Original source · versioned page text
2017-07-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 11 July 2017
commencing at 9.30am
Committee Room, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Joe Jurisevic (Chair), Ingrid Jackson, Brian Stockwell, Tony Wellington
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 77 sections
Section 2
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 3
1 MCU17/0020 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF
USE FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 1 (AQUACULTURE) AT 3 SANDERS
STREET, NOOSAVILLE 3
2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR
ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING TYPE 2 (RECREATION, AMUSEMENT AND
FITNESS) AT 4/1 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE (MCU17/0034) 13
3 MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133 - REPRESENTATIONS TO CONDITIONS -
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A
SERVICE STATION, CONVENIENCE SHOP AND FOOD OUTLET AND
OPERATIONAL WORKS FOR SIGNAGE AT 6 TAYLOR COURT, COOROY 20
4 152006.1999.01 APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO THE RELEVANT PERIOD
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF A LOT
(52 LOTS & PARK) FOR 191 HOLLETT ROAD, NOOSAVILLE 37
5 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D59 OF 2017 REFUSAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE (DETACHED
HOUSE X 19) AT 90 BEACH ROAD NOOSA NORTH SHORE 52
6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (STORMWATER NETWORK
PFTI & SOW) 55
7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (TRANSPORT NETWORK
PFTI & SOW) 60
8 INVESTIGATION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION IN NOOSAVILLE INDUSTRIAL
AREA 66
REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 71
9 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - FEES & CHARGES VARIATIONS FOR 1
OCTOBER 2016 TO 31 MARCH 2017 71
10 BUILDING STATISTICS - 2016/17 YEAR 76
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 78
Section 3
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 MCU17/0020 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE
FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY TYPE 1 (AQUACULTURE) AT 3 SANDERS STREET,
NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU17/0020
Attachments 1. Locality Plan
2. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Martoo Consulting
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Animal
Husbandry Type 2 - Intensive Aquaculture
Properly Made Date 14 March 2017
Information Request Date 4 April 2017
Information Response Date 18 April 2017
Decision Due Date 21 June 2017
Number of Submissions No submissions
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 3 Sanders Street Noosaville
RP Description Lot 250 CP 839190
Land Area 1855 Square Metres
Existing Use of Land Industrial Units
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville
Zone Industry
Overlays Natural Hazard Overlay: Potential Acid Sulphate Soils
Assessment Type Impact
Page 3 of 78
Section 4
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding Application No. MCU17/0020 for a
Development Permit for Animal Husbandry Type 2 (Intensive Aquaculture) situated at 3 Sanders
Street, Noosaville and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Drawing No. Plan/Document Name Date
0104 Hatchery Site Plan drawn by Bobbie Tomlinson 3 March 2017
Site Access and Driveways
3. A sealed access driveway must be provided from Sanders Street to all parking and
manoeuvring areas of the development.
Car Parking
4. A minimum of 6 car parking spaces must be provided and marked on the site and
made available and accessible at all times while the use is open for business. The
works must include in particular:
a. 5 staff parking spaces within the total, which are clearly marked for that purpose
b. Dimensions, crossfalls and gradients in accordance with the relevant Australian
Standards (AS/NZS2890.1:2004 and AS2890.2:2002)
c. All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward gear.
d. All car parking areas and access driveways must be maintained exclusively for
vehicle parking and manoeuvring and kept in a tidy and safe condition at all
times.
e. Suitable signage must be provided to clearly indicate the staff spaces, customer
spaces and the service vehicle area.
Service Vehicles
5. Service vehicle parking, manoeuvring and standing spaces must be provided on the
site. The works must be generally in accordance with the approved plans.
Stormwater Drainage
6. Stormwater runoff from the development must be discharged to the existing
stormwater drainage system.
Page 4 of 78
Section 5
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Damage to Services and Assets
7. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development
works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times:
a. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety,
immediately; or
b. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the
development.
Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services
and assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval.
Amenity
8. The development must not create detrimental impacts on the amenity of the area due
to the creation of excessive noise, odour nuisance or other emissions.
9. The development shall incorporate suitable mechanical ventilation, filtration systems
or the like to manage the risk of ingress airborne pollutants from any surrounding
industrial uses.
Landscaping
10. A minimum of 15% of the site must be landscaped with a species mix and density
reflective of the local variant of the Regional Ecosystem. The landscaping must
include a 6 metre wide landscaping strip along the Sanders Street road frontage of
the subject site, exclusive of the access driveways, generally uncompromised by
infrastructure items.
Environmental Health
11. Contaminants or contaminated water must not be directly or indirectly released from
the Premises to surface water or groundwater at or outside the Premises except for:
a. uncontaminated overland stormwater flow; or
b. uncontaminated stormwater to the stormwater system.
12. The Operator must ensure that:
a. maintenance and cleaning of equipment (including, but not limited to, vehicles
and plant) is carried out in an area where contaminants cannot be released into
stormwater drainage, a roadside gutter, water or onto unsealed ground;
b. any spillage of contaminants is cleaned up immediately by a method other than
hosing, sweeping or otherwise releasing the contaminants into stormwater
drainage, a roadside gutter or water; and
c. incident rainfall and overland flow of stormwater does not contact contaminants
(for example, areas with contaminants should be roofed or be protected by
diversion drains).
13. All fish tank areas must be bunded so that the capacity of the bund is sufficient to
contain at least one hundred and ten percent (110%) of the largest storage tank plus
ten percent (10%) of the second largest tank within the bund.
B. Find the following are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict with the
Planning Scheme:
1. The aquaculture use is similar in nature to an industrial processing operation and is
appropriately located within an existing industrial premise.
2. The development is compatible with and will not negatively impact on the existing
businesses in the area.
Page 5 of 78
Section 6
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for
Aquaculture (Animal Husbandry Type 2 – Intensive Aquaculture). The use is proposed to be
within an existing industrial unit situated at 3 Sanders Street, Noosaville.
The proposal involves the use of the existing shed to grow native saltwater fish for live trade
within a series of above ground tanks. The tanks will have a combined total of 243m 2 within and
around the existing sheds.
The proposal builds on the existing aquaculture facility at 15 Production Street Noosaville. There
have been no complaints or concerns raised regarding the operation of this facility.
The report submitted with the application provides for the following information regarding the
nature and scale of operation:
Saltwater is delivered to the site via a water tanker from the private Mill Street ‘marine facility’
at Noosaville. The saltwater is then filtered through the various aquaculture tanks. The
species of fish to be grown at the site are:
Giant Grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus)
Barramundi (Lates calcarifer)
Flowery Cod (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus)
Cobia (Rachycentron canadum)
Barramundi Cod (Cromileptes altivelis)
Maori Wrass (Cheilinus undulates)
Mud crab (Scylla serrata)
Not all of the species listed will be cultured at once, with the Giant Grouper being the
preferred species. After being used for the fish, the effluent water is deposited into
Unitywater’s sewer network.
The business currently employs 4 staff (including the owner), and live fish deliveries occurs
approximately twice a week at the Production Street site. The expanded site is likely to
require a maximum of 5 staff onsite at any one time, with daily deliveries to the other factory
and to fish markets for live trade. Because the site is not open for public sales, there will be
limited clients visiting the site.
The hours of operation proposed are 24 hours per day 7 days a week, with staff on site
commonly between 7am-7pm daily, however, there may be a need for staff to be working
outside of these hours in case of emergencies. Any fish mortalities will be recorded and
stored in the onsite freezer until the Council rubbish day when they will be removed from the
freezer and placed in the Council bins to be disposed of appropriately. In the event of a large
mortality event the dead fish will be loaded into a truck lined with plastic and taken to the
Local Noosa landfill site.
A trade waste permit has been obtained from Unitywater.
2. SITE DETAILS
The site contains two buildings and includes loading, truck turning and a car parking area which
can accommodate up to 16 cars adjacent to the building. The front building has a gross floor area
of 390m2 (including a 25m2 mezzanine) whilst the rear building is 350m2 in area.
The site adjoins industrial lots which contain similar sized sheds.
Attachments 1 and 2 detail a locality plan and proposal plans.
Page 6 of 78
Section 7
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the
following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policies;
the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
State Planning Regulatory Provisions; and
the Planning Scheme for the local government area.
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the
sections that follow.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
The site is located within the urban footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The subject site is located in the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Industry. The proposed use is
identified as an inconsistent use within the zone and is required to follow an impact assessable
application process.
Locality Provisions
The Overall Outcomes of the Noosaville Industry zone seek for new uses to be compatible with
surrounding development, with land in this zone generally reserved for industrial uses to the
exclusion of incompatible uses including residential, community and office type businesses.
The proposed land use is generally confined to the use of large holding tanks within an existing
industrial building. There will be no visible evidence of the aquaculture tanks from the street.
It is considered that the proposed use is similar to other production businesses within the
industrial area and it will be consistent with surrounding industrial uses in terms of waste and
traffic impacts.
Land Use, Works & Overlay Provisions
The following codes which regulate land use and design are most applicable to this application:
Agricultural Uses Code
Business Uses Code
Engineering Works Codes
Natural Hazards Overlay Code
The application has been assessed against each of the above applicable codes and generally
complies with each, with further discussion provided below.
Agricultural Uses Code
The Probable Solutions of the Agricultural Uses Code details minimum lot sizes and setbacks for
aquaculture ponds, however these solutions generally relate to open ponds in rural areas which
adjoin residential uses. The proposed aquaculture business is contained within existing industrial
units with minimal external impacts.
The application does propose three 50,000 water storage tanks site externally. These tanks will
be situated between the two existing buildings adjacent to the northern side boundary. Tanks of
this size generally have a height of approximately 3.5 metres The siting of these tanks is not
considered to be unreasonable.
Page 7 of 78
Section 8
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The development is unlikely to cause significant adverse impacts on adjoining industrial uses and
is consistent with the Outcomes of the code.
Business Uses Code
The operation of the proposed use will generally require a maximum of 5 employees at the
premises at any one time.
As there are 16 car parking spaces on the site it is considered that the proposed development
includes sufficient car parking. Driveway areas adequately accommodate small truck deliveries
and pick up.
The use of the open areas adjacent to the sheds is within an existing concrete storage area and
does not impact on any existing landscaping on the site.
The system is a closed system so the water in the tanks will not be impacted by pollutants from
nearby industries.
Conditions are recommended for appropriate management of any contaminants or contaminated
water to manage the risk of pollutants on the stormwater system and any surrounding industrial
uses.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. IDAS Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the State Agency Referral Agency for the following matters:
Concurrence
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning
The Department is a concurrence agency for certain aquaculture. The Department responded on
the 27 May 2017 with conditions to be attached to any development approval. The conditions
include limits on species type, pond size and management of the aquaculture business.
