Planning & Environment Committee - 8 October 2024 Transcript

4 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:02:03

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

4.1 DEPUTATION - NOISE ISSUES IN NOOSA JUNCTION APPLICANT: LIAM ALLAN SPEAKERS: LIAM ALLAN & DANICA ALLAN ¶

▶ 00:02:36

00:03:00 One, extending the operating hours of all food and drink outlets in Noosa Junction until midnight. Two, applying these extended hours to all seven days of the week, not just weekends. And three, that the conceptual future of Noosa Junction will be extended to all seven days of the week, not just weekends. The second is that it will become a nightlife entertainment precinct, including the provision of live music. Why are we so strongly against these proposed amendments? Because there is already a noise issue in Noosa Junction due to live music, patron noise and also car noise, resulting in residents' inability to sleep, even with their doors and windows closed. I'll say that again, us residents are unable to sleep in our own homes due to the noise currently emanating from the junction. We live in Banksia Avenue, which is 340 metres from Noos from Sunshine Beach Road to Crow Class. The residents we're presenting today live north, south, east and west of Sunshine Beach Road, all within about a 400 metre radius.

00:04:00 We are all adversely impacted by music noise, patron noise and late night reckless driving noise emanating from the junction. Our right to peace and quiet within our amenity is being very quickly erased. We are seeking to have a better future. We have a current issue addressed, and to ensure that the proposed amendments are not passed so that our right to peace and quiet is restored, and we can actually sleep in our homes as we are entitled to do. So please understand, this is simply about our right to sleep in our homes. I'd first like to address a number of community groups, including the Noosa Junction Traders Association, who are currently very verbal in promotion of our views in the Noosa Junction, and speaking out by way of petitions against us. I'd like to address a number of community groups, including the Noosa Junction Traders Association, who are currently very verbal in promotion of our views in the Noosa Junction, media articles and also an upcoming rally against our neighbourhood petition to stop live music in the junction. You're all probably aware of these movements, and those petitions have a lot of signatures from people who do not live in the junction and don't understand the issues at hand.

00:05:00 Their focus is solely on saving live music. I want to make a couple of things very clear in relation to those movements. We are not a small number of serial complainers. We are hundreds of sleep-affected residents in Noosa Junction. We have made complaints against a number of venues who have been breaking the regulations of their licences. Those licences were given formal warnings by the Office of Live and Gaining Regulation. Then they were fined for ignoring those warnings, and eventually they had more serious penalties imposed because they were again caught in the act of operating outside of their licences. No one has been unfairly targeted, only venues that have repeatedly ignored complaints and OLGR have been analysed. We are not trying to kill live music in Noosa. We are supportive of live music in Noosa, and we are supportive of bringing life into Noosa, but in a well-thought-through and sustainable way.

00:06:00 We are empathetic to the plight of musicians and licensees. In fact, we have attempted to engage both licensees and musicians, and those generating the aforementioned petitions, in an attempt to work together. No one has replied back to engage with us. The issue isn't the music, it's the location. Noosa Junction is simply not the suitable location for live music after hours. Sunshine Beach Road is one strip in the middle of a residential area. It's surrounded by homes. There also seems to be a complete lack of consideration or understanding about the topography of the area, being that Sunshine Beach Road is essentially a valley. So sound travels up out of the valley to homes on the small hillsides that surround it. No one seems to be considering it as an extremely important geographical factor. The Junction has long been home to restaurants and cafes without issue, but bars and restaurants trading as bars, with a focus on alcohol and live music almost every night of the week, is a different thing.

00:07:00 If the proposed amendments to the Noosa Plan are approved, the disturbance to the peace and quiet of the Noosa Junction residents will be irreversible. Once those changes are implemented and licensees capitalise on the opportunity, that change to Noosa Junction will be permanent. The changes are essentially creating a late-night entertainment hub in the middle of a residential suburb. Currently, late-night music and patron noise often continue to pass 2am. Residents can't have their windows open at night due to the noise. Running fans, air conditioners, using white noise and hearing protection have all proven useless against the level of noise. Residents no longer feel safe walking through or near the Junction after dark, fearful of drunken patrons. Residents have teenage children who work part-time in the Junction. They're no longer safe walking home. So parents are now having to drive into the Junction to collect them at the end of their shifts.

00:08:00 In addition, Noosa Drive has increasingly become a racetrack, with parents showing off to their friends drinking in the bars located near Sunshine Beach Road and Noosa Drive roundabout. So we are regularly woken with the sound of revving engines, screeching tyres and speeding cars. The proposed changes do state that live music is to be unamplified. However, performers always use amplification and acoustic guitars by nature of their construction are naturally amplified. So that restriction as to unamplified essentially is meaningless. Venues and artists play their music at excessive volumes over and above the regulations and they don't control their patrons who yell and scream and screech along with the music essentially creating open-air karaoke bars in competition with one another at times. Licensees have told us the more merrier and the more noise patrons make, the more crowds are drawn in by that noise, so they encourage it into free advertising. One venue has free TV's on their outside brander without volume.

