2019-03-07 Special Meeting Agenda

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA                                                                             7 MARCH 2019


5.    The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site with the resultant development form
      detrimentally affecting the environmental and amenity values of the site.
6.    The proposed development represents a poor planning outcome for the site, with the
      subdivision layout failing to provide street frontage for the lots and an excessive number of
      lots with access via an easement. The proposed access arrangements are likely to result in
      ongoing management and maintenance issues for future residents of these lots.
The applicant subsequently appealed the decision seeking that the application be approved subject
to reasonable and relevant conditions. During the course of the appeal the applicant changed their
proposal reducing the number of lots proposed from 6 to 5 lots. The original proposal plans are
included as Attachment 1 and the amended lot layout is included as Attachment 2.
The amended plans primarily increase the area to be protected by an environmental covenant from
3590m2 to 3750m2, change the location of the covenant areas and increase the setback from the
riparian zone to the proposed building envelope from 56m to a minimum of 60m. The proposed
driveway access remains in a similar location to the original proposal plans but with some minor
changes to improve the driveway grade. Overall the layout and access generally remain the same
and do not resolve the reasons for refusal and address the conflicts with The Noosa Plan.
Council’s experts and the Appellant’s experts including planning, ecology, bushfire and traffic have
since completed joint expert reports on the amended plans and the matter is now set down for
hearing for 5 days commencing 18 March 2019 in Brisbane.
Review of the joint expert reports prepared for the appeal show that while both traffic experts agree
that a safe access can be achieved to the site, the appellant’s proposal will necessitate the removal
of substantial vegetation in the road reserve on David Low Way (and maintenance of that area of
the road reserve) to ensure sight line safety requirements are met with respect to access to and
from the site. The extent of clearing required to achieve satisfactory sight lines varies between the
experts but in both cases if the appeal is allowed by the Court, it would be expected that the clearing
in the road reserve would be undertaken for the proposed access. The extent of clearing required
is detailed in the diagrams below for both traffic experts. Notably no vegetation was required to be
cleared in the road reserve for the approved 2 lot subdivision for the site.




               Figure 1: Appellant’s Traffic Engineer’s Assessment of Sight Lines & Required Clearing




                                                                                                        Page 10 of 16