On 1 June 2017 the permit applicant made representations to the department under section
320(1) of the Act requesting that the department amend its concurrence agency response under
section 290(1)(b)(i) of the Act.
The department considered the written representations and agreed to issue an amended
concurrence agency response.
The effect of the amended responded is that a condition limiting the pond area to a maximum of
243m2 was removed and replaced with a requirement that the facility be carried out generally in
accordance with the approved plan.
4.2. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009. No submissions were received.
5. CONCLUSION
The proposed Agriculture Use - Type 1 (Aquaculture) within existing industrials unit in the
Noosaville Industry zone is an inconsistent use within the zone, but does not raise any significant
planning concerns.
The holding tanks for the proposed aquaculture business are contained within an existing
industrial unit, and the development is generally compatible with other industrial type businesses
within the locality. The system is a closed system so the water in the tanks will not be impacted
by pollutants from nearby industries. The application is recommended for approval, with grounds
identified to overcome the planning conflict included in the recommendation.
Page 8 of 78
Section 9
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer X Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 9 of 78
Section 10
ATTACHMENT 1: LOCALITY PLANS
SUBJECT SITE
Page 10 of 78
" ei 8e e Gpcal ae F ey ap a CS ey Lf aig ATT
Rates eh See Pd: ede are. epee cae t i 7 CALI
wy oe Ge wai: ites siete pi a ie Wl ear he ANS
Aa ay | 4 : by DANES wey hee Bethe Biter eae ENT
* . a ot e . a Re aoe be em betna’s > fees TEES iL
vs aN pa pst 5 A Ee ‘easie noe Sires Hay re BRS api TY PL
eae oe cele) gt pe eae ACHM
aE eIESE |
BS re "es re el, my Me ANE: bin noaee ne oe at a His Sea hora aS na PP) Ss ee
e aig jap sad eae a <r"
he eee
: septic sive. ip
a hata ead he Tse ri , Pak 4 ao ee fe i _
cw Ba “> ar Jeo 43 =, ead wn EC 5 -
AS Bs, sae ru : x of eB iy SSNS
Omg : ee at at a RTT aa VAIS, othe ce ache iar : ns Be ES sn os pon yet
Nidgnnces: —
UBJECT S CNS mea re ppesetehee es, ite Nalin eee 7 rae 0 ie Ry sess f Sear hehe enh
ITE , mr 17 oe 3 f re wares Be came inet ta. ‘ Mes 4 rae ee ae ce: Pfs BS, = fl eee
ete: aa vos heey Pics ths sate ~ a a tae ET ae BY; ie math oe ee - Cn Bea
es oe a, >= ae tg ewes oe FeomeY. ve i 3g oe df Eas ae ne ee ae |
; es? ei “ie? Bee ue. a ss ! = ot fy J ae 4 * =e iss “ee "MF ee a Ae sta ae
: et Coste io oe oft Vict ra a ap Ps es et eae 30a. are & Crt a S
$5 Cae a, RE as — os: pee yi ae edi cuR ze nite eat Of” are
Rea Sao ARE Saye: oy } NFewe : SF = eh He is Bes le Bore gS at J ES ON
Soe BS op ba ese Pig eo g nog ee a Ste aon ice > et rae se (aN thee pep eet Fe
oes Ans anes Re Bit Resi Pret sy aries wie 7 OE ay Fe aon hee a Wa andy eee fur Mees Se geag: = Be 4
ia Oe a! BG corny, Ce omens: Soe aes: pare oy pep A Ge 8o-x5, ; Be lee q- CS ean fee
a os 7a IAT ‘og See * Paes fe 5. se ne BN rains mana oa pt pes nea eeay tt Pere. i a8 ae Sia . Se fe? HY ae ges
Porites) ee PE pitts " ea suey Bo te. vs fa py ae ce ee os ee at ef ue: 2 See Shite y ran Se ty go pe a ee fe
pada: Teak empol he eS sees ys mere “AE a oe Noon td ae a, Hg ay | Pi SP ara aS ie: aaa
San cake 3 a eg Sees. oO pr Mota, (ase ts Ras =: os eee x oh ee de pees Bap oa a oP
Capa Mae ae mg eet a Roy fe Roz aa pi i we CSS We. os ea oe Sel prt
Ep SY, “Radek 2 Si Lp hh, eS a ae, ee
a) eae F- = ay a eae. ae ae ; i Gi Pet sin elie F At ew pets a 3” ; fe, oa eS : - pte ts Bie Fat <x
Sr ae ee. ee 2a Bae ya? So ere ae ae: as ENA: gre Ogg CaN ese fe St
os ES es paar Sa ae Rie Pre ea ea Aste, ie Aci ee ae es oe - Fear 7h ABS a: i rsctag Na
ae ni ees / oO fa Oe NT ie Ba NS ee a ne ou eee OS Sr aah es ony a Bey -* anes ny } a
, path { iC ae ae at Be oe ae er eS STS VEL Saye Ree Sig tice eg eer tg me fa id oe ake te
ie é ’ We om : Pe ne ree Sot AS r H ae jay fee ae, Fhe , Bs me see. = es a 2 Aa 4 = ee
i ents: 4 mS are oar te i Oe ans e FN eS MS ARO, a ne ee Z “ est Sipe nee sacs ey eer tY at
Pe ie ey J aes Nae beth Baa fe ge eee cee Sey Sa eee” ie ie eh
Pence aaah hee be 2 FS ft og fi Ae Spee Pecans etch i 8 er i <n Oi wae BSN | fee
eae fae “Tes On e Y= Se ae 2 > et rosy dE ae i re : Pd hos “a am ; Be Pe
3 oH By = ae } eerie [3s ype oe ees aa pee ROK ae Sa ieee ra ay ‘a sae Rat Sos Pret one rte
ince CIE Tet! pe nee ia ne the Tee os ae ee pied me rah: ere Re es Bre Ce Pas
Et, Bie: aaa! E ee Lag ee EDS i; cya Cater. i Gee Bee oe anes ae ot ame Foam 's eee
mens Se ai nee wt Pei iy eB sos gtiaes se pee in pe Eee nee Get) eee wares al Be Bae sae ee if
wee —~ og hs sah SF va PS uae ss tae Ree Posie > +e vee BE bef> ee 2 . iat!
| ~~ S Eee rg Ms stra apy = o : ee bs t> ey mu - Spepe i ce eR a Pe mt ono ry ar tans ara
Eo axis mses oe OE per ee pc eee oa tan koa ee
‘ Phe Sete = oe fi PRE ee sis 5 sr nc abe Sages 3 ahs ms ae Noah ironed
ee ns eo ve ’ nT Si gaa te: fe cri " een SS) ent SY eae as Gite on FE aisles
Saya, re 8S teh sab ne ie ays: PS rey ee ot a, ay ee a.) i Ps he nn
. F 2th : dcr Wate NE, ces my APY oS, tet Rn we Ae aay mw Pye Se twee ye = ; ae 2 : x Nig . a Any he
Beste i bit aos %. Ceres = oe # a ss. ao Str ays a Beers eee ry = ri orbed ss ey Tee he Bye NE «4 ies es. ar ae roy Se Wee ©
a Se = as alert wr viata: “np \ Pa hat: as gy Ree Ns Sy oan, ene pepe ep tei meas ae oy se ead v <i Rice
BP Sas ie eg TER Jae eit eyes tae ee prc ae Pee ee, all Pos eS rs
Sy oaeey oe ‘ee cal ye ed £3 ae Re ud ie Ras hie Suh Vs oe . ieee = 3¢55) ads) Es, se Ps 4 caf ae
eth Bp peat il pf BRS who if “pea i. Bie Pt iy a eh Roma re eae ae ive os Shae pe ee fae
Saat Bi wade ee ts ee tine ae GS ag apres wi obs npr apa, ce Pa saa Pee
= oe ree sad eRe pa 1 Liga ig, coil steed nape OR fo tiers seh ee pe ots eG
= it. ae IE Sige Mgr am a Noe So 3 es pis 50 ese Pape ee ne. aie Fae eri
S SMa a= f ee Via pny i) ag Brapentvem ie so Poe Og oo Sekai Fe
tae ect mp, feet Fat fescue pa : hie Loe it ae Sih Se a jn le ariel ; aay 2
‘ae. a ea oee a aS oe pA ee hah Sth bah RRS aie eo Pi oo py “es
eee ae (5S Cy 5 ae a Shy JOP ae = i Sit nee Fs gio a Pee.”
eH, mit uth oa to Be hea seen ch “3 : iF : f ef a ; =
“ PMR: Pa as “ One Y ass (3 i ; . En st 6 : oa
ES Paice i tM jpe ay r
wae tet ee a) os ay, : i ae: . we Stet ee z)
ae = no ¥ ” iy, id a f ad
. = : io , vt ' ¢ »
° a a : ; Pr aA
fi =f ~ si *
7 2 : ss 18
ral art — CT
a a
Pa eSection 11
SUBJECT SITE
Page 11 of 78
ee germ ee HE at fe oe oe
a | irl = | SUBJECT SITE % ‘5 ii | ca 4 ‘
o. oe ) was Oe Ripe:
oe i ' fs ’ t : iff i eh
bee = wy en — _ Ps “Bi | «All Bh at : :
r Bee \ an aio i A S ~ ie ‘ pie = m ? a ’ iz i f ~\ i => S 4 =
eo aa hae en vr >! \ee x 3 AS — ) we x “}
PND NA! diel HPL id 1
‘ ie hb . =) * * =~ ' \ A i ay 7 k * ; 2 f ! cs fd |
“ nee ele bacon : re ie - b > hae oS aHES x 'e ; . wi ae : : ,
<< \ a ae ig < ~ enigiees! fs
; Ps ‘OMY get sae ei al) ees sh rg vee eS ea — aye
2 oe 2 ra Mn Cn! a is ei be us j ee: a b ' oe = j
= > ae in . — ke a \ | ¥ Pe F ; 3° & =—s s a ‘ pf ee
4 A x - (| Pet S i *: v
i eo i io ae ' 7. a) s ‘oie tae a £ =) a Bs t
: ee ty er ae fit] Py ae i , ‘ _ a ae
< ee ‘ i e ft Ba ess eae) a ff ‘ ! " a yf ¥ a
e a \ \ Weta | i. sat pa—fie ft p0
" ‘ i a n ‘ = : heel: er ~ L Ve |
> Ge SB a bh - ~ p * ae; wi Be
Ne 4 he erate a —~ - Eee { “y : as 2 an OT eens
oe 7 bi i Re Ray 3 —= 4 1 it ' f Beis E ef oo) ae
yt “4 a tel ik NG i ? hi | eh
Re 2 ee eee jf} motes Pim aes a ee
_— a z ae * oN P ee ae ; é / I { i 4 fi ; oe 3 a : Eis 5 7 =
ii a me aps — b e | ae, 5 ‘ " ed ' a 5 7 , a R hb = 7 f Las —— er ‘
a a Aa aw te Sata a ee : E Ww i 2 Seve | +h -
= z & . _ ‘ = eee - veo od oo ree Ai " ee Po ’ Pind | :
¢ rh aa - i te ‘8 Sy Be - , — a : tl Oy ae ieee L* 4 > Z ire 0
i} ee yi — AY - val _ ea, = = a ; S ais ; =. a PS 3 r a e; :
‘faye “a PREC. ee eee ee ll ris ay
he f bay) ae at: ee Bi ee 1 fF ter
| iF a rs, . _— bill | a t ~" . = ae a
ry a , ' ff PP ef cae ©) Ol By | oe L a b ; , i — ees =
‘ J. | ee =f iz ok Sa 7 & Vie t= Bid
a. eR fe a = sf ei 5, ; ; a a 4 Ti aa. =
Nr i “| e a i rf aS ity pe UE ba ) Aer Ry 3 hy : i | f poh "
Mi, . - an ¥ . | ee: ve ad A BN ew Pr ' } } ~ ; 5 |
oe et CP Se Me BE Ne i \
Page 11 of 78Section 12
ATTACHMENT 2: PROPOSAL PLAN
Page 12 of 78
ATTACHMENT 2: PROPOSAL PLAN
10,000 Lts. underground
Seawater 0 waste storage tank
Waste supply pipe —__
drainage pipe 50.000 tr 50,000 itr. 50,000 tr. ~
, : 16 sq mts oO
| 16 sq mts 16 sq mts ®
~—) =
Ly Algae WY
50,000 Itr. 5 sq mts\ /5 sq mts) (5 sq mts’ g tanks Y
16 sq mts 50,000 Itr. | 8,000 itr) \5,000 itr) \5 000 tr, O£#s ae
Brood stock 16 sq mts | | water storage = a Os 3 zg 0)
4 x 50,000 Ltr Wy Vy Oges ze
> Poly inks ssame\esamelesms| Ogee =
(ale oO
16 sq mts
Brood stock
st OL eee 6,000 Lts)
, 9,000 Lts.
