Ordinary Meeting - 15 August 2024 Transcript

1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:25

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

2.1 ORDINARY MEETING 18 JULY 2024 ¶

▶ 00:00:42· Carried unanimously 7-0 from council's minutes

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

4 PETITIONS ¶

▶ 00:00:58

00:01:00 medium density residential zones. I ask that this petition be referred to and received by the CEO for an appropriate response. Can I have a seconder please? Councillor Lorentson: I'll be just second. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded. Councillor Lorentson. Councillors, just a reminder this is a formal meeting so when we ask questions or speak to the motion we are standing. But questions to elicit answers. Not to further your debate. So there are no mayoral minutes of the petition. Any other petitions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. I don't think we voted on the petition. Mayor Wilkie: All in favour of the petition be received. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Experience does count. Thank you. There are no notified. Yes. Councillor Wegener: Did you acknowledge him in the country? Yes. You did? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm glad it was so memorable. He was thinking about my apologies. I'll speak louder next time.

00:02:00 There are no notified motions, no presentations and no deputations. Brings us to item 8 which is consideration of the committee reports. These are the items that were discussed at previous, at the previous planning and environment committee report and have gone through to the ordinary meeting with the recommendations unchanged. And the first one is a recommendation of the committee report. 5.2 is an application for another change to a town planning consent permit for multiple dwellings, 65 units, conference facility and vehicle hire premises at 16 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads. 5.2 is an update to the infrastructure charges resolution. 5.3 is an MCU 22-0201 application for material change of use for a car wash, food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy. And that was referred to the general committee report. The planning application is decided by delegated authority June 2024. So can I have a move and a seconder for the planning and environment committee recommendations

8.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 ¶

▶ 00:02:12

00:03:00 to be adopted please. Thank you Councillor Stockwell. We'll have a seconder please. Thank you Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. The services and organisation committee report, committee on the 6th of August had a number of items referred straight through to today. Without change, they are contract number T000078 which is a register for pre-qualified suppliers for provision of fire tech services, 6.1 is the Noosa Holiday Parks update, 6.2 is the capital program 2324 delivery status and 7.1 was a confidential item, contract number CN00644 construction of pathways, package 3 closure of, and it was closed to them, contract number 4 commercial and confidence information. So may I have a move and a seconder for the services and organisation committee recommendations to be adopted please.

8.2 SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE REPORT - 6 AUGUST 2024 ¶

▶ 00:03:18

00:04:00 Councillor Wilson, quick to her feet. Moved. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. We now have items that were dealt with at the general committee report, 5.1 which is the item the car wash was deferred to this ordinary meeting and that will come up for discussion later in this meeting. We have appeal D96 of 2024 relating to refusal MCU 240003 material change of use for short-term accommodation at 428 Cootharaba Road, Cootharaba, 6.2 appeal 1997 of 2024 relating to refusal of MCU 230101 material change of use for short-term accommodation at 561 Gympie Kin Kin Road, Kin Kin. 6.3 is appeal 1998 of 24 relating to the refusal of MCU 22 slash 0094 material change of use for child care centre at 28 Eney Creek Road, Noosaville, 6.4 annual review register

8.3 GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - 15 JULY 2024 ¶

▶ 00:04:12

00:05:00 of delegations counselled to the CEO, 6.5 was budget review BR1 the 24-25 financial year, 6.6 was the financial performance report July 2022. 6.7 annual performance report including Q4 operational plan, 2023-24 progress report. 6.8 an Emu Mountain Road shared pathway. The next item Councillor Jess Phillips would like to pull out and move a motion and that is for the Go Moosa Transport Initiatives 2023-24 evaluation and 24-25 implementation. Councillor Phillips: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move a motion in relation to this and I'm just wondering if there is a motion Mayor Wilkie: In section F of the motion, you're clarifying, no you don't need to read the whole thing, but you just need to read the change, the dates that you're clarifying.

00:06:00 Councillor Phillips: With section F, I'd like the dates clarified and clearly articulated in the motion, thank you, with the preference for the dates to be the 23rd of December to the 5th of January 2025. Mayor Wilkie: Did you wish to ask any questions about those dates, Councillor Phillips? Councillor Phillips: No, I don't, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: May I have a seconder for the motion? Councillor Phillips: I'll second. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Councillor Phillips, speak to the motion about the dates or any aspect of the motion. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. I'll keep it quite short, there's a mixed feeling in the community about this drop off zone at the surf club. And firstly I'd like to acknowledge that there is mixed opinions in the community. When I'm looking at things I'll often try and put a lens, is it effective, is it efficient? And with that in mind, I think the community would probably like to see some clear dates. Not to affect operationally though, I've asked for a preference of dates, knowing that sometimes our weather and different reasons can affect that.

00:07:00 But I think it gives an opportunity to tell our community we're listening. There are people out there that haven't been overwhelmingly supportive of this, and then there is feedback that it was successful. And so with that I'd like some more clearer dates. So then we've got some preparation around a busy period in our community. I'd also like to specifically acknowledge that this covers a time, 31st of December for New Year's Eve. And this car park was very effective for the emergency services response on New Year's Eve. So I do think that it requires some consideration. And that's why I just asked that specifically we have those dates. So community can be prepared for those dates to see the car park used in a different way to what we're used to seeing it. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you Councillor Phillips. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion?

00:08:00 Councillor Lauritsen? Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an amendment. F, that council approves the establishment of a drop off zone for the peak Christmas and New Year period. Either at Main Beach Reserve. Adjacent to New Sir Head Surf Life Saving Club. Or to a location behind the car park. Such as the area behind the bus stop on New Sir Drive. Staff will assess the options. And report back to council with recommendations by the October meetings or earlier to ensure its operational time. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone willing to second that for the purpose of debate? Councillor Phillips: I'll second. Mayor Wilkie: I moved the original motion. Sorry I'm happy to second the second. Thanks Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lauritsen? Councillor Lorentson: The primary goal of establishing a designated drop off zone is to reduce the number of cars entering Haston Street.

00:09:00 Which is a key contributor to congestion during the peak Christmas and New Year period. I'm concerned that allowing cars to drive into Haston Street or drop offs may worsen the traffic situation. Creating unnecessary delays. And frustration for drivers and pedestrians alike. I would like consideration of a drop off area to a location behind the car park. Such as the area behind the bus stop on New Sir Drive. To divert traffic away from Haston Street. This not only helps to ease congestion. But also provides an opportunity to better understand the traffic impacts. Of moving the drop off zone to a less crowded area. Also concerned that there were no options provided to Council. That we were given the surf club as the only option. The amendment provides Council and community with consideration of other options.

00:10:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Question of staff. Acting Director of Infrastructure. Shaun Walsh. Thank you Shaun. Question of staff. Has advice been provided about the viability of using the bus stop as a drop off zone. During this period. And everything else that's associated with the emergency services area. Director Walsh: Yes. So I've conferred with the traffic engineer and the team. So there's concerns for jumping to using the drop off zone and the bus stop. Because our primary obligation in that location is to save transit passengers. Under the transit program. Also noted in that location. This is a key congestion location during the entry to the Noosehead Lions Park. And the congestion that we experience is over Noosehead Drive or Noosehead Parade. The benefits of the main beach drop off zone is the result of one congestion point. Which is the Hastings Street Noosehead Drive congestion. By preventing traffic queuing up the entry car park.

00:11:00 And provides a much safer interface. Now longer term. As referenced in discussions in the general committee. A master planning exercise to look at the Noosehead Lions Park. The Noosehead bus station. The Mays car park. And the main beach you know reserve. Would provide a better integrated design outcome. But at this point for this season. We don't think that an alternative location is available. Which actually would actually assist congestion. And also we'd be very concerned about compromising public transport safety. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question. Sorry. So has the bus stop. The area behind the bus stop. Has that been considered. In terms of benefits. Traffic assessment. Etc. And has that been brought to councillors for consideration. Director Walsh: Yes. So last year we actually had a workshop with councillors. Where we actually presented the outcomes of the Noosehead bus station. Design process.

