2014-01-28 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                28 JANUARY 2014


     The current Sunshine Coast Council resolution of 15 March 2013 requires all Extensions to
     Currency Periods to:

          “Charge for all networks, including those that may be missing. Original networks will
           be charged at PSP rates and missing networks at Adopted Charges rates, with the
           total (PSP + Adopted charges) not exceeding the maximum adopted charge amount
           that is allowable under the SPRP (adopted charges)”

     This approach has proven to be the most workable and straight forward method for
     assessment under the legislation. It is recommended that this approach continue but
     modify slightly to clarify that the addition of a missing network is limited so that it does not
     cause the total charge applicable to the development to exceed the maximum allowable
     under the “Statutory Planning Regulatory Provision (adopted charges)” (SPRP).

     Internal consultation on this issue has been undertaken with the Coordinator Development
     Assessment.

3.   Transferring from previously applied infrastructure contributions/charging regimes
     to the current Adopted Infrastructure Charges regime.

     The introduction of the Adopted Infrastructure Charges legislation was not meant to
     retrospectively apply to developments approved prior to 1 July 2011.

     The current Sunshine Coast Council resolution allows developments to transfer to the new
     Adopted Infrastructure Charges regime through an infrastructure agreement to override the
     previous development approval requirements. However, with the upcoming State
     Government review and anticipated further lowering of infrastructure charges from 1 July
     2014, it is appropriate that Council review this practice to either:

     a)    require new applications to be lodged in order to gain access to any new charging
           regime implemented by changes in the legislation; or
     b)    continue with the current approach to allow developments to transfer to a new
           Infrastructure Charges regime through an infrastructure agreement to override the
           previous development approval charging requirements.

     Staff preference is for option a) as this:

          is consistent with the intent of the legislation;
          enables a simpler administration process with infrastructure charges being issued in
           full compliance with the current legislation under which a development approval is
           issued;
          reduces costs in creating and finalising legal documents that are time consuming in
           their implementation and administration (particularly where there is no benefit to
           Council) and a third party being Unitywater is also involved;
          may reduce potential losses in infrastructure charges revenue as a developer will
           need to also consider other development issues such as timing and additional
           application fees before simply gaining access to lower infrastructure charges.

     Should Council decide on option a), it would be appropriate to offer a lower application fee
     for those new development applications that only involve no changes to the development
     previously approved and where there is no additional assessment required to that
     previously undertaken under The Noosa Plan. This would recognise the previous
     assessment work undertaken by officers. In these circumstances, it is considered that a
     50% reduction in the development application fee may be appropriate.


                                                                                       Page 8 of 59