Planning & Environment Committee - 10 December 2024 Transcript

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶

▶ 00:00:13

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

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:26

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

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:48

00:01:00 And I also remind councillors of their obligations under the Local Government Act to talk respectfully to both staff and each other. I'll go straight to confirmation of minutes. Can I have a move please? Can I have a mover and a seconder please? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So moved. Councillor Lorentson: Second. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Wilkie. No discussion. All in favour? Thanks. And just bear with me. My computer's just shut down. So what does it tell you? Okay. It is. Next presentations and deputations. There are none. So we'll go straight on. Straight to the reports for consideration of the committee. And it's all up and running now. So we have two reports to consider.

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:01:20

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

7.1 MCU24/0084 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - FUNCTION FACILITY – 658 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, RINGTAIL CREEK ¶

▶ 00:01:56· Carried unanimously 3-0 from council's minutes

00:02:00 Report 17.1 MCU 24 0084 material change of use function facility at 658 Louie Basso Drive Ringtail Creek. Before commencing discussions. I note that this report will be moved to the general meeting for further discussion and allow all the councillors to partake in discussion and debate and ask questions due to the significance of the matter or the decision in front of us. So firstly, conflicts of interest. I want to make a declarable declaration. I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as I have engaged a submitter, Pat Rogers, in a personal capacity for legal

00:03:00 advice on a single occasion. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a real conflict of interest by a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I do not have a close personal relationship with the submitter. 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: Okay. Look, I'll move that council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson to determine the council's decision. Participates and votes on this matter because the council believes that a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second that. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: All in favour?

00:04:00 Councillor Lorentson: That's carried. Thank you very much. Noting that I can't, clearly I can't vote. So let's go straight to staff members. And welcome to the desk. Our staff members. Planning staff officers. Can I ask by just requesting an overview of the report in front of us. Thank you. Correct. Speaker 2: That's good. Thank you, Mayor and Councillors and all in attendance. Like it's been stated, the site is 658 Louie-Bazzo Drive, in Ringtail Creek. And the application before us is a material change of use for function facility. By means of definition, a function facility is an open facility for the purpose of providing Function facility is the use of premises for receptions or functions and includes preparing and providing of food and liquor for the consumption on the premises as part of a reception or function and this includes examples such as a conference centre or a reception centre.

00:05:00 The proposal for a function facility is an impact accessible application and it is a consistent use in the rural zone. The function facility will be used for the purpose of holding small scale functions, weddings and events of up to 150 guests and the proposed operational hours are between 11am and 10.30pm. 10.30pm is when all people should be off the site. It's anticipated that a maximum of... 96 events will occur per year and 72 of those may be weddings. It's also anticipated that 70-80% of guests will be chauffeured to the event by bus and

00:06:00 the primary issues that we looked at in our assessment were land use, noise, traffic and the protection of the site. So noise, the key part for the assessment there was an environmental noise impact assessment and that was submitted and peer reviewed in support of the proposed development and the recommendations from that report have been conditioned to ensure that the use operates in accordance with the relevant noise criteria. Recommendations from the report included the... the submission to council and approval of a noise management plan and the construction of a 1.8 metre high by 30 metre long acoustic barrier parallel to the adjoining house at 642 Louis Vazot Drive. Noise from the operation inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels,

00:07:00 external 20 off-site residents. As I previously stated, all guests are to vacate no later than 10.30pm and functions must not occur on gazetted Queensland public holidays or on a Sunday unless followed by a public holiday. The matter of traffic. It was addressed through an RPEQ certified traffic engineer. And the state assessment and referral agency, SARA, have conditioned upgrades to the state controlled road and the access has been conditioned by council's engineers to be sealed to reduce dust and noise. It's recommended that the site's environmental values are protected through environmental

00:08:00 covenants. Um. Um. The application material and associated reviews have demonstrated that site can occur with potential amenity impacts being mitigated through the implementation of recommendations of the associated management plans and all conditions and it's recommended that the application be approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions so Councillor Lorentson: that's it in a nutshell. Any questions? So we might start, given this is the only application in front of us today, we just might start discussing and just

00:09:00 throw in some questions at staff. So I'm going to start with the notification process. How were local residents notified about this development and was the notification process compliant with statutory requirements and I'm specifically speaking about whether or not council received confirmation from Australia Post that each letter sent to adjoining property owners about the proposed development was in fact delivered and it was in fact received. Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Yeah, so the three actions that need to be undertaken to ensure that notification is correctly carried out. So the first action is putting the notice in a paper or digital publication that circulates in the area. We have in the notice of compliance evidence

00:10:00 of that. Secondly, the public notification signage. In that, in that evidence there's three photographs on the location of the sign and it's a single frontage so a single sign was placed on the frontage in accordance with the requirements. The third was the adjoining land owners of which there are seven. They got sent by registered post. A notice was made in the notice of the application and from what we've been told by the applicant, they checked that each of those have been delivered and by the nature of registered post. We believe on the postal Australia Post website that that includes signature on delivery. So that's just what we're, that's just what we've seen on the Australia Post website but. And in Speaker 4: terms of I guess the applicants. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

00:11:00 Yeah. And I guess what you're saying is that the Government's role to discharge their obligations under the Act is actually by issuing those notices through registered post is deemed to be effective delivery of those notices as well. So I understand Councillor you mentioned that there may be some residents that didn't receive a copy. Which is interesting given that yeah there's a requirement for those to be sent registered post. So they would have received that or they would have received a docket that says to cover that. So I think You can come and pick up the letter from the post office if they can't sign for it at the time when it was delivered. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is that if notification is not confirmed, so we have had some residents who have told us that they have not received any notice. What does that mean in terms of process? Does the process need to restart or this is such a significant development?

00:12:00 Speaker 4: We will probably take steps to ask questions of Australia Post I guess in terms of whether they actually did receive copies or not. We've got confirmation of the receipts and the details for each property and the stickers attached that Australia Post provides once those are issued. So we can double check that. We've got the applicant with Australia Post to confirm that all of those were received. But from the Act's point of view, the fact is that they have sent those by registered post as deemed to meet the requirements under the Act of actually discharging your obligations under the Act to provide that notice. So that's obviously more of an issue potentially with Australia Post if they haven't been able to effectively deliver under their obligations to provide that notice. Noting that the applicant's provided us with copies of every single registration of each of those letters that were sent to those parties.