00:12:00 So and they indicated that there is the opportunity to improve circulation. And efficacy of that bus station. But it requires significant redesign of all of those spaces to meet both TransLink requirements. As well as you know make available drop off sites. So it's a viable solution in the longer term. To actually arrange a drop off area there. But within the time frames available for Christmas. And the budget available. And liaising with the TransLink community engineering requirements. We don't think it's a viable option at this stage. Because as I said under contract obligations with TransLink. We have to keep the bus station functioning in accordance with standards. Mayor Wilkie: Further questions of Director Walsh. Acting Director Walsh. Counsellors. Any councillors wish to speak. No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just thinking. Is there an opportunity to do bus. Is there another. Whether it's this location or another. Is there to actually create another drop off site.

00:13:00 I can't point them. If we look them through the maps. I can't show you. But you know. A range of car parts that could be used for a drop off. So that we actually have two. So people don't have to head to Hastings Street. Director Walsh: To the Chair. Yes. Without an appropriate detailed assessment. Our initial concerns would be that we already have traffic congestion at the location going into Noosehead lines car park. Not only that. But it also provides another 300 vehicle spaces. So by actually promoting another drop off site in that location. We're actually going to. You know. Create a further congestion on that location. And more moves around that particular roundabout. So again. I think it gets back to the desirability of a properly integrated design approach. Improve fuel costs for 25, 26. But I'd be hesitant or reluctant to actually suggest that we would achieve both. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Would people wish to speak to the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Please.

00:14:00 Mayor Wilkie: I will. I'll. I'll speak. Thank you very much for your expert advice. Shaun. The expert advice is that it's not feasible to have a drop off site at bus stop. It's untested whether it would stop cars from. It would increase the amount of cars entering Hastings Street. The purpose of the trial at the moment. To improve the flow of traffic around the Hastings Street roundabout, you don't have cars backing down the entrance ramp there, and to allow vehicles to safely unload their passengers, six or more vehicles to safely unload their passengers and gear right at the doorstep of Main Beach is a safer, very effective way to help people move around Noosa Heads during the peak period, and it's untested, and certainly the advice is no. It is to the contrary that it would be very unsafe to have a drop-off zone in an area where buses are operating as well. I appreciate there was some talk about this on Facebook this morning, and it's good that these ideas are tested, but clear at this late stage, we need, as Councillor Phillips says, we need to signal to the community what's going to happen and when, which dates.

00:15:00 Let's not confuse the community or ourselves by muddying the waters with these things. But it's good that the idea has been tested in a public forum here this morning. For that reason, I appreciate the intent, but I cannot be supporting the amendment. Yes, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: So the amendment in front of us is not a decision. The decision may be, in fact, to approve the surf club as a land drop-off area. The amendment in front of us is...

00:16:00 We have a petition of 1022 people opposing the People's Park. Our own consultation and it's reported in the report of one of us is that 60% did not approve the car park mentioned in the People's Park that they value our car parking. So the motion not only considers options, it also respects the community that we serve and what they've made really clear that they would like to be consulted in this process. So I ask that the amendment be approved and again it's a consideration. The outcome or the recommendation may come forward that may be a drop off area is for the reasons that have already been stated. So I'm just hoping around this table the preferred location.

00:17:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Lorentson, Finzel and Phillips. Against? That's Stockwell, Wilson, Wegener and Wilkie. Amendment's lost. We go back to the original motion to which Councillor Phillips has spoken. Anyone else wish to speak to the original motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Scott. I'll just restate my position. I accept that the community want consultation. I'll just reflect that when we did the livability survey we asked the question and got very clearly back from the community that it's a priority not to use green space for car parking. When we asked in the discussion paper related to the destination management plan, less than 5% of the people thought we should do nothing and the vast majority thought that not having car parking in there was just status quo. And that the vast majority wanted us to do more. We know there is more planning to do before we can do more. But I see this as a retrograde step that isn't listening to the community.

00:18:00 Mayor Wilkie: Question? Councillor Lorentson: In terms of the consultation and the question directed to the CEO, how many responses did we get for the destination management plan? My understanding and I'm throwing my recollection is about 400. Speaker 1: I'm not sure on that one particularly because the destination management plan is much broader than that. It was so much broader. Yeah, so to actually follow up into that and we're still working through those responses as we speak and I'm looking at our acting director there as well and I think that's the case. That's the case, yeah. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, another question. A number was given for an online petition. My experience with online petitions is generally 50% above, have an address of Brisbane. How would we be able to assess how many were local residents in the petition that was, the number was given?

00:19:00 Speaker 1: Which petition? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, the petition regarding the Newsteads car park. Sorry, I'll be more specific. The petition about not doing what is proposed in terms of the self-life saving car park. About not using the car park. Not closing down that car park. Speaker 1: No, I haven't done that. I don't know the answer to that one. Sorry, I might have to come back to you with that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Question? Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the motion. I think we've spoken enough so I'm going to make this really brief and I actually want to direct this to the Tewantin Newstead Lions Club. We've got the President Michael Roach here today and ex-president Ian Grew in front of us. My thanks to the dedicated volunteers for their remarkable service to our community. The Lions are the face of Noosa.

00:20:00 They warmly welcome our residents, our workers and visitors at the Lions Club. They put in long, long hours managing the car park. Not for personal gain but with the knowledge that the funds they raise will be reinvested back into the community. It's been a true pleasure to advocate over the years for what is the Lions Club. It's our most significant fundraising activity, managing the parking at Lions Park for 30 days out of 365 days a year. In particular, I want to acknowledge past president Ian Grew who was not prepared to ever take no for an answer. Your perseverance and commitment to service and the club are truly commendable and inspiring. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Yes, thank you. Councillor Wilson: I just want to point out part G, which is our commitment to a parking management plan that is already underway and a movement in place study that's proposed for 2025-26.

00:21:00 So I think that parking plan will capture all of those different options that we do want to look at. And I think I just want to note my commitment to resources being used for that purpose rather than trying to address short-term options. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Yeah. And in response to Councillor Stockwell, yes, there is strong community feedback that our green spaces ought not to be used as car parks. It's not the Noosa-looking field. And there is the question that's confronting all of us as a community is long-term as we head down Noosa Hill and look to the left during the peak period, do we want to see the entry statement to Noosa be a sea of cars or a green space where families can recreate it? That's the long-term question and the question about the legacy that we want to leave our children and our children's children.

00:22:00 But we did say when we passed the motion in March 2023 about not continuing the use of the Lions Park for car parking during school holidays and long weekends. We allowed that during the COVID situation. And this is holding fast to our commitment to the community that it would be returned as a community green space once the COVID declaration was over. We also committed to determining the long-term future of the Noosa Heads Lions Park after community consultation specifically about the use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park. And that's the reason why I'm supporting the use of the Noosa Heads Lions Park for overflow parking this Christmas. And Easter as per this motion. And also use of the Surf Club car park because we know it's the right thing to do because it does increase the flow of traffic and makes it easier for people to get around, to drop off directly at Main Beach.

00:23:00 We know the police and emergency services have requested use of this area during New Year's Eve and it makes it safer for everyone. So we know it's the right thing to do. I hope you'll support this motion. Councilor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Just to put my little two cents in. We have found through our public consultation over and over again that congestion is a big, big issue for Newsa residents down through the Hastings Street area especially during the peak seasons. We also know that through consultation doing nothing is supported by about 5% of the people. So we have to do something. And this plan is actually doing something. Putting where the rubber hits the road, we are actually doing things, making haste slowly, but I thoroughly support this and our actions going forward to addressing the congestion problem because it is a big one.

00:24:00 It's the most beautiful place on earth. Going back to the main beach, Noosa Heads, Hastings Street, the whole national park down to the river mouth, it is such a small chunk of area and it is so breathtakingly beautiful that we need to make it, maintain its beauty, not destroy that which we are trying to protect. And it brings me back to Waikiki where I spent a lot of time and that was generally considered one of the most beautiful places in the world. And they did some things to make it, keep it nice, but it's lost its soul. And that's not going to happen in Noosa while we're on watch. So thank you. We actually are addressing the problem and we want to do our best for Noosa. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yes, Councillor Finzel. Yes, so following along, I support the motion. I think this provides a great opportunity to bring everyone along with us. These are complex issues that involve many activities.