50,000 Itr. §,000 Lts) g ,
Pol
& Vi0.000 it tanks 3.2 sq mts
ny FR e)
i tanks Pe potien skinner
each 500 Lts. Live 04 ts
9,000 Lts. \|/ 9,000Lts.\ O0.8sqmt fedb Asqm
9.6sqmts ||| 9.6sqmts ; (6tanks) tanks
WEN: OOO
_ aa ae
Refuse bin turn-around bay
storage area storage prea
screen
Hatchery site plan
|
Josh McNally ry sie P
Phone 04 0972 3828 I
Page 12 of 78Section 13
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR
ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING TYPE 2 (RECREATION, AMUSEMENT AND FITNESS)
AT 4/1 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE (MCU17/0034)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Wilhelm Koschade
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Applications / MCU17/0034
Attachments Nil
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Peak Physique Yoga Noosa
Proposal Entertainment & Dining Type 2 – Recreation, Amusement & Fitness
(Yoga Studio)
Properly Made Date 26 April 2017
Information Request Date Not Applicable
Information Response Date Not Applicable
Decision Due Date 07 August 2017
Number of Submissions 1 Properly Made
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 4/1 Rene St Noosaville
RP Description Lot 4 BUP 101093
Land Area 104 Square Metres
Existing Use of Land Showrooms (4 Tenancies)
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville Locality
Zone Industry Zone
Overlays Natural Hazards (Acid Sulphate Soils)
Assessment Type Impact
Page 13 of 78
Section 14
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding Application No. MCU17/0034 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises for an Entertainment and Dining
Use Type 2 – Recreational, Amusement and Fitness (Yoga Studio) situated at 4/1 Rene Street,
Noosaville and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
AR01-102 - Upper Floor 21/04/2017
AR01-101 - Site Plan 21/04/2017
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. The maximum number of participants attending a class at any given time is limited to
24 people.
4. The approved use must not operate outside the hours of 6am to 9pm Monday to
Sunday.
Car Parking
5. A minimum of 8 car parking spaces must be provided and marked on the site and
made available and accessible at all times while the use is open for business.
B. Find the following are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict with the
Planning Scheme:
1. Fitness centres and the like are generally floor area intensive and require tenancies
within industrial units that are most readily found in the Industry Zone;
2. The Overall Outcomes of the Noosaville Locality Code acknowledge that some sport
and recreation uses are acceptable in the Industry Zone;
3. The fitness centre is of a similar size and scale to other approved Entertainment &
Dining Business’s Type 2 within the Noosaville Industrial area.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks approval for an Entertainment and Dining Use Type 2 – Recreational,
Amusement & Fitness (Yoga Studio). The use is proposed to operate from a second storey
mezzanine floor within tenancy 4 while retaining the approved use rights of a showroom on
ground floor. No additional external building works are proposed and the yoga studio will operate
within the existing building.
Page 14 of 78
Section 15
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
As shown in Figure 1 below, a use area of 88m2 is proposed which comprises the studio floor
area and an ancillary office. A total of 13 existing car parks are available onsite with no additional
parking proposed on the basis that the site enjoys a parking surplus which is able to
accommodate the additional use area.
The application seeks approval to operate 7 days a week whereby a maximum of 5 classes are
held per day. The classes comprise 1 hour sessions and will operate between the hours of
6:00am – 8:00pm. It is anticipated that the maximum number of students attending a class will be
22.
Figure 2 below depicts the existing building elevations.
Figure 1 – Floor Plan
Figure 2 – Existing Building Elevations
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
On 26 April 1994 Council issued a Town Planning Consent (TPC2651) for the development of
Showrooms comprising 4 individual tenancies with a combined Gross Floor Area (GFA) of
417m2. A driveway and access was developed directly off Rene Street and a total of 13 car parks
provided.
The development encompassed two allotments, one of which was zoned Special Uses – Buffer
Area, currently Lot 22 RP 881370 and the other which was included in the Industrial Zone,
currently Lot 0 BUP 101093. The zoning of each allotment remains similar with Lot 22 currently
zoned as Open Space Conservation and Lot 0 zoned Industry.
Page 15 of 78
Section 16
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Although two separate lots, Lot 22 (zoned for Special Uses) was permitted to be used for the
landscaping component of the development in order to provide a visual buffer to Eumundi Noosa
Road. A minor component of the soft landscaped area was provided on Lot 0 however the
outstanding provided on Lot 22.
As part of the approval it was recommended that a boundary realignment be undertaken to
incorporate approximately 4 metres of Lot 22 into the Industrial Zoned lot to enable a loading bay
to be incorporated within the development. The boundary realignment was pursued by the
applicant and loading bay developed. A further condition of approval required the balance of Lot
22 to be dedicated to Council without financial burden following the finalisation of the boundary
realignment.
2.2. Site Description
The subject site comprises Lot 0 BUP 101093, Tenancy 4 as depicted in Figure 3 and 4 below.
The site has a frontage of 22m to Rene Street.
Access arrangements comprise a sealed driveway and cross over off Rene Street.
The existing building comprises 4 showroom tenancies with a mezzanine floor within Tenancy 4
to be utilised for the proposed entertainment and dining use.
The subject site is relatively level with a minor slope to the south-western corner of the site.
Figure 3 – Locality Plan
Page 16 of 78
Section 17
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Figure 4 – Subject Tenancy
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
An industrial use adjoins the site to the south and comprises 3 tenancies (Laguna Bay Air
Conditioning in tenancy 1 & 2 and tenancy 3 is currently vacant). A concrete batching plant abuts
the site to the south east in conjunction with two industrial sheds to the east.
Tenancies within the two industrial sheds comprise a surfboard repair shop (DDS Surfboards),
produce shop (Maluka Produce) and a salon (Captain Sip Sops).
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the
following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policies;
the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
State Planning Regulatory Provisions;
any Structure Plan or Master Plan in place for declared areas;
any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land;
the Planning Scheme for the local government area; and
any Temporary Local Planning Instrument in place for the local government area.
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the
sections that follow.
Page 17 of 78
Section 18
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policies
There are no State Planning Policies applicable to this application:
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan 2009 - 2031
The site is located within the urban footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The subject site is located in the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Industry. The proposed use is
identified as inconsistent use within the zone and is required to follow an impact assessable
application process.
Locality Provisions
Noosaville Locality Code
Land Use & Works Provisions
The following codes which regulate land use and design are most applicable to this application:
Business Uses Code
Engineering Works Code
Landscaping Code
The application has been assessed against each of the above applicable codes. The pertinent
issues arising out of the assessment against the codes are discussed below:
Noosaville Locality Code
The proposed Entertainment and Dining Use (Yoga Studio) is identified as an inconsistent use
within the Industry Zone of the Noosaville Locality. However based on the location of the site and
characteristics of the use, it is considered that the proposal be supported as it aligns with the
Overall Outcomes of the Noosaville Locality.
The Overall Outcomes identified for the Industry Zone acknowledges that the functions of the
zone are protected from incompatible uses however some sport and recreational uses are
accepted in the zone. The proposed entertainment and dining use is considered compatible with
the site’s existing showroom use. The proposed use will be wholly contained within the existing
building while retaining the existing approved use rights of the showroom throughout tenancies 1
- 4.
The proposed use will not generate excessive noise, odour, dust or other waste and will not
detract from other industrial uses operating in the locality.
Car Parking
The application seeks approval to maintain the existing approved showroom use throughout each
of the four tenancies while introducing an entertainment and dining use to a mezzanine floor
within tenancy 1. In order to achieve compliance with the Driveways and Car Parking Code, the
development must provide onsite carparking which conforms to the triggered rate of both uses
combined.
Probable Solution S7.1 of the Driveways and Car Parking Code requires a carparking rate for
each use as detailed below:
1 space per 50m2, or part thereof, of use area – Retail Business Type 4 (Showroom); and
1 space per 20m2, or part thereof, of use area – Entertainment and Dining Type 2
(Recreation, Amusement & Fitness).
Page 18 of 78
Section 19
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
On this basis the showroom component of the existing use triggers a total of 8.34 car parks
(417m2 (use area) / 50m2 = 8.34) and the proposed entertainment and dining use triggers a total
of 4.4 car parks (88m2 (use area) / 20m2 = 4.4).
Therefore a total of 12.74 (13) car parks are triggered. A total of 13 spaces have been provided
under the previous Town Planning Consent for Showrooms (TPC2651). Car parking associated
with the proposed use raises no concern.
4. CONSULTATION
4.1. IDAS Referral Agencies
Not Applicable
4.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to Unitywater and the following internal Council specialists:
Development Engineer
4.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009. One (1) properly made submissions was received. The following table
provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Issues Comments
The applicant’s name listed on the application Amended forms were provided correcting the
details is not the registered business name of applicant’s name. The change was considered minor
the applicant. and therefore has no effect on the development
assessment timeframes.