00:13:00 So we'll probably do a bit of a further follow up on that. Councillor Lorentson: I would appreciate that, thank you. Speaker 3: Can I just ask, is the residents who say they didn't receive letters, are they residents that should have received letters that they directly joined the property? That is my understanding. Speaker 4: Are they across the road? Because that's not directly joining, it must be directly joining the land parcel. Speaker 3: And part of the land is abutted by a gazetted road. Road. So there's some properties that are in proximity to the site which are actually not directly joining as well. So... Speaker 2: Can I answer you? No. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. I can reach out to the residents and request where they're located. I have the list of seven residents, part of the information request. I've got those seven residents' names in front of me. So I can get back to you on that as well. Speaker 4: We can follow that up with the applicant after this meeting today. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. In terms of details about the nature and scope of the proposed development, were the residents provided with enough information?

00:14:00 What information was given as part of the public notification period? Speaker 2: So they're given... They're told where to find the application material on Council's website. And all the application material that has been submitted and also uploaded through the assessment of the application was there for them to peruse and make informed submissions regarding the application. Speaker 4: It also has the date of when you can make a submission. So between the 25th and the 27th of September. Three weeks. Yep. The lot and RP. The details. The nature of the approval being sought. The reference number. And then also how to make... How to get a copy of the application. Also how to make a submission as well.

00:15:00 And that's all as stated under the Planning Act in terms of those minimum requirements. That must be adhered to. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. I have a lot of questions. So I'll throw it to the councillors. Around the table, Councillor Wilkie, Councillor Stockwell. Any questions to start? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: My question is probably something that I've heard before. Next Monday, in the acoustic amenity conditions, there's a range of requirements. One that I didn't see that we have considered and put in place previously is actually including real-time monitoring as a requirement so that you've got noise-limiting devices, but sometimes it's also good so that the operator can actually have a real-time monitoring so they know what Speaker 3: they're doing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that it? Yeah. Speaker 3: It's included in the Operational Management Plan, that requirement, that the on-site manager would do that. We could include that as a condition as well, if you see fit.

00:16:00 We could work something up for you. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. I have a question. One of the conditions is amplified... Sorry. Noise from site operations inclusive of patrons and amplified music must not exceed 39 decibels. Is that a requirement? And then there's some abbreviations here which I don't fully understand. External to any off-site residents, noise-sensitive receiver. Could you explain what that means and what 39 decibels sounds like? Speaker 3: Yeah. So to go into a bit more technical detail, we've asked our acoustic consultant to come to the general committee meeting on Monday. Yes. But what I can advise is there was some background monitoring that was done, and it was determined that for the evening period, there was no noise. The background noise was 34 decibels, and the standard is to apply 5 decibels above that as being the limit.

00:17:00 That should not be exceeded. There were two testing points done. One was to the closest resident... Near the closest resident, and the other was near... In proximity to the site. There was also some monitoring... There was some testing... Well, there was some analysis done of noise impacts of traffic along the road, exceeding the property limits. In terms of that 39 decibel requirement, and hence why there was a condition in there about an acoustic fence being required near one of the houses. So yeah. I'm not sure that fully answers your question. That's the reason why the 39 decibels was applied. So yeah. Yeah. That noise cannot be exceeded at the nearest... The nearest property. The nearest property. And in terms of the... Yeah. I mean, if you're going to be able to get a LA EQ adjusted 15 minutes, that's probably a technical element that I would bumble my way through. So I'll leave it to the expert to respond. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Good to understand.

00:18:00 I would too. So it's good to understand that. Yeah. They say they measured 34 decibels as a background noise. What sounds would that be made up of? It's like a whisper. Speaker 3: There was... It's like a... 39 decibels is probably like a washing machine, is what I've found in my searches for what 39 decibels is like. There's charts that... Is 39... That's 39 decibels at the source? No. That'll be at the... Mayor Wilkie: The house. Speaker 3: At the house. The nearest house. Yeah. On the outside. Outside the house. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So if they've done testing and they've registered 34 decibels as a standard background noise, does that mean sounds of traffic on Louis Bazaar Drive? Is it cicadas? Is it birds? Speaker 3: All those background noises are factored into determining the background level, that ambient background level. So that testing's done over an extended period of time. And what they do look at taking out is like heavy storms, the impact of the noise of heavy

00:19:00 storms. And in the report it actually shows the dates of some significant storms and the data from those dates is removed. So yeah, 40 decibels is identified as being like a quiet library noise. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. And would it... I understand it's a working macadamia nut farm. That's right. Would it include the sounds of machinery, perhaps? Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, those kind of noises probably occur more during the day. Yes. And so... Mayor Wilkie: Because this is a nighttime... Speaker 3: That's right. It's a nighttime restriction around the evening. And the noise from the operations of the farm would be quite loud. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be louder than 39 decibels? Yes. Speaker 3: There's a husking machine on the site, which my understanding is very, very loud. The operators advised they've had no complaints about the husking machine, the de-husking machine. And that's in closer proximity to the adjoining, closest adjoining residents than the actual function facility. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say that the sound of a husking machine in a rural area is an expected

00:20:00 sound? Speaker 3: Certainly during the day. At night, it would be something that would cause... At night. That would be unreasonable. That's right. And trucks coming to and from the site as well. Yes. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: The other impact is traffic noise. So you've mentioned the acoustic wall. Were there any other measures intended to be imposed that would help reduce traffic noise? Speaker 3: Yes. We've put a condition on about the ceiling of the driveway. Okay. So, yeah, that'll be a softer noise than on... Mayor Wilkie: And crunching out gravel? That's correct. And that reduce dust as well? Speaker 3: It will. MR. Mayor Wilkie: Are we able to have a look at what DTMR proposed for the entryway to the... Certainly. Speaker 3: Vicky's got a... Mayor Wilkie: Is there concerns about safety at that location? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: It's the word document, the SARA document. Speaker 4: That's the one. Yeah.