00:25:00 And I want to support this motion and we're going to move forward slowly and hopefully bring everyone with us. We've got staff, we've got experts, we've got external transport providers, we've got our retail operators, we've got our general residents and people that enjoy this place, and our businesses. So we want to go cautiously and move forward and bring everyone on the journey, acknowledging the past, the present and the future. And I think that's what we need to do. And I think as a council, everyone around the table is clearly hearing from every entity that has a voice in this space. And we want to acknowledge each one of those voices and give them the due respect that their expertise, commitment or volunteering in this space is acknowledged. So I support this. It might not be to everyone's pleasure what we're doing. These are difficult decisions, but I trust that the leadership around this table and the intentions of the people involved in this,

00:26:00 the community and the expertise that comes before us is being taken into consideration. And collectively, I hope that we can protect the crown and the jewel and that that beautiful space that everyone comes to enjoy will be celebrated. And we're at a speed bump, we're at that most difficult part where we've got to bring it to the pointy edge of challenging decision making. But I believe together we can collaborate and bring about the best solutions. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Councillor Phillips, would you wish to close? Councillor Phillips: Very short and sweet. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm just going to say a big thank you to the Lions Club as well, Tewantin Noosaville Lions Club, for their many, many years of commitment to our community. I also get really excited when I read SIG community feedback on the future of the park, number E. And I'm very excited to see, note that council's resolution on the 13th of September 2021 that allowed the concept of a one-way local loop with a bus priority lane from Noosa Drive to Noosa Parade be referred to a council workshop.

00:27:00 So I look forward to that because as some of the councillors have pointed out, we have to do something. We're here community, but we've got to meet somewhere in the middle with them. So I'm looking forward to seeing what the future holds as a new councillor. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: That's Councillor Phillips, Finzel, Wilson, Wegener, Lorentson and Wilkie. Against? Councillor Stockwell. The motion is carried. We're now on to the ordinary meeting reports. We have one item that was referred from the General Committee to the ordinary meeting, which is the MCU 220201 application. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. Now, we also need to have a move and a second for all the General Committee recommendations. Moved. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Second.

00:28:00 Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you. Now, the item that was referred to the ordinary, which is the application for a material change of use for a car wash and food and drink outlet at 34 Allen Street, Cooroy, which was deferred from the General Committee meeting due to a resolution to allow time for traffic consultants to meet and for us to get feedback for that today. Councillor Wilson, do you have a declaration? Councillor Wilson: I do. I, Councillor Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as my partner, Roy Vanderboog, made a submission to this application when it was notified for 50 in business days in 2023 in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and received $500. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because this is one submission of 500 in support and neither

9.1 MCU22/0201 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR CAR WASH AND FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 34 ELM STREET, COOROY (DEFERRED FROM GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 12 AUGUST 2024 ITEM 5.1) ¶

▶ 00:28:14

00:29:00 Roy nor myself have a financial interest in the outcome. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question, Councillor Wilson. Second line. You've mentioned, you've informed the meeting you have a terrible conflict of interest. My partner, Roy Vanderboog, made a submission. Was it in favour or against this application? Councillor Wilson: I believe it was in favour. Mayor Wilkie: In favour. Councillor Wilson: I haven't seen it that time. Mayor Wilkie: Are you happy to have that added to your declaration just in the interest of openness? Yes. So we have the submission, the declaration changed. Second line. Made a submission in favour of this application. Second line. Councillor Wilson: So maybe, sorry, take the other one out. Yeah, I kind of meant to say it further up. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Just to clarify.

00:30:00 Okay. I'll move that Councillor Wilson be allowed to stay in the room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. I'll read out full motion if I can. Sorry. Sorry. The council note the declarable conflict of interest for Councillor Wilson in terms Can you give us an update on what has happened since the closure? Speaker 2: There's two matters to provide an update on. The first is the officer recommendation has been amended to include further grounds of refusal related to the traffic issues. When the report was first prepared, as we've discussed, that matter hadn't been unfortunately fully flushed out.

00:31:00 And so now we've prepared grounds of refusal to include the traffic matters. So I believe it's at point four, at four. The traffic issues associated with the proposed car wash have not been satisfactorily resolved. Specifically with regards to the inadequacy of queuing on the approaches to the various components of the development. Whether increased traffic volumes in Diamond Lane can be acceptably accommodated from both the geometric and practical operation perspective. And how refuse collection is proposed. In a satisfactory manner. Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, that's an extra question as well, how refuse is to be collected? Speaker 2: That is a matter which has been an issue and conveyed to the applicants at the time that the... Mayor Wilkie: Sorry, was that a change to the reasons for refusal? Speaker 2: So point four, A, B and C are all changes to the grounds of refusal.

00:32:00 Okay, yes. Thank you. Okay. The second matter to provide you with an update on is the... Unfortunately the traffic consultants haven't been able to have a discussion at this point. They're both very busy. It was a public holiday in Brisbane yesterday. So there was an inability for them to make contact with one another at this stage. So those matters remain unresolved in our opinion. So we have suggested that, or we do suggest that it might be an opportunity for councillors to defer the matter to a future round of meetings. To enable further time for the traffic consultants to resolve these matters. Thank you, Patrick. Mayor Wilkie: Questions of staff? Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an alternate motion. And before I move an alternate motion, I'd like to make a request to the Chair. I want to request that the Chair or other councillors, if possible, refrain from setting a loud five-minute alarm when councillors are speaking, as happened during Monday's general meeting.

00:33:00 The latter, if possible, should be removed from the meeting. But I would love that we all have five minutes disrupted, it was myself actually, disrupted my train of thought and broke the concentration of councillors who were listening. Traditionally, this council has allowed a little bit of leniency. One to two minutes over these five minutes speaking time. I'm making a request through the Chair that this leniency is continued today. Mayor Wilkie: In answer to your question, leniency was and always has been a priority. And it has been applied. And I take your point about loud alarms. I never use one. Councillor Wegener: Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else care to move? I wasn't aware of any alarms. I certainly didn't set one. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll take that. Please. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move an alternate motion. Just one minute.

00:34:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just one moment. Thank you, that council notes the report by the coordinator planning to the planning and environment committee meeting dated 6th of August 2024 regarding NCU22-0201 for a development permit for material change of use for a car wash and food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy and A, approve the application, B, delegate to the chief executive officer to issue a development permit for material change of use for a car wash and food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy and pose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval.

00:35:00 C, note the report is provided in accordance with section 1635 of the Planning Act 2016. D, find the following matters relevant to the assessment and sufficient reason to approve the application. 1, there is a strong level of economic, community and planning need for the development in this location. 2, there is no car wash currently provided with NCU and the use of hinterland and no other suitable land available for that purpose. 3, the proposed development will provide substantial community benefit and will not cause any adverse impacts on the humanity and character of the area. 4, the proposed development accords with reasonable community expectations given the significant number of submissions in support that have been received.

00:36:00 5, there will be significant environmental benefits for a car wash to be provided in the location, resulting in improved water quality entering local waterways, 6. A car wash is for commercial Washington vehicles which is a complementary use to the existing service stations in this location, which will result in the sharing of facilities and reduce traffic movements. 7. Conditions can be imposed to address any issues race must live with about the hours of operation of the development. Mayor Wilkie: Right, can we have a seconder for that please? Councillor Phillips? Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lobson? Councillor Lorentson: Despite presenting a zoning conflict and non-compliance with the planning scheme, the proposed car wash warrants approval if it can be demonstrated that the public interest is better served by approving the application.

00:37:00 In making this decision, we as councillors need to consider the following. 1. Is there an economic community or planning need for the proposed development? 2. Are there relevant factors that support approving the development? 3. Should the application be approved or refused in the exercise of planning discretion? The car wash project offers significant environmental, economic, community and social benefits, which when waived against the planning scheme non-compliance justifies its approval. I urge councillors to consider these benefits and the need outlined in the motion and to exercise your planning discretion under the Planning Act to approve the car wash. Its service meets community needs, it supports the local economy and offers environmental benefits, making non-compliance less significant in light of the overall positive impact on the community. The following relevant matters are relied upon to support the approval.

00:38:00 Planning and economic need. The proposed car wash addresses a clear economic and community need at the Cooroy District Centre. There are over 10,000 vehicles in Cooroy that currently lack access to a commercial car wash without travelling to either Noosa or Gympie. National statistics show an average of 7,411 registered vehicles per car wash across Australia, indicating that Cooroy requires at least one car wash to meet local demand. The site's proximity to two petrol stations in the Cooroy District Centre is the largest in the area, making it an ideal location that complements existing businesses and builds a gap in the market. An Economic Needs Assessment report commissioned by the applicant confirms strong community and economic demand for the car wash in Cooroy. It highlights unique features such as super base and an undercarriage wash that will attract visitors, benefit local businesses and stimulate the economy.

