Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Welcome to the planning and environment meeting. I'd like to declare the meeting officially open and I'd like to begin by an acknowledgement of two country. Noosa Council proudly acknowledges and respects Australia's First Nations people and their deep and abiding connection to this country. We recognise the Kabi Kabi people as the traditional owners of the lands and waters of the Noosa area and we pay respect to the Kabi Kabi elders who have come before us. We also pay respect to current and emerging leaders and their enduring commitment in pursuing a strong and healthy future for the First Nations people. Attendants, I'd like to welcome Mayor Wilkie, Deputy Mayor Brian Stockwell. In the gallery, I'd like to acknowledge Councillor Karen Finzel. There is one apology, Councillor Tom Wegner is an apology for today.
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:01:00 Presentation, there are no presentations. There's no deputations, so we'll go straight to the reports. Oh, excuse me. A confirmation of minutes. Can I have a move and a second? Thank you. No discussion, all in favour? Presentations, deputations, there are none. Item five, reports for consideration of committee. We'll go straight to reports for consideration of committee. Report 5.1, 51988.2770.02, application for a minor change to a town planning consent for indoor entertainment, an extension of an indoor entertainment at 31 Butler Street in Tewantin. And I'll now move to Patrick, if you would like to give us an overview or a summary, or Tara, thank you very much. Speaker 2: All right, so this application is seeking a minor change to the existing 1988 approval for the netball clubhouse at the Butler Street Sports Complex.
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
3 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 DEPUTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
5.1 51988.2770.02 APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A TOWN PLANNING CONSENT FOR INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND EXTENSION OF AN INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT - 31 BUTLER STREET, TEWANTIN ¶
00:02:00 So in 2020, Noosa Council endorsed the Noosa District Sports Complex Master Plan, which did include an upgrade to this facility. The existing netball clubhouse has had some flood damage previously, and council is looking to widen the internal north-south road through the... Sports Complex. So as a result, the clubhouse will need to be relocated to make that widening available. So the clubhouse is being relocated to the existing car park, and then the car park will be reconstructed where the clubhouse is currently. So the applications come to council today because they are looking for a reduced, fairly substantial reduced setback. So the scheme requires 20 metres. They're looking for 6.9 to the McKinnon Draft frontage. So that's the main issue to discuss. And the length of the building. So the plan scheme requires 15 metres as a maximum for a single wall length.
00:03:00 The actual building is approximately 30. So any questions? Mayor Wilkie: We're looking at giving this relaxation for the front boundary because in front of the boundary there's also quite a large road reserve. That's correct, yeah. And the purpose of these boundary setbacks is so that any structure does not negatively impact on the road frontage. Are you saying that because there's such an extensive road reserve, perhaps you can quantify how large that is, that impact is not an issue here? Speaker 2: Sure. So yeah, you're correct. So the McKinnon Draft road reserve is quite wide compared to what a normal road reserve is. So the actual setback, sorry, it's a minimum 20. Speaker 4: It's 22 metres, I think. Speaker 2: 22 metres, yes. The road reserve is 20 metres. So it'll be set back approximately nearly 30 metres from the actual road edge.
00:04:00 Yes. And then Council also has a landscape plan to do some landscaping across that frontage within the road reserve. Mayor Wilkie: So it's quite a fair way back from below. Correct. Because of the road reserve. Yeah. And what are the plans for that road reserve? Speaker 2: So we do have a, do you have that landscape plan? So we do have a landscape plan that has been provided by our communities team. Sorry. Sorry about that. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: What we're baking, just a question. If this is approved and this meeting, how soon could the construction begin? Any ideas? It's a much needed club house upgrade. Yeah. So, Amanda.