00:21:00 Speaker 3: So this is the treatment that's required. So the application has been referred to SARA, and they've provided their response supporting the application based on this treatment. They're not turning lanes. They're widening of the road. That would facilitate someone to enter the site. And, I mean, it probably is a left turn in lane, but they're widening of the road. So the treatment on the opposing side of the road is more just a widening to enable people to go around vehicles that are turning. Probably not inconsistent with what's happening out at Sunshine butterflies, the road treatment there. Part of the assessment by SARA, they give the reasons for their response. They say that it complies with the state benchmarks in that the development, one of the points is does not adversely impact the safety function and efficiency of the state controlled road. So that's part of their assessment. That road treatment on the opposing side of the road extends, I think, for a total distance

00:22:00 of about 130 metres, approximately 65 so metres either side. And on the side of the road that the facility is on, located on, it's about 70 metres in total. The most of that being to the right as you look out from the site. The next diagram down on the next page shows the road treatment. There's a lot of clearing that's required to provide for sight lines. And yeah, so to the west, it's a removal of overgrown vegetation and tree undergrowth for a distance of 240 metres into 160 metres to the east. Just vegetation on the same side of the road. So it's not a significant amount of vegetation. It's noted that semi-trailers leave the site at the moment under the current conditions. And they would turn right sort of up the hill, which is probably, you know, quite dangerous.

00:23:00 So these works would also help that operation and pull the access in off the boundary of the site to enable trucks to queue internal to the sign. Mayor Wilkie: Just talking about clearing, there's been photographs shared of clearing on the site. Speaker 3: Well, the area where the word access is, is certainly just at the moment, but you're going back in the area of that area has been cleared. It seemed like it might have been stripped of grass, but we've had a review of it. Speaker 4: There's nothing native in there. There will look to be some small pine. Speaker 3: Well, that's on, I think that's on the adjoining property. But yeah, you'll see it's sort of clearing behind there. There's nothing native in there. But our review of the area is that it's consistent over a period of time.

00:24:00 Speaker 4: There's some small pines in there. You can actually see if councillors wish to jump on street view, you can see clearly sort of between the photos of what's there versus what was there prior to that work being done, which is just straight small pine trees. We're in that locality here. We've now been emerged. Mayor Wilkie: And then there's the bridge. That's the bridge. That's the bridge. Speaker 4: No, I haven't looked into the specifics, but I don't believe so given it's non-native vegetation in there. Yeah. So it'd be just property maintenance being able to maintain better land without needing for a better council. Councillor Lorentson: So to understand that a little bit more clearly, Richard, there is no approval process for removing trees from our own property. No. Who is responsible for removing trees from our own property? Who determines whether or not there's anything of significance?

00:25:00 Speaker 4: In terms of the assessment, look, I'm only just doing a desktop there, so we can probably look at that a bit further to bring back some more detailed evaluation. We can obviously have some further conversation with the applicant about what happened and who did it. What inspections did they have? Did they, when did it get done? So we can get some further information from the applicant about that. I'm just having a look off what I can see on the . This is what the site looks like at the moment now in the front corner of the site. Councillor Lorentson: I would appreciate that information. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Cancel it. That's not going to work. Going back to the condition that the Mayor was querying at in 2015 and talking about where we had the five years of background noise, that specific condition doesn't relate to any time period. Is it meant to be in the future? Is it meant to relate all day? And is it meant to only relate to this lane use as opposed to the aircraft in use?

00:26:00 Speaker 3: That's a good point. I mean, it does refer to site operation, inclusive of patrons and amplified music, but to, and the approval, and it relates to an approval for a function facility. So that would bound it. We can have a look at that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. No, to me, I don't know. I would tell you that it doesn't relate to any use that it's built. Clearly, it might be best to include that. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I'll throw some questions. Is the proposal solely intended to be a wedding venue or are there other intended or implied uses for the site? Residents have spoken to us and they've noted there's a presence at the moment of livestock holding, and they're asking whether there's any use for the site. Has this been discussed in the application? And if the site were to be further developed, for example, as an equestrian centre, should this not be considered now to comprehensively assess potential impacts?

00:27:00 Speaker 3: The application is for a function facility and that would include a range of events, weddings, long lunches, as they've pointed out, corporate kind of lunches as well. There's been no discussion with us around it being used for any other purpose. Should they wish to use it for another purpose that requires a development approval, that would need to come in and there could probably be another change if this was approved and then that would be assessed at that time. Councillor Lorentson: So is it possible? Speaker 3: It's possible they could do a whole range of other activities under the planning scheme. Speaker 2: And the keeping of animals, for example, such as horses, there are thresholds for accepted development. So accepted development even subject to compliance with the benchmarks or some of the codes, but still not needing an application to go through council.

00:28:00 They just need to comply with any of the relevant acceptable outcomes of those codes. So the Rural Zone Code, for example, the Rural Uses Code, if they comply with those, we can certain thresholds, they can keep animals without an application. Mayor Wilkie: So you're saying keeping animals on a rural property would not be unexpected? Speaker 2: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: No, it's definitely anticipated. To a degree, there's thresholds that need to be met. Speaker 3: And it's certainly, you know, it's a functioning academia farm and the conversations that I've been part of too with the applicants is that they intend to keep that pursuit going. Councillor Lorentson: Can I just follow up on that one? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sure. Can I just follow up on that one? So I think the question could be posed, animal husbandry from the site intensive is likely to be the right use, as we call it.

00:29:00 An equestrian event based on bringing animals to the site, would that fit into a function or would an event be considered an event? Speaker 3: Well, we've conditioned the types of events and the maximum number that are to occur. Speaker 4: So we've defined the type of event as well. So weddings to long lunches to wellness to corporate retreats has been what's been described in the actual application itself. So I guess if the applicant at some stage in the future wants to decide to broaden the scope of what they're offering, that may constitute a change of use or a minor change to the current application or a further development application potentially. But there's been no discussion from the applicant that they're seeking. There's been no change in what's being proposed at the current point in time. Does that sound fine?

00:30:00 Oh, . Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of ecological assessments, cumulative sort of assessments, do we look at what potentially are the ecological concerns in a … Well, I think they're both… If the proposal was to be expanded and there were additional uses, does Council in its ecological assessment consider that? Speaker 3: Any change to be put forward, we will look at the ecological impacts in totality on the site. Councillor Lorentson: So the NUSA plan makes function facilities a consistent use within the rural zone. That was amended, the 2020 plan was amended to allow that change of use.

