Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Lorentson: Good morning everyone and welcome to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I also want to start with just an apology. We've had a technical glitch. The meeting only starts at 9.30. We've just fixed our technical problem so it's now commencing at 9.00. Speaker 4: Let's go to court and you've got barristers and solicitors engaged and experts engaged in court proceedings over a matter of days. Certainly the cost becomes more significant. It's too early to determine whether these applications will be able to be resolved by mediation at this point. But we'll certainly enter the mediation should it occur with an open mind. Councillor Lorentson: So given the cost of litigation and our responsibility to ensure that per user rate pays, money wisely, do we work under some sort of like a risk assessment framework when deciding to defend or refuse applications?
00:01:00 Speaker 3: I'm happy to jump in there Amelia. I mean we obviously, we have to assess and decide planning applications under the Planning Act. So we're actually bound to follow the legislative provision and there are, there's obviously case law, there's certain rules around that have been well followed. There's established and enshrined in planning law around, you know, decision making, ensure it's defensible and meets the, you know, the key principles around good decision making and making sure that any conditions or the decision is a proper one and it's based on sufficient merit and grounds as well. And that's obviously why the team do a very thorough application report which outlines the particular grounds and why they are concerned. If a proposal doesn't meet the provisions in the Noosa Plan itself. So there's a very robust assessment process that the team are very familiar with and obviously there is appeal rights,
00:02:00 negotiated decision provisions. So there's lots of avenues for an applicant to challenge through the process decisions made by council or even the tribunals or even in the case the courts themselves through a court of appeal process. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of state, does the state get involved at all in this process? The refusal needs to be supported, I understand, by referral agencies. Can you explain what part the state plays in this process? Speaker 3: Well, the state can elect to become a, I guess, a party to appeals if they choose to do so. It's their decision. Similar to like in the instance of an impact accessible application where a submitter might want to join an appeal. So they have the ability to do that if they elect to do so. And that's often on the basis of where they see that there's a state interest that they would like to be involved in or not.
00:03:00 But it's ultimately their decision whether they want to be involved or not as either a referral or as a joint appellant to the matter. Councillor Lorentson: My other questions, and I think I raised this in most meetings, in terms of our dwelling targets and the opportunity to include just where we're up to. I know the response I've always received is a housing report strategy when that report comes to council. But I like going through the delegated report and actually write down how many dwellings have been built. How many have been refused? How many have been approved? And I note this lot, we've got six units, one dwelling, one deal lot. You can see three units of demolition.
00:04:00 So I don't know how that's actually captured. Is that a dwelling target, not a dwelling target? But it would be just great to compare what our monthly target is compared to what we're actually getting through. Is that something, again? Like I said, I've thrown this question a lot in. Is that something that you would consider? Speaker 3: So in answer to your question, so the housing monitoring report's the best way to utilise that and provide a really accurate update for councillors. The challenge is, particularly through the delegated report, is a lot of dwelling houses, you know, either modifications or a new dwelling won't require a planning approval at all if it's self-accessible, for example. Which, in most cases, most houses will be. They would just need a building approval from a private building certifier. And we wouldn't see the application at all if it confines with the NUSA plan provision. So it's better that we get a full read of all of those.
00:05:00 So those ones just approved by a private building certifier, as well as council's decisions. And they will then tally those up to work out how we're tracking against their housing targets. So the strategic planning team are well aware of the need and request to provide that information and data. And working on getting a report to council that provides a bit of an update on how we're tracking with overall numbers of houses. And that will include the knockdowns and the rebuilds versus the new ones as well, the number of units, the whole kit and caboodle. Which I think will give the councillors a really good read on how we're tracking overall. Because this is currently only the ones that the planning team are actually seeing and assessing. Whereas there's likely to be a significant number of other dwellings approved which don't require a planning approval as such. Councillor Lorentson: So secondary dwellings captured, not captured in this report. Correct, yeah, absolutely. And I would imagine there's been a good uptake of greening in place. Yeah. Okay, any further questions around this report?