5. CONCLUSION
While recognised as an inconsistent use in the Industry Zone, the proposed Entertainment and
Dining Use Type 2 – Recreational, Amusement & Fitness (Yoga Studio) demonstrates
compliance with the Overall Outcomes of the Noosaville Locality Code. The proposed use
remains consistent with Council’s previous position on sports and recreation uses in the Industry
Zone. The site currently enjoys a car parking surplus and the proposed additional use area raises
no concern.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance x Planning & Environment
Human Resources x Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 19 of 78
Section 20
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
3 MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133 - REPRESENTATIONS TO CONDITIONS -
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A SERVICE
STATION, CONVENIENCE SHOP AND FOOD OUTLET AND OPERATIONAL WORKS
FOR SIGNAGE AT 6 TAYLOR COURT, COOROY
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Lisa Pienaar
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Application / MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133
Attachments 1. Applicant’s Representations to Conditions
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Hass Holdings Pty Ltd Tte
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Retail
Business Type 2 Shop & Type 5 Vehicle Uses, Entertainment & Dining
Business Type 1 - Food & Beverages
Property Address 6 Taylor Ct COOROY QLD 4563
RP Description Lot 3 SP 197517
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding representations to conditions of approval for
Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises comprising Retail Business Type 5
- Vehicle Uses (Service Station), Entertainment & Dining Business Type 1 - Food & Beverages
(Fast Food Outlet), Retail Business Type 2 – Shop (Convenience Retail) and Operational Works
for signage on vacant industrial land on the corner of Taylor Court and Holts Road, Cooroy, and
A. Approve the request to change conditions 2 and 27 e) to read as follows:
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
DA-02 P5 Site Plan, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-05 P5 North Elevation, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-06 P5 South Elevation, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-07 P5 East & West Elevations, prepared by Red Dog 19/10/2016
Architects
DA-08 P5 Signage Plan, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
Page 20 of 78
Section 21
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
27. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful
point of discharge. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational
Works approval and the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, and must include in
particular:
e) A stormwater quality treatment system. The stormwater treatment must
generally be in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan for Highway
Service Centre Cooroy, project number 161968 by Covey Associates, dated
October 2016 except where alteration to the inclusion of proprietary water
quality treatment devices are necessary to achieve the following objectives as
predicted in MUSIC modelling in accordance with the Water by Design MUSIC
modelling guidelines.
State Planning Policy SEQ Water Development
Guidelines: Development
Guidelines for Water Quality
Management in Drinking
Water Catchments (SEQ
Water 2012)
Total Suspended 90% reduction compared to
Solids an unmitigated development
No increase in pollutant loads
Total 60% reduction compared to
compared to a Vacant Industrial
Phosphorous an unmitigated development
Allotment
Total Nitrogen 45% reduction compared to
an unmitigated development
Where proprietary water quality treatment devices are included within the
stormwater quality treatment strategy, evidence of a signed contract for a
minimum period of 10 years for maintenance of the proprietary stormwater
quality treatment device must be provided to Council prior to commencement of
use.
B. Delete condition 27 k).
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks representations on a development approval for a Material Change of Use of
Premises comprising Retail Business Type 5 - Vehicle Uses (Service Station), Entertainment &
Dining Business Type 1 - Food & Beverages (Fast Food Outlet), Retail Business Type 2 – Shop
(Convenience Retail) and Operational Works for signage on vacant industrial land on the corner
of Taylor Court and Holts Road, Cooroy.
The application is before Council as the Development Permit was originally approved by Council.
1.1. Background
On 30 November 2006 Council approved a Preliminary Approval to Override the Planning
Scheme for Material Change of Use and Reconfiguration for 6 industrial lots and parkland on the
former sawmill site. The approved Plan of Development (POD) has since been incorporated into
The Noosa Plan. The POD includes a Supplementary Table of Development and provisions for
setbacks, height, water quality, acoustic treatment, landscaping and water supply requirements.
Page 21 of 78
Section 22
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
A report on this application was considered by the Planning and Environment Committee on 6
December 2016 (Item 1, Page 3), and at the General Committee Meeting on 12 December 2016
(Item 3, Page 3). At the Ordinary Meeting on 15 December 2016 the application was deferred.
Council deferred the application as the applicant provided additional information and further time
was required to assess the information. The applicant consequently provided further grounds for
approval and on 19 January 2017 Council approved a service station, fast food and convenience
outlet and associated signage.
1.2. Site Description
The site is a corner lot, with Holts Road to the east and Taylor Court to the south. The south
western boundary adjoins an industrial lot’s access handle.
The site slopes approximately 3.5m from the Holts Road boundary to the south western
boundary having an approximate 2.5 degree slope. The lot is void of vegetation as seen in Figure
6 below. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) currently occupy the site on a
temporary basis with sheds and extensive hardstand areas. Figure 1 shows the site location.
Figure 1 – Subject site
2. ASSESSMENT
Under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act the applicant suspended its appeal period
and submitted representations to conditions of the approval (see Attachment 1). The Act
requires Council to consider the representations and give a new decision notice (a negotiated
decision notice) to all relevant parties, where the representations are agreed with. The
representations primarily seek to amend the list of approved plans and change the stormwater
requirements for the development.
Page 22 of 78
Section 23
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Representations to Conditions
Condition 2 – List of approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless
otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
DA-02 P5 Site Plan, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-05 P5 North Elevation, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-06 P5 South Elevation, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
DA-07 P5 East & West Elevations, prepared by Red Dog Architects 19/10/2016
Applicant’s Request
Condition 2 references the approved plans for the development. The submitted Signage Plan
(DA-08 Rev P5, prepared by Red Dog Architects, dated 19.10.16 – enclosed here) is not
included in the list of approved plans in Condition 2. Subsequent discussions with Council’s
Development Planner, Glen Conforti, have confirmed that the Signage Plan was intended to be
included as an approved plan.
It is requested that Condition 2 is amended to reference the submitted Signage Plan.
Assessment
Signage plan (DA-08 Rev P5) prepared by Red Dog Architects dated 19 October 2016 was
originally provided by the applicant for which was intended to be included in the list of approved
plans. It is agreed to amend Condition 2 to include this plan. The signage shown on the plan is
reflective of the originally approved signage.
Condition 27(e & k) - Stormwater
27 The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful point
of discharge. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works
approval and the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, and must include in particular:
e) A stormwater quality treatment system. The stormwater treatment must generally be
in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan for Highway Service Centre
Cooroy, project number 161968 by Covey Associates, dated October 2016 except
where alteration to impervious area and water quality treatment dimensions are
necessary to achieve the following objectives as predicted in MUSIC modelling in
accordance with the Water by Design MUSIC modelling guidelines.
State Planning Policy Environmental Approved Plan of
Protection Water Development Water
Policy Water Quality Quality Criteria
Objectives
Total 80% reduction compared <6mg/L 90th%ile 15mg/L
Suspended to an unmitigated
Solids development
Total 60% reduction compared Maximum 50ug/L Maximum 0.03mg/L
Phosphorous to an unmitigated
development
Total Nitrogen 45% reduction compared Maximum 500 ug/L Maximum 0.3mg/L
to an unmitigated
development
Page 23 of 78
Section 24
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
k) That water quality objectives are met in keeping with the Environmental Protection
(Water) Policy 2009 for Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality
Objectives.
Applicant’s Request
From the outset, it is reiterated that the applicant intends to incorporate a “best practice”
stormwater design for this site and is committed to working with Council to achieve an
outstanding and sustainable development. The applicant’s civil engineer does however have
some concerns with the current wording of condition 27(e) and requests clarification on the
requirements of the condition.
Covey Associates prepared the original Stormwater Management Plan that accompanied the
development application and has since prepared the attached correspondence outlining the
concerns with condition 27(e). Covey Associate’s correspondence requests clarification as to
how the Plan of Development’s water quality targets (as referenced in condition 27(e)) were
determined and what regulations or guidelines they are linked to.
Covey Associates’ explain the differences between “concentration based outcomes” and “load
based reduction targets”. Given the time that has passed since the adoption of the Plan of
Development, it is possible that the guidelines that the POD’s water quality targets are linked to
have been superseded by more recent water quality policies. Covey Associates’ states that it is
arguable that the targets associated with the POD are not reflective of currently accepted data
and are unrealistic, particularly as data suggests undeveloped catchments generate pollutant
loads in excess of the targets during storm events.
It is noted that the submitted Stormwater Management Plan easily achieves current annual
pollutant load reduction objectives set by the State Planning Policy 2016. Council staff have also
previously provided the table below to Councillors confirming that the development complies with
the SEQ Water Development Guidelines 2012 for horizontal separation distances (setbacks) for
dangerous and hazardous substances.
Page 24 of 78
Section 25
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The applicant submits that the POD’s water quality targets are redundant and requests that
condition 27 e) be amended to reference the State Planning Policy and Covey’s Stormwater
Management Plan which achieves pollutant load reductions well above required rates.
Assessment
Officers engaged a Water Quality Expert from WBM BMT to seek advice on Condition 27 e) and
the associated impact on Condition 27 k).
The advice from WBM BMT outlined that it is not reasonable to apply the water quality
parameters being represented in 27 e) or as currently conditioned in 27 k) for the following
reasons:
1. The objectives on Condition 27 e) and 27 k) are for dry weather targets for receiving
waterways and are not pertinent to stormwater discharges. The input parameters for the
MUSIC modelling actually show that a forested catchment would not be able to provide the
conditioned water quality objectives in a stormflow event.
2. The concentration based objectives required by the Environmental Protection Water Policy
have been replaced by load based reduction targets in current best practice industry
standards. The document titled WSUD: Development Design Objectives for Water
Sensitive Development in SEQ Version 2 by Water by Design 2007 states the following
reason for the replacement:
2.1. The concentration based approach fails to recognise the substantial difference
between urban diffuse sources during dry and wet weather flows as well as the
impact on receiving waterways (i.e. ecological processing etc).
2.2. ANZECC recommends that load based guidelines are more relevant than
concentration based guidelines in recognition of the important impact of total mass
(or load) of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous and Total Suspended Solids on
ecosystem health.
3. The Water Quality Targets are unlikely to be achievable with regard to conventional best
practice stormwater management practices. There are no water quality treatment methods
that are demonstrated to output waters at the concentrations required by Conditions 27 e)
and 27 k).
4. SEQ Water Development Guidelines: Development Guidelines for Water Quality
Management in Drinking Water Catchments (SEQ Water 2012) is the relevant guideline to
refer to for development in Drinking Water Supply Catchments. Item M26.1 of that
guidelines requires that Land Uses, development, activities and stormwater management
ensure no adverse impacts on water quality outside the boundaries of the site.