00:05:00 Speaker 1: I'll respond to that. As soon as we have, there's a contractor already engaged to start construction. Yes. I've been informed this morning that Flanagan and William have already been submitted pending the outcome of this approval, so the state appointed project managers are actually coordinating this project with two other projects in South East Queensland and a lot of projects have already started that would like to commence this as soon as possible, so as soon as we can get the construction contractor waiting for the word to go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So is there a second page which takes the landscaping past where the setback non-compliance is? Speaker 2: This is all we've been provided at the moment. Speaker 1: The car parks to the left, that's actually where it is.
00:06:00 Speaker 2: So this is the existing? This is existing. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. No. Mayor Wilkie: Because the car park is... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that's the new car parking layout. That looks it. Speaker 1: That's the existing car parking layout. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, the car park's front... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah, but an extra bay. Yeah, okay. Speaker 4: I'm with you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. Speaker 4: We haven't superimposed the new building. Yeah, no. But I guess... There's one less row of cars. Yeah. But you can see there's sufficient for additional planting. Yeah. Yeah. So we've got a lot of parking there to provide further screening. And we'll note in the report there is also a street view isn't there? There's a street view. It's a nine as well. So that's the existing landscaping shown. So this will be in addition to that as well. Further planting will be undertaken as well. So there'll be limited vistas, I guess, of the structure as such, particularly in view
00:07:00 from the street. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that buffers the northern elevation. The eastern elevation is also what we might call plain, which by the... Is there any plans in any way to buffer that? It's mainly... It won't be that visible from the road, but when you come into the sports complex, it'll be not necessarily an appealing site going across the car park into what is just the rear door of a very long wall. Speaker 2: So I guess the expectation of the community is that it's going to be a very long wall. It's not going to be a community for what a clubhouse would look like. It's similar to what's existing at the moment. So in terms of articulation, there is a ramp and some windows along that eastern facade. There's limited availability to do any landscaping because it is on an existing hard stand area. So there will obviously be additional works required to either dig up the existing car park to apply some landscaping or planter boxes potentially.
00:08:00 But I think just in terms of what the structure is and what's existing, I don't think that it would be out of the community's expectations for this design. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We try and... It's our application and we're not doing a good job. In terms of that's, well, it looks good to the cause, to the car park, is that the standard we set for? And I understand we're doing it for the netball. Speaker 4: I think we do need to... We need to do a bit more there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The only other thing I can think of is to break it up as a little bit of, as you say, low fencing, planter boxes, something that takes away from looking at the back of the building basically. Councillor Lorentson: From the car park? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. From the main road in, the car park. Yeah. It's just going to look like you're looking at the back of the long wall. Speaker 4: Sort of wrap some of that landscaping around so that it sort of shelters the views that Deputy Mayor Stockwell: are coming in. Yeah. It's difficult to wrap the landscaping around from the side layout. But I just think it's a fairly easy fix to take some of the scale and bulk of it, like
00:09:00 we know we're doing it for the netball court, but we are approving an application by council that's got non-compliance. And one of the non-compliances is the length of the wall. So I think we need to look at it from a design perspective and say, well, how can this, without adding too much cost, improve the outlook? Mayor Wilkie: Just a clarification there is that the clubhouse is to the west of that car park. This is the new layout. No, that's the other one. Look. Councillor Lorentson: Tara, can I? I thought the same thing. Can I? Excuse me. One person at a time. Thank you. Tara. Yes. Yes. I'm referencing the performance outcome number 18 of the recreation and open space zone code. So there's non-compliance with acceptable outcome number 18.1, but the application did comply with the corresponding performance outcome.
00:10:00 So performance outcome, and this sort of ties in with what Councillor Stockwell's referring to, is that the buildings and structures are appropriately sited so as to provide a space that allows for landscaping and a retention of existing trees, help protect the natural character and visual amenity, maintain the open space. So wouldn't that support the argument that Councillor Stockwell is making, that we, given that we are relaxing, we're allowing some type of relaxation, there's still an obligation that, or requirement, that the area is properly vegetated. Speaker 2: So that's specific to the front setback, so we are getting some vegetation through that front setback. I think in terms of the eastern elevation, figure four shows where it's actually located. So in terms of getting additional landscaping to screen it, at the moment it is constrained because of the car park that's remaining.