00:39:00 Additionally, the car wash will create local jobs contributing to the community's economic growth. Community and Public Interest. The proposed car wash has received overwhelming community support, highlighting its importance in fulfilling local needs and enhancing the Cooroy District Centre. Of the 520 submissions, there were 498 in support, with letters of endorsement from the local chambers of commerce, residents and businesses. This strong community backing highlights the car wash's role in serving the public interest. Community and public interest. The applicant also plans to contribute to the community by facilitating fundraising opportunities for local schools and clubs, offering discounted wash rates for senior citizens and implementing environmentally friendly initiatives. These include using advertising space for local environmental education, providing a notice board for community events and installing a reverse vending machine for recycling.

00:40:00 Environmental Benefits. The car wash is designed with sustainable, sustainable and sustainable benefits. The car wash is designed with sustainability in mind, aligning with the community's environmental values. It will recycle water, use solar power and harvest rainwater, significantly reducing its environmental impact. Facility also aims to achieve carbon neutral status, protecting the unique ecosystems of the Cooroy and Noosaville regions. Design and Build Form. The car wash design meets the highest building standards and car wash best practices, featuring architectural elements that enhance the Cooroy local economy. It is designed by Tracey Michaels from TMC Building Design, one of the most respected experts in the industry with over 20 years of experience, designing over 300 car washes across Australia and New Zealand. The design includes overhanging roofs, timber panel features, shaded seating areas, adding aesthetic value to the area, while minimising crime risk and integrating with the surrounding environment.

00:41:00 Location Suitability. The site's location between Chimpepec and Noosaville is one of the most important Accessibility and Accessibility. Which are essential, crucial to a car wash's success. Although the site's current zoning as a district centre may not have fully aligned with the car wash use, its specific circumstances make it a practical choice. The site is also removed from residential areas, minimising potential impacts on residential amenities. Addressing the Queuing Concerns. To mitigate concerns about potential queuing, the applicant has consulted with existing car wash owners in the area. All have provided feedback and see no issue with queuing. They have all stated that the proposed car wash layout should effectively manage traffic flow without issues.

00:42:00 Additionally, the applicant is willing to include an on-site manager to address any queuing concerns as a condition of approval. I also want to note that the applicant's traffic consultant has also sent an email to all the councillors. And he stated that there is more than adequate on-site queuing to accommodate any risk without a material risk of overflow into Open Street. In conclusion, I urge councillors to approve the car wash development because it serves a greater public interest than strict adherence to the planning scheme. The car wash will meet community needs, it will support the local economy and it offers significant environmental benefits. Making it a valuable addition to the Cooroy District area and it gives, most importantly, the residents of Cooroy and the Noosa Hinterland a much needed car wash. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment. Point 2.

00:43:00 Just to read. There is no car wash currently provided within Cooroy and the Noosa Hinterland full stop. Speaker 3: That item 2. Mayor Wilkie: Read. There is no car wash currently provided within Cooroy and the Noosa Hinterland full stop. What do you say to that? Currently provided in the Noosa within Cooroy. So, just the way two reads, just end the sentence after hinterland. You can cut and paste two ways in.

00:44:00 Full stop after hinterland. Thank you. May I have a seconder for that, please? Councillor Wegener: No seconder. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So, councillors, I'm making this look, there may be a majority of councillors who wish to approve this development. It's, there's no doubt that there is, it'll be very well used and successful. But if you're wishing to approve it, let's not have a statement that is easily, is factually not right. Simple Search this morning revealed that there is industrial land immediately available for sale out of Holt's, entire court.

00:45:00 So, for us to say that there is no land immediately available for that purpose is just not right. So, by all means, if you want to support this, let's just stick to statements that can be supported. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to support the amendment. I think, I concur with what councillor Maywell-Keith has said. It's arguably. There's no other available, um, available land for a car wash. So, I'm happy to support the amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Any others who wish to speak to the motion, to the amendment? Put the amendment a thousand favour. That's unanimous. Um, I would also like to move a second amendment. And that is, can I see the original motion, please, Vicky? That, um, it'll be section three.

00:46:00 So, if you cut and paste section three, it'll be section three. Just take out substantial, and full stop after benefit, and delete the rest. Can I have a seconder to test this one please? Director Walsh: I'll take a second. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Finzel. Councillors I do this because if you wish to approve it, yes there's arguably there's community benefit for a car wash.

00:47:00 The location is the issue. And this whole substance of the refusal, the recommendation for a refusal is that there will be a previous community impact on amenity. In terms of there will be a 19 metre long concrete block wall. 7.5 metres high, facing towards the bowls club and the residents at the end of that street. That has an impact on amenity. We've also not tested the consultants claim that there won't be queuing. Staff say there is concerns about queuing. If there is queuing, that's going to have an impact on the amenity of that particular neighbourhood. By all means, if you want to support it, do it. But let's not make statements that cannot be supported. A 19 metre long block wall, 7.5 metres high, will have an impact on amenity.

00:48:00 And I think without having the consultants meet to test the ideas against each other, it's very unwise to say there will be no impact on resident amenity. So for that reason, take a proportionary approach. Stick to statements that are supported. That's why I'm suggesting there's change to the wording. Councillor Lorentson: Just questions to Dennis. In terms of the majority of neighbours, they've got two service stations and a bowls club. Have they made any submissions in support or objecting to the proposed development? Speaker 3: Through the Chair, I'm uncertain about the service stations. But I understand the Cooroy bowls club did put a submission in support of the application. I can quickly check if you'd like on the other two. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. Thank you. And in fact, other question is confirmation.

00:49:00 My understanding is that the 19 metre wall, the intentions are for it to have a mural, which will possibly, you know, tell the story, the Cooroy history. Are you aware of that, Patrick? Speaker 2: Certainly there is proposal to have a mural on the wall. Notwithstanding, it's my opinion that it still will have an appearance of a significant bulk, considering its height and length. And just maybe go back to the point before with Nadine. The service stations certainly did not object to the application. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So no objections by the service stations who will be adjoining Noosaville. That is correct. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Question. You did show us a map which showed some of the submissions that were against. It seemed to be in the same, around the same street to the east of the development. Speaker 3: That's correct. We have Diamond Lane and Opal Street, so further to the east of the bowls club.

00:50:00 Thank you. I have a question. Yes. Councillor Phillips: About the... Speaker 3: Yes. Councillor Phillips: Yes, of course. The submissions were against wind. When did that happen? When were they... When did they come through to... Speaker 3: So there was a public notification period. As part of the process, there's a public notification period. They were submitted during that period. So in terms of timeframe, I'm not quite sure of your question. Councillor Phillips: Well, my understanding is the people that submitted against have... Some of them have actually supported the application. So I'm wanting to know when that occurred. So... Speaker 3: I have to change that line. I haven't checked that. I'm sorry. So when a submission comes in, it's logged in our system, and it's identified as properly made, and also whether it's a for or against.

00:51:00 So I've based that on the analysis of how it's been put in. So I haven't gone through to see if any of those people have since put in a further submission. To say that they've withdrawn their previous objection. So I'm sorry. I can't really answer that. Okay. Councillor Phillips: So my question is, potentially, could they have put in the submission against, prior to some of the changes that the applicant made? Yes. Yes. So can we accurately use those submissions that were against in our argument? Speaker 3: Through the chair, yes. So when... As part of the public notification period, there's a specific time, 15 business hours. And those people submitted objections against the proposal. I haven't seen anyone coming back and formally withdrawing those letters of objection. So I haven't received any letters. I don't know. I'd have to do a further analysis to identify whether they have...

00:52:00 So a name has been put in as an objection. If they've later on, outside that public notification period, if they've later on made a further submission. Okay. But noting the period that I deal with are generally the properly made submissions. So if they've objected, they formally have to withdraw it. And I haven't received any of those. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'm happy to support the recommendation in front of us. Would we amend the wording that the proposed development will provide community vendor? Again, arguably, we... The original wording can't be argued on. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Kinsler. Yeah. Just a question. Through the staff. With regards to the comments made by Councillor Frank, in regards to amenity and the brick wall, I know there's been discussion around a mural. I'm just wondering. It seems the applicants are open to reasonable conditions.