For the purpose of the assessment, no increase of stormwater pollutant loads was adopted
as no adverse impact on water quality outside the boundaries of the site.
WBM BMT in their assessment corrected the MUSIC model and also ran a MUSIC model
for a vacant industrial lot. The results demonstrated that the proposed development will not
increase stormwater pollutant loads compared to the existing vacant industrial land use.
The representation on the conditions is therefore acceptable and it is recommended to change
Condition 27 e) and delete 27 k) as follows:
27. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful point
of discharge. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works
approval and the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual, and must include in particular:
Page 25 of 78
Section 26
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
e) A stormwater quality treatment system. The stormwater treatment must generally be
in accordance with the Stormwater Management Plan for Highway Service Centre
Cooroy, project number 161968 by Covey Associates, dated October 2016 except
where alteration to the inclusion of proprietary water quality treatment devices are
necessary to achieve the following objectives as predicted in MUSIC modelling in
accordance with the Water by Design MUSIC modelling guidelines.
State Planning Policy SEQ Water Development
Guidelines: Development
Guidelines for Water Quality
Management in Drinking
Water Catchments (SEQ
Water 2012)
Total Suspended 90% reduction compared to an
Solids unmitigated development
No increase in pollutant loads
Total Phosphorous 60% reduction compared to an
compared to a Vacant Industrial
unmitigated development
Allotment
Total Nitrogen 45% reduction compared to an
unmitigated development
Where proprietary water quality treatment devices are included within the stormwater
quality treatment strategy, evidence of a signed contract for a minimum period of 10
years for maintenance of the proprietary stormwater quality treatment device must be
provided to Council prior to commencement of use.
k) Delete
3. CONCLUSION
Water Quality Targets as conditioned in the original approval are unlikely to be achievable with
regard to conventional best practice stormwater management practices. Therefore the condition
has been found to be unreasonable and cannot be practically applied to the development. The
water quality measures outlined by the applicant have been found to be satisfactory for this
development in the water supply catchment area.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 19 January 2017, Item 3, Page 4
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning and Environment
Committee dated 6 December 2016 and the Further Reports to the General Committee Meetings
dated 12 December 2016 and 16 January 2017, regarding Application No. MCU16/0066 &
OPW16/0133 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Retail
Business Type 2 Shop & Type 5 Vehicle Uses, Entertainment & Dining Business Type 1 - Food &
Beverages and Operational Works for Signage, situated at 6 Taylor Court, Cooroy and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
……
B. Find the following are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict with the
Planning Scheme:
Page 26 of 78
Section 27
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
1. The proposal will fill a gap in highway based service centres and service the needs of
the travelling public including assisting with driver fatigue management.
2. The site is located on the periphery of the Lake Macdonald catchment and is
currently committed for some industrial development under The Noosa Plan.
3. The proposal will incorporate best practice water quality management to reduce the
potential impact on water quality in the Lake Macdonald catchment.
Consultation
External Consultation
WBM BMT
Internal Consultation
Environmental Services branch
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance x Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 27 of 78
Section 28
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 28 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
PROJECT
URBAN SZ
Wednesday, 8 March 2017
Our Ref: 16161 / Office: Sunshine Coast
Council Ref: MCU16/0066 & OPW16/0133
NOOSA COUNCIL
PO BOX 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
ATTENTION: The Chief Executive Officer
Dear Sir
REPRESENTATIONS ON DECISION NOTICE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR RETAIL BUSINESS TYPE 2 SHOP &
SALON, RETAIL BUSINESS TYPE 5 VEHICLE USES AND ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING BUSINESS
TYPE 1 FOOD & BEVERAGE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR OPERATIONAL WORK (ADVERTISING SIGNAGE)
6 TAYLOR COURT, COOROY
LOT 3 SP197517
Further to recent correspondence with Council, 1am pleased to set out the applicant's representations
on the above mentioned Decision Notice dated 23 January 2017. Council records will show that the
applicant's appeal period was suspended on 9 February 2017. The representations relate to two (2)
conditions in the Decision Notice and are discussed below.
Condition 2
Condition 2 references the approved plans for the development. The submitted Signage Plan (DA-08
Rev PS, prepared by Red Dog Architects, dated 19.10.16 — enclosed here) is not included in the list of
approved plans in Condition 2. Subsequent discussions with Council's Development Planner, Glen
Conforti, have confirmed that the Signage Plan was intended to be included as an approved plan.
It is requested that Condition 2 is amended to reference the submitted Signage Plan.
Condition 27(e)
From the outset, it is reiterated that the applicant intends to incorporate a “best practice” stormwater
design for this site and is committed to working with Council to achieve an outstanding and
sustainable development. The applicant's civil engineer does however have some concerns with the
current wording of condition 27(e) and requests clarification on the requirements of the condition.
Covey Associates prepared the original Stormwater Management Plan that accompanied the
development application and has since prepared the attached correspondence outlining the concerns
with condition 27(e). Covey Associate's correspondence requests clarification as to how the Plan of
Development's water quality targets (as referenced in condition 27(e)) were determined and what
regulations or guidelines they are linked to.
Covey Associates’ explain the differences between “concentration based outcomes” and “load based
reduction targets”. Given the time that has passed since the adoption of the Plan of Development, it is
possible that the guidelines that the POD’s water quality targets are linked to have been superseded
SUNSHINE COAST BRISBANE 2 oS
Suite 1, Corner Surf Road & Gardak Street 1/34 Commercial Road E [email protected] = N Ue al]
Alexandra Headland Qld 4572 Newstead Qld 4006 W projecturban.com,au = > i
PO Box 6380 Maroochydore BC Qld 4558 PO Box 266 Albion Qld 4010 proyect upBAN PIY UD 9 hae KING
P 07 5443 2844 P 07 3257 4371 ACN 608 895 923 ABN 97 608 895 923
Page 28 of 78Section 29
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 29 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
PROJECT
URBAN SZ
by more recent water quality policies. Covey Associates’ states that /t /s arguable that the targets
associated with the POD are not reflective of currently accepted data and are unrealistic, particularly as
data suggests undeveloped catchments generate pollutant loads in excess of the targets during storm
events.
It is noted that the submitted Stormwater Management Plan easily achieves current annual pollutant
load reduction objectives set by the State Planning Policy 2016. Council staff have also previously
provided the table below to Councillors confirming that the development complies with the SEQ Water
Development Guidelines 2012 for horizontal separation distances (setbacks) for dangerous and
hazardous substances.
1.2. Seqwater Development Guidelines 2012
The following Table 1 compares the developments setbacks with the Seqwater Development
Guideline's setbacks for Dangerous and Hazardous Substances Management, Storage and
handling with the developments’.
ns
Surveyed bank of an intermittent water | 50m Drainage line/feature 110m
course
Surveyed bank of a permanent water | 100m 250m
course
Nearest cut, embankment or other point | 30m N/A
where effluent might surface
Upper flood margin level of an urban | 400m 4km to Lake Macdonald
water supply storage
Natural grade 10% 4%
Flood immunity 1 metre above 1 in | N/A
50
The applicant requests that Council confirm how the water quality targets specified in the POD were
determined and what guidelines they reference. A meeting with key Council staff is also requested to
discuss the water quality targets that should apply to the site. Finally, if it is resolved that the POD's
water quality targets are redundant, it is requested that condition 27(e) is amended to reference the
State Planning Policy and Covey’s Stormwater Management Plan which achieves pollutant load
reductions well above required rates.
Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.
Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN
— Vann
John McKennariey
Associate
Email: [email protected]
Page 29 of 78Section 30
Page 30 of 78
SIGNAGE SCHEDULE
# = TYPE SIGNFACE AREA Nos AREA my ey emmy my
(SQM)
1 PYLON SIGN 4.32sqm 1 4.32sqm ee
$2 PYLON SIGN - PRICING 2.16sqm 1 2.16sqm rue soxsinnce
foe a tl © (a cx sare
TOTAL 6 19.28sqm *
© IME ce coscrsoue
§ FOOD taka 2h 6)
§ g oa
5
"$1 PYLON SIGN - DOUBLE SIDED _ "s2- PYLON SIGN - PRICING —_
DOUBLE SIDED
Em FAST FOOD FASTFOOD
a ee
$3 - BUILDING SIGN $3 - BUILDING SIGN
1\NORTH ELEVATION (2) EAST ELEVATION
SCALE - 1:100 - \ SCALE - 1:100 -
( ay
$4- CANOPY SIGN $4-CANOPY SIGN
(3)CANOPY NORTH ELEVATION ,4 CANOPY EAST ELEVATION
SCALE - 1:100 - SCALE - 1:100 -
Reddog RFI RESPONSE ——_—ae “ HIGHWAY SERVICE
reddogarchitects.com - suns20%8 RP PREUDINARY ow STATION, COOROY
P 0732528912 F 07 32528914 P4 3.052016 =RP__—~PRELIMINARY Pw PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO, ISSUE
[email protected] PS 19.10.2016 © RP_—_-RFIRESPONSE Pw 2480-276 DA-08 P5
Page 30 of 78Section 31
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 31 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Ee
124 Duporth Avenue
a Maroochydore Qld 4558
PO Box 16
A Australia
OVEY F (07) 5443 7577
P (07) 5443 7777
E [email protected]
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD wait
Consulting Civil, Structural, Hydraulic, Fire ABN 59 137 305 992
& Environmental Engineers
Project Management & Planning
7 March 2017
Ref: CW/IG/161968-Gen
125567ltr
Project Urban Pty Ltd
PO Box 6380
MAROOCHYDORE BC QLD 4558
Attention: Mr John McKennariey
Dear John
Re: Water Quality Objectives and Stormwater Treatment
At: 6 Taylor Court, Cooroy — MCU16/0066
For: Hass Holdings ATF The Quasar Trust
With reference to the abovementioned project, this letter will provide detail relating to
representations for suitable water quality and stormwater treatment outcomes for 6 Taylor
Court, Cooroy (MCU16/0066).
A revised Stormwater Management Plan (Covey Associates Report 100415 Iss. B) was
submitted to Noosa Council in October 2016 which provided a treatment train which
achieved pollutant load reductions well above the required rates. Noosa Council had
previously nominated water quality targets that must be demonstrated on site and such
targets were associated with a previous Plan of Development (POD, enclosed and dated
July 2007). This POD is currently referenced in the Noosa Plan. The targets for runoff leaving
the site associated with the POD are as follows:
e Total Nitrogen of 0.3 mg/L
e Total Phosphorus of 0.03 mg/L
e pH -6-8
e Faecal coliforms — 1000 organisms/1000mL
e Suspended solids — 15 mg/L for combined wet and dry periods 90%ile < 100mg/L for wet
weather periods
Despite a detailed review of the above conditions and consultation with Council Officers, it is
unknown how the above water quality targets were determined and what regulations or
guidelines they are linked to. A review of Noosa Council’s 1997 Strategic Plan, specifically
Strategic Aim 27.8.3.1 references the following document:
JAS-ANZ (ey
CG ‘GC
SGS
Offices at: Gladstone (07) 4972 8333 Rockhampton (07) 4922 2300 | Tamworth (02) 6766 1944 | Narrabri (02) 6792 4277 | Papua New Guinea
Page 31 of 78Section 32
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 32 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
e Joy, C (Water Studies P/L, 1996) Impact of Land Use on the Quality of Surface Runoff
Quality in the Lake MacDonald Catchment, A Planning Scheme Review Project, Noosa
Council.