00:11:00 Yes. There's potential perhaps for some landscaping along the internal road, but noting that that will be widened at some point. So whether that would... Yes. ...be able to remain long term, that's probably something that we can have a bit of a chat about and come back to councillors with maybe some additional conditions. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of Mr. Councillor being the applicant, can you explain, my question is, are there any additional measures that we put in place to ensure transparency and impartiality in this process? Speaker 4: Well, part of the reason is we've brought the applicant in. We've brought the application to council for consideration whilst the officers could be within their delegations to make a decision and the abundance of caution and in the public interest we've brought this for full transparency and discussion by councillors. In terms of the point, I think there could be an opportunity for council to explore with the applicant further landscaping that could be conditioned potentially, particularly
00:12:00 in the areas where there is some capacity where there's no arch down there. I know this is a few gaps. Just on that figure four. Just on the figure four, where you could get some clustering of vegetation there which could soften that appearance coming through off McKinnon Drive which might help soften the impact when viewed from the entry to McKinnon Drive into the site. Mayor Wilkie: So, if we move this to the general, perhaps in the meantime some of those conditions can be added to the recommendation? Speaker 4: Yes. Or even the landscaping plan could be maybe modified or changed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've got a general commission about landscaping and land that you've specified. As I said, I don't want to put any roadblocks in front of progress, but we have to be very careful not to treat this any different to how we would any other developer when we are the applicant.
00:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: I'll move it to General. Councillor Lorentson: Yep, I have another question, Tara. Regarding landscaping works and the retention of trees under condition 25, I think it is, the removal of this vegetation is restricted to within three metres of the building footprint. My only question is how is that going to be managed? Speaker 2: So we do have a standard condition around the retention of trees. When construction is happening on site where they need to be protected. I'm not sure if that's included as a standard condition. I don't have the condition. Councillor Lorentson: I don't think I saw it. That's why I'm asking the question again. Speaker 2: Condition 27 is the outstanding condition for retaining, protecting trees that are to be retained.
00:14:00 Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Mia Wilkie, do you want to? We just need a second and a chance. Speaker 3: Sorry. Just to clarify, are you also seeing some changes to the building in terms of materiality or colour to soften it? Or is it just landscaping? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd be looking at recommendations what you think might be the best option that can effectively reduce the appearance of balkan scarves. Okay. Would it be used on the entrance coming off? Yeah. There's a couple of spots, as you say, where you could do it. You could perhaps have the part that hasn't got the ramp have a little bit of a fence to break up the height or something. Speaker 4: Okay. That's it. Thank you, councillors. We can look at doing that and bringing that back at the general. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Any further discussion or questions? No. Thank you, chairman. No? All in favour? Thank you.
00:15:00 We have a minor change to development approvals for a seafood kiosk at 185 Weyba Road, Noosaville. Again, I'll ask Patrick and Tara if they could give us an overview of the application in front of us. I'd also note that this application is also moving to the general committee meeting because of the significance of the matter. Speaker 2: Sure. So the applicant seeks to amend two existing approvals. A minor change has been lodged for both approvals that were issued in the 80s, so they're approximately 40 years old. The applicant is seeking to convert the existing fish and chip shop to a bakery. They're proposing to operate from 6am to 5pm Wednesday to Sunday with the potential to increase to seven days a week. They've advised that there will be five staff on site at a maximum at any one time. So they're also proposing that two bakers will be on site from 4.30am and 5 o'clock respectively, and that front of house staff will be starting at 6am and 7.30am.
5.2 51981.3345.01 & 51984.3154.01 APPPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS FOR A SEAFOOD KIOSK AT 185 WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE ¶
00:16:00 There'll also be a third staff member that will come in on busier days. There's deliveries that are proposed for three times per week after 8am. So the applicant has advised that the residents of the dwelling that is on site will be the bakers as well. So they will be living on site. At the moment, they're proposing two car parks to the rear of the property, which is existing already. No works are actually proposed to the building. The building will remain as is externally. There are some internal building works, including an increase in the GFA to the kitchen. Other than that, the other major change at the moment is proposing on-site dining. So council officers are recommending refusal for this application, noting that the original approval was for a kiosk, which is a differently defined use than a bakery under the scheme that it was approved under.