00:53:00 Is there an opportunity for like a living fence or vegetation to be growing on the fence that softens that through the fence? Is that an option? Speaker 2: Through the Chair, it would be possible to include conditions to alter the appearance of the wall. The mural, it could include an awning. It could include some features to change its appearance. Noting it still will be a significant size wall. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. A question. The motion, the alternate motion, delegates... I'm sorry. So, the quality to empire is relevant and reasonable conditions, so that in that way forward, that's captured in that motion. Speaker 2: That's correct. We can put conditions on to address the appearance of the law.

00:54:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Council's just asked to support this amendment. If approved, this will become a resolution of the local government, so it's just about not making promises that will be contested, that we can't necessarily keep. And the nature of the submissions against this proposal was saying it's a development better suited to an industrial area because of the size and scale of it and features such as a 19-metre long, 7.5-metre high brick wall. Not brick wall, concrete wall, which will have impacts on amenity. And also, we still have the untested situation about traffic, the impacts of traffic and the potential queuing, because the consultants have not yet met. Yeah, I'll leave it at that. I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour?

00:55:00 That's unanimous. We go back to the original motion. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have an amendment too. And it's just dealing with the map that was just raised, and it's suggesting there's an additional wording on B, and that additional word says that including conditions which require the modification of the east wall to increase its articulation, example, awning over walkway, addition of green wall elements, or use of timber battening. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for the amendment, please? Councillor Wegener: I think I can do it. Yes, you can. I did your first amendment. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, you can do it. Thank you, Councillor Wigamot. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This addition here is just to do what Councillor Lorentson was just suggesting, that it gives the council staff the ability to consider those issues, and it does give them some direction that we would like to see some improvement to achieve some of the potential improvements that could go towards potentially achieving an outcome in the scheme.

00:56:00 Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thank you. I think that's far too specific to put into a motion. If the purpose of the other amendments was to take a subjective language and be clearer and tighter, I think this then goes too far the other way. I think the CEO can impose reasonable and relevant conditions on the approval and they should be discussed outside of this meeting. Mayor Wilkie: Just a question to staff. Some of these conditions mentioned in the amendment, are they unusual or unreasonable? Speaker 2: No, we'd consider them to be reasonable and type of conditions that we would readily apply where we have design concerns. Mayor Wilkie: It has happened before in other developments? Certainly has. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson: I think that the wording is redundant and concur with Council Wilson. I think, as Patrick has already stated, that the wording as it stands captures conclusions, captures what Council Stockwell has put before us.

00:57:00 Again, I don't think we need to be specific and I would also like the conditions to be modification. Councillor Phillips: I might just quickly reaffirm that because I'd like to see the delegation to our CEO and empower him to be able to make these decisions and trust his decisions in that process. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel? Yes. Also, I'd like to concur with Councillor Phillips and the other councillors around the table. Also, I want to give the applicant opportunity to have those discussions that are free flowing with us imposing conditions.

00:58:00 Thank you. I think it's been clearly articulated by the staff and what we've heard today that this is, you know, something that can be undertaken but I'd prefer to leave the applicant and the CEO to work it out between themselves. Mayor Wilkie: Councillors, what's been asked here is not unusual. In fact, it's part of our job. If we're dedicated to ensuring the Noosa look and feel, mitigating against negative amenity impacts, this is part and parcel of what councillors can and do do. I respect the majority decision but the decision that we make here will have an impact on the look and feel of the entryway to the ward. So all Councillor Stockwell is trying to do is make that as pleasant as possible. For the benefit, not only of the applicant, but also the customers and also the Cooroy community.

00:59:00 So I'm going to be supporting the amendment. Okay. Councillor Stockwell, just to close. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do. A couple of new councillors. The motion before us is highly, highly unusual. It's the first time I can remember in the last eight years and potentially the 12 years that I've been a councillor where a matter for development approvals come to councillor and the recommendation was to get the staff to approve the decisions. So what we're saying here is very unusual. The fact that we should leave it to the CEO if it was a delegate decision, yes. But this is a highly controversial development and do you think that a few words around the table is enough to guide staff? You're wrong. If you want improvements to a key bit of green space in Cooroy, then you have to tell someone that you think that's an issue. That's all it does. To increase the articulation. I'll wait until I debate the substantive motion to tell you why that's important and why

01:00:00 staff have recommended refusal. But don't be misled. This is not an unusual way of dealing with development applications around this table. We normally go through every condition and then if I was to do this, I would move an additional condition. But the way it's worked, I can't. So this just tells staff that we think it's an issue. If you don't think it's an issue, don't vote against amendment. Don't just hope that staff will listen to what's around the table. The only thing staff can listen to is a motion of council. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the amendment those in favour. Councillor Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie. I'm sorry, can I change? Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Yes, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, Stockwell, Wegener and Wilkie. Those against? That's Councillor Lorentson, Wilson and Phillips. The amendment is carried. It takes us back to the original motion to which Councillor Lorentson has spoken and no one else has. I'll speak to it. Councillor Wegener.

01:01:00 Councillor Wegener: This is going to be a full five minutes. I live in Cooroy and I have tank water and I live near the Bruce Highway so I get a lot of oil and grit. I've got fruit trees and I have bats making a mess in my car. Many mornings of the year, a car wash would be a definite benefit to me and to many, many people that live near me and are on tank water. I totally understand the staff recommendation as it is in industrial use in a Cooroy district centre and they're bound by the planning schemes, very, very black and white reading. However, I've stood atop the Cooroy pedestrian crossing with staff and with the staff that are looking at traffic in Cooroy and the future of Cooroy and it is an enormously difficult situation. From up at the top there you look down, you have the rail corridor, the giant rail easement splitting the two sides of the town. Then you have a big state-owned road splitting the town in half.

01:02:00 And then you have nearly an impossibility of safely crossing that road. So the two district centres are not really connected in any way, shape or form. Plus you have two petrol stations next to each other and this going in between the two. So in my opinion it's zoned district centre but it is that name only. It is not an ideal district centre but it is still right next to a very beautiful community. The hill above the petrol stations is a gorgeous, wonderful place to live with fantastic residents. And the big question is, if we go with an approval, are we cementing into place this sort of dystopian, not fit for perfect district centre?

01:03:00 And I don't think so because I don't really think it's much of a district centre at all. Are we embracing a green, innovative business which is a good benefit to the community? Yes we are. We are definitely doing that. Will it compromise the amenity? I think not. I don't think it will. It's a car wash, especially this car wash the way it's designed. They're happy places. You go into the car wash with a dirty car like my car regularly and you clean it and you come out with a clean car. It's a fantastic thing and you're not using your own tank water. You're not polluting, putting pollutants as my water does go into the lake area. Lake McDonald catchment. There's been enormous support from the community for it. When push comes to shove, will a refusal stand in court? And I am of the opinion it would not. I think we would lose that one on appeal. So I support the motion to approve the car wash.

01:04:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. Can I just start there? Okay. Thank you. I was thinking about the amendments that Councillor Wilkie made and I was looking at item six and the car wash is for a commercial washing of vehicles which is complementary use to existing service stations in this location. Yes, accepted. Can you tell me if there's any evidence within the application or anything that you can think of which would suggest the development of a car wash on a vacant block of land would result in sharing of facilities and a reduction of traffic movement? I would have thought that it would. The application would have actually given us evidence that there'd be increasing traffic movements. Speaker 2: Certainly, there is expected to be many tens of thousands of car washes occur at this site

01:05:00 throughout the course of the year through the traffic. In terms of the split of people using the service station and going to the car wash, I couldn't tell you what that percentage would be, but there's certainly going to be more traffic to the area. Mayor Wilkie: Do you wish to move an amendment, Councillor Stockwell? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we've had enough of those. I'm just pointing out some and just another. Mayor Wilkie: Well, look, I feel duty bound to move an amendment to take off which will result in sharing of facilities and reduce traffic movements because if this is going to be a resolution of this Council, it has to make sense. It has to be things that are truthful and accurate. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. I'll sit down. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I don't know what it is, but I don't know. Six. Six.