00:06:00 No? Okay. I'm happy to read the delegated report. Second? Second, David. All in favour? So we'll move now to the next item on the agenda. Which is item 7.2. Development application for other change to development approval for commercial business type 1. Office commercial business type 2. Medical to healthcare service. Hospital and hospital inclusion centre. And RAL 19 slash 000 4.07 reconfiguring lot at 36 to 40 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville. And handed over to Nadine for an overview and summary of the reporting from us. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Speaker 2: As councillor Amelia has outlined, this is an application for an other change to an existing development approval.
00:07:00 There's an existing medical... Medical centre at Hofmann Drive, which is currently built. And the applicant seeks to extend that internally by adding an additional 594 square metres of gross floor area. By converting an existing car parking area to cater for that use. The area to be converted to internal car parking is to be for additional medical suites and hospital areas. It will reduce car parking on site by 30 spaces. Resulting in a total of 166 spaces on site. Which includes 8 motorcycle spaces. At present the existing approval is for medical and office facilities. As part of this application they're wanting to remove that requirement for office type functions on the site. And to change the whole definition of the use from a 2A healthcare centre.
00:08:00 A hospital and a hospital infusion centre. In terms of visually it will not be visible to the street because it is an internal area. One of the main issues related to car parking. And as you can imagine an additional 594 in removal of car parking spaces raised some concerns. We've been liaising with the applicant and our traffic consultant to look at the impacts of such a use on car parking. And whether this increase could be appropriately handled by the development on site. Our traffic expert came back to us and indicated if it was a hospital type use. They generally have a lesser rate than a normal medical centre. Because they have a larger foot plate for operating rooms, for transfusion rooms etc. So our consultant was very definitive in terms of the rate that would apply to a hospital type use.
00:09:00 Normally we have a one space per 20. He was indicating that this type of use for a hospital type function with larger floor plates would be around one space per 35 square metres. As a result of that the applicant was willing to change the proposed use to hospital. And agree to conditions that were very specific in terms of the type of uses and floor plates allowed. And our consultant was willing to change that. And finally he agreed that that car parking based on those types of uses would be appropriate. A hospital use unfortunately is an inconsistent use in this zone. However this is one on a balance that it is a toss between a medical centre and also a hospital. So to ensure that we maintained a land use that had an appropriate amount of car parking on site. We've agreed that a hospital type function and infusion centre would be an appropriate definition.
00:10:00 And it's more of a labelling to ensure that we maintain our car parking and our floor plates. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions relating to that specific use. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you Nadine. Questions around the table top. Councillor Wegener: We seem to be moving towards a lot of cancer treatments in different areas. Which none of us in the room would be against that. Is that true? And it seems though that that's what's budding. That's what's evolving out of our business centre. Speaker 2: It seems to be. Yes we have. This is currently operating for cancer care. And then there is the other one at the Civic and there is also one at Goodchap Street. So yes we have talked about the need. I know we have talked to the applicant already. Or the owner of the centre. And he indicated that what they, how they present their care is different to other centres.
00:11:00 So yes but they have indicated that there is a need in the Shire. Councillor Wegener: Last question. When it comes to the parking and electric vehicles and electric chargers there. I was just in China and of course there's electric chargers everywhere. Because you very seldomly hear a car engine in China. Especially when you hear a diesel you're like, oh what is that? Oh that's a diesel engine. Oh man I haven't heard one of those in a while. So anyways I'm hoping that that's all the same. And we have electric chargers you know at regular car parks. Like if the cars are there during the day you might as well be charging it through solar. Speaker 2: Yes I agree with you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: This is actually really maybe part of the conversation. Maybe Wilkie you've got a question. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. What is the principal difference between medical uses and hospital uses?