00:17:00 So essentially, they're introducing a new use to the approval, and they're also increasing the impacts of the use by changing the operating hours, starting much earlier, having people on site from 4.30am, proposing on-site dining from 6am, and also increasing the use area for the on-site dining and not providing any car parking on-site for customers. So at the moment, the recommendation is for refusal because the application is not considered a minor change, and it's considered another change because of those increased impacts and the fact that the use is different to the use that was approved. Speaker 3: That's a very important, I suppose, gateway that the application needs to be moved through and be satisfied before you can consider the merits of it. So if it's another change, it means that the application would require notification.
00:18:00 That's a very important aspect in this whole consideration. Irrespective, even if it didn't require notification, it would still need to go through the right process, the other change process. But I think that's very important that we have members of the community that are not being afforded the right to view the application and make a submission. I think that's a very important aspect in this whole consideration. So that's, again, important to note that. Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Council? Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: So, interesting one. This is site zone residential? Yes. It's a medium density residential. It's in a medium density residential zone. It has these historic approvals, which were... Did you get to the bottom of how they were issued in the first place? Speaker 3: They were issued under the... So it was under the 1973 scheme, and they actually were... They were recommended to be refused by officers, but council supported the application.
00:19:00 But notably, didn't allow for onsite dining, but it had to be taken away. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: And so, is the pivotal point of the staff recommendation is that it is not exchanging like for like. It is going from a seafood takeaway to a patisserie. Okay. Which a lay person would see as just another food and drink outlet or commercial use. That's right. But the change in hours from, say, mid-afternoon to early evening, which the seafood takeaway operated under, is now going to a start, a 6am opening, with the potential to attract customers at a very early hour. Potentially groups of cyclists and runners love patisseries after their morning run and so on. And that's likely to have impact on the residential amenity.
00:20:00 That's correct. And therefore, it ought to be another change which would involve public notification to signal to that neighbourhood that this change is proposed, and they have input, have a say on the change. That's correct. Speaker 3: That's entirely correct. And to say it's just going from a seafood kiosk to a bakery is almost oversimplifying. That's right. Because it comes down to this technical assessment under the planning scheme. And when the application was originally approved, the kiosk is a subset of a refreshment service definition. The preparation of the baked goods fell under a service shop definition. So they're two completely uses. And one of the things we have to look at with the minor change, one of the elements is, is it a substantially different development? And the first point there is, does it involve a new use?
00:21:00 And yes, it does. And then some of those other matters that you were just talking about, around the new impacts or increasing the severity of known impacts around potential noise and car parking. These are also another elements that will determine whether a change is a substantially different development. And we consider that there is an exacerbation of known impacts. And then the other element is, does it involve a new use? And therefore, it is a substantially different development. Doesn't make the minor change test. Mayor Wilkie: So if it was like the like, so for example, it was going to another, from a seafood kiosk takeaway, to another one, that these applicants wanted to put another seafood takeaway there, similar operating hours, that would be like the like, and a minor change would be appropriate? Speaker 3: Well, they would have their existing approval that they can rely on. So they wouldn't need to. Yeah. So if they were going to operate in accordance with their existing approvals, they could continue to do that.
00:22:00 Okay. If they were going to make some minor changes to the internal arrangements or of the approved plans, then that's something that we could look at as a minor change. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: So because this new use has different operating hours, the potential to impact on a residential neighbourhood, it ought to be an other change and be publicly notified. That is correct. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: In 1990, council resolved to register a caterers shop. So the existing site has an existing non-conforming use as a caterers shop. Can you explain the definition of caterers shop under the 1985 NUSA plan? And can you also define 2020 plan, the NUSA plan? It seems like there's a history of definitions. So can you go back to caterers shop? Yeah. Speaker 3: I don't have the caterers shop definition handy.