01:06:00 Mayor Wilkie: Full stop after location. Speaker 3: And then just delete it? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, just delete the rest. That's it. Okay. Seconded by Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Look, arguably it is a complementary use to the existing service stations in the location. I can see and support that. But to say it will, or even infer that it will result in a reduction of traffic movements, I don't think any of us can hand on heart say that that will be the case. So I hope you will support this change, please. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment?

01:07:00 I'll put it to the vote. And those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. We go back to the original motion, and only Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Wegener have spoken to that. Councillors, I might try. Procedural motion, please. And procedural motion being that the matter be deferred to a future Council meeting to allow the applicant's consultant to discuss traffic issues raised with Council's traffic consultant. Speaker 2: Do you want me to slide it down? Yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: That the matter be deferred to a future Council meeting to allow the applicant's consultant to discuss traffic issues raised with Council's traffic consultant. To discuss traffic issues raised with council's traffic consultant.

01:08:00 To discuss traffic issues raised with council's traffic consultant. Councillor Phillips: Can I speak to this? You better. Mayor Wilkie: After I've spoken. After you've spoken? Yeah. Councillor Phillips: That's fine. Thanks. Mayor Wilkie: Councillors, it would be very unusual for council to approve a development that's so many inconsistencies with the planning scheme, with the potential for there to be traffic impacts and not have the traffic consultants meet to fully thrash out the issues. Also, I would find it hard to have a new traffic consultant.

01:09:00 To defend the application, should it be approved, the question, well, were the applicant's consultant's views tested by council's traffic consultant? All we have at the moment are the assertions from the applicant's traffic consultant that queuing will not be a problem and there will be no impact on the streets. We can take that at face value, but I think that would be unwise. To do your due diligence, I really recommend you need to allow the traffic consultants to meet, have those matters thrashed out, and then, and only then, make your decision eyes wide open. And that will be something we could all better defend, because it's controversial as it is. No one, no one. No one, I think, is arguing that this wouldn't be a great addition to the township, locality of Cooroy.

01:10:00 The question is the location and its impact on that, in that current location, rather than in an industrial estate. So please, just do your due diligence, allow the traffic consultants to meet, take on board what we hear back, then, eyes wide open, make your decision, regardless of what that may be. We'll be in a better position to defend it, regardless. Councillor Phillips: Can I speak against your procedural motion, Mr. Mayor, this applicant has spent four years jumping through hoops, and it is costing approximately $8,000 a week or a month, I might get that wrong, but money that I certainly don't have in my back pocket, and I just think we have an obligation today to make this decision. Councillor Lorentson: So to Patrick and Nadine, my understanding that a traffic report has been available since 2022 and that there are no issues with SARA, can I ask this new information that was just presented a couple of weeks ago, why was that not sort of addressed in 2022?

01:11:00 And why wasn't RTO being, why wasn't the applicant being given the opportunity of a request for more information? I'm just sort of dumbfounded by 2022, we accepted the traffic report and said there was no impacts on traffics and now in 2024 it's become an issue. Speaker 2: The traffic report was submitted with an application in 2022. And then an information request was made, that would have been made within four to five weeks of the application being launched. And that did include some traffic matters, the applicant took, I think it was about nine months to respond to the information request.

01:12:00 So there was a lot of time where we weren't looking at it, we were waiting for this information to come back, that came back I believe in September of 2023. There has been a substantial period of time since then. To this point in time we accept that, when Nadine wrote the report, she had verbal advice from the traffic consultant, and unfortunately there was further advice that was provided after that time, which raised issues with the queuing, that was provided the day before the planning and environment committee meeting, and we accept that it's not acceptable to have that late response to the applicant, and hence why we're surprised. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'll speak to that question. We got to get on with the job. My experience of living on this earth for nearly 60 years is we know how traffic flows. You have this particular application. There's lots. I mean, I think it's it's it's over. It's oversized. It is plenty of room to for cars.

01:13:00 The art when one of the letters that came back that that Tracy sent was talking with was from some other people that own big car washes. And they say, well, you know, you have all these bays. And if it's if it ever did actually happen to get crowded, well, then the smaller cars can go through the the the bigger bays, the the caravan bays. And that's what they he said. What happens is he is. But he says he's never seen more than four caravans ever at a caravan washing bay. And there's two of them in this in this in this instance. So I I just don't I don't think we need a further report on this common sense. It's our own knowledge. We're we're counselors. We've been put been voted in to represent the community. It's it's it's kind of an obvious thing that we could make a judgment call on that. Just like the petrol stations. If you had a study saying, well, you know, what is the traffic situation at the petrol station? Well, people will drive past and go to the next one. If it's if it's queued up all the way. I've never seen cars actually queued out on Elm Street or down the street.

01:14:00 I've never seen that because you just drive past. If if there's a long line, then I think this will even be more the case, especially for the community that it is to service. So I don't think that there's actually a traffic issue here in this from my experience. So I won't be supporting the other that this amendment. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to this also. And I'm going to reference the Tamanda Superwash, which opened in May 2022. On a major arterial road in Tamworth, New South Wales. Tamworth has a population.

01:15:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Yes. We're debating our emotional deferral. We're not debating anything to do with the content of the application. Mayor Wilkie: Let me read. That's that's that's that's quite quite correct. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. OK. I am. I'm I'm I'm giving my reasons. I'm giving my reasons why I don't support the application in front of us. And my reasons are because car washes of similar scale to the one that we've got in front of us, specifically the Tamanda Superwash, which opened in May 2022 in Tamworth, who have provided valuable feedback in terms of queuing and traffic issues, have served with no issues. OK. And it's of particular interest because it's got a similar population of 65,000, similar to Noosa. It's also the largest and busiest car wash in North West New South Wales, and it's also got a Super Bay car wash.

01:16:00 It handled significant traffic, including the traffic during the Tamworth Country Music Festival, where thousands and thousands of caravan flood the area, and they have provided a letter, a statement, and it's been offered, provided to all the councillors that there are no issues. Also, I want to note that the proposed car wash has the capacity to queue up to 16 vehicles. It's also faster service time, and we had a traffic control report from 2022, which says there are no issues with overflow, as Councillor Wegener stated, the car wash is busy, we move on, we come at another date. So I'm not supporting the amendment in front of us. So I'm not supporting the amendment in front of us. Mayor Wilkie: So I'm not supporting the amendment in front of us. Question, the issue of impact on adjoining streets, we're talking about Opal Street and Diamond Lane, not a major arterial load, is that correct?

01:17:00 Speaker 2: That is correct, and I'm just aware, just, the applicants through their economic needs report, they're advising approximately 68,000 car washes per year. So that's 136,000 car washes per year. So that's 136,000 vehicle movements, 68,000 in and 68,000 out. So we're talking a very significant number, I mean, and, you know, this situation is very different to other situations. You've got to look at them individually, and that's what our traffic consultant has done here. They've picked up the nuances of this site and the access from Diamond Lane and the adjoining service station and some of the conflict that might be provided there. And so you can't just have a broad brush approach and say there's another busy service station elsewhere and it's not causing traffic issues. We've got a respected traffic consultant that's raised concerns, and Nadine just pointed out to me that the car wash, the Taminda car wash in New South Wales is actually in an industrial area, so, you know, very, very different circumstances.