00:09:00 However, when sporting games are being played, the lack of sound doesn't make any difference to the degree of noise patrons watching the game make. That outdoor karaoke bar becomes an outdoor sports bar. And all the whooping, cheering and chanting you'd expect of a sports bar is clearly audible from our bedrooms. After closing time, the patrons from Noosa Drive, all those venues are on the street. They're inebriated and they're waiting for Ubers and taxis. After the music stops, the music sound is replaced with yelling, fighting, screaming and all kinds of unsavoury behaviour taking place out on the streets. Ensuring that licensees operate within the rules and regulations in place around the provision of live music is difficult and does not come back to council. It's not your responsibility. It also does not fall to local police. It's not within their jurisdiction. To deal with noise complaints and licensed venues. That falls to the office of the current gaming regulation, OLGR.

00:10:00 And they will only step in after a number of complaints are made. OLGR are a state department. They're relatively small in terms of staffing numbers and they cover the entire Sunshine Coast and right up to Harley Bay. The legislation in place for noise complaints is extremely arduous. And it's not in favour of the complainants. Many of us residents have been in communication with them. We've been in communication with OLGR for eight months this year before any change was made. That's eight months of seriously, seriously interrupted sleep. To reiterate, council controls zoning and issues of permits. But a completely separate body, being the OLGR, handles the complaints. This detachment effectively shifts accountability away from the council, who we believe were for some time not even aware of the issues of noise in this adjunction because of this separation of roles. Let me explain a little bit about the process of making a complaint with OLGR. When residents experience excessive noise, they're required to submit a written log

00:11:00 of the date, time and type of noise encountered. Our log needs to match at least two or three other complaints. Before OLGR staff will even be given permission from management to open the case. OLGR cannot attend to complaints at the time they are made. They don't operate in a home or service. It's not a live process, but it's a reactionary process and it's a very protracted one that places a burden on the public to document and report disturbances multiple times to prove that there is an issue. This includes having to get out of bed late at night, get dressed, travel down to the junction and take video evidence of the court refining venue or venues night after night after night. And even then, that evidence is only of value. Other residents provide the same evidence from the same night, from the same venue at the same time and log that evidence with OLGR at the same time we do.

00:12:00 All the while, we, and more importantly our children, are not getting normal sleep on a normal school night. We understand the need to breathe life into Noosa and the concept of providing some night life for local young people and older people alike, but to be clear, we the residents of Noosa Junction, excuse the pun. We will not sleep until Noosa Junction is no longer a location for live night time music. In closing, we collectively implore you to review and address two major issues. That is the existing noise pollution caused by bars and clubs trading under the guise of restaurants in Noosa Junction and secondly the future strategic plans for Junction. Put simply and in summary, plans to turn Noosa Junction into an entertainment precinct are not workable and must be moved elsewhere. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Danica.

00:13:00 I'll now go to item number five, reports. Welcome, Councillor Stockwell, to the table. Item number five, reports for consideration of the committee will go to 5.1, Development Application 132008.176. application for extension to currency period and 132008.176.05, application for other change to a development approval for materials change of new sub-premises, resort development comprising multiple dwelling, 109 dwelling units and accommodation building, 90 accommodation units and ancillary facilities, to a resort complex and shop at 3 and 7 Serenity Street, Noosa Junction, We might start with an overview of the application that's in front of us noting that because of the significance of this development it is moved, it will be moved to the general meeting so that all councillors can partake in the discussions.

5.1 132008.176.04 - APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO CURRENCY PERIOD AND 132008.176.05 - APPLICATION FOR OTHER CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE OF PREMISES - RESORT DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING A MULTIPLE DWELLING (109 DWELLING UNITS) AND ACCOMMODATION BUILDING (90 ACCOMMODATION UNITS) AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO A RESORT COMPLEX AND SHOP AT 3 AND 7 SERENITY CLOSE, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 00:13:18· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:14:00 Speaker 3: Thank you. Good morning everyone. Right, so the first report is considering two applications as Councillor Lorentson has indicated. The first application is the 0.4 application which is for an extension to the currency period of an existing approval and then the 0.5 application is another change to an existing approval. So the sites we're talking about are at 3 and 7 Serenity Close, Noosa Heads, they're the last two applications. Residential high density sites in Settlers Cove which was part of the master plan developed and approved back in 2004. They were approved as part of a development application that created the rest high lots around Serenity Close and a number of residential single housing lots along Bank Ceremony and the dedication of Conservation Park directly to the west of Serenity Close.

00:15:00 So there's an existing approval over these two sites that was lodged in 2008 and approved in 2011. The approval has gone through a number of extension applications and it approved a total of 199 dwellings on the site in a four storey configuration with basement car parking and pools along the southern boundary. The submitted other change that we're considering is that we're going to be moving to a new site. It was originally submitted with 205 rooms, four storeys, 19,000 square metres of GFA, 40% site cover and access of Banksia Avenue.

00:16:00 Throughout the process we negotiated with the applicant and we ended up with a final set of plans with 186 units, four storeys in height, the GFA reduced down to 17,000 square metres approximately, basement parking, pools, the whole developments that have moved further along the southern boundary and the pools located to the northern boundary. All development was relocated out of the environmental zone. Shops that had previously been proposed in the centre with access of Serenity Close were relocated to go underneath the building. So that's what we've ended up with. So briefly we've talked about the requirements under the Planning Act when we're dealing with an other change.

