1 DECLARATION OF OPENING ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶
00:01:00 Councillor Lorentson: So we'll go straight to item 7, reports for consideration of the committee meeting. And item 7.1, application for a minor change to a development approval for material change of use. Hotel and DVW 23-0073.02 building work demolition at 118 Poinciana Avenue and 26 Dianne Street, Tewantin.
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
4.1 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES DATED 7 OCTOBER 2025 ¶
00:02:00 Before starting, there has been a request to move this matter to the general meeting. I understand there will be some amendments and some discussion over the... The report. But before... So I will ask Patrick, welcome to the desk. Patrick, I will ask if you can just give us a review or a summary of the report and what the recommendation is supporting. Speaker 1: So the key proposed changes for this minor change application are the addition of a 78 square metre outdoor playground area in the northern beer garden. Amendments to noise conditions and operational parameters that include... The requirement for the 7 p.m. cessation of amplified music be removed and also removal of conditions limiting the number of gaming machines and the requirement for end of trip facilities such as showers and lockers.
5 PRESENTATIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
7.1 MCU23/0090.02 - APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE - HOTEL (EXTENSION TO EXISTING HOTEL) AND DBW23/0073.02 BUILDING WORK (DEMOLITION) AT 118 POINCIANA AVENUE AND 26 DIYAN STREET, TEWANTIN ¶
00:03:00 It's considered that the application is a minor change. This is discussed in the report. When the application was first submitted, there was concern that the... Supporting material didn't adequately demonstrate that this wouldn't be a substantially different development, which is one of the tests of a minor change, because the acoustic report wasn't sufficient in how it detailed the impacts of the playground from an acoustic point of view, and it wasn't able to be determined at that time whether there would be an increase in the known impacts, noise. So the application was returned. There was a further report submitted by the applicant, a more detailed report, which was reviewed by our consultant before us accepting the application.
00:04:00 The consultant's review identified that there would be an interceptable change in acoustics and accordingly the application was accepted as a minor change. So based on our assessment and with the support of the... ...resulting company... We are seeking to support the changes to include the playground and the amendment to the operational conditions regarding noise, amplified and acoustic music. The modelling for the playground is being based on a guideline, an accepted guideline around noise from childcare centres and it attributes noise to different age groups of children. The model has used the noisiest child range to apply to their modelling and they've used
00:05:00 it for 15 children on the ground level and 15 children on the playground equipment, so 30 children within that area. The modelling includes 400 patrons in the beer garden area and the two live speakers at the northernmost extent of the beer garden but facing south, as well as 40 patrons in the southern beer garden facing Pontianak Avenue. So extensive modelling, again reviewed by our experts. The conditions initially had requirements around amplified music ceasing at 7pm and then
00:06:00 acoustic music being emitted but also had decibel limits associated with amplified music across a number of conditions. The reviewers determined an acceptable level of noise to be emitted, firstly from the speakers and secondly from any amplified, sorry, from, you know, someone playing music. And then also from speakers to determine an appropriate acoustic level and then condition accordingly. So it's taken away that acoustic amplified music split and just created a noise level. That's acceptable and that's reflected in the proposed conditions. In terms of the end of trip facilities, we're not supportive of the deletion of the condition requiring end of trip facilities. We've got policies within our planning scheme that talk about providing the end of trip facilities to enable a range of transport modes to a site. So we consider it important to attain that condition.