01:18:00 Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Sarah said there was no concerns. They were happy to support any reasonable conditions. I'm just wondering, when the issue was first raised back, they used to say there was concerns around the initial traffic report that was put in by the applicant. Can you tell me, in that, the concerns raised, was the queuing raised from that initial report as a concern? Speaker 2: My reading of the traffic report that was provided in response to the information request, it was significantly around the queuing lines from cars that were parked in Oak Hill Street,

01:19:00 the availability of car parking on the site, so I don't believe that it was raised as the initial information request item. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the procedural motion? Councillor Wilson: Can I ask a question? Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. If the site was developed for shops and offices, what would be the estimated throughput of vehicles for that purpose? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order again. Mayor Wilkie: I'll allow it because we've had a discussion on that. Keep going. Speaker 2: Again, the traffic report that's been provided asserts that there's more vehicles that would be associated with the shopping centre than there would be with the car wash. But again, very different circumstances because you go into a shopping centre and you park your car in an allocated bay, you're away from the aisle which people would be manoeuvring

01:20:00 around. In this instance, the use itself occupies the queuing areas as well and has the benefit of the potential to inhibit movement. That's my question. Councillor Wilson: With the design of the car wash, wouldn't the flow actually be more easy because it's a one-way system, so it comes up Opal Street, goes through the car wash and then out onto Diamond Lane, which would actually have been extended two metres in width as well, rather than people reversing and coming back out into Opal Street? Speaker 2: Would that seem a more faster flow? Well, the issue I think that our traffic consultants have with the car wash is that flow has the potential to be impacted by the queuing. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Just confirmation. I remember reading the traffic report actually assessed the impact of traffic if nine retail

01:21:00 stores were built and my recollection in the traffic report... Question. I'm asking for confirmation if I've read correctly. It was that it actually stated that there was less impact of traffic if nine retail stores were built. Less impact of a car wash as compared to the existing development site with nine retail stores. Is that correct? I'm very clear that I've read that somewhere. Yes. Speaker 2: The traffic report asserts that there's less vehicles that will attend the site. However, this one, again, there's differences between the two applications in that the retail approval required all vehicles to exit via Opal Street. That's correct. Whereas in this instance, all vehicles will be exiting via Diamond Lane and it was only service vehicles that would have been using Diamond Lane on the retail approval. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to speak to the deferral motion. A deferral motion, you either agree with the deferral or not.

01:22:00 You don't talk about the substance of the application. I believe there's a majority of councillors in this room that don't want to decide the matter, so I won't support the amendment to defer. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the deferral motion? Councillors, I'll close by saying, judging by the comments and questions, clearly none of us are traffic engineers. Examples cited are about the large-scale car wash on a major arterial road in an industrial estate. If this was an industrial estate, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason why I've called for it to be deferred to allow traffic consultants to meet and to discuss is because a respected traffic consultant has raised concerns. And if this is approved without allowing that to happen, to my mind, this might be the first

01:23:00 time in Noosa Council's history where an application has been approved where traffic consultants have not been properly addressed or discussed with an applicant consultant to consultant. Tom said the community voted us in to get on with things and make decisions. That's true. But it also voted us in to do our due diligence before we make those decisions. It's likely, judging by the comments, it's likely to be approved, but let's, all I'm saying is defer it to next month. Allow the consultants to make decisions. Then rest easy. With whatever is built there, you can rest easy. And you'll be able to defend any impacts that may or may not occur on Diamond Lane and Opal Street, which are two small streets, not a major arterial road in an industrial estate. Indeed, if it wasn't an industrial estate, like Holt's Road and Tyler's Court, where

01:24:00 there is land, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll put the deferral motion. Those in favour? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Phillips. Finzel. Stockwell. Wegener. And Lorentson. The motion is lost. We go back to the original motion to which only two councillors have spoken. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the motion. And Vicky, if you can get that attachment going by the room, please. So, firstly, I'm going to talk about the obvious and the uncontested. The obvious is a commercial need has been established for a car wash in Cooroy. The other obvious is there's a range of community support for it. The obvious is that applicants have done their best to try and design a car wash that's environmentally sensitive and a car wash that addresses the street in a way that takes some

01:25:00 elements of the vernacular architecture. But my view is that to assess this application, you're going to come up with a different outcome in your mind, depending on the timeframe of which you are thinking about it. So, there we have the planning scheme. Now, remember, councillors, our drop here is not to critique the planning scheme. Our drop here is to implement and interpret it. So, we don't have the luxury of making the policy on for underdevelopment. This is the framework and character plan. It clearly identifies this site as a key development site in the Cooroy Business Centre. And immediately behind it is a piece of green space in the middle of the Business Centre. And the pedestrianisation. You can see there that there is a lot of pedestrian, the green arrow is showing a lot of pedestrian movements

01:26:00 and the intent near this site to have a better crossing across the railway and we've heard that it's a transit centre. So if you go to the next slide. A lot has been made that currently there's two service stations. And that's right. And it is consistent with that look and feel. But is that the look and the feel that we should be assessing this development application against? And my argument is no. The planning scheme doesn't place weight on the current look and feel. It places weight on the desired outcomes. We know that that corner in historical times was an unknown hotel. Unlikely to go back to that. But we know that Cooroy is ever changing. My first job was across the street and I was providing fertilisers to the range of dairies and pineapple farms that no longer exist. So Cooroy will transition. So next one please. We did over this site previously consider. Just a little bit higher please.

01:27:00 Look at a shopping development. And you can see there in the bottom of the black and white pictures. We actually spent a lot of time working with that applicant to get a look and feel to Elm Street and to Opal Street. That was consistent with the desired outcomes, the overall outcomes and the performance outcomes of the planning scheme. You can see the frontage in the proposed has attempted in the main building to reflect some of that. But you have got things like the vacuuming bay facing south. Which is less than I suppose what we would hope for a streetscape in Cooroy. If we are, like the staff have suggested, the proposal is not sympathetic to the intended development form of the district centre zone. Which is for buildings that address the street, create vibrant and active spaces. Continuous weather protection with car parking not dominating the street. And E creates vibrant and active spaces. So we can see that previously we had achieved that.

01:28:00 The current proposal doesn't. We can go to the next. And there has been a lot of talk this morning about this wall. I did this on Sunday so we now know it is 19.4 metres. And it is two storeys high. In 3.35 of the scheme under the centre's hierarchy each centre is characterised by its scale and its function. And avoiding incompatible uses within the centre. And so here is the debate. You might not consider it incompatible with the existing neighbouring development. But is it incompatible with what is proposed in the playing field? And that wall is a classic example. If that was in an industrial zone we wouldn't blink an eye. Because that is probably the reason. The look and the feel of car washes is probably the reason why our funding scheme says it is an industrial activity and should be located in an industrial zone. There is clear logic. It does have that industrial feel.

01:29:00 This morning I went again and said well here is the balancing act. Can I find any other support in the plan scheme? And I couldn't. If we look at the particular one about this the acceptable outcome we know is elevations are no longer than 15 metres without articulation of at least 0.75 metres and presents subtle changes in textures and materials to break up the building facade. So it can't meet that. So then you go to the performance outcomes. It can't meet the acceptable. The solution that talks about buildings and other structures present a high level of architectural building with building form elements and forms that are consistent with the bulk and scale of buildings on adjoining a nearby land. That is in no way consistent with the houses or the single storey commercial developments that are there. Break down the scale down the facade in finer scale components. Provide strong visual relationships to the landscape. Natural features not relevant. But highly functional. Highly relevant to recreation areas in the vicinity. That is not providing strong visual relationships with the recreation areas.

01:30:00 Presents subtle changes in colours, textures, materials to break up the building facade. So the amendment I moved earlier was to try and do some retrofit if it's to be approved to achieve these. Is well articulated with strong horizontal vertical design elements providing an interesting street scape. Now I will take a long term view. Because you can buy petrol in Maple Street when I first moved to motion to approve the development control plan for Cooroy which first brought in these character protections and the vision for Cooroy. It was a gun barrel street, long street with no trees, no furniture and they were taking out the verandas off the footpath because cars were backing into them. Now you think about what Maple Street looks like today. It's taken 35 years to get there or so. What we're not doing in this space so far is thinking about with the projected 3,000 extra people already in our planning scheme for the hint land what it should be on the eastern side of the highway.

01:31:00 So I can't go there because I can't find any support in the planning scheme that would warrant the level of difference from what the scheme requires to what is proposed. Because an inconsistent application should be able to demonstrate that there is an overriding need in this particular location. I understand the motion. It talks about a planning need. Our expert staff don't believe a planning needs to be justified and that's something that is generally argued in the court. To me if the situation was reversed where the amount of commercial land was equivalent to the amount of industrial land and the amount of industrial land coming to the commercial land. Then you could probably argue it. But what we've found is that there is no shortage of supply of industrial land that would warrant a planning need in my opinion.

01:32:00 So to me while I understand the great lengths that have gone to try and fit the codes and to fit the scheme. To me the development doesn't retain and maintain the country town feel, the traditional good form, the heritage and street track character of the town. As is the desired outcome in the process. That's all we'd like to plead for. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I will. Thank you. I'm going to keep it pretty short and sweet if that's okay. So Councillor Stockwell likes to point out sometimes that I'm a new councillor or the new councillors. I may be very new and I don't know the standing orders still and I'm getting there. So I think the general public can forgive me when I stand and speak at the wrong time. But for 15 years I was a highly regarded police officer which meant I had some public trust. So to reaffirm Councillor Lorentson's initial opening was around discretion and public interest.