00:17:00 And whilst the process is similar and has gone through a whole new process in terms of it's been lodged, there have been information requested, there have been public notification for submissions and we've now assessed it. We have to consider this, the changes with respect to the plans. We've respected the existing approval. And that's what we've looked at. So in our basis, in our assessment, the existing, the new development compared to the existing footprint has been reduced. We've got more areas of open space, we've got more retention of vegetation, we have less number of units and we've got less GFA. We've reviewed the current proposal, the final proposal against the planning scheme and basically the development has been altered now and has, takes form of small separate buildings. We consider it to be consistent with the scale of development in the surrounding area. There's some variation in design and materials. We've got some breaking up of the buildings through the form.

00:18:00 They have rooftop garden and terrace. The proposal complies with car parking and in terms of that basement car parking. Some of it has been reviewed by an external consultant and has been considered to be, acceptable. Traffic has been reviewed by external consultants and also is considered appropriate. A number of submissions were received in regard to traffic and impacts. Our consultants have looked at those concerns and indicate that the current roundabouts and road system is capable of supporting the proposed development. Bushfire was also reviewed by an external consultant, remodeling by the applicant and council's consultant indicates that it's very much outside the hazard area and can be dealt with under conditions. Biodiversity mapping, the development footprint is less than the existing approval and more vegetation is retained on-site.

00:19:00 A koala survey has been undertaken, there is no evidence that koalas on site. The pre disapproval has, the existing approval has actually paid contributions for removal of the koala trees pre disapproval for removal of the trees. A survey was also undertaken in terms of the Walsie black cockatoo feed trees. Again, there was no evidence of those species found. 107 submissions were received in response to advertising of the proposal. 21 were in support, the others were not. The applications also referred to the state for koala and state transport infrastructure. The state has imposed conditions relating to removal of koala habitat. Also required a rehabilitation plan and an offset for removal of trees. The state has also required the permission of a private bus stop along Serenity Place. That bus stop, private bus stop, is not supported by our member structure section. And the applicant has also indicated that they don't support it.

00:20:00 And they'll be making representations to the state along those lines. There were a couple of areas of non-compliance which we have reviewed and are considered quite minor. Number of attached units in one plane. The rooftop terrace, we believe they're quite minor and don't have significant impact. And staff are therefore recommending approval of the application. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'll now throw it to the floor and councillors. Any questions to Nadine, Patrick or Richard? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Chair. You mentioned that there were, through the Chair, you mentioned there were 107 submissions, 27 in support. Could you outline the main reasons for objection in those submissions? Speaker 3: Yes, it is indicated in my report. There were several submissions about removal of vegetation in terms of habitat.

00:21:00 And it has been indicated that the applicant had undertaken extensive testing across the site on observations. So we're happy with the information that's been provided in terms of the vegetation removal. One of the big ones was the traffic side of things. That was a big consideration of the number that was put forward by the submitters. But as I said, we've had actually two traffic consultants have looked at this and they have had an issue with the existing capacity of the road network and the roundabouts. There was a suggestion to open up Banksy Road in New. We specifically asked our traffic consultants to have a look at that. And they again advised that that wasn't appropriate and it wasn't required. Quite a few of the submissions also raised things about Energex, which isn't anything to do with council. And also that the existing farm station is not sufficient.

00:22:00 Again, that's Unity Wardom and that doesn't fall under our realm. So a lot of them... There were comments about... There were comments about the design. Traffic impacts were raised during construction, but that can be dealt with by conditions of approval in terms of the requirement for a traffic management plan. And there were, again, comments about parking. So a lot of it is to do with access along Grand Street. Mayor Wilkie: So, follow-up question. Parking can be handled on site? Yes. Energex and Unity Wardom are obviously... Are they capable of providing the services to the development? That's... I assume that's not the problem. That's right. Raising submissions is. Also, the private bus... The requirement of the private bus stop on the street, I imagine that is something to do with farrowing... Farrowing... Ferrying? Sorry. Not farrowing. Farrowing.

00:23:00 Director Walsh: Ferrying. Mayor Wilkie: Transferring. The guests to... Either the junction or Hastings Street, by means other than the private car. Speaker 3: That's right. Mayor Wilkie: If there's not a private bus stop on the street, how... Are they still going to be achieved, as objected by other names? Speaker 3: They've got in... Underneath, there is a drop-off and there is a provision for a 21-seater bus underneath the building. So that's what they've indicated that they can use. They've also said that they won't be having the big buses. So that... Yes, they will be ferrying people to the bus stop down by the J. Yes. And using that... Our infrastructure said, you won't get buses through Grant Street, not to Tashborough, and it's just... You can't take a big bus through that section. So they'll be looking out there. We've got pathways through the junction... From the J, through the park system, back up to the side. And yes, we've talked about... There is a condition about scooters and electric motor...