This document does not appear to be available online and as such, it was not available for
review. Despite this, numerous studies on the typical values associated with urban runoff
have been completed, most notably the following work, the results of which are utilised to
calibrate MUSIC:
e Fletcher, T., Duncan,H., Poelsma, P. & Lloyd, S. (2004). Stormwater flow and quality,
and the effectiveness of non-proprietary stormwater treatment measures — a review and
gap analysis.
The seminal work by Fletcher et al. (2004) noted that undeveloped catchments in Southeast
Queensland have concentrations typical to that of Figure 1. It should be noted that the
median Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) for natural bush area, as a surrogate for an
undeveloped catchment) substantially exceed the nominated targets associated with the
POD. It should be noted that the values in Figure 1 are derived from numerous sites and in
some cases, were established based upon a smaller dataset.
Table 2.35 EMC and DWC Estimates for South-East Queensland for use in EMSS.
|_pwe | emc | pwe | emc | pwc | EMC |
jtower | os | | oo | on Po | 3s
[Median | 7 {0 | on [ome | is | ts |
Ce
[Lower |S ee 09! | aos | 03 |
Natural bash [Medion | 7 mm 09 | at | 0s |
[Uneer | 9 my 007 =| 02 | os |
[Lower |S i 0! | os | os |
[Medion | 7 im 0 =| on | os |
LUpres | 9 Soo? |_| os
[Lower | * ey 02] oe | oe |
Grazing = [Median | 10 007] sa | or
[pres | ty 012 | 07 | 09 |
ee =
Cropping = [Median | 10 |
jeer [| | 2 | | 99 |
Figure 1 - Event Mean Concentration (EMC) and Dry Weather Concentration (DWC) Estimates for South-
East Queensland (source: Fletcher et al. (2004)
Page 32 of 78Section 33
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 33 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
If the POD objectives were derived from the Water Studies P/L, the derived objectives
predates the ANZECC Guidelines (2001), the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy
(2009), the Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives (nominates site
as ‘Lowland Freshwaters), the Urban Stormwater Quality Planning Guidelines (2010) and
most notably, the work of Fletcher et al (2004).
As such, it is arguable that the targets associated with the POD are not reflective of currently
accepted data and are unrealistic, particularly as data suggests undeveloped catchments
generate pollutant loads in excess of the targets during storm events.
Further, an extract from Water by Design (2007) WSUD: Developing Design Objectives for
Water Sensitive Developments in SEQ Version 2. highlights the appropriate way of reporting
on the concentrations based targets (as per the POD) and also suggests a move to the
current Load Based Reduction targets. The extract is as follows:
The present concentration-based approach to stormwater quality management, as well
as the current method of setting the target concentration values, introduces several
ambiguities and inconsistencies to the regional framework for urban stormwater
management. Setting concentration-based targets for stormwater discharges relies
upon some Statistical assessment of stormwater quality and quantity. A typical
approach is to set a target median (50"" percentile) concentration. However, stormwater
in SEQ is ephemeral with “zero” flow for a substantial proportion (often more than 50%)
of the time. The definition of the median is therefore ambiguous. This ambiguity is
commonly resolved by taking the median concentration during periods when flow is
non-zero. However, since demonstration of compliance of a proposed stormwater
management system relies on numerical modelling, the median concentration can be
highly sensitive to the adopted model parameters. Adjusting these parameters to
generate a long period of very low baseflow can make it easier to demonstrate
compliance with the target concentration, while the majority of pollutant load is
discharged during events.
At present, receiving water quality objectives, derived from ambient “dry weather”
pollutant concentrations measured in receiving waters, are commonly adopted as the
target concentrations for stormwater discharges. This approach fails to recognise the
substantial difference between the pollutant characteristics of urban diffuse sources
during dry and wet weather flows, as well as the impact of pollutant load on receiving
waters. In addition, it is inconsistent with ANZECC (2000, p.2-17) and the
Environmental Protection (Water) Amendment Policy No. 30, 2006 (No. 1) (p 13) which
notes that scheduled receiving water quality objectives do not apply to stormwater
discharges. ANZECC (2000, p.3.3-2) recommends that load based guidelines be
developed for nutrients (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus), biodegradable organic
matter and suspended particulate matter (or Total Suspended Solids). This is in
recognition of the important impact of the total mass (or load) of these pollutants on
aquatic ecosystem health.
Page 33 of 78Section 34
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 34 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
It is noted that current legislation and the Noosa Plan all point to Load Based Reductions
being appropriate for urban development. Additionally, the SEQWater Development
Guideline effectively notes that Environmental Values for water are set under the
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009, which stipulates the appropriate targets be
sourced from Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives. The Mary
River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives calls up the limits for Lowland
Freshwaters (as shown in Table 2 of the Covey Report). It also critically says at Section
3.1.3 “Stormwater Design Objectives” that design objectives for urban development are
contained in Urban Stormwater Quality Planning Guidelines 2010. These guidelines, within
Table 2.2, Summary of Design Objectives for Management of Stormwater Quality, again list
the Load Based Reduction Targets (same as State Planning Policy).
Despite the above information, it is recognised that the Lake MacDonald catchment requires
protection from impacts associated with urban runoff, given its ecological value and use as a
drinking water catchment. In lieu of this, it was proposed to over-treat stormwater runoff on
site in Covey Associates Report 100415 Iss. B.
The MUSIC modelling results from the submitted model are provided in Figure 2. The
pollutant load reduction rates required to be demonstrated on urban and commercial
development in South-East Queensland are as follows:
e Total suspended solids (TSS) — 80% reduction in mean annual load (kg/yr)
e Total Phosphorus (TP) — 60% reduction in mean annual load (kg/yr)
e Total Nitrogen (TN) -45% reduction in mean annual load (kg/yr)
eats “anaal
bein
Sources Residual Load % Reduction
Flow (ML/ yr) 12-7 10.2 7.8
Total Suspended Solids (kg/ yr) 3420 506 85.2
Total Phosphorus (kg/ yr) 6.45 1.19 81.6
‘Total Nitrogen (kg/ yr) 35,2 11 68.5
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 234 0.0472 100
| al
Figure 2 - Pollutant load reduction results from MUSIC Model for Report 100415 Iss. B
The pollutant load reductions highlighted in Figure 2 are well above what is required by the
State Planning Policy (2016) in terms of annual pollutant load reduction objectives. While
concentration based outcomes are not generally utilised for stormwater treatment, the
concentrations associated with a flow based sub-sample are as follows:
Page 34 of 78Section 35
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 35 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
. Mean TSS — 6.08 mg/L
. Mean TP — 0.021mg/L
: Mean TN — 0.41 mg/L
Flow-weighted daily means are as follows:
. Mean TSS — 18.4 mg/L
. Mean TP — 0.042mg/L
: Mean TN — 0.531 mg/L
Daily sample means:
. Mean TSS — 9.41mg/L
: Mean TP — 0.026mg/L
. Mean TN — 0.435 mg/L
It is suggested that the current condition, Condition 27(e) be changed to only reference the
State Planning Policy (2016) requirements and that the proposal to over treat runoff from the
site be accepted as a recognition of the importance of the Lake MacDonald catchment.
It is considered that the stormwater quality treatment approach nominated within Covey
Associates Report 100415 Iss. B will serve to appropriately manage stormwater runoff from
the proposed development.
Trusting the above is to your satisfaction, and should further information be required please
contact this office.
Yours faithfully
COVEY ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
DR CHRISTOPHER WALKER
Environmental Manager
BEnvSc, BSc (Hons), PhD, CPESC (5911)
Encl.