00:12:00 Under the planning scheme. Speaker 2: Under the planning scheme a hospital technically can have overnight stays. That's really the difference. Yes. But as I said when you look at it, when our consultant looked at it he said there is that difference. There's a higher turnover with a medical centre. It can be GPs. It can be radiographers. It can be physios. Those type of people can operate out of there. Whereas this is going to be, you would have seen on the plans, they had the infusion centre, the chemo, they had the chairs for that. They had the waiting rooms and things like that where it's slightly different to those other centres. Mayor Wilkie: Would it be fair to say hospital uses are less intense than land uses? Speaker 2: Yes that's exactly right. Mayor Wilkie: Hence you don't need as many car parking spaces. Speaker 2: That's right. You've had bigger areas put aside to waiting rooms, to an infusion room, to beds, recovery areas.
00:13:00 Whereas with a medical centre you might have rooms with GPs in it and they turn over a lot more people. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. So obviously when an applicant makes these sort of changes they've done the demographic research to justify the change. Yes. There's a need, they want a service. Speaker 2: Yes. They were quite, as I said they. When this initially came in we had significant concerns which we've always flagged about the extent of the extension and the loss of car parking. They provided several traffic reports and documents outlining how it would work, it would function, their workflows, when a patient comes in, where they go through. So they provided that documentation to us. Mayor Wilkie: Did you say councils engaged a traffic consultant as well? Yes. Speaker 2: Yes we engaged. Mayor Wilkie: And the independent traffic consultant confirmed that the. The change in use requires a less intense. It's a less intense use so therefore a lower requirement for car parking. Yes. From one car space for 20 square metres to one car space to 35 square metres.
00:14:00 Speaker 2: That's correct. Mayor Wilkie: And that this change complies with that. Yes. Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: As well as providing this new hospital use for cancer treatment for the community. Speaker 2: And it is a mix. Again noting that there is still. There is still the type 2 healthcare service. Yes. On the site. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Speaker 2: So there will be that general type uses but two thirds of the building is to be used for this hospital type function or cancer care function. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: And the reason why we have different land uses and different zonings and planning schemes to ensure there is no conflict when these land uses take place side by side. Yes. Is there likely to be any conflict arising from this change of use? No. It sounds entirely consistent with the medical centre. Speaker 2: Yes. It's all internal. Mayor Wilkie: If not it's technically not. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yes. That's right. It is very consistent with the medical centre. That's right. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Are there likely to be patients staying overnight?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Speaker 2: I don't believe so no. They've got recovery beds but they haven't really indicated that they would be staying overnight. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Could we get clarification on that for you? Speaker 4: Yeah. It's not a requirement for the hospital use that those seeking services stay overnight. Yes. It's something that can occur. That's correct. I think as Nadine's touched on with the medical centre it's that more rapid turnover. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: Like a GP seeing a patient every 15 minutes for example. Speaker 4: That's right. Yes. And more people are likely to be sitting waiting for the GP. Yeah. Because of those shorter tenure of set of bookings whereas the treatment that's occurring in this facility will be over a longer period of time and I think the report shows that the amount of people that will be waiting for the next treatment would be less than what would normally occur in a medical facility. Speaker 2: So the on page, I'm not quite sure what page it is, in the report there's a layout
00:16:00 on page. Yeah. After the occupancy and staffing table. I'm not quite sure what page that is on. Page eight. Page eight. And that diagram. Speaker 3: Or is it 30 in the actual full agenda packet? Is it that one? Yes. Speaker 2: That one. Yes. The coloured one if it's on your agenda. That gives you an indication. You know it's got the radiation, the bunkers, it's got the cancer chair, the infusion chair. So you can see there it's much larger. Hallways, storage, there's greater storage for medical items. There's staff rooms that take up room rather than a general GP office where you might have again those people coming in and having a high turnover. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Any other questions? When it comes to zoning, so there's no specific zoning for medical offices.
