think there's definitely people that are genuinely opposed to the result that living in close proximity would certainly make another submission. Councillor Lorentson: Good questions, Councillor Jess and Councillor Nicola. And as a councillor, and we've been through quite a few meetings on this matter, submissions were taken very seriously by the councillors. How do you move it goes to general, please, Madam Chair?

02:14:00 Seconded, please. I'll be happy to second. And can we move that this conversation, this conversation continues to the general meeting due to the significance of the matter? Thank you. All in favour? Mayor Wilkie: All in favour. Councillor Lorentson: All in favour, please. Thank you. That's unanimous. Okay. Good. Now, that's it. Mayor Wilkie: That's it? Councillor Lorentson: Great. So there are no reports for noting, no confidential session. And I now declare the meeting closed at 11.44. Next meeting will be general meeting. And note the time is 12.30, Monday 17th of June. Thank you for those in the gallery. Great conversation. Thank you to the councillors.

135 minutes in ¶

02:15:00

02:15:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: And of course to our great staff.