Page 35 of 78Section 36
Page 36 of 78
1. To the extent that conflict exist Detwven the Modified Plonning Scheme Provisions veo a ‘Ad requeements relabng to the Lure devempment of act alotrent smal ben
NOTE;
nd the The Noosa Plen 2006, the Modified Planning Scheme Provision wi! preval i sd eccordance with The Noose Pian 2006 M cortcations to Planning Screme Prowsons are oy
- 7 eames AN Agresmrw Laan are Pres! MBPmT Neng permite in reaped to the exating Bore! Ofice Buting and vhere vanes below
Lo 2. Rieter to |. PART A — INTERPRETATION of Schedule ts the Panning Scheme of
ZN Noone ‘Sire Cauncl tor defRien ef Noni, senshe or hatoréout iauaty trcenohrs Youn ao
WA T) earn The exetng Bore! busing @ ret afeded by Te RemDack SID mONS riatng Ie Ine Sec RENT
oi n TT ofme ste
" pocampal Ortee otee pel enasane rere located FF ting Tr
2s LL sean a Fa o . cHecueeeaabae The heght of ad bukings ard struchues are deemed to comply itNey a6 net exceed
3 eee Cote Aseennaten maven n hegre
ss ; ete Sarees “ope ) Larincace ara see om Aanennce Oa 2 ;
Ve 93.069 90°2'23" Gh sou: Comnece 109s eres wan Trp 1 O0ce | import daneseabve a Reem EET aes
Loe cron ncenset omen on cia Si
S + Mrowwemnee ee Total Phosphorus of 0 Compr
< S J 2b roms bocce des or ret Fors Faecal Cotterms - 1000 orpansme1200mL and
S / zoencaee one 12s Suaecsed Sotds - tEmgh Br combeed vet and ary pwede Hwee « 100m to
§ / f Nook Awe 9 9 vase a8 rao ee ret eae: perce
/ f CT a 5
S yi ee ‘Ay Commanty Uses are mpmet wRRN ey Each atotment snail stmt m Storm water anc y¥ ater Quaity WU anagemert Pian that sat
Ne Commands so0e cer oly nah and ptceae iter ate the folcveng sue Pimion tc the onstutor
. ae eee ert enc coemticr shames chime OR @COment
rey, As Cem ity nee Ad recesaa’y OHO ANG BOOMER COND! regres The Erosen anc Secme
| “p- [omsrmscronsueee Conta Pina sus cave: a sovcomers sie Srne Pe coun es
/ i ~ — —— Pema en! Ae SpeRIDNA SNEED, EDLY GH RROBECS APO eMEDSION ENS
/ ey ~ Ne Pheeractre -08 i inaainactire nee Ore mnpart Sneessate Ad necessary storm waar Hremtmert anS vale’ Qualty GEARS BcoRIES HAT he
y SS. Seveopmer shal be lecaes Winn Te appreved toundanes cl te wth anc each
; , Wreonaicert une arecpment peor
i : a6 Seviee wre 0) utes Tyo 2 wximanon Details of ocosed \ocaons and Senensona of Sorm vater eatment ystems
£, “Mp, & eee me SO) ee Tyee) Teer pvesbie to seve the veter Cuaty chyecd es teed eve
s, ee : 2% 6 RY iat auciemerheattaision Detats ¢f earmvater rene erate pes °c Setecion devers tc enaue Me hyOTeIC
~ ” Cr wang Wns maces Segre 8 Nct akees tom the current sate
/ 1 ~ Loy, RE Deters of gpsse management tectnvqes to megete impacts hrm potent
4 * , Ss (reertebec rwesses tom ie novainal vech ard ie Beverage oun mater Conte
- % May Bs Var ate cu Seow ete Seages pet corucram mean tny sean
4 .240ha Sie > = "rn ne nes Zerrcae nsng he ate Tre eoniea a be wemeg ouwar re etnre
ae ng ratte i, RRR eR ARES AR
/ ay om Us aK Conewiert ows AY Meeartas Ween a rrpect eseiCe The memana pacrarg tem ena, ot wi anv sesgned meh Pat ey 8 De
/ ) 10,000 =
>, wo = he rate of Oscherge ab & ‘mmull of he Seveiopment br storm events up tc 100 yew
/ & ronasters Uoee =
/ f ff Pad mounted UMN cuca
d 3 / 4 + CLT a a = Se See
% = / Jp Transformer ne aan mt wee ree (At ora shan ave ere} annennanes | ae Accustc Repos by a7 scousbc cemmutart Wo te REET WEN ES BescatCr to OLN
SP 108928 Gn 0:786ho Se ls) fp? Based on the definitions detaled in The Noose Pan 200 | Con cravotng Rat near i pak excens He BiavaRy Bras
ce S3/ =/ =e, —--—— ane Sanne ince Somenarial Places
a /= nm Veiad ———Aguted Unsrfum Sard Pemue ere Ld
tt | §&fs Ss y oc pours news love pus | Sacgruis neae eve p.8
= / €/5 Tom = om 60 5 mel 8 :
= a / </ a ‘e 0 eB
a/v / ca i — item fewer Ratigrara noseine pve | ativan sone love pin
oo s3/ 9 / i : : SBia) 00a
alee &/ S/ : ioe Far npr Sacarac near wa tas | Basia roa ib a
ao 14048 5 FA + fz 3284) BA
< "0g & /* 10 apr! shat antty menseres to mibgute Pe potenlid nose mpacte and neat he
16737 no < ide sew / & |x m :
yf é vangn tobe reeconed aqacent he aealom of souers Boundaries of lots cuted
ofte < eet rmapnais ents ented ons nctce
~. ‘ate. A wie $ | aa. ‘>, the opto bo) hn Batanga man ha vee Se 34
~ ‘$ i 7 Jock ® OpEN yRTOS anc Ofer er termm actites fram rescente
“£ / © | Fe. Te croscand Lom \ oad 2 cocanencen plone mich ub mir soneticisay ahd Sotabeiho
ea! “ee { é Ry, ple- ores be locwed ra manne thal brordes ecouste sveding ham the Nese
—= Rhee 6 hy eetewete Somes
~~ \ Ke if > LL, va EE
~ 5 thy
\ / [Lansacanng sia be uncevanen 7 accorcance win Towncr's Lanéscapirg Coce
8 g ame Ha ~ ( — 1800 6 f Lacces © Tha ences Pak $000 sched ‘pcel sicher ef 100 boty ast
z Z| 2 | ewe ‘mpi seus? 1.390h0 ¥ a A a a ai
¥ z 2.016he »| Sa, $e ¥ % te ae Road hvtaye
= B eB aeons , “ ye A mature name vepetann athe the pare meas arc outnde Ihe ans wut! te
} zg 5 2 mecedanen Gorage & carticarks boa reed ol vs apgncenen svat be presened
a 1.5041 z y NS
| he 8 , / Proposed Drainage Reserve Gann meena conneciin to Cena rotmdites Wen set). eae Wiener
. = 5 Area 3.655ha Dist ba seraoed bp hx pan che WAGGA tod bestest pare to atofeny an wel aL
5 % are ype aint giaosog gt tesaienopdatedtrl
& me 8, J 3 lontcaton a rameate taiecies Por De ov areas are Papua De tow hor
RPB02294 | wae a = ( . Counce's reneuigtes supply
os ee a
aot — 7
sit sank
| Tet ty ease
HEIN
on", eae Dine
or', e ren
vee ee
——
2 <a
oo : -
. LEGEND
4 ee
s RPB9S9B9 Proposed Alloments soble Area. —~—E-——E— New Underground Electricity Line
| Survey by evel Datum: PSM 101689 RL119.889m AHD —— E—— Relocoted Electricity Line
Hab Ahern James Naismith Lots 1-6 plus Drainage Reserve Cencelling Lot 1444 CG3956 econ nee
¥ 4 2 : 9 ot a
Chee 7 43 Porari St Porish Maroochy County Canning ae Existing Overhead Flectricity Lin
coat? | | Worana 4575 Total Area = 10.67ha . casual bine Souerve'“49 ba al
ht ¥ Ph (07) 54934877 oposed Drainag ve (to be
+ e picnted with 10m wegetation buffer)
ee ee eee os a leddy sergiacomi & Ban aes Deanna No
© _[MANOVENT OF NOTES AO ELECTPION EAGEWENT ow] Sor :
Sao = Soa “5-3 wae PSB ~_ i i2ssociates pty. itd. DEPT STATE DEVELOPMENT HOLTS ROAD, NANDROYA 45021-C02
eS pon Tm) i ‘ { j eh att Bertin eh Amin a
a 8 ; ae
= Ae EES IEET AM MO ASME OS es" 1 1000 | * sto | Om Av ENGINEESING & ENVIROMENTAL. CONSULTANTS | ewnece i: = ———_ Tar %
me DEKeLPTION ® | ont = a Se + iE PROJECT MANAGERS & PLANNERS @ mn y
RTE ESET DEE vee co | a IO Mmeraroryoman tte weg ns PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ESTATE | or RECONFIGURATION PROPOSED LOTS| 2 .
i eet 1 ar Y teh en aT a ecm ee Or ane °
Se TT 1s : NciaT wad unckesecusnk MOREY we 1 T0 6 CANCELLING LOT 1444 CG3956 ;Section 37
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
4 152006.1999.01 APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION TO THE RELEVANT PERIOD
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR RECONFIGURATION OF A LOT (52
LOTS & PARK) FOR 191 HOLLETT ROAD, NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Index ECM/152006.1999.01
Attachments 1. Approved Plan
2. Division 3.1 State Planning Regulatory Provision
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant JS Hofmann
Proposal Extension to relevant period
Properly Made Date 28 April 2017
Information Request Date N/A
Information Response Date N/A
Decision Due Date 9 June 2017
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 191 Hollett Road Noosaville
RP Description Lot 53 SP 163571
Land Area 77 hectares
Existing Use of Land Rural land containing one dwelling
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area
Locality Tewantin and Doonan
Zone Rural
Overlays Biodiversity Overlay: Riparian Buffer and Environment Protection Area
Natural Hazard Overlay: Flood Hazard Overlay, Bushfire and Acid
Sulphate Soils
Assessment Type Change to Approval
Page 37 of 78
Section 38
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 and refuse Application No. 152006.1991.01 for an
Extension to the Relevant Period for Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (52 lots and park),
situated at 191 Hollett Road Noosaville for the following reasons:
1. The approval is not consistent with the South East Queensland Regional Plan as the
development would result in the creation of an urban settlement within an area where the
intent is to protect the landscape and the capacity for rural production.
2. The approval is not consistent with the Noosa Plan 2006 as the proposed urban
development is not located within an established village and would result in fragmentation
of land holdings outside of areas already allocated for such purpose by the Noosa Plan.
The development is also partly located within the Riparian Buffer area identified for
protection by the Biodiversity Overlay
3. The approval is contrary to the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning
Regulatory Planning Provisions as the development will result in the removal of non-
juvenile koala habitat trees.
4. Different bushfire hazard mapping to that used for the initial approval applies as the State
Planning Provisions came into effect after the original approval and results in a higher
hazard rating. The higher hazard rating may require changes to setback/buffer areas and
an amended subdivision layout. An updated bushfire management plan has not been
submitted to enable an assessment of the current bushfire hazard.
5. Significant time has lapsed since the ecological assessment reports were originally
submitted and the information in these reports is now outdated. Updated ecological reports
have not been submitted.
6. The community is unlikely to be aware of the proposal given the significant time that has
lapsed, the Noosa Plan’s current zoning and no works have commenced on site.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks to extend the relevant period of a Development Permit to reconfigure a lot
for 52 rural residential type lots and park by 2 years so that the development will not lapse until 5
July 2019.
The report submitted with the application advises…our client has been in discussions with
potential purchasers of the site who need more time to act on the approval should they proceed
to contract……
The site is now zoned as Rural under the Noosa Plan 2006. Despite the change to the zoning
under the current planning scheme, the development layout and design is considered to be
consistent with current State and Council design requirements for development on land subject to
environmental constraints.
In this respect it is noted that the approved development:
Is predominantly located in disturbed areas of the site.
Incorporates setbacks for bushfire management.
Layout and design of allotments has been generally designed around already cleared
vegetation areas and environmental constraints;
The conditions placed on the development appropriately address all relevant environmental
concerns;
Page 38 of 78
Section 39
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Existing development rights are considered to exist under the original rezoning
development permit;
Results in dedication of significant open space which will result in considerable community
benefits through the long-term conservation of areas with ecological values.
The site adjoins the urban fringe of Noosaville, is the next in sequence and is surrounded
by urban and rural residential development to the north and west of the site which is
compatible and similar in nature.
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
A rezoning application was approved over the site on 1 August 1997, approving a change of the
site’s zoning to Special Residential and permitting the development of a maximum of 80 rural
residential lots and 2 rural lots.
This rezoning was gazetted in 1 May 1998 and has an associated Plan of Development (PoD)
referred to in the superseded planning scheme maps. The PoD established the footprint for
future development and open space areas. It also established the development parameters for
the site, including lot density and lot size.
The rezoning and PoD have now been superseded with the adoption of The Noosa Plan in 2006
and the rezoning approval is no longer current.