00:23:00 However, that was a registration of a non-conforming use. It wasn't an approval. It was just a registration. Council at that time has obviously decided to use that term. But what that non-conforming use like use letter said was that it had to operate in accordance with the approvals and conditions that were issued. Under the TPCs. So again, it constrained it back to what had been approved by council. Councillor Lorentson: So I've got a copy of what the 1985 planning scheme defines catering shop. And it says any premises used or intended for use for the preparation by cooking or otherwise of light refreshments, takeaway meals, or bread, cakes, or pastry, and the supply of such on sale to the public for consumption elsewhere on the TPC. On the premises. So when I read that, there's an alignment. So again, can you give us some clarity? Speaker 4: I think just further to Patrick's comment.
00:24:00 So the registration of non-conforming use doesn't reassess an application for a varied use from what's already approved. And I think as Patrick alluded to, at the time when that registration was referred to, obviously, a definition similar to or nested with the registration of non-conforming use was referenced in that register. That doesn't authorise a broader range so that approval all of a sudden becomes broader than what it actually was for. It's just the registration that there's an approval that's existing, that's functioning, and it's lawful, and it's captured on our register of non-conforming uses at the time. So it doesn't, just because it's registered with that terminology, which is a broader nesting, doesn't give it broader use rights. And clearly, as the letter outlined, it does refer back to what the actual lawful approval is for, which is the seafood kiosk. So I take the point that that terminology is broader in nature, but legally, it doesn't
00:25:00 authorise all of a sudden a cater shop can happen because it's just a registration of a lawful conforming use, which is specifically the seafood kiosk. Speaker 3: And notably, what we're dealing with is an application to amend approvals for non-conforming use, the TPCs, that relate back to the kiosk use. That letter that we sent, that register, that is, again, it's not an approval, it's not something that can be amended. So, again, it's just an acknowledgement that there was that use occurring on the site. Speaker 2: I'd just add, when the application was originally lodged, it was lodged to amend the non-conforming use register. Through the process, it was communicated to the applicant that that wasn't an approval, and that there was no way to amend that NCU, and that they had to actually amend the approval. So, essentially, it was just a list of uses that were existing that were lawful, that were non-conforming with the zoning at the time. So, the applicant applied to then amend the actual approvals, which is where those definitions
00:26:00 sort of matter, I guess. Councillor Lorentson: The report notes, I think, are on the page. I'm so blind. On page seven, that the applicant did not seek any advice from council on the proposal, either via a written advice or a pre-lodgement meeting prior to lodging the minor change application. We met with the applicant's advisor. I lost myself in there walking. We met with the applicant yesterday. It appears that what was told to us, and I've actually got some dates here, that 4th of May 2023, 5th of May 2023, 11th of May 2023, that the applicant did actually seek advice.
00:27:00 I think they called planning, and they did seek advice as to what application was required to be lodged. They also called again and requested feedback on the application. And the advice that they were given was that it was a minor change, and they proceeded and paid the applications, understanding that it was a minor change. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Well, there was no formal written advice provided. There was no formal pre-lodgement meeting that occurred. We've become aware that our coordinator of planning did have some emails and conversations with the applicant. Now, those conversations were actually... It was stated that there was issues, that it wasn't clear. It was never advised to make a minor change, and that was the right application.