00:17:00 But this has a specific zoning for the cancer care. There's a slight difference. But generally speaking, there's not a specific zoning for medical areas, like for doctors, from what it was? Speaker 2: Doctor surgeries can generally go into business centres, business zones. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: There's no shortage of space for regular medical centres that are being displaced by the cancer? No. Speaker 2: Well, this is currently being, it's being operated by the cancer care. So this will add to their facility, the type of services that they'll be able to offer. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: So it's an ancillary use facility. Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. Councillor Wegener: But we're not displacing other opportunities for medical centres? No. No. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of car parking, and I'm going to go back to the 30 car parks. The leases with cancer care and the day hospital. Yes. How long are the leases? There are 20 years.
00:18:00 Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: So if they don't want their full term, and a tenancy change has occurred, how are we protected? And is, and I'm assuming there's conditions in the application that protect us from a site converting into a hospital. High demand. Yes. Like a medical centre. And, and then that would be a real issue in terms of risk of overfall parking onto nearby streets or the surrounding businesses. So how, how do we protect ourselves in terms of risk if the long term tenants were to leave? Speaker 2: Absolutely. Very good question. And we've been asking the applicant exactly those, those questions. That was one of the reasons. We asked for the use to be changed to a hospital, and we've named it hospital infusion centre and hospital. As part of the approval, we have included the plans that they have provided, which shows
00:19:00 the layout with recovery rooms, with their bunker rooms. We've also included a condition which clearly indicates 1700 square metres for the healthcare service, 1300 square metres for the hospital infusion centre, and 1383 for the hospital in general. We've also included a condition stating that these suites are only to operate generally in accordance with these layouts that they've given us. And we have asked that the community management statement, anybody corporate requirements, it's indicated in there that it has to be used for hospital type functions. And yet it has to operate basically as these hospital type functions for the duration of the life. Any changes will require a new application to be lodged with care. So it's quite, it's quite stringent, I think, the conditions protecting us. And therefore, if they want to change it to a medical centre, they'll have to make a new application to come back to us to change the approved plans.
00:20:00 And also they'll have to address car parking again. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of, again, talking car parking, and you know how valuable that is in Noosa, the proposed hospital uses the car parking rate in the report said it's based on car parking for a day hospital at 47 Wilchat Street, Tewantin. The scale and intensity seemed different from Wilchat to this. Can you explain? Speaker 2: It's a... Do you agree? Again, I'm basing it on our expert chapter consultant who also was involved. So this isn't the hospital, this was the appeal next door. Okay. Okay. So that was the mix between, there was a medical centre and a sort of a day hospital there. That's your one that was, Council initially refused and then it was settled. And based, that was the rate that was indicated as part of that appeal.
00:21:00 And that's what our, again, our expert indicated that based on the numbers, he was happy with a one space per 35, which is similar to that Goodshap Street application. Councillor Lorentson: And do we have a contingency in place just in case the staff numbers or the patient numbers are higher than what's been predicted? Speaker 2: No, not really. Again, based on the one per 35, yeah, well, again, I'll have to base it on what our expert has indicated. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. And one last question in terms of disability car parking. Of a number of accessible car parking compliant with disability car parking. Can we prescribe the number to the National Construction Code and, or have we gone above the minimum? Speaker 4: We can't prescribe the number of disabled car spaces.
00:22:00 That's done through the certification process and so that will be, that will accord with the requirements through that process. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: One more question. It's an inconsistent use and I'm probably going to have to go back to that. My question is, in approving the inconsistent use, what precedence or what risk does that pose in terms of Council approving similar applications in major centre zones? Does it open the door for that or not? Speaker 4: No. The nature of the use is important in terms of making a decision upon that application. If someone wants to put a pinball parlour in next door and it was an inconsistent use, it doesn't give that pinball parlour merit because an inconsistent use has been approved next door.