00:31:00 It was prior to 2020, my understanding, an inconsistent use. Can I understand why it was changed on an inconsistent use in the rural zone and made a consistent use? Speaker 4: I'm happy to answer that, Councillor. So, again, before my time with the organisation and speaking with the Director of Environment and Strategy, there was changes made with the NUSA plan to allow all the range of use potentially in the rural areas to allow for more activation. And also to a bit of diversification and to support economic growth in some of those rural areas as well. So it's still impact accessible, so it still requires full notification to the community, but is identified as a consistent, potentially consistent use if those impacts can be mitigated.

00:32:00 But it requires full notification to residents. So it's not code accessible, it's impact accessible. Councillor Lorentson: So as part of the amendments in 2020, again, there was a statutory proponent that residents be notified of any changes that potentially would have an adverse impact on their properties. Can I ask, during the amendment process, were the residents made aware of a change in the definition of function facilities? Speaker 3: I think we probably have to come back to that. Speaker 4: We'll have to come back to that. Back to you, General, on that. We'll have to check to see whether there was, I assume there was a definition of function facility prior to NUSA plan. It was more so that the uses were changed from being, as you said, inconsistent use to a consistent use subject impact assessment. But happy to provide you some clarity on that.

00:33:00 And in terms of the notification of the NUSA plan during that period as well. Councillor Lorentson: It was... Could you also find out if there were any recorded, so submissions were taken for the NUSA 2020 plan. Could you also find out if there were any recorded opposition to the changes? Changes. Okay. Yes. Speaker 4: We'll have to speak with our strategic plan team. We've got some time to go back through all those documents. Speaker 3: The use used to be entertainment and dining business type two. But a whole raft of definition changes occurred. And this would align with the state definition for a function facility. Yeah. But we can have a... Councillor Lorentson: Sorry again. So in 2020, we changed the definition of function centre, a function facility to make it a consistent use. So prior to 2020, so all the residents who purchased prior to 2020 purchased on the premise that it was an inconsistent use.

00:34:00 Is that correct? Yes. Speaker 3: Well, if they'd done their research, they would have seen that it was an inconsistent use in the world. But notwithstanding, we have to assess it under the scheme at the moment. Speaker 4: Oh, I see. Yeah. Yeah. And like all planning schemes, they go up to public exhibition and there's full engagement with the community around the funding scheme at the time. So it goes through an application period and put it in all the media and obviously there's pop-ups and there's a whole range of engagement activities that are undertaken to make the community aware about those changes as well. So there's a lot of opportunity for a willingness for people to raise objections or concerns or put in submissions of support for any of those changes. So we'll need to go back and check with the team around the specific elements going back to twin and twin again if the new plan came into effect regarding its particular use.

00:35:00 Mayor Wilkie: I have a question about... What form of accommodation is permitted on site? And what would be the process if the applicant wanted to include guest accommodation on site? I think some of us are sort of concerned if the uses will escalate into something greater than a function, you understand? Yeah. And also, you've mentioned 50 car parks. Yeah. And also two spaces for two coaches. Can you help us understand the rationale behind the calculations that ended up with the 50 car spaces and the two coaches? Yeah, sure. Speaker 2: So the... There's a minimum amount that was required under the parking and asset access code. They're exceeding that somewhat by about four or so spaces.

00:36:00 So... Yeah. So it exceeds the number of car parks based upon the calculation of... So it's a lot more than... Mayor Wilkie: More than required. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. And the buses. So that... There's no requirement on the planning scheme to provide buses, but we believe that is something that we do support because, yeah, it reduces vehicle trips and we are looking at incorporating a condition that... Speaker 3: We've had some conversations. We've had a feel that this might be something that would be pursued at the meeting. And there's been conversations around... For functions over 50 persons that a bus be required, they're agreeable to a condition to that effect. Will a condition requiring it be a requirement of the operational management plan that...

00:37:00 Any questions? So that will certainly assist in reducing the number of cars that will attend the site and the potential amenity and wealth that will be coming back and forth. Mayor Wilkie: So the idea being that the potential guests will be housed at a resort in Noosa, bussed up in Brisbane or some other distant location. Speaker 3: That's correct. And some would come by Uber, some would drive themselves, weddings and you'll often find one person will drive a number of other people that will be in the car. But certainly they comply with the car parking requirements but we're seeking to mitigate potential amenity impacts by requiring a bus for those larger events. And again, they've said that they're agreeable to that so we envisage coming back to the General Committee meeting with an amended recommendation to incorporate that. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of bushfire hazards, is this facility located in a bushfire prone area?

00:38:00 Speaker 3: There's some vegetation on the site which presents bushfire risk. The building is sited in an area which provides sufficient separation to achieve 29 kilowatts. By that I mean the area of the site where we have a huge gradient heat flux so it would comply in that regard. They have an evacuation management plan which they have an evacuation point and then they've got a part of the site that they can take guests to which is certainly a safe place for them to seek refuge on site. And again, comply with requirements. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of vulnerable uses, so is a wedding facility considered or classified as a vulnerable

00:39:00 use given that the presence of you know individuals under the influence of alcohol poses a higher risk than those not intoxicated? I think check to see Speaker 3: whether it's actually defined as a vulnerable use. It's not. So who is Councillor Lorentson: responsible for determining whether a proposed development involves a Speaker 3: vulnerable group? Well it's defined through the SPP. Yeah the state planning Councillor Lorentson: provisions. Yeah. So what factors determine the classification of vulnerable use? I know that we looked at an application recently with groups of school children and we know in retirement village Speaker 3: elderly people. I think that people sleeping overnight I think will be part of it but we'd have to bring in our environment officer who will be able to

00:40:00 look talk you through the how the definitions being determined or how the specific uses have been determined through the state. That would be great. Thank you Patrick. Councillor Lorentson: If I can I have Speaker 4: Just as a bit of information councillor about the vulnerable use just while you're gathering some notes there. So under the state planning policy sensitive uses are those that particularly sensitive to certain risks such as flooding and natural hazards. So the examples referenced in the policy are hospitals and health care facilities, schools and child care centres, aged care facilities and obviously it's got emergency services in there obviously

00:41:00 for the reason that they can't get stuck in there being a hazard so they need to be in suitably located areas. So it doesn't necessarily include activities commercial activities like function facilities and the like that's being defined but the team will come back to you with a bit more clarity in terms of what that specific threshold is. Just what is the Councillor Lorentson: official definition of rural amenity and I raised this we met with some of the residents yesterday and their question was a really good question was most of them purchased before the 2020 amendment and they purchased for purposes because they wanted a quiet rural setting. They loved the wildlife so I actually brought in this precinct to discuss this. Some actually bought in this precinct to a scale up and we were able to get an expert opinion. So if you have any questions about this or any other questions about this you can ask me and I'll get back to you. How does, does the proposal detract from the rural amenity of adjoining and nearby properties and how is this evaluated? How is the, what value is assigned to a person's wellbeing and what value is assigned to a person's right of quiet enjoyment?