00:28:00 The coordinator was actually saying, there's some real challenges with what you're looking to do here. And it was the applicant that suggested you just put a minor change, and then see how it ran through the process. So that's probably not accurate in terms of how it's been framed to you. I'd suggest that they were very informal discussions. There was no plans provided. There was no opportunity. There was no interrogation of the scheme definitions or anything like that. It was quite a high level back and forth. Mayor Wilkie: If I can just clarify what I heard. They said they made phone calls, but there was an acknowledgement that there wasn't any formal written advice or pre-lodgement meeting. I did make contact via phone call, which was acknowledged yesterday, but not via pre-lodgement Speaker 4: It's quite hard to provide advice. As you're probably aware, there's a complex element to this proposal, noting the historical
00:29:00 approval. And you actually need to spend a fair bit of time, as Tara has on this, assessing and understanding the continuity of those approvals and the changes and all of the history of that. And obviously from a phone call, very hard to provide a definitive response around a proposal without even plans or understanding the proposal in detail. The applicant, as I said, always had the opportunity to get something formal and writing through written advice, which is where a fair amount of work would have been required to provide that advice at that stage. Is that the correct application to proceed? But the applicant decided to opt to lodge and be assessed as a minor change. And that's obviously the path that's been taken. And on the basis that what they actually lodged was an application to amend the non-conforming Speaker 3: use rights letter, suggested to me that the deeper dive hadn't occurred at that point from the applicant around what approval was actually applied to the site and the process that was really needed to be undertaken.
00:30:00 Mayor Wilkie: May I ask a question? Please. You circulated some legal advice this morning from council lawyers. Can you summarise what it's saying? Speaker 3: In terms of some context, we received a letter from an applicant's lawyer back in January of this year. We reviewed that letter and provided a written response in early February, mindful of the fact that this was coming to a council meeting. We thought it was pertinent to and likely that the applicant would present their legal argument. We thought it was relevant for us to get our opinion interrogated. And so we've done that. The letter from the applicant is, it takes an approach where it seems to be saying, going
00:31:00 back to the actual land uses and then the transitional provisions through different forms of legislation. And how those approvals and definitions have been transferred to the current day. They're almost saying, well, it's really a food and drink outlet and we kind of don't need, you know, we, this is, if it is a food and drink outlet, we can just undertake this use. It's sort of unstated, that position. And that's not correct because it ignores the facts that there are approvals that have been applied to the land. And that those approvals have continuing force and effect. And that so did the conditions of the approval. And I think that was part of their argument as well, was that the conditions actually fell away. And so the advice is that that's not the case, that those approvals continue to have force and effect. A copy of the officer report was also provided to our lawyer and, you know, sought advice as to whether we were correct in terms of our assertions.
00:32:00 And the response was that it looked at how we came to that position and it said our conclusion in that regard was uncontroversial. So we're supporting our approach in that regard. It even made comment that it supported a refusal of the proposed. Mayor Wilkie: And that another change application is more appropriate than the original? Speaker 3: Well, yeah, by virtue of the fact that our conclusion that it's not a minor change, that was uncontroversial. That therefore it would be more appropriate. So it's not a minor change. Or in the close from that. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask? Legal advice is legal opinion. And I think the applicant also has legal advice and, again, legal opinion. So what I'm saying is it can be debated, the opinion. Speaker 3: And I know that the advice that we've received is that it's not a minor change.
00:33:00 It's just been received by a legal, you know, a solicitor who is, represents us in the planning and environment court. And it's certainly done. Speaker 4: Yeah. I think it's important to highlight we recently, so notwithstanding, as Patrick said, the advice provided in response to their original legal advice, officers were very comfortable that they disagreed with that advice and gave stated reasons why they had that view. We took an extra additional step recently. And so independent legal advice just to validate, again, our position on and reasoning. And that advice has come back supporting officers' reasons that it is substantially different development and is not a minor change. And also one step further, supporting the recommendation, recommendation for refusal. So we took that extra step to provide an additional opinion beyond officers' view around that.
00:34:00 Take your point. Thank you. We wanted an independent piece of advice also, regarding how we've come to that conclusion and the legal elements that apply to that test that's required. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. On the way here, I was thinking about the various transitions that's been made and the various representations made, something, I think, before that legislations later than when the original approval was. I think the Lawful Non-Conforming Use Register came in with the Sustainable Planning Act, which came in in memory early 1990 or late 89. Lawful Non-Conforming Uses, as you stated, they are specific to exactly what's there at the moment. It's not a, oh, well, that is defined as this and you can have anything that's defined as that. That was really clear at the time. Then the question is, when, if that approval, has that approval lapsed and whether the use, yeah, and this, what's probably important about what the next steps are, because if the use has been abandoned, then it's clear it's a full new mature change of use.