00:23:00 What we learned through the Good Chat appeal was that hospitals have a very high order in terms of planning need and that makes a big impact on the decision that we make in terms of determining whether to approve or refuse the application. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Thank you. Further questions around the table? Happy? Oh. Can I see? Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to move it. Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me. Through the Chair. Councillor Finzel, yes. What would you like to ask? Yes, please. Councillor Finzel: I do have a question. Councillor Lorentson: Would you like me to proceed? Go ahead, Karen. Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you for the report. It is good to see that our residents are going to be supported in their health care. The concerns I have around approving the hospital use in the business zone is a medical waste. In the report, I didn't see it but I'm open to be corrected, how does Council then mitigate
00:24:00 risk around disposal of both medical waste that is treated and untreated? And how do we ensure that this is managed effectively in terms of disposal? I couldn't see any regulations around any of the state planning schemes or anything like that. Are you able to talk to me about that, please? Speaker 2: In terms of the waste management, the existing building has a substantial on-site facility. There's actually room on-site for a garbage truck to enter the building. On the southern side of the building, it comes in, they have a whole waste area that's, I
00:25:00 understand, secure in the building. And they have certain waste rooms within the actual building itself and within the individual tenancies to deal with that. I would assume in terms of the medical waste, that'll have their own requirements under their own acts to deal with their own waste. But there is room on-site as part of the existing building to have storage of waste and also pick up of waste. Speaker 4: The disposal of medical waste is going to be heavily regulated through a range of legislation in different types of waste that's generated. So that includes the Environment Protection Regulation. So it's not something that Council would necessarily regulate at the source, but certainly there's
00:26:00 a strong regulatory requirement around it. Speaker 3: Yeah, correct. And Karen, just to add, so there's the Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation. So as Patrick mentioned, heavily regulated around medical waste disposal, and there's the Medicines and Poisons Regulations, and then there's also a guideline that the State have produced around clinical and related waste that guides for facilities and hospitals to adhere to and understand that there's a strict provision around monitoring, ensuring that their waste is disposed correctly, to ensure no environmental or personal harm as well. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So in summary, local councils, we have no way to condition this or ensure that this is correctly managed moving forward, especially like, you know, is that potentially going to end up in our landfill? Is there any way we can do that?
00:27:00 Local council can, I don't know, keep a set of eyes over this at a local level, or ensure that that is correctly disposed of? Speaker 3: It's already heavily regulated already, Karen, as I mentioned. Those pieces of legislation require certain types of instruments and chemicals to be disposed of in a very particular and certain way, so it doesn't expose people to harm. So I guess the... I guess the fact is there's already regulations in place means that it's not appropriate for us to then necessarily overreach and step into regulating an industry and sector that's already appropriately regulated through the correct State avenues. Does that help to clarify? Obviously, if there are recyclable materials that can be recycled and reused, there will be those avenues available, as they normally are, but particularly around the metropolitan
00:28:00 area, it needs to be carefully and sensitively managed, and there's a range of different types of approaches based on the type of composition and the chemical compounds involved and how they must be managed and handled as part of that disposal. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Given the matters you've raised, and I think potentially there's gaps there, given councils do have to manage these issues moving forward, in your opinion, do you think there's opportunity there for a local council to be able to do that? Do you think there's an advocacy piece to moving forward to one of our peak bodies, like LTOQ, for example, to look at this and how other councils are managing this moving into the future, given that... Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, Karen. It's not relevant to the application in front of us. I appreciate your passion in this, but we might reserve the question for a workshop and just stick to the planning application we've got in front of us. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Madam Chair.