00:07:00 And then in terms of the gaming machine limits, there's a condition that stipulates that the gaming machine will be limited to 35 across an area of 260 square metres. The 260 square metres was included because that was reflective of the amount of area that was currently being used for gaming machines. So we're not supportive of that. And that was translated into the most current approval, which maintained that 260 square metre area. Council is not the decision maker or the authority in terms of gaming machines. We understand that there can be concern as to their impact on the community. However, in light of the fact that there is a separate process, separate legislation for the increase in gaming machines and regulating their use, we have recommended that that
00:08:00 condition be deleted. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Patrick. So I'm not sure whether I'm going to allow questions or whether we just refer this straight to the general rather than duplicating the questions. I'll ask our censors. Mayor Wilkie: I have a question which may give the staff member an opportunity to bring something to the general. Sure. I've got a question. You mentioned that the council doesn't have any real authority to limit the number of gaming machines. But Noosa Council has a position about gaming machines. And is there another method by which we could still include that statement of intent that is not challengeable in the court appeal? Speaker 1: That's a good question. I will be providing, as referenced by Amelia, updated conditions. That's a good question. There's just some conditions that need some slight tweaking that I've identified.
00:09:00 So I'll be circulating that. But I could also include a suggested advisory note. Advisory notes can be added to decision notices. They're not enforceable, but they can advise of a policy position or they can provide of a requirement to meet other legislation. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. So for the benefit of people listening, Noosa Council, or any council, can you give us a statement about gaming machines through conditions of approval, or through the payment scheme? Speaker 1: That is correct. Mayor Wilkie: But we can perhaps have an advisory note that states council's position about gaming machines in relation to this particular application, which is not challengeable in the court. Speaker 1: That is correct. Mayor Wilkie: Whereas a condition may be. Speaker 1: A condition is certainly something that could be appealed. And noting that a condition needs to be reasonable and relevant. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I might hold back on all my questions. I've been going to and fro with amendments on this application, so we might, again, everyone
00:10:00 agrees to further discussion. Councillor? Councillor Wegener: Just one question to the councillor. And this is off the, not what you'd expect, but kids and noise. I always take some, a little offence to kids in a playground being called noisy. Because it's actually, it's a natural sound. It's like thunder being heard. Cockatoos being noisy. There are things that make noise. But I hate to consider them as sort of an industrial sort of noise that is an aggravation to people. It might be problematic to some people. But it's, I don't know if it's actually noise to me. It's just something that I think of. When I think of kids playing in a playground, it sounds, but you don't want to call it noisy. You just want to call it the natural, you hope your kids are laughing and screaming in a playground. Mayor Wilkie: It's the sounds of the next generation. The sounds of life. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. It sounds like a beautiful sound. I say that when we move into a new area, that they're going to love feeling life with
00:11:00 my children. So I agree with your comments, Councillor Wegener. Yeah. Okay. Again, we might just defer full conversation and questions to avoid duplication. Of course. For the general meeting. So I'd like to move that this agenda item 7-1 be referred to the general committee meeting due to the significance of the issue. Can I have a seconder? Sure. Thank you. No further discussion? And all in favour? Thank you. So next, we're going to move. Thank you. Thank you. So next, we'll move to item 7.2, which is the Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 2698 of 2025, application for a material change of use for a dwelling house
7.2 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 2698 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DWELLING HOUSE 6 ARAKOON CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH ¶
00:12:00 at 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach. And again, we welcome Patrick and Richard. I'll hand it over to you just to give us a summary. Thank you. Speaker 1: We've got a number of items to talk about today in relation to appeals. There's an element of... There's some that are linked to some degree. This property at 6 Arakoon is part of a property that has two lots. 6 Arakoon has a swimming pool on it. 4 Arakoon has a dwelling, and we'll talk about that one shortly. There's an application over both lots for... For a new dwelling. As part of the process, we need to consider the impact of coastal processes. It's an area that's identified as being in an erosion prone area, subject to the coastal amenity and... Coastal projections in amenity overlay.
00:13:00 And through our assessment of the application, this element wasn't completed. And it wasn't... It wasn't due to the officers not doing that. The applicants were... Essentially for the assessment of the application to be put on hold whilst another application with similar issues was being assessed. It wasn't... It wasn't keen for the applicant to be reviewed by our external consultant that looked at the geotechnical reports. And accordingly, the issues around the impact of development or how the development could be constructed in light of... In light of... In light of... In light of the fact that the coastal processes wasn't finalised, the applicants thought that a decision had been made on the application. The application was refused. There are also some issues in terms of the scale and the bulk of the building, which officers had issue with. They form part of the grounds of refusal. So, an appeal has been lodged and it's reasonable for council to defend this appeal.