Under the rezoning approval, the applicant was required to dedicate a large portion of land for
the Walter Hay Drive road reserve. The POD required a further application to be made to Council
for the subdivision of the land.
An application for subdivision (reconfiguring a lot) was subsequently made on 12 September
2006 for 82 lots plus 1 park lot. The applicant at the time requested that the application be
considered under the superseded planning scheme as provided for under the Integrated
Planning Act 1997.
At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 19 October 2006, Council confirmed that the subsequent
development application for reconfiguration could be assessed against the Superseded Planning
Scheme. In arriving at this decision, Council considered that assessment of the application under
the new (2006 Noosa Plan) may have resulted in a compensation claim arising from the potential
loss of value in the land as a result of the change of zoning from Special Residential to Rural
under the 2006 Noosa Plan.
The application was refused as Council was instructed by the Department of Environment &
Resource Management (as Concurrence Agency) to refuse it. Accordingly a Decision Notice of
Refusal was issued on 16 November 2009. The decision was appealed through the Planning and
Environment Court.
The proposed Rural Residential development was amended by the appellant during the appeal
process, with the number of residential lots reduced to 49 rural residential and 3 rural allotments.
The final approval granted by way of the Planning and Environment Court Order (Appeal No. 344
of 2009) dated 5 July, 2013 reduced the overall yield to 52 Lots and Park. This approval requires
dedication of 52.757 hectares of parkland. A copy of the approved plan is contained within
Attachment 1.
In 2012 the site was part of an application which also included land situated at 99 Hollett Road,
106 and 108-142 Tidswell Road Wyeba Downs.
The application sought preliminary approval under section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Act to
vary the effect of The Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 Planning Schemes for a mixed-use
community title development. The development was to be known as Noosa on Weyba
comprising a mix of residential, retail, community and open space uses to be established under a
multi-level community title scheme structure.
Page 39 of 78
Section 40
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The applicant proposed a Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan to generally override the local planning
schemes provisions for the development site. The Plan identified four primary urban precincts
with varying density and character. The precincts were further broken down into zones, being
Detached Housing, Attached Housing, Rural Settlement and Neighbourhood Centre zones. An
Open Space Conservation Zone surrounded the urban precincts.
Proposed uses within the precincts included detached houses, small lot houses, duplexes,
multiple dwellings (units, townhouses and attached dwellings), retirement dwellings and aged
care facilities.
Minimum lot sizes ranged from 350m2 to 800m2 and minimum residential densities ranged
between 15 – 32 dwellings per hectare. Proposed building heights were 2 to 3 storeys and the
Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan also proposed differing built form provisions (such as site cover
and boundary setbacks) to those sought in comparable urban areas under the Maroochy and
Noosa planning schemes.
The application was refused on 4 April 2014 to which an appeal was lodged on 7 May 2014, but
was subsequently withdrawn.
As part of the original approval for this site it was identified that a part of Hollett Road is not within
the road reserve but rather it is located on freehold land owned by Council. Accordingly Council
is required pursuant to an Infrastructure Agreement entered into at the time of settlement of the
appeal to commence road closure and road opening applications.
This process is currently being undertaken by the Council’s property department, on the property
owner’s behalf, who have made the application to the State.
2.2. Site Description
The subject site has an area of 110 hectares and is located south of the Noosa Business Centre.
The site is bordered to the northeast by Eenie Creek, to the east by undeveloped land fronting
Lake Weyba, to the south by Hollett Road and the west by rural residential land. The north-west
corner of the site adjoins land developed for detached housing. The site is dissected by Walter
Hay Drive, but no access is permitted from this road, with the site having vehicular access via
Hollett Road. An Energex transmission line and an associated easement traverse the northern
portion of the site.
Topographically the site is largely flat with gently undulating slopes with a mosaic of soil types.
The site currently supports large areas of grasslands that have been actively used for cattle
grazing. The site also supports areas of paperbark forest and eucalypt woodlands and there are
a number of small dams scattered through the central portion of the site.
The site forms part of an area of land that provides a corridor for native wildlife to move between
areas of protected habitat in the locality, including Noosa National Park, Lake Weyba and
Tewantin State Forest. Notably the Regional Ecosystem Map for the site locality identifies the
presence of areas identified as being Essential Habitat for species listed as Endangered,
Vulnerable or Rare pursuant to the Nature Conservation Act. These are wetland habitats which
are associated with Eenie Creek and its tributaries for the Wallum froglet and Wallum rocketfrog.
A number of other significant fauna species also have a high probability of utilising the habitat
within the site, including koalas.
Page 40 of 78
Section 41
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Subject site
Figure 1: Locality Plan
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The land abuts a mix of residential, rural, open space conservation and community services land
uses. A number of parcels of Bushland Reserve associated with the Noosa Business Centre and
the residential estate accessed via Lake Entrance Boulevard are adjacent the northern boundary.
A number of detached housing lots along Lake Entrance Boulevard also abut the northern
boundaries of the site, though there is no direct road link from that estate to the subject site.
Directly to the west of the site are rural residential lots accessed via Hollett Road and the Noosa
Par 3 Golf Course. A large (321.9ha) Council-owned allotment sits to the south-east of the site.
The Noosa refuse station is located in its south-eastern corner but majority of the lot is
undeveloped and a portion is dedicated as nature refuge (known as Weyba Nature Refuge).
Densely vegetated rural zoned land holdings are located to the east of the site. Weyba Downs
residential estate is to the south-west of the site and comprises a mix rural-residential and rural
lots.
3. ASSESSMENT
In accordance with Section 388 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, in deciding a request to
extend the relevant period, the assessment manager must only have regard to:
(a) the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with current laws and policies
applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure
contributions, or infrastructure charges payable under an infrastructure charges schedule;
(b) the community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
(c) whether, if the request were refused:
(i) further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development
application; and
(ii) the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
(d) the views of any concurrence agency for the approval
Page 41 of 78
Section 42
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The following is an assessment of each of the above criteria:
(a) the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with current laws and
policies applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of
infrastructure contributions, or infrastructure charges payable under an
infrastructure charges schedule;
The applicant’s response to this criterion includes:
From an assessment of the applicable provisions under the Noosa Plan 2006, the development
approval achieves the majority of the relevant performance outcomes. Inevitably, there are a few
provisions which cannot be directly achieved due to Council changing the zone from “Special
Residential” under the Superseded Planning Scheme to “Rural” under the current Noosa Plan
2006. However, this does not preclude an extension on the current development approval being
granted, having regard to the existing conditions of approval appropriately reflecting the individual
site constraints along with the development providing significant community benefits.
Assessment
South East Queensland Regional Plan
In accordance with the South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP) the subject site is
identified as a Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area (RLRPA).
A strategic direction of the SEQRP is to protect the regional landscape recognising that South
East Queensland’s rural and natural landscape areas support environmental, rural production,
recreational, cultural and scenic functions. They underpin the region’s liveability and viability, and
will be protected from urban development and rural residential subdivision.
The SEQRP identifies the intent of the RLPRA to identify land with regional landscape, rural
production or other non-rural values. It seeks to protect this land from inappropriate development
particularly urban or rural residential development recognising that these areas of land include
significant biodiversity values, important regional ecosystems, good quality agricultural land and
cultural and landscape values and land that forms important inter urban breaks.
Regulatory provisions of the SEQRP apply to the RLPRA. The restrictions restrict:
further fragmentation of land holdings;
urban development, except within established villages;
the expansion of rural residential development outside areas already allocated in local
government planning schemes.
Division 3.1 of the State planning regulatory provisions identifies subdivisions that are considered
to be complaint subdivisions (a copy of this provision is contained at Attachment 2). The existing
approval does not satisfy these criteria and is therefore identified by the regulatory provisions as
a subdivision which may not occur.
Accordingly it is considered that the proposed extension of time does not accord with the current
policies and regulatory requirements of the SEQRP. The development would result in the
creation of an urban settlement within an area where the intent is to protect the landscape and
capacity for rural production. The proposed urban development is not located within an
established village and would result in fragmentation of land holdings outside of areas already
allocated for such purpose by the Noosa Plan.
ShapingSEQ is a new draft regional plan for South East Queensland and was released by the
Queensland State Government in October 2016. The new regional plan is expected to be
finalised soon. It will replace the current South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031.
Regional Plans have an outlook of 25 years from when the draft is prepared and therefore
ShapingSEQ is based on projections to 2041.
Page 42 of 78
Section 43
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The plan continues with regulatory approaches towards prohibiting urban development outside
the Urban Footprint and restricting subdivision in the rural areas to a minimum lot size of 100
hectares.
Council made a submission to the State Government in response to the draft regional plan. As
part of this submission Council addressed the capacity of land within the Urban Footprint to
accommodate projected population growth. Noosa Council’s draft submission to ShapingSEQ
notes
Council has concluded not to support any changes to the Urban Footprint under the new
ShapingSEQ for reason that there is no need demonstrated currently for additional urban land to
be allocated to Cooroy, or any other part of Noosa Shire. Council has previously outlined in this
submission that it considers sufficient capacity exists in the current Noosa Plan to accommodate
the projected demand for dwellings until 2041.
The Noosa Plan (2016)
Under the Noosa Plan the land is zoned Rural Zone and a new application for lot reconfiguration
would be a Code Assessable application. A code assessable application would include
assessment against the Tewantin and Doonan Locality Code and the Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
The Noosa Plan envisages that Rural zoned land will be predominantly used for open space and
farming activities. The intent is for this land to be appropriately managed and protected such that
the scenic and environmental values, the distinct rural amenity and agricultural productivity are
preserved. Rural residential type lots are intended to only occur on land zoned for rural
settlement with residential use contained within the defined urban growth boundaries.
Accordingly it is considered that existing approval is inconsistent with the Noosa Plan (2016). The
inconsistency relates to the Desired Environmental Outcomes, the Tewantin and Doonan Locality
Code and the Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
Specifically the proposal would be in conflict with the following Desired Environmental Outcomes:
a) AGRICULTURE USES
Agricultural industry is maintained by—
i. conserving land for economically viable and environmentally sustainable agricultural
purposes;
ii. preventing the fragmentation of agricultural land;
v. protecting agricultural pursuits from incompatible uses, particularly those more
suitably located within the urban growth boundary;
The proposed development of 52 rural residential lots does not meet this Desired Environmental
Outcome as it will result in the fragmentation of agricultural land and does not conserve land for
agricultural purposes. It is acknowledged that the land has not been identified as good
agricultural land however it is also noted that historically the land has been used for grazing
purposes. The proposal would also result in a land use within the Rural Zone that is more
suitably located within the urban growth boundary.
i) RESIDENTIAL USES
Urban and rural settlement for residential use is contained within the defined urban growth
boundaries shown on zoning maps ZM1- ZM9. It is developed to be consistent with—
i. the expected character and amenity for the particular locality; …….
It is considered that the proposal is not compatible with this