00:29:00 Thank you, Madam Chair. Councillor Lorentson: One last question to the staff, then. Please go ahead, Karen. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So the staff is satisfied, beyond doubt, that the regulatory matters in place that you've mentioned today will be satisfactory down into the future? Speaker 3: Yes, correct. Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you, Karen. And if that answers the final question. Any questions? Any further questions around the table? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was just going to speak to the motion. I think Councillor Wegener brought up the most salient point, is we are seeing an increase in the need for healthcare. The data that was presented to us recently was over 85, so we'll double in our community in the next 10 years. And along with that came a range of illnesses that are more prevalent in the aged. And obviously, this application, while it is a change in the age group, it's a change
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 in the defined term. To a hospital, there's not a change in the nature of the use that was initially envisaged. So I think that is the key point in terms of when you look at an inconsistent use, you look at, are there circumstances which would warrant the approval? I think that in this case, what we're saying is, because they're separating their use from that, which is high traffic to that, which is a lower volume of patients, we're saying that it's reasonable to tie our agreement to the reduction in parking to a specific use. I think that's a wise move, which would avoid the future problems should, you know, penalties change, et cetera. So I think it's got to a reasonable conclusion. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to the application in front of us also. In terms of the loss of early car parks, it has been peer reviewed by experts.
00:31:00 So I think it's a reasonable move. I'm happy, you know, that and confirm that the hospital uses will generate lower parking demands than other commercial medical uses. I also just want to just commend Council on approving this application because it is an inconsistent use. And I think what's in front of us is really important, as Council Stockwell just stated, that's important. It's important not only just to our residents, but also to our local economy. And I think this is really just a great example of Council and applicants working together to get a really great outcome that benefits the whole community. So the operators that are in there are great operators. So I'm really actually quite excited to have a look at the hospital infusion centre, and I think this is a total asset to the use of the community.
00:32:00 Any further questions? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I think it's all been said, Madam Chair. I'd just like to point out we do have a spelling error in line two of the recommendation. Business type one office, chimerical business. It just needs to be corrected to commercial. Otherwise, this is a great asset to the community. Car parking requirements have been met. Should the use change be made, it's a great asset to the community. If there's a change in future, another application will have to come to Council. Car parking will be assessed. If it's a more intense use, car parking requirements won't be met. It's likely to be refused. So it's a great asset to the community. And car parking requirements have been met. So a good decision. Councillor Lorentson: All in favour? That's unanimous. And we're moving to the next item on the agenda. Speaker 1: Sorry. We sort of breezed over the, I think, Brian, you?
00:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I moved it. Frank seconded it. I seconded it. Yeah. Just wanted to make sure we got the right one. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. That was supported unanimously. Yeah. So item 7.3, MCV25-006. Develop an application for material change of use, short term accommodation. That pack is accommodation at 17 Russell Street. That pack is accommodation at 17 Russell Street. If you could speak to the report in front of us and the recommendation before us today. Okay. Speaker 2: This is an application for a material change of use for short term accommodation for a 48-bed hostel, which involves the retention and renovation of an existing three-storey building on site and the construction of a new three-storey extension behind that, which includes a rooftop terrace to accommodate these three stories and a three-storey flat. The proposal includes a main reception and entrance as well as a
00:34:00 accommodation unit on the ground floor of the existing building and a new sort of wing at the back which will include outdoor decks and a rooftop terrace to the rear of the site. The site is included in the high density residential zone which is which and is a consistent use within this zone at present sorry under the previous scheme sorry let me start again on that this application was lodged under the which is now the superseded scheme it was lodged in January 2025 and under this the previous scheme it was included in the high density residential zone in which visitor accommodation short-term accommodation is actually a impact accessible consistent use. The application was subject to public notification and 178 properly made submissions were received with the majority of the submissions against the
00:35:00 proposal raising concerns about impact on the traffic network, scale of development, privacy and overlooking. The proposal seeks a number of relaxations to setbacks, GFA, site cover, plot ratio and on-site servicing as well we've got concerns in terms of the loss of permanent accommodation in this area. The intent of the high density zone is to cater for permanent residents. This area is well serviced there's a map within the report that shows the amount of short-term accommodation within this area. This which shows this area is very well serviced with short-term accommodation. The further approval of backpacker for short-term accommodation will further erode our permanent residents in this area. So based on the inconsistencies with our intent for this zone as well as the non-compliance with the built form provisions the application is
00:36:00 recommended for refusal. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you Nadine and I'll hand it over to the councillors. Any questions? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah mine's in regard, in your report you take an excerpt from the report that says that there is a lack of the economic report. Now it's not usual that these sort of things do economic assessments. I had a couple of questions related to that. It bases need on a 75% occupancy rate. Do we normally, is that a standard rate that we would use? It sounds quite a high expectation. Speaker 2: This was the applicant's report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah I know. Is it one that we have before? I just, when I first read that I thought 75% is quite an ambitious report. It seems to be trying to embellish the need. You won't comment? I'll go down to the next one. Similarly, it supports the Noosa economy by providing housing for key workers, particularly working holidaymakers in the tourism sector. That would be a rooming accommodation use. Was rooming accommodation applied for?