00:14:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'm wondering whether I should go into a confidential session to ask just a few further questions, Patrick. Beforehand, I just want to raise, can you just explain what was required by the Minister under the ministerial conditions issued in 2020 in terms of assessment, and does that have any implications to the current application? Speaker 1: What I think you're referring to is at the time that the NUSA Plan 2020 came into effect, it was determined that the natural hazards risk and resilience for erosion-prone areas hadn't been incorporated into the planning scheme. That's correct. That means that we default to the state planning policies as part of our assessment. You will see in this report that the grounds of refusal do refer to SDAT provisions.
00:15:00 That we shouldn't have gone to the SDAT provisions, but notwithstanding, the state planning policy requires similar outcomes, or the same outcomes. So our grounds of refusal can be modified through the court process to incorporate the state planning policy provisions. Councillor Lorentson: So in terms of next steps, is there a mediation process involved as part of the first stages of the appeal? Speaker 1: Yes, there is a mediation that's proposed for this one. Councillor Lorentson: I will ask if we can move into confidential session. Can I please, I'm happy to move. Can I have a seconder, please? Yep, that the meeting be closed to the public pursuant to section 2543E of the Local Government
00:16:00 Act. The seconder is that the Council's legal position be protected under the Planning and Environment Regulation 2012 for the purpose of discussing legal advice relating to an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court, so that Council's legal position is protected in relation to Item 7.2 Planning and Environment Court Appeal number 2698 of 2025, application for a material change of use for a dwelling house, 6 Arakoon Crescent, Sunshine Beach. Happy to move. Seconder? Councillor Neil Wilkie. All in favour? I just have a question. Speaker 4: Oh, sure. Are we only needing to discuss this item if there are two similar items that follow, and if there are 10 types of questions, should they be included in the motion? Councillor Lorentson: We can add those in if you want to move that for the other two items. I will just take a second. Add a separate motion? We can make it into one motion for all three, if you would like. It will just take us a few minutes to get it, but we can do it after if you want to move
00:17:00 Speaker 3: for the three items. That would be great. If you are generally happy to say for the three items, we will move that. Councillor Lorentson: For the three items, and if you can work on the wording, that would be excellent. Yes. Thank you, Cathy. Are you happy with that? Yes. Everyone happy with that? Thank you. Yes. Thanks. Do you want to do it for all four? Speaker 4: We don't have to move. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: All four items? So we can open the speaker. Speaker 4: So these three and, and then we, yeah. Councillor Lorentson: That would be great. All right. Thank you very much. We'll do that. We'll fix that wording up. Sorry. I'm going to ask those in the public gallery, we're just going to close the session, just probably for five minutes while we discuss the item. Mayor Wilkie: We're going to discuss four items. Councillor Lorentson: Discuss. Oh, we're going to discuss four items. It may take a little bit longer than five minutes. And we're not allowed to listen? No, not in confidential. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
00:18:00 Mayor Wilkie: Am I here for the confidential items? Speaker 3: No. Councillor Lorentson: No. Speaker 3: No. Speaker 2: I don't know where he put it.
00:38:00 Councillor Lorentson: So we've got in front of us item 7.2. Can I have that Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee dated 11 November 2025 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal 2698 of 2025 and agree to defend the appeal. Can I have a mover and a seconder? Thank you. And seconder? Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. All in favour? No discussion? Thanks. Next. Sorry about that.
00:39:00 Thank you. Next we have item 7.2 or 3? 7.3. 7.3. But Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment of the Planning and Environment Committee dated... Sorry. 11 November 2025 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal 2697 of 2025 and agree to defend the appeal. A mover? Thank you.