00:24:00 Electric bikes to be available to guests as well. There's a bus available on the bus park, available on site as well. Mayor Wilkie: So the two traffic consultants, they acknowledge that... In acknowledging the submitters' concerns about traffic, they acknowledge that there will be an increase in traffic... Yes. ...on the roads there. But the roundabout and the road network can handle that. Speaker 3: They said the wait times at the roundabouts were within normal realms. Projected wait times. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. Speaker 3: So the first... With the original application, they didn't have enough car parking, so they did go back and revise the design and put a lot more car parking in the basement area. Mayor Wilkie: So it's a smaller footprint, more open space. The buildings are no longer in the environmental and conservation area. That's correct. Yes. And more vegetation retained on site. That's correct. And offsets for any vegetation removed. That's right. Yes. . Thank you.

00:25:00 Councillor Lorentson: Questions? Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Maybe Brian will ask this again. Brian, with the bike paths, it mentions that there are paths going from there to the junction. Yes, there is. Are they bicyclable? Are they... And can they be upgraded to the point where bicycles can easily get from the junction without... Because the traffic, the roads are narrow. Yes, they are. They're not walking big roads and there's really never going to be a bike path on those roads unless we do some major stuff. Speaker 3: I must say, I haven't walked it for a while. I have walked that one. I've ridden... I have ridden... It's not on the road. It's off the road. Councillor Lorentson: It's off the road. Can I... Sure. Sorry. Can I... Yes. I've just noticed... Yes. Shaun Walsh, Director of Infrastructure. Director Walsh: I've walked that route recently from the J up to, you know, towards where the site is. It's certainly tragical. It could do with the environment. So, I'm just being honest, it could be a wider path and it could do perhaps with some lighting. I think some of the residents, you know, objections to using the path would be, you know, to

00:26:00 be accepting issues because it is a bit concealed. It would be much more, I'm just being honest, the existing pathway, the pathway within the pathway. So... Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of... This is one of the submissions. The full path along Grant Street. Shaun, can I ask... That full path is in very urgent need of upgrade. Has it... As discussion, and it was part of the submissions made to the application, I note Council have responded by saying that it's... That issue is a complex issue. Can you further elaborate? Director Walsh: Yes. So, in the first instance, the development of this scale doesn't trigger, you know, for them to actually construct a full path of that scale along Grant Street because we already have a connection, you know, through the junction. Ideally, we would have a full path along Grant Street as well as South London. As Council's been receiving development applications, duplexes and the like, we have been getting

00:27:00 very, very good funding to work to provide a full path since it's disjointed. For Council to go in and construct it at its own accord would require reconstruction of most of the residents of the driveways, which actually, I mean, except for the driveway entry and approach angles, as well as significant consultation and significant cost. And that, you know, is not something we can bear upon the developer for this particular application. It's something that has to spread across the community and be part of a more budget process. But it's not straightforward. It's actually technically quite complex and would take a fair bit of time and cost to actually implement it immediately. But we can work towards it in terms of as we get additional development applications and we can also put it in our long-term development plan. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Councillor Wickham? Councillor Wegener: No, that's for now. Right. Any other comments about development? Councillor Lorentson: I have a couple of questions and possibly requesting further information. This is economic data on accommodation needs.

00:28:00 The report, I think, on page 32, economic development offices outline the huge economic benefits of homed hotels like the Carlyle. What it is lacking and what I'd probably be seeking information for, for the general meeting, is data on the cost of accommodation. I would say accommodation needs in terms of one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom unit. I'd love to have that information. And I say that because our initial conversations some time ago with the applicants was that, and I note the existing approval had included 19 two-bedroom units, 31 two-bedroom dual-key units and 51 three-bedroom dual-key units. Totally different. And I did all my numbers. I've got 129 one-bedroom and 17 two-bedroom units.

00:29:00 This now has changed to 177 one-bedroom unit with only five two-bedroom units and only four three-bedroom units. So I just want to understand the reasoning behind the shift and understand the supporting data to justify these changes. Again, sort of understanding how we've gone from a two-bedroom unit to a three-bedroom There's a lot of help alleviate, in my opinion, our pressures with AirBnBs and residential zones and homes, so I just want to understand what data supported that. You didn't? Speaker 3: Oh, so that was the applicant. So we didn't get the configuration, so I would have to go back to them and ask them. Yeah, so it wasn't us who said we want more of these. They came back with that proposal, so I would have to go back to the applicant rather than the economic side.

00:30:00 Yeah, that was the applicant who proposed this configuration. Councillor Lorentson: Great. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Still questions on the floor. In terms of the conservation land, so my understanding there's three lots directly to the south. It's a site that Council is a trustee and is responsible for management of the conservation land. Can you explain what that actually means? Speaker 3: So the three directly to the south, they're actually state land with Council as trustee and I think they're for park and drainage. The one, the big one to further to the west, that's the conservation park. We're required to maintain them, yes. There was an agreement as part of this original, there are conditions, sorry, as part of this original development that there's increased maintenance in terms of bushfire. And yes, we're required to maintain those levels as per those conditions and there's a deed of agreement that's been signed by previous Councils in that regard.

00:31:00 Councillor Lorentson: In terms of... I've got a few questions. In terms of... Mayor Wilkie: No, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Design. And I think I've raised this a couple of times with other submissions. In terms of design, we... I noted in the report that we did actually request independent review of the design. By an expert architect. Can I ask what was his findings on the design? Are you signing your design? Fantastic.