00:37:00 Speaker 2: No, rooming accommodation was not applied for. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It just makes you wonder that when you have economic assessments that make sense. It's not about making claims which are outside the scope of what's been applied for and using that as justification for development. It really calls into question how much weight you can put on any of it. So, that's my questions. Councillor Lorentson: I've got a couple of questions. Nadine, in terms of, did the applicant engage mainly with council officers during the assessment process and was there any pre-lodgement advice provided? Speaker 2: Yes, there was a pre-lodgement meeting held. It was held with the applicant, the applicant and the consultant, and they were clearly indicated, they were clearly told as part of that meeting that there were significant concerns with the proposal, including the land use.
00:38:00 They did, there were a number of information requests issued, phone calls, and council staff have been quite consistent with their approach, raising concerns with this development. But the applicant wanted to proceed in its current form. It was reduced slightly in numbers, I will say, in response to one of the information requests, but they still wanted it to proceed in the form we currently see. Councillor Lorentson: So, given the scale and the zoning constraints, and I'm going through all the reasons of refusal, what form of development could have been supported on this site without triggering significant concern or departure from the planning scheme? Speaker 2: So, at the moment we've got a development which is, the planning scheme talks about 40% site cover. We have around 45% site cover. So, we generally do not vary our site cover provisions at all.
00:39:00 So, that's a significant impact. The gross floor area is, the scheme allows 396. This is at 533. Again, we do not vary our planning scheme for gross floor area. Site cover and gross floor area, we're very tight on. If you convert that to plot ratio, it's supposed to be 0.65. It's at 0.88. Remembering, too, that the site area is, sorry, 609 square metres. So, it's the size of a small residential block, and they're wanting to put 48 people on there. So, those two alone, if a development came in that met, GFA and site cover, then that's something we could start looking at. Also, then we have issues with the car parking side of things, that it's not working, as well as servicing. There's no provision on site for servicing. So, that will most likely incur in the street.
00:40:00 Speaker 4: And they're the built form parameters. I mean, if we talk about the actual land use, whilst it's a consistent use in the zone, if we think back to when the Noosa Plan 2021 commenced, and we had applications for short-term accommodation within the medium and high density residential zone, we got to a point where we were refusing those. And the notion that we were seeking predominantly permanent residential uses within the zone became a very strong notion that we were refusing applications on, as well as car parking. So, just to expand on your question a bit more there, it's more than just getting the development built form. Aspect's right. It's the land use that we're seeking for that. And understanding community sentiment. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. Speaker 4: And certainly, rooming accommodation is a consistent code-assessable use. A residential care facility is a consistent impact-assessable use.
00:41:00 Again, these more permanent residential-type uses being preferred. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'm happy to... There is... Speaker 2: Sorry, before you... Sorry, I should have mentioned it beforehand. There is a slight error in the report. In the table of assessment of the benchmarks, the report indicates that there was a requirement for 28 bicycle spaces. That's actually incorrect. It's only seven spaces. So, bicycle and motorcycle spaces. Councillor Lorentson: So, would we need to move an amendment to identify the change or the mistake? Speaker 4: It would be... Yes. So... We could say no to the report.