00:42:00 Speaker 3: I think this process, our assessment has been about amenity. Our engagement of the, the acoustic consultant to review the applicant's submission is all about making sure that the resident's amenity is protected. And that review has determined that this facility can operate in a manner that won't actually impact upon the amenity. Speaker 4: And, and further to that I guess the, you know, the, the planning scheme sets in. It sets out the requirements for how that assessment of amenity is, is assessed and evaluated as well.

00:43:00 So it's sort of articulated in the planning scheme around, you know, things like noise, traffic impacts. So all of that is required to be thoroughly assessed as part of the work the team have done to assess to get to this point as well. So it's not just one element, just noise. There's other elements to it and you've touched on a few of them around even bushfire hazard and other elements as well. There's other risks that are posed from natural constraints as well. Dust. Obviously the, the team's required the sealing of the internal access the whole way to minimise impacts of dust and sediment and the like. But the scheme is ultimately the, the document that sets out the, the performance requirements that must be met for a development to be able to be supported. So it's the reference document I guess around how staff must assess an application against those relevant provisions and need to ensure that the amenity elements that are prescribed in the scheme

00:44:00 are minimised or reduced to a point where they can be accepted I guess with conditions or mitigation installed in place such as mounds and fences and changes to sealing of access ways and the like. Speaker 3: And, and further to that, the applicant actually proposed advice. I guess we need to be off site by 11. Through our review, it's come forward that the event should finish at 10 and everyone should be off site by 10.30. So there's been a modification to what they've actually proposed to ensure that amenity is being protected. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of submissions, there were I think 60, 61 submissions. Can I ask how many were made in support and how many were made in off site? And of those supporting the application, how many are from residents living adjoining or near the site?

00:45:00 Speaker 3: You've got another document, a PDF, that would be worth bringing up. Speaker 2: Yeah, so in terms of numbers there, we'll see spatially where they're located. The people that made submissions and the ones that are shown on as objectors, as in the red dots, they're all objectors. So there were a total of 30 objectors. Not all of them are shown on here because they were not in the immediate locality, but that's the majority of them as they are spatially located. So 30 objectors, 30 people supported, and there was one not properly made submission that was received outside of the notification period. Speaker 4: So the breakdown of those in support. And those objecting was outlined in the report as well. Councillor Lorentson: So of the adjoining or those close to the actual facility, were there any that actually supported the application?

00:46:00 Speaker 3: No. Councillor Lorentson: No. Speaker 3: No. We did receive a letter, which we can share with you, from someone who lives in close proximity to their operation in the scenic realm. Councillor Lorentson: On the Gold Coast, I read that signature. Yeah. Is that relevant? Speaker 2: It's relevant in the fact that it's the same operator, and it shows a history of good operational management. Councillor Lorentson: But the Gold Coast in Noosa, we have very different values. Speaker 2: Well, scenic realm. It's not so much the Gold Coast, but yeah, I understand what you're saying. Speaker 3: It hasn't influenced our decision. Our decision making has been made up by the facts and the review of the reports. Mayor Wilkie: Just on that impact on nearby residences is a big concern here. Yeah. What is the distance from the function centre of the nearest residence? I'm going to point it out. Speaker 3: So the facility, the function facility is to be back here.

00:47:00 Yeah. The nearest house, that's 750 metres away. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 3: 750? 750. Yeah, approximately. And then other houses might be around, you know, other houses in this sort of area might be 800, 850 metres away. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. And the letter received, right? From Rosewood Estate, was it? Speaker 3: From someone who lived in proximity to the Rosewood Estate. I think they were about 100 or 200 metres from the actual function facility. And what did they say? Speaker 2: Yeah, they basically said they thought that it was operating well. The managers of the facility had a great relationship with them, like a great working relationship. There wasn't anything negative in there. Mayor Wilkie: Did they talk about noise impacts? Speaker 3: No, nothing like that. They weren't saying they were being impacted by noise. Yeah. Yeah.

00:48:00 And we did... Mayor Wilkie: Is there a willingness of the operator to work with the residents? Speaker 3: I would anticipate so. Mayor Wilkie: If this were to be approved to have a similar relationship. Speaker 4: Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: As with the... Speaker 4: We would certainly always encourage that. Nearest neighbours. Yeah. Absolutely. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Can you say something about... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just... It's interesting information, but we can't take the nature of the accident into consideration. Is that correct? Correct. While that maps up, it may help to clarify that earlier question about adjoining landholders. So, if you're on the other side of 62, or road 62, or road 63, you're not an adjoining landholder? That is correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: So, were those living in close vicinity of the proposed development, were they notified of this development? Or was it simply only the seven listed...

00:49:00 Speaker 3: The seven listed got a letter, and then there was a sign out the front. And then an ad in the paper. And then an ad. That's the response. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is a digital complication. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So, to... Just to clarify, it... For all intents and purposes, it appears by every indication that the requirements under the Act were followed in terms of public notification. Speaker 4: That's correct. And we have received a notice of confirmation, but we will take that extra step of checking with Australia Post and the applicant around the signed signatures for those letters, just to confirm that. But... From the Act's point of view, they've discharged their obligations. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 3: And you can see there's a number of submitters that come from quite a distance from the property. Yeah. That have either been informed by the sign out the front, or the notice in the paper, word of mouth. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: The 130 metre long acoustic barrier, will that... Speaker 3: 30 metre long. Mayor Wilkie: 30 metre long. Yeah. Which properties will that protect from?

00:50:00 Speaker 2: So, the one at the very front? Yes. Yeah. To the left. Just the one at the front? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So, the other ones are deemed to be suitably removed far back from the road to not be impacted by traffic noise? Speaker 2: That's right. According to the acoustic consultant's assessment. Mayor Wilkie: And the ceiling of the road was intended to assist with that? Speaker 3: Well, the acoustic consultants didn't recommend the ceiling of the road. That was an additional measure which was required by officers. Yes. In part because we thought it would assist with noise, but also because of dust. Dust. Dust and etc. Discharge. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of economic impact, the report references, and I think has support, or aligns with our economic strategy to diversify our economy. Yes. Economic impacts. Was it considered... Was any consideration given?