7.3 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 2697 OF 2025 – APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DWELLING HOUSE 4 ARAKOON CRESCENT, SUNSHINE BEACH ¶
00:40:00 Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wegener. Second. No discussion? All in favour? And I'm happy to move... Just one moment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move item 7.4 that Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting dated 11 November 2025 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal D92 of 2025 and referred to the General Committee meeting dated 17 November for further discussion.
00:41:00 Can I have a seconder, please? Thank you, Mayor Wilkie. No discussion? All in favour? Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Just correction. Correction, that is discussion rather than consideration. Councillor Lorentson: We only have three things we can refer for as three items. Okay. Signature of issue for further consideration or for a further report. We only have three items we can refer. Mayor Wilkie: Chair, are you happy to change the wording? Further consideration. Councillor Lorentson: For further consideration as it aligns with the standing orders. Yeah. So happy to just keep the wording. And anyone online, it's just further discussion. Okay. Speaker 2: Thank you. So that brings us to item 9.1 that Council note the report by the Manager
00:42:00 Councillor Lorentson: Development Assessment to the Planning Environment Committee meeting dated 11 November 2025 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal 24-20-2025 and agreed to be appealed. Can I have a mover and a seconder? Mayor Wilkie, seconded. Councillor Wegener. No discussion. All in favour? Thank you. So that leaves us with the reports for the meeting by the committee. Item 8.1 Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority. And again, Patrick, over to you if you could give us an overview of what applications have been decided and those refused by Delegated Authority. Thank you. The report before you
00:43:00 Speaker 1: details those decisions under Delegated Authority for the month of September 2025. I've got a bit of a quieter month. We discussed in previous months what the numbers were quite high. It's dropped back to 23 approvals and one refusal. In part that would be because our exemption certificate numbers have dropped off significantly with the new scheme coming in. I mean in certain provisions there might be a requirement for a number of exemption certificates to be issued going forward and the operation at works is a little bit quieter. I think I spoke to that in the previous month of dealing with their numbers so just a bit of a quieter month there but the team is still certainly busy. Questions are in the table. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. On the very first one, 637 Black Mountain Road, there's two short-term
8.1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – SEPTEMBER 2025 ¶
00:44:00 accommodation cabins approved. So there are cabins on the property where there's a person Speaker 1: living there. Yes, so this was assessed under the super-secret scheme but notwithstanding there is an existing dwelling on the site that's been retained and these were two fairly small cabins located on the site out of biodiversity in like area buffer areas so suitably located. Councillor Lorentson: And just a question in terms of our housing report which is going to collect all this information from the community. Can you tell us a little bit more about the housing report and what it's going to look like in terms of how many affordable houses and secondary dwellings and maybe a snapshot of these two area approvals that is coming to Council. Patrick or Karachi and Richard, when can we expect that report to come to Council? Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks Amelia. So that report I understand is intended to come to Council around February
00:45:00 of next year. It's going to be presented by our strategy branch. So yeah, that's the intended date to have that report to Council and sort of get information around how it works. Mayor Wilkie: Fantastic. Are there any questions here? Patrick, just the one refusal for Duke Street? That's right, that was a... A GMAX? Speaker 1: Yeah, that was a GFA. A sale? Yes, significant sale. Yeah, that was a sale of GFA. They have appealed that one too, so I need to bring a future report about that appeal. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks. Any further questions around the table or online? No? Time to actually leave the report in front of us. I was just thinking you had a mover, so I'm happy to second that. And if there's no further
00:46:00 discussion, we'll move on. All in favour? Fantastic. And I think that's the close of today's meeting. Speaker 4: Yep. Councillor Lorentson: So I'd like to clear the meeting closed at 10.16, I think. The Mayor and councillors and those online and staff, of course, and those in the gallery, I hope we all have a beautiful day and we have plenty of time to...
10 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.