00:35:00 I'd just like for General to have a look at that, particularly from the case that we've heard that at some stage the use did transfer to another use. Which was providing sit-down seating to eat your meal there. So, at the time that that unapproved use commenced, did they abandon the approved use? So, if you can have a look at that before the General, that would be good. Councillor Lorentson: Would you take into consideration the fact that the application was lodged in 2023? So, you'd have to have, you couldn't consider an abandonment of use if an application's been stuck in council waiting for approval. That's a fair point. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that was the question, the question was about whether it was abandoned at the time that a new use commenced, and just because a new use wasn't approved, that, I don't know the answer to that, so that's a general question.
00:36:00 Speaker 4: We're happy to explore that. I think on the face of it, the, you know, this is a form of the view that the existing use hasn't been abandoned, notwithstanding we're assessing an application, you know, for a different use. But we can look at that further and come back with some further advice in general around the specifics, particularly the changes you're suggesting, does that constitute abandonment? Mayor Wilkie: In discussions yesterday, the front area is not enclosed, and the applicant was saying that if there was a concern about sound escaping, they would consider soundproofing the front area. What implications would that have if they were to? Soundproof, enclose and soundproof the front area, the annex.
00:37:00 Speaker 2: From a plan scheme perspective, it's increasing the GFA, so we need to look at plot ratio and things like that, which haven't really been assessed at this point, because there's no proposed changes to the existing building, so I'm not sure whether that would potentially tip them over the allowances in the scheme for plot ratio, but something to have a look at. Yeah. Speaker 3: And there'd also be an element of setback. Yeah. It should be a six metre setback. That, whilst acknowledging it is existing, if that was a solid place at the front, it certainly is contrary to the scheme's street-scape outcomes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of higher intensity of use and greater impacts that a bakery's going to have, this is one of the arguments in the report, has there been any discussion about, you know, any discussions with the neighbours? Again, we were there yesterday, and adjoining the bakery will be the baker and his wife, and
00:38:00 then I think the South Pacific's to your right, and there's residential on your left. Has there been any discussions, and can I, if not, can I request, can council speak to the neighbours? Is that possible before ordinary meeting? Speaker 4: No, it's not. It's not really appropriate. It's not appropriate for us to, officers being, engaging with, I mean, the applicants, you know, most welcome to engage with the residents as they choose to do so, but not really appropriate for the staff to be doing separate engagement with neighbouring properties. That's the applicants. Councillor Lorentson: But the applicant can reach out? Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. They can reach out. I mean, at the end of the day, we're dealing with this as, I guess, a minor change at this stage. So we're assessing the material that's provided to us. As Patrick alluded to, our view is that it should be another change or a new impact accessible application, which would require public notification, so we would receive formal submissions through that process, which would be the normal way of seeking community feedback on a proposal.
00:39:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Any further questions from the floor? No. No, thank you, Chair. From the floor, no? Okay. I'll move that this report goes to the general meeting due to the significance of the issue. Can I have a second, please? Second. Thank you. All those, any further discussion? All those in favour? Right. So. Thank you, Tara. Thank you, Tamara. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Richard. So. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So we're up to now item six, reports for no turn by the committee. 6.1, planning applications decided by delegated authority, July 2024. Confidential session. We're now. Oh, excuse me.
6 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JULY 2024 ¶
00:40:00 We need. Sorry. Excuse me. Can I have a mover and a seconder for 6.1? Mayor Wilkie: I'll move it, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, seconder. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. There are no confidential sessions. And I now declare the meeting closed at 10.13 a.m. It's close to a record, Madam Chair. Sorry. It is.
7 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION ¶
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.
8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.