00:32:00 Thank you. Okay. And... In terms of... Danica Allen: Okay. Councillor Lorentson: And I'm going back to sort of learnings that we have with the Sunwise... Do you think you're familiar with Sunwise? Summarise application in terms of the, I think that there's a couple of conditions, vegetation protection covenant, oh sorry, the, I think it's condition number 68, retention of existing trees, and there's also fauna management. I wonder, and this is just a question, can we include, and this is just from learnings from Summarise development, can we include a noting or some sort of condition that requires local experts to be on site when that retention happens?

00:33:00 Something maybe I'll discuss with you, Richard, after this meeting. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, happy to explore that. Obviously challenges regarding the role for, you know, particular parties to do that work, so we'll take that on notice, possibly in a further conversation. The issue is, is, you know, there'll be a person, a qualified person engaged to undertake those works, bringing in third parties can be quite a challenging situation, particularly if they're not specifically qualified to undertake that work, and then there can be, you know, I'm happy to consider that a bit further and understand the role of community members in an era put into particular elements around vegetation retention and management. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And next we've got Councillor Finzel on line. Karen, what question would you like to ask?

00:34:00 Councillor Finzel, can you hear me? No, sorry, we are having audio issues. Karen, can you hear me? Do you have a question? We might request that you maybe go to your chat box and submit your question online. And we can have it answered. If you can submit your question on chat, that would be great. Mayor Wilkie: Try again, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I've added that now. Mayor Wilkie: We can hear you now. Councillor Lorentson: Can you hear me now? Councillor Finzel: Yes, we can. Oh, fantastic. Thank you for your patience, everybody. Just going on from the conservation area.

00:35:00 Given that the natural environment of Noosa is highly revered in our landscape, I'm just wanting more information on the benefits and risks to Council with regards to the condition to maintain that area post the development. Speaker 3: We are required to maintain that area. There are conditions of the original, I suppose the originating application. There is an agreement that we are to maintain it. Council has signed over that responsibility. So we are responsible for managing that land regardless of this development going ahead. Speaker 1: So we're not seeking to impose any further constraints on that land. There was a requirement that it be managed to eight tonnes. Ten. Ten tonnes per hectare. Ten tonnes per hectare.

00:36:00 So that's the current arrangement. And the development will be relying upon that occurring to ensure that they have their adequate water protection on their site. Speaker 3: Noting that that's what it should be maintained at for also those existing developments in the area. So we should be undertaking that maintenance. That's my understanding. Speaker 2: And that will be undertaken similar to our wide range of reserve networks as well where Council already undertakes regular management and maintenance of those other estates. This is another one of the many that Council oversees and manages as part of its normal duties. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Following on top of that question though, in terms of risk back to Council, what's the economic impact? Is that in our budget for maintenance for that moving forward or will that have to be something that's reconsidered when it comes to budget?

00:37:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, we have funds set aside every year for undertaking reserve management across our entire reserve network, Councillor Cowran. So this will be included as part of that. And obviously each year the team provide details on whether there's sufficient funding or any increases required to undertake further maintenance. And management work in those reserve networks. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Do you think this will trigger a review of our reserve management funds and how it's managed across the Shire into the future? Speaker 2: I'm unable to answer that at this time. Councillor Lorentson: And I might say that it's not relevant to the application in front of us. So I won't allow that question. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Any further questions? Councillor Finzel: No, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Any further questions? Any further questions on the table? No. Mayor Wilkie: I'll move it to go to the General Committee.

00:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener? No. Thank you. No further discussion? All in favour? Thanks. I request that the development application is moved to the General Meeting for further discussion and debate. Thank you. Danica Allen: Go now. Go to... Just over my computer. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Go to the next item. Report for consideration of the Committee 5.2, MCU 230096, Application for Material Change of Use for Educational Establishment, Extension to Existing Performing Arts Building, and Preliminary Approval for a Master Plan at 115 New Mundy, Noosa Road, Noosaville. So, again, welcomes, again. And indeed, can I request an overview of the application? Thank you. Speaker 3: Certainly. Okay. This application is about an extension to the Good Shepherd Lubrin School in the form

5.2 MCU23/0096 APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (EXTENSION TO EXISTING - PERFORMING ARTS BUILDING) AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A MASTER PLAN AT 115 EUMUNDI NOOSA RD, NOOSAVILLE ¶

▶ 00:38:30· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:39:00 of the construction of a Performing Arts Building. And the Arts Building is to be constructed over an existing car parking area, which isn't currently used by the school. The... In any case, that car park is not only used for use. They currently use the new staff car park that was approved in the western corner of the site. The Performing Arts Centre is in place. We built next to the existing pool and sports building. And it's not intended to increase numbers of children on the site, but to use as a day-to-day teaching facility, but it also has special events there. The building, the Performing Arts Building is set back at least 40 metres from the Royal Hay Drive frontage. It has a gross floor area of over 1600 square metres, and is two storeys in height, with a height of 10.64 metres above natural ground level. And 11 metres from the finished excavated ground level.