00:51:00 Any reference given to economic impact in terms of the implications of this function faculty on the joining and nearby residents in terms of property values? Speaker 3: That would not be a relevant planning consideration. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of adverse impact consequences of changes made to a planning scheme, and I'm referencing 2020, is there any statute of limitation when planning schemes are made Speaker 4: There's a 12-month process for superseded applications to be lodged, and that's where an applicant has the ability to lodge an application under the previous scheme, but once that period has passed, there's no ability to seek the scheme to be changed as part of a previous

00:52:00 year change to a boning scheme, I guess, unless they utilise those provisions under the superseded boning scheme, there's no ability for them to challenge that decision once it's ratified. Councillor Lorentson: When was this property purchased? What year? In 2023, for my reasons. Is that correct? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I say we're looking at the nature of the applicant, which is outside the scope of the Councillor Lorentson: plan? No. My question is, when was the application lodged, and how long did it take before it came to Council? Speaker 4: The application lodged? Yes, so that's in the report that you have, so June 24th, it was properly made, 28th of June this year. Councillor Lorentson: 28th of June? Yep. And processed in... Speaker 4: And information request is July, yep, and they responded in August with public notification, and the decision date is due on the 20th of this month. Councillor Lorentson: So four months. Okay. Okay.

00:53:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'm happy to move it against the general manager. Councillor Lorentson: I'll second. I have a list of questions that were emailed to me this morning. I'm happy to keep those questions for the general meeting. And thank you. What would it be? I have also some questions from Councillor Finzelt. I think she has raised her hand. Yep. I will allow the question today. Yes. Councillor Finzelt, it's your question first. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I just have a question. First, the SARA report with regards to the roadworks. Can that please be included in the report? Speaker 3: Yeah, we can... Councillor Finzel: Or why was the attachment not included? I'd like to see the report for easy access and transparency. Can I get it online? Can I identify the wrong information? Speaker 4: It is all available online at the moment. That's publicly available. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm aware of that.

00:54:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. On the GMR website. Oh, no, no. On our public council's website. On the website. Yeah. With all the other application material, including the cost of submissions and everything, it's all the application material. This is just the office's report and relevant material in terms of their assessment recommendation. But we can possibly include it as a further attachment. Councillor Lorentson: I would appreciate that. If that can just be circulated to all the councillors, that would be excellent. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Second question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Please. I'm just wondering if... We had the residents come in yesterday for a meeting. There was great concern around the amenity, the wildlife, the ecosystem, the amenity that hasn't been discussed today about who protects that, where that voice has come from. I'm just wondering, was there any native title? PVC involvement? Or... Speaker 4: No, this lot's not subject to native title. That's a privately owned lot. Councillor Finzel: I understand that.

00:55:00 But in terms of trying to, like, protect the amenity that hasn't been raised around these constraints today, is there opportunity to invite their comment around the effects of the amenity in this area, Julie? Speaker 4: From... Are you talking about First Nations? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Speaker 4: People? Councillor Finzel: Yes. Okay. I'm not too sure how... Then it comes back onto Ringtail State Forest. Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Finzel: And the, you know, effects of possible development that will affect that environment. Speaker 4: Yeah. There's no requirement in the scheme for there to be any engagement with First Nations in relation to that. They're entitled to make a submission. There's no requirement for the applicant to engage with them as part of their development proposals. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Just to follow up on that one, clarifying that the consideration of cultural images, cultural heritage comes under the Cultural Heritage Act rather than under the Planning Act. Correct. So it's not something that, you know, if the developer comes across something of significance in the development process, it's their responsibility...

00:56:00 Correct. ...to refer them there? To refer. Absolutely. Yeah. Through the application process. Correct. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lockhart. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. I may have missed this because the sound's dropping into that a little bit, but just going back to the map with the submissions and the objectives. So I may have missed... Were the supporting submissions plotted on the map at all, or was it that they weren't in the area of the map? Speaker 2: Yeah. They weren't in the area, and it just would have been too much of a...like you wouldn't have seen the red dots if I'd zoomed out to where the other submissions had come from. All right. Thank you. And I didn't see it as relevant. They were significant. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: They were significant. Speaker 1: So where would the closest have been? Speaker 2: I think Cooran. Cooran? No. No. Sorry. Okay. Speaker 1: And just in general, were those supporting submissions, were they local residents or

00:57:00 were they businesses that would maybe have a benefit from there being a function there? Speaker 2: Yeah. There was a bit of both. There was mention of the flow-on effects and the benefits to businesses that would provide flowers or celebrants, those types of things. So there was some comment made about that. Speaker 3: I think we'd know the sort of the thrust of their submission, but whether they were actually a business operator or a resident would be hard for us to determine based on Speaker 4: the information that they've given us. Yes. Councillor, we can provide you maybe with a table of the postcodes for the objectors and those supporting. That might be useful, just postcodes. It won't probably have all the properties. Yes, please. But it might just give you a bit of an indication of locality.

00:58:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'll switch on that one. If we're not allowed to take the nature of the applicant into consideration, are we allowed to take the residence of a person submitting into consideration, or do we have to actually just review the grounds of the submission? Speaker 4: It's just the grounds, but it's more so for awareness for the councillors who are making a decision to understand the spatial location of those making submissions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It would be true to say that the local opposition do it, and the support came in from over a few years ago. That's true. It's a relationship in a place-based context, yes. That's it. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I just have a question. I note in response to a question that the council suggested conditioning the uses of the buses. Just posing a question. If that condition was removed, would that then negate the need for all this road use

00:59:00 and road work and the big impacts on the amenity if the condition for using coaches was actually removed? Speaker 3: No. We still would need the vehicles. Just for the cars. Yeah. But the road, it's sealing the existing road network internal to the site. Councillor Finzel: Are you talking about the widening? Oh, sorry. The TMR. Oh, my apologies. With regards to the impact on the amenity due to the widening of the road. Due to the use of buses and coaches being conditioned as part of the applicants. Speaker 4: I would say yes, in the sense that the SARA have been made aware of the applicant's proposal to include buses as part of their primary mode of transport for bringing people to and from the site.

