2016-08-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                     9 AUGUST 2016


                  Column 1                     Column 2                            Column 3
                   Code                 Concurrence Agency               Acceptable Solution/Specific
                                        Assessment Required                       Outcome
        Heritage Overlay Code      Where involving a heritage site or    O1, S2.1, O3, S4.1, S5.1-S5.3,
                                   within a character area as defined    O6, S7.1, O12
                                   by the Division 5, 13.11 General
                                   Provisions for the Heritage Overlay
        Natural Hazard Overlay     Where on land identified as Flood     S20.1, S20.2
        Code                       Hazard Area on Overlay Maps
                                   OM1.3-9.3
        Natural Resources          Where within a Coastal Protection     S17.1, O18,O19, S20.1, S20.2
        Overlay Code               Area identified on Overlay Map
                                   OM4.5




REPORT
Recent judgements by the Planning & Environment Court, one of which was upheld by the
Queensland Court of Appeal has significant implications for many Queensland Councils, including
Noosa Council. This report seeks to update Council on the implications of this judgement and seek
a resolution from Council to enact the amenity and aesthetic provisions of Schedule 7, item 1 of
the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009.
The judgement for Brisbane City Council v Gerhardt was made in relation to a development
application for building work on a dwelling located in a character area in Wooloowin, Brisbane. The
development application sought a development permit for changes to the external façade of a pre-
1946 dwelling located within a character area under Brisbane’s City Plan 2014. Brisbane City
Council considered that the proposed building work was made assessable by the character
provisions of the City Plan 2004.
The owners lodged the development application with a private building certifier. Council was a
concurrence agency for the application, with its role limited to assessing only the amenity and
aesthetic impact of the development application against the character provisions of the Brisbane’s
City Plan 2014. Council was made a concurrence agency pursuant to Schedule 7 of the
Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009.
On receiving the application, the Council advised the applicant the request was premature and a
preliminary approval for the building work lodged with Council was necessary before the
development application could be decided by the private building certifier.
The certifier subsequently sought declarations in the Planning & Environment Court principally that
no application for a development approval for building work was required to be made to or approved
by the Council for the proposed building work.
The court held:
   Council failed to provide conditions or direct refusal of the application as a concurrence
     agency for the application within the required time frame under the Sustainable Planning Act
     2009.
   The private building certifier was able to approve the building application and no further
     application for building works was required to be made to Brisbane City Council.




                                                                                        Page 22 of 119