00:40:00 This is a co-decessible application, but because of the level of non-compliance on the size, it has been reported to Council. The planning scheme indicates also a maximum of 1000 square metres for buildings in the community facility zone. We're up at 1692 square metres. However, we consider that an appropriate size in terms of the scale, obviously, and the development, and how it fits into the site. The... I'm sorry. The overall height of the building, at 10.64, is above the eight metre height limit. But again, we consider it consistent with the scale of buildings on site, especially next door, which the adjoining sports hall has a height of 11.9 metres. Also noting in the report that we have approved other schools and facilities of this type, with additional height. The New St. Christian College has the height of 11.9 metres. While St. Teresa's Christian College permits a maximum building height of 9 metres.

00:41:00 As part of this proposal, there are upgrades to the existing Goodchap Street entrance, and that will be providing... Increasing the number of car parking spaces there, including a lot more drop-off bays for the development. So, we'll be improving that intersection. The admin also seeks a preliminary approval for a master building. This is something that we've wanted, to sort of get an idea, to see what they're proposing. Again, it's just indicating the maximum number of students, and again, sort of building locations. It doesn't alter assessment levels. It still requires a co-accessible application to Council. So, they're the two things that we're currently considering, and we have recommended it for approval as part of this report. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. Questions, councillors? May I? Yes, please. Mayor Wilkie: Madam Chair, the setbacks from Walter Hay Drive, 40 metres you indicate.

00:42:00 Yes. What would be required under the planning scheme? Speaker 3: I think it's 6 or 10 metres. Sorry, off the top of my head. Mayor Wilkie: A lot less. A lot less, yes. 6 or 10 metres. And because it's 40 metres back, we consider the height of the building not to have such an impact. That's correct. Being a performance-based planning scheme, you judge it on the impact it has, so it's a less prescriptive view. Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. So, it's set back substantially, over 40 metres. It is also stepped. So, at the front, it steps down, and then rises back, and then there's another part of the building that is lower as well. So, our area of non-compliance relates mainly to the roof area, which is also required in the course of the use of it for lighting, curtains, all those type of functions relating to the performing arts centre, does require additional height in the building. So, it's being designed for a specific purpose.

00:43:00 Mayor Wilkie: And what is the height of the portion of the building that's closest to the road, 40 metres back? Councillor Lorentson: That starts, there is a plan, I thought, 2.64 and 11 metres from the excavated ground level. Is that what that is? Yes. Yes. Speaker 3: At the front, though, where it starts, there is... Speaker 2: Page 131. Oh, I've got to read that. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. I'm pretty sure it's, as you can... If you go to... Actually, if we bring it up on page... Figure 7 of the report. Can we do that? Mayor Wilkie: It looks a lot closer to 8 metres. Mm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Director Walsh: How was it in the... Speaker 3: If you go into the planning report, figure 7, that might be the easiest way. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just ask a question while we're getting there?

00:44:00 Yes. On the screen, Nadine. My understanding, that it's located near the sports hall, which is, has an approved height of 11.9 metres. That's correct. So it's considered compatible? Yes, that's correct. Speaker 3: That's correct. And again, we are set back. So really, it's when you come around the corner and you're looking across the car park, that's, that's really where you'll see it. They have indicated that they can do some landscaping, again, some supplementary landscaping and look at some conditions. So if you have a look there, there's the red line is the eight metres. So we've got, actually no, it's not that one. Oh, it's the one above that, sorry. That's all right. Oh, no, it's not. So figure... Figure eight is figure seven, but it's the top, top one.

00:45:00 There are two, two sections, and it's the top section. That one, yeah, that one. So... Speaker 3: So... Oh, the top, you can see the red line there. So it is, that's the eight metre height limit. And you can see, so the right hand side of the screen is the... Walter Hay Drive. Walter Hay Drive. And remember, we've got 40 metres. 40 metres. Yeah. And then we step back up. And you can see, so it is eight metres at the front of the building. And it does step up, and you can see the dotted outline of the Adjoining Sports System Hall next to it. Mayor Wilkie: And with this sports hall being much taller at 11.2 metres... What's the history of those, that development bank? Is that pretty standard for education facilities to be given where they're supposed to be? Yes. Because of the nature of the buildings that they require? Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah, you generally have quite a large tool crew.

00:46:00 Yeah. And then consequently, the roof form will be significantly larger. Yeah. And then, yeah, you've just got, here you've got the functionality that the building's trying to achieve internally, in terms of some of those measures that Nadine was talking about, acoustic properties, lighting, the infrastructure that's needed for, you know, around stages and whatnot, the seating, so it's, yeah, it's seating, that's right, yeah. Speaker 3: So, when we, initially they had, on the right-hand side, on the upper level, you can see that's the change rooms, so originally they went above height, so they actually adjusted that and went, yeah, we don't need the height for the change rooms, so they brought that down, but they have indicated that they need this additional height for the performing side of things, so we did, they have given us an architectural report, reasoning, stating why they need it, and again, it's purpose-built, we just set it back, we've got some, you know, screening there, so it's a, it's a bit of a different situation, it's quite a unique situation, really, in terms of, as I said, form follows function, and it's, it's, it's location, it's got good setbacks, it's tucked away, we have an existing building next door, we also have industrial land across the road, which has quite buildings in it, quite large buildings in it as well.