01:00:00 Obviously, there's a requirement there will be some small cars. It tends to be a small vehicle. There will be a combination of both potentially, noting that the applicant specified a maximum sort of limitation of the number of events and the number of maximum people that can attend a particular event. So, whilst we're requiring for the operational plans and further changes to limit the number of vehicles and require the use of buses for events over 50 people to be included, that wouldn't necessarily change SARA's position on requiring those works, which I think would be beneficial for safety, largely for safety reasons. For vehicles, maybe following those vehicles to have sufficient space to be able to move around those vehicles. Councillor Finzel: So, to clarify, because it's the intensification of the use of the road, and just to clarify that it was the council staff that suggested that the coaches be conditioned as part of the application. Mayor Wilkie: So, I'm a bit confused there.

01:01:00 There's not a condition of approval that coaches be used. There's not a condition of approval that coaches be used. No. Speaker 3: So, the SARA's response is in response to the application material submitted by the applicant, and that may have included information around coaches being used, but this treatment is not in response to any requirement of councils. It's only been in the last few days that we've had conversations with them around providing coaches for events over 50 people, and they've said that they're agreeable to that. So, it doesn't form part of a condition of the recommendation at this point. Mayor Wilkie: So, the upgrade to the entryway is a condition? Speaker 4: Yes, by the SARA, by the state. Mayor Wilkie: So, that's where the coaches are used from? Yes. Speaker 4: Correct. Councillor Lorentson: And who pays for that? The applicant? Speaker 4: Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So, in terms of alternate transport port modes, you mentioned before taxis and Ubers.

01:02:00 Is that practical, given it's nearly impossible? Yes. Is it possible to get an Uber or a taxi at, you know, on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday at 10 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 11 o'clock? Is that actually feasible? Speaker 3: We're not requiring them to do that. Is that their discretion as to, as a guest, how they choose to arrive and depart the site? Councillor Lorentson: But in terms of impacts, is it not part of our consideration to ensure that there are not people at risk at 10, 11 o'clock, walking dark, unlit roads flowing down the road, trying to find a cab or trying to walk home? Speaker 4: And that's why we've got those requirements in the operational plan around the use of buses and other modes of transport to ensure that people can safely get to and from the site, as opposed to using other mechanisms. Noting, it'll be relatively challenging to probably get the likes of an Uber or a taxi in a rural area.

01:03:00 But that's a choice, I guess, for particular people to make, I guess, in terms of the mode. But certainly we'll be seeking that the use of buses to get people safely to and from the site where they've got more than 50 guests attending. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of toilet facilities, I've got the operation management plan in front of me. Can you explain how many toilets or portable powder rooms will be provided? And is it sufficient? Yes. Speaker 2: So the number of toilets is based upon, it's more of a building regulation matter. But they've estimated that it'll be two, like a male and a female building with up to two toilets in each. Speaker 3: So yeah, that's what's currently being used. I think they've made reference in the operational management plan that one toilet per 60 guests

01:04:00 would probably be enough. So I think it's certainly above that. Councillor Lorentson: How does that compare to what's required, say, for a restaurant that seats 150 people? Speaker 3: It's based, my understanding is the toilets, which is a building requirement, it's not a planning requirement. We don't condition the number of toilets to be provided. We never have. Yeah. It's done on four area. Councillor Lorentson: We've got a lot of questions from residents, but I'm happy, if Councillors agree, we might leave further discussion to the general meeting again to allow the Councillors not present to participate in this discussion. Mayor Wilkie: And Madam Chair, probably the proper process for those questions to be forwarded to staff and the general. Great idea. Okay. So they can fill you out with the answers and the meaningful answers. Speaker 2: Definitely. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Absolutely. Any further discussion before, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Just a question from the Chair to Richard. Do you think we'll have confirmation of receipt of those letters from Australia Post by the General Manager?

01:05:00 Speaker 4: Yes, we're going to work to do that. We'll try and get that done as soon as possible. Mayor Wilkie: Just confirming, Australia Post have confirmed the registration numbers of the letters that were sent? Speaker 4: Correct, and we've received a copy of each of those barcode numbers that were attached to every single letter, so yeah, we've got the physical copies of those. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, question. In terms of conditions, who determines what's reasonable, what's not reasonable? For example, is it reasonable to allow or to reduce the operating hours for the facility if we do reach, say, for instance, Middle West? To arrive at a mediated position between, say, adjoining landowners and the faculty.

01:06:00 Is it reasonable to reduce the hours, say, to 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock, or just allow it during the day? Who determines that? Speaker 4: The Council will make the decision ultimately on this application. So if you seek to vary or change the proposal and the conditions as, then you're able to make the decision on this. We're putting up our recommendation based on detailed assessment against the Planning Scheme. The one thing I would just point out around the legal test under the Planning Act around them to be reasonable and relevant conditions. So there must be some sort of technical assessment around the changes or why they've been made that can be substantiated, if challenged. Councillor Lorentson: Yep. Is it reasonable and relevant to... To condition buses only transport guests to a living venue if it's over 50 people?

01:07:00 We can say yes. Speaker 4: Yep. And the applicant has agreed that they think that's reasonable as well. Speaker 3: So only buses? Well, they're not agreeable to only buses. Only buses, sorry. They're agreeable to a bus being provided for a function of more than 50 people. And I think that's reasonable in terms of giving people the option. As to how it's best for them to get there and where they live, where they're coming from. Noting the ample provision of car parking on the site in comparison to the Scheme requirements and the fact that the QC consultants have reviewed the impacts of vehicles attending the site and are satisfied with the current proposal in terms of the amenity impacts. Councillor Lorentson: My last question before we close discussions is, and I know Councillor Penzell also, is would you consider this a significant development proposal?

01:08:00 It's significant, but it's not a defined definition of what's a significant versus not significant. That's probably the question under the planning scheme. Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess. Councillor Lorentson: We reference small scale in the report. Is it in fact small or is it, to the residents, it's significant? Speaker 3: My context of the site is taking up a very small percentage of the site. It's providing significant separation to adjoining land users. It's a consistent use. It requires impact assessment. We've had a look at those impacts and are satisfied that it can operate in its current form. Councillor Lorentson: Does it have an interest in another dysfunction centres like this in the end? Yes, there is. Speaker 4: There are a number of them, particularly in the Sunshine Coast centre land, we're willing to use a fairly common gap in the range, not many as such in this particular locality that I'm aware of, but yeah. Speaker 3: One plus one, I think.