00:42:00 Mayor Wilkie: The Bicycle Spaces, the Bicycle Spaces ought to be 7, not 20.
00:43:00 Speaker 4: Incorrectly identifies the required number of Bicycle Spaces and Motorcycle Spaces, which should each be 7. 7. 7. Be identified as 7.
00:44:00 7. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 7. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. 7. yeah. Speaker 4: Is that okay? Councillor Lorentson: . . . . . . . . . . Speaker 3: . . . . Councillor Lorentson: . . . I'm happy to move the motion in front of us, can I just say thank you Councillor Stockwell, any discussion, yes Councillor Stockwell go ahead, yeah it's an interesting one in that I don't think I've ever seen a table of assessment of the assessment details of the assessment criteria where 56% of the criteria Deputy Mayor Stockwell: have crosses against them, so it's a fairly easy one to identify over development of a site in that respect. I think the other aspect is obviously clearly the use proposed is inconsistent with Council's strategic intent and inconsistent with a fairly consistent approach by this Council to interpreting the Noosa Plan 2020 since I think around October 2021 and that is that we feel there's sufficient
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 sort of accommodation is in the Eastern Beaches Noosaville area and that we are prioritising dwellings. I think the desire to create an opportunity for key workers is good and as mentioned a scaled down proposal that met the assessment criteria and provided some additional key worker accommodation via rooming accommodation on site is a plausible option for that site, it is in close proximity. and well served by public and active transport links to the major holiday areas. If the suggestion is that people here are going to stay there for less than three months and pop in and out of employment, I do know that most, a lot of our hospitality sector really want staff that they can train and keep for longer than a month or two, I know in big times it can be of assistance but other than that it's really just an inconvenience for business to have to keep on retraining staff for longer than a month or two, I know in big times it can be of assistance but other than that it's really just an inconvenience for
00:46:00 So I support from a planning perspective that the use is not what we'd like to see. And secondly, the design is a significant overdevelopment of the site that would cause significant amenity impacts to the surrounding neighbours. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. It was always going to be a challenge fitting 48 people on a 600 square metre site. As has already been identified, the building is over scale. It encroaches on the rear setback and site cover is exceeded, dominates the surrounding buildings. Pot ratio and GFA are excessive.
00:47:00 The rooftop terrace creates opportunity for overlooking and invading the privacy of surrounding premises. We also have concerns about the noise that might be generated from the rooftop terrace. There's insufficient car parking on site. The waste can't be handled on site. And we predominantly already have, we want, predominantly want the uses in this area to be residential and that's, that conflicts with that. So as Councillor Stockwell said, it doesn't tick all the boxes. It sort of, there's more crosses than ticks when it comes to this application. It would be interesting to see what the applicant, what the applicant's revised preparation looks like. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just quickly speak to the application, there's a real cost in putting an application like this to Council in terms of, you know, drawings.
00:48:00 This is architectural designs, planning costs and I sit here as a councillor thinking, you know, what lessons can we take or anyone or applicants can take away from these refusals. And after five years sitting at this desk, it's the importance of working with Council, the importance of pre-watchment advice, early guidance, the importance of community engagement and having realistic expectations. It's just such a shame that they've got to start all over again and possibly could have been avoided if they would have done that. It's important that we work better with Council. So support the refusal for the reasons articulated in the report and it was a very good report and the reasons given around the table.
00:49:00 And I hope anyone listening, applicants, take lessons from the refusals. Any further discussion? All in favour? All in favour? Mayor Wilkie: All in favour? All in favour? Councillor Lorentson: All in favour? At the end of our environment meeting, there are no reports for noting by the committee, there are no confidential sessions, so I now declare the meeting closed at 10.30 and thank the councillors and thank Karen online, and the officers, CEO, and our great administrative support, Sally and Vicky. Meeting is now closed at 10.30. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.