00:47:00 Mayor Wilkie: Mm-hmm. Speaker 3: What's the line in the industrial, some of the industrial buildings? Mayor Wilkie: Ten minutes. Yes, ten minutes, so it's consistent with what you're expecting in that time. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Um, fantastic, um, further questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Lorentson: Yes, please. Oh, Councillor Finzel, yes, what question would you like to ask? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just in terms of this is an exciting opportunity for performing arts and education, and hopefully developing emerging creatives along the way, um, developing our creative environment through our different by nature, just wondering if there was any discussion around just encouraging public art on the building, and the use of timber on the facade to, um, give that, um,

00:48:00 creative narrative between, like, the community coming to the building, driving past the community. Has there been any discussion around that? Speaker 3: Uh, there are two conditions, uh, on the approval, conditions nine and ten. Uh, no, I haven't got it. I must say, Councillor Finzel, um, I have asked for a colour scheme, um, to be provided. The, the existing colour scheme is quite grey, um, so I've asked for some, uh, again, to get some different, different sort of colours in there, and we have indicated a mix of lightweight and textured external finishes, um, I haven't really looked at public art, I'm not quite sure if they're appropriate. Councillor Finzel: Well, I just raised it, given it's... It's one of our design principles, our creative environment, and encouraging, um, the use of public art, um, that's subtle and sensible to the environment and our local character.

00:49:00 I just thought, given it's a, um, performing arts building, that maybe this is a great opportunity to look at that as part of the overall design. Speaker 2: Yeah, Councillor Kerrin, we could probably have a separate conversation, obviously with the, with the application in front of us, um, difficult for us to require the school to provide a separate piece of public art, but certainly happy to, um, engage with the school regarding opportunities there to, um, for art installations at a later date. I, I, I think it would be difficult to link it directly to this particular application and require subsequent investment in the public art as part of this proposal. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you. It could even be as simple as, like, a mural on a wall. It doesn't have to go to the extent of infrastructure and public art, but yeah, thank you for that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Um, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to second it, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second. Um, I would like to just speak of it.

00:50:00 Sorry, I moved. Excuse me. Councillor Stockwell, I'm thinking, who knew that? I'll speak after you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Go ahead. Yeah, so, um, as has been mentioned, I think this is a, a great addition to the local secondary, well, I suppose they are finally there as well, education. Um, it's been talked about relaxation, but in fact we don't have to relax the scheme at all. Acceptable outcomes are just one way to achieve the performance outcome, and in the report it's clearly argued and is correct that this building meets all the requirements of the performance outcome. It does not meet the acceptable outcome, but it is a school. Uh, the similar height was deemed suitable for basketball. So we can't argue that it's not suitable for theatre sports. Um, it does have a scale that's bigger than the residential area to its north, but akin to the industrial area to its southwest. Um, all the, when I looked through all the requirements for the performance outcome,

00:51:00 I think it complies with the scheme. So while we, it's not meeting acceptable outcomes, we don't have to meet acceptable outcomes if the design meets the performance outcome. And to me, it's acceptable. Councillor Lorentson: Wonderful. Um, I'll quickly speak to the application. Um, I'm also really excited, um, that this is here in front of us for approval. Um, several councillors, um, last year actually had the opportunity to meet with the school principal and staff. And, um, to see this exciting project come to fruition, um, is really wonderful. It's a significant milestone for both the school and it's an incredible opportunity for, um, the school community. And, um, the students, um, of Good Shepherd. Um, I do want to note, we're so lucky to have so many outstanding schools in the Shire. Um, and it's wonderful that Noosa Council is committed to supporting them in delivering

00:52:00 the best possible facilities. Um, and I note that the application started in, I think, July and went straight through with, and it doesn't seem like very many pickups. So, um, working in partnerships with the schools, I think, is really, really important. I think it can achieve best outcomes for both students and the broader community. I want to talk about the arts just quickly. The value of arts, mainly performing arts and education, cannot be overstated. And, again, wonderful to see Good Shepherd School, and this is part of our conversations with the school last year, that they are so committed to providing top quality programs for their students. Um, this new facility, um, and the principal sent me a lovely letter just outlining, um, it'll offer much needed support. And, again, looking forward to seeing the positive impacts this facility will have on, on the students and, again, the wider school community. Um, I'm excited that this is here for approval, um, and, hopefully, gratified at Ordinary

00:53:00 University. Any further discussion? Mayor Wilkie: Mayor Wilkie? Yes. Ah, look, it's, it is wonderful to see an extension to this existing performing arts centre. It's great to provide an extension to this existing performing arts centre. It's great to have an extra opportunity for young people to explore the dramatic arts, music, and theatre. And, um, I've noticed in, that our, a lot of our young people are so well-rounded these days. Not only do they play all sorts of sports, they're also equally as comfortable on the stage singing and doing theatre. So, ah, this will help the personal development of, ah, the Shire's young people. And it's only appropriate that the performance, ah, centre should meet the performance outcomes of the Noosa planning scheme. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Very good. That's right. I was going to say that. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. Um, Council Winner? No. Thank you. Fantastic. All in favour, please.