01:09:00 And my time at council, nearly eight years, this is the first one that I've seen come through to this point. And I think that's been facilitated by the change in the scheme. When the scheme came in, we certainly had a lot of inquiries from people in the hinterland looking to do commercial activities, which they couldn't otherwise do, primarily around accommodation. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Binsell, I'll allow the last question before we close. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Finzel: Just coming back to the, I understand the applicant has established their, you know, legislative requirements to give you the numbers with the letters that are sent out. So are we seeking that? Are we seeking that the people who are meant to receive them, their signatures, to prove that they collected them? What are you actually... Speaker 4: We'll follow that up with the applicant in Australia Post in terms of the requirements under the Act and ensure that the registered post dockets have been received. But there's two parts of it.

01:10:00 Yeah, that's what I'm forgetting. Has the applicant discharged their obligations under the Act? And did people actually receive something in their post box and sign it for them? That requirement. And we'll come back and clarify that, those two elements, to councillors before we're at the general committee meeting next week. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And I'll probably just close by saying thank you to the planning officers. Thank you. And I really want to acknowledge you guys do your job and you do it well. So if any of the questioning doesn't come across as that, I'd like to just acknowledge we respect your job and know that you're in a really difficult position. And just wanted to put that on the table. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to say that the staff's position is pretty clear, actually. They are executing their responsibilities under the Act to apply the planning scheme as it sits. I would say the councillors have a difficult position. Councillor Lorentson: You have a very difficult position. Absolutely.

01:11:00 Yeah. Yeah. Agree with you, Mayor Wilkie. No further discussion. And I'll move that... Thank you. No further discussion. No further discussion. No further discussion. All in favour? Thank you. So there's no confidential reports for noting. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any applications? Oh, excuse me. Councillor Lorentson: I'm already closing this meeting shortly. Excuse me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. So we'll now move to report the consideration of a committee 7.2 planning applications decided by delegated authority and again I'll ask Richard or Patrick if they want to give us an overview of what's in front of us. Speaker 3: Just a very quick overview. This is the applications that were decided by delegated authority for the month of October. A very busy month. As you see there was 50 decisions that were made.

7.2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY - ​OCTOBER 2024 ¶

▶ 01:11:24· Carried unanimously 3-0 from council's minutes

01:12:00 It's reflective of the busy period that we're entering into Christmas. Again a range of applications across OPWs, MCUs and changes, DBWs. I'm not sure if you have any questions. Councillor Lorentson: My only question Patrick is planning decisions made by council but sports council not delegated, approved under delegation. Is it just my observation but I feel this start of this term it's been quite light and I remember at the start of last term there'd be up to six, seven, eight planning decisions that were made by council. Am I correct or? Some months were heavy. I just remember just reading just heaps and heaps of reports and I've never seen one or two reports.

01:13:00 Come through in planning and environment. Speaker 3: Yeah. We've got some big applications that are taking some time to get through. It's a report that is coming, we've been coming to general committee meeting next week for a significant application. But we certainly have enough of applications that will be coming in the future. We've obviously amended the delegations and you've probably received notification from us on a few matters recently which we've been able to decide under delegation because there have been minor changes or the like. So that might have also had an impact. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Any further questions by councillors, observers? Mayor Wilkie: Just for example could you, the last item was 223 Coorabella, Cliff Road, Cooroy, exemption from code assessment for additions to dwelling and landslide overlay. Can you just give us an explanation of what's involved in something like that.

01:14:00 It's obviously not major. Speaker 3: No. So it's an exemption certificate. Mayor Wilkie: It's a risk assessment that's going to be done about landslide potential. Speaker 3: Yeah. So the scheme allows for an exemption certificate to be issued which is saying actually we're not requiring you to have a development approval in circumstances where there's like a minor error, where there's an error in the planning scheme or it's so inconsequential in terms of the assessment that would be required. The previous planning scheme allowed for development to be accepted development where a geotechnical report was provided for a site that was in the landslide hazard overlay and that the recommendations of that report were implemented in the construction of the development. There was an error in the 2020 scheme in terms of that allowance was removed and so anything that was in the landslide hazard overlay was triggering. So a decision was made to allow for exemption certificates on the basis that a geotechnical report was provided to show that the investigation had been done and that we have the confidence of the development,

01:15:00 we've done the undertaking in accordance with that geotechnical report. So in this instance, a geotechnical report would have been provided showing what developments took with the issue of an exemption certificate. Mayor Wilkie: If there was an application for a house that was seeking a relaxation in the front ground with setback that was potentially impacting on the neighbours views, what assurance do we have that that would have come before us for a decision? So it's not an exemption certificate. It's not just agreed to under delegated authority to the detriment of a neighbouring property and then councillors are dragged in after the fact. Speaker 3: Well a setback variation only will be assessed by our building department for dwelling houses that have setback and other variations that will come through planning. But they're assessed under delegation. We've not brought many houses up to council and the primary reasons we have done them is because of significant geotechnical issues. Along places like CB Terrace.

01:16:00 So we rely on the expertise of the planners to be making those decisions on the delegations. Speaker 4: And obviously, you know, matters such as height. So over height buildings are generally not supported by staff. So, you know, we would start to be pushing back on applicants. So if there's a situation where they wanted to significantly exceed the height limits, you know, you would likely see it because it would likely be knocked back. Mayor Wilkie: Perhaps it's a discussion for another time. But for inclusion in the list of exceptions where they are for council. Just like today, one of the most traumatic things I've been drawn into was where neighbours who did the right thing when they did their renovations were adversely affected by a decision made under delegated authority to grant relaxation. It was about realisation which totally blocked their coastal views.

01:17:00 And it was, yeah, it was something we couldn't fix retrospectively. I just like to play that potential. And it's probably a discussion for another time. We'd hate to see it slip through. Yes. I don't want to see that slip through. Yeah. I'm happy to move it. Councillor Lorentson: Happy to second. No questions, no further discussion. All in favour, please. Thank you. We are now up to either eight reports been made by the committee. There are none. No confidential session. So I now declare the meeting closed at 10.48pm. And I thank the officers here today for your patience. And acknowledge. And thank the councillors online and in the gallery and around this table.

01:18:00 Good discussion and lots to think about before general meeting. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.

10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 02:30:08

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.