01:33:00 Those things I can speak very clearly on. A flawless career in policing. No one questioned whether I had public interest. And the ability to use discretion. Which is when we're talking about a situation like this. It's not black and white. Very grey. We've all heard around the table. Extremely grey area. But I want to make this very clear statement. It doesn't matter who's right. Let's do what's right. What's right is listen to the hundreds of community members that have put in an application in favour of this application. More than people that put in submissions for this. More than people that put in submissions for the DMP. What's right is support our local economy and our local businesses. My understanding and some of the questions that I alluded to was that some of the submissions that were against this application have since changed their mind upon hearing from the applicant

01:34:00 and their willingness to move and work with their community that they love. I can't also forget. I forget to mention a very important part around the transport conversation that we've had. Clearly heard from staff that we have, if we have nine retail stores, there will be more cars for those shops than a car wash. So I'd like to support this application and get on with the job. Councillor Lorentson: A question to your plan staff. Just in regards to objections. There were five of you in response to this. Can I ask for the number of objections? In terms of the submissions. Speaker 3: There were 19 in the report. Councillor Lorentson: It says there were 19 against. Speaker 3: So 19 against. Three impartial. And 23 not properly made.

01:35:00 So that's 498 in support. Thank you. Oh sorry. 498 in support. Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: As a resident of Cooroy last year when this consultation period was happening, I'm actually really surprised how much support there was for this application. I probably expected there to be a lot more objections, but clearly they haven't been submitted. So we do have to listen to the community. We can, and again as a new councillor, I may not be quite as au fait with the town plan and the planning zones and all of those things, but I am used to taking a lot of information, analysing it, weighing up all the different viewpoints and perspectives and then making and going for an outcome that I think is fair. So there is a lot of support from residents and local businesses.

01:36:00 And when those people were making submissions, I don't know if they were aware of zoning issues and inconsistent use in different zones, but I think as they have become more aware of that in the last few days, I don't know whether they really still see very much difference between an industrial or a commercial use or a district centre use. Those are still blurry to me and I think they are to general community members. And especially when we have a legacy of the service stations and it used to be a highway, even what we desire to see as a district centre probably is always going to be compromised by the existence of those service stations and they're probably going to be around for a long time. So residents see this as a service area. They see it as an area you only access by car, albeit there will be a food and beverage outlet where they will be able to walk or use their bikes. So there is a sense in the community that this is a logical place for a car wash and

01:37:00 while the land use plan doesn't support that, I can see where the community is coming from. Currently the land is not producing those employment opportunities that we're looking for. It's been vacant for six years. It will be vacant for the foreseeable future if no one wants to develop shopping or offices in that space. While it won't be a big employer, it will at least make sure that that land is being used for some sort of economic use. In the pre-lodgement meeting, the applicant was told it's inconsistent use. So then you must demonstrate relevant grounds for it to be approved. And they were things like the roof structure, the trees, traffic reports, water management plans. The applicant has done all of those things and spent money and time over years to do that. If we were always going to revert to its inconsistent use in that zone, then they've been led on in that process. And I don't think that's fair if the outcome was always going to rely on the zone.

01:38:00 So I think in that case, we've given the applicant over time the impression that that zoning issue can be overcome. And so they've put in a lot of work to be able to do that. And so that's why I support the motion. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: I don't wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I'll close. I'll sign. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: This has been a really difficult decision. If it were simple, it would have been decided. Speaker 2: On Monday. Mayor Wilkie: The overwhelming thrust of the submissions received in favour is that Cooroy needs a car wash. And I don't think anyone around this table disagrees with that. It comes down to the classic question that often happens here is, is it in the right place? And that's the essence of town planning.

01:39:00 So that the developments are in the right place, where there's no adverse impact on amenity, or the look and feel. My agreement is that we're going to continue to work on that. We're agreeing to this. We're agreeing that, to a development that will have an impact on the look and feel of the entry statement to Cooroy. There are two service stations there. I can entirely see how it's perceived to be a consistent use. But just because there are two industrial-type uses there doesn't mean we can't mitigate that. If there was a different use, shops, appropriately designed, in the middle, long-term. And that's what we're trying to do. What do we want that to look long-term? And we've had discussions as a councillor group. And the right thing to do is always in the best long-term interests of the Shire. Not what we think is immediately needed. So the question for me is this, ultimately, is this in the right location?

01:40:00 It's not. What's right, also, is not always a matter of high numbers or popular. What's right is not always a matter of high numbers or popular. What's popular is not always right. And there were 19 submitters against, and they raised very valid points that this has an industrial look and feel. It ought to be in the industrial estate. They've come to expect something different at the end of their street because of the assurances that a planning scheme does give. A planning scheme is some form of a contract with the community, based on community consultation, about what sort of uses our residents can expect will take place in their neighbourhoods. It's not always popular. So I'm acknowledging. And also, this will be the first application. I really had hoped there would be time to have traffic consultants meet to discuss, because the issues we heard around the table. We're not traffic engineers. We heard that our respective traffic engineer had raised significant concerns.

01:41:00 And I didn't want this to be the first decision made by Noosa Council where a traffic consultant concerns had not been tested before we made the final decision. I accept that if this is approved, this will become a decision of the Noosa Council. And we all will be resolved to ensuring it is as successful as possible. And I commit to that. But I am duty bound to raise these issues. I thank you for your support for the amendments, which makes the motion, in my opinion, even better and more defensible to the community. But I really, I will find myself in a minority on this one. I wish the applicant well with the business. But I feel that I have to be among one of the few voices that will speak up for the submitters in the minority who had hoped that the Noosa Planning Scheme would be respected

01:42:00 and adhered to. But I will respect the majority decision on this. And, and ensure that this is a good decision. And I will make sure that the resolution and the development is as successful as possible should it go ahead. Councillor Lorentson, would you wish to close? Councillor Lorentson: I will. Councillors, this project is unlike any other car wash. It's the result of four and a half years of dedication and passion. The owners who are local to the area, they walk down the streets of Cooroy, they work, they shop. They have made it their mission to create a business that not only meets, but exceeds the community's expectations and environmental values. They sought out Tracey Michaels from TBC Building Design, one of the most respected experts in the industry. Her expertise is in high demand and she brought her exceptional knowledge to this project.

01:43:00 Ensuring the highest building standards and best car wash practices were followed meticulously. She is also the co-founder and CEO of TBC Building Design. She is the co-founder and CEO of TBC Building Design. Tracey Michaels has spoken highly of the Kin's group owners, praising their unrelenting passion and commitment to environmental sustainability. The owners have prioritised sustainability over profit, which sets them apart. Tracey has never seen a project with such a high level of specialist consultant design, documentation, and review in her 20-year career. She plans to use this car wash as a benchmark for environmental sustainability. Tracey has also referred to the company as a traditional excellence, calling some of the documentations produced for this solution game challenging and worthy of commendation. Councillor, this is exactly the kind of business Noosa seeks and the type of people we value. Those who care deeply about their legacy and the future they are building for their children

01:44:00 and for our children. This project will set a benchmark for other car washes and businesses in the area. I ask that we improve their development and their success. We are here today to present the development of an ECU for a car washing and food and drink outlet at 34 Elm Street, Cooroy, because it is in the public interest and serves a greater purpose and strict adherence to the planning scheme. Mayor Wilkie: I'll put the motion in favour. That's Councillor Phillips, Finzel, Wilson, Wegener and Lorentson against. Councillor Stockwell and Wilkie and the motion is carried. And that brings us to the, we have no confidential items, no submissions to public question time. Thank you everyone, that brings us to the end of the agenda. Thank you staff, thank you Patrick and Claire and Richard. And the next ordinary meeting will be at 5pm on Thursday 15th August at 10am on Thursday 15th August 2024. Council chambers in time.

01:45:00 We declare the meeting closed at 11pm. Thank you everyone. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Mr Chair, thank you Mr Senior.

12 NEXT MEETING ¶

▶ 01:45:05

Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.

13 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 01:45:12

Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.