00:54:00 No further discussions. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I think we're up to our last item today. Excuse me as I put this, put this up. I'm having computer problems. I think. Yep. So, um, next item is 6.1, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority. Um, August 2024. And, ah, Richard, Patrick, if I can hand it over to you, can give us an overview of the, um, of the report. Speaker 1: Thank you. Ah, so the monthly report detailing all those decisions that were made under the delegation. Um, there were 33 decisions that were made. 31 of those were approvals. There was two refusals. There was also two applications that were determined by Council throughout the month. So, again, a variation of what the Governor of the Planning Department, ah, displayed in the report. Councillor Lorentson: Um, so 33 development applications went through.

6.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - AUGUST 2024 ¶

▶ 00:54:09· Carried unanimously 4-0 from council's minutes

00:55:00 31 approved. Two were refused. Um, I probably just want to note that the report is, um, really excellent, um, and very clear. That chart right at the beginning, really great summary. Um, the two refusals, actually, the two refused, and I noted one was six units food and drink outlet at Bottle Brush. Um, that was refused. Um, can I ask why, um, Patrick was, so, it came through, I think, as a two-year plan. Did you have any plans to change it? Yes. That's right. Speaker 1: So it was an application, um, that was co-accessible. There was a lot of work that was done, um, with the Dean, with the plan of dealing with the application, and the applicant advising on the number of concerns with the development. Essentially being an overdevelopment of the site in terms of the scale of the development. There were some issues with car parking that we're trying to resolve. Um, but essentially, it was exceedance in, in, in, things like plot ratios, like how

00:56:00 there's elements of, um, exceedance in stories. Um, we see that as being a very important site as an entry into the junction. And, uh, but we were one of the first developments, you know, renewal. Councillor Lorentson: That, that's the corner site. That's now another treatment. That's right. Corner site, yeah. It used to be the childcare centre. Speaker 1: Yeah. So there was a lot of negotiation. And, and the Dean advised that, um, she wasn't supportive of the application. And, and requested that the, the timeframe be extended out to bring it to Council for decisions to be made. But the applicant wasn't supportive of that. They just wanted a decision made on the application. Um, so it was refused. And they've recently actually appealed that decision. Fantastic. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Um, just a suggestion. Um, I love the chart. And what I wrote on the side was, um, secondary dwellings to understand how we're tracking in terms of providing, um, extra housing. Um, and I know if we had one application for a secondary dwelling, about five additional,

00:57:00 um, two secondary dwellings. But in terms of what we're actually providing in terms of housing. So I thought that was, that might be an interesting thing to say there. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: And estimates. Speaker 2: Yes. In terms of secondary dwellings, um, many may not even trigger a, a development application from the team. So a lot of them are self-accessible. Um, so it can be undertaken without necessary permits. Some of them do get triggered if they don't comply with the, the scheme requirements and require assessment. But a lot of them will be approved by a private building certifier as part of, um, you know, particularly with that quality provisions. But we could provide, um, a separate update to councillors regarding, um, and maybe when we update on our housing strategy achievements in terms of, um, number of new secondary dwellings and building approvals to shipper houses and secondary dwellings over time might be useful for the report to provide to councillors as well. Councillor Lorentson: And just note one short-term accommodation application approved.

00:58:00 Um, it'd be great to have that. It also may be separated. Yeah. Um, and part of that table. Yeah. Any further questions? Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just looking through, even though they're all mostly minor, um, I've noticed that 15 out of the 33, nearly 50%, are in the Croy here. Is that indicative of what we're seeing elsewhere or just, uh, unusual happenstance? Speaker 1: It's, it might be a, a little bit of a coincidence, but we certainly are seeing more development in that area than we have in the past few years. Definitely. Mm. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because that's, I suppose, what we're saying over time. Yeah. Most of the, most of the developments are going to be occurring out in the hillside, I think. Mayor Wilkie: It's an indication of how hard the town planning department is working. Um, do you have any full complement of staff there? Is this indicative of a workload of a full complement of staff? Speaker 2: Yes.

00:59:00 Yes. Yeah, we're actually, um, full complement now. I think the first time in a while, actually. Probably the last 12 months. For the planners, we are. Speaker 1: We're down, I mean, we're actually, we got an interview today for a vacant engineering position, so we certainly, our team needs that additional resource to help with their workload. Um, the numbers across the team are still reasonably high. We'll have to bring them down a bit more. But we should be able to do that now. Mayor Wilkie: We've got a full complement on. Yeah. And we'll, now it's impressive the workload that your team does until high standard. Yeah. That's correct. Very well. Director Walsh: Very well. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: No. Councillor Lorentson: Um. Councillor Finzel: No, thank you Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the application. Can I have a seconder please? Thank you, um, Councillor Wegener. Um, no more discussion. All in favour please? Director Walsh: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: That brings us to confidential sessions. Um, there are no confidential sessions. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10.30am.

01:00:00 Um, thank you for your attendance. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Madam Chair. And, um. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.

8 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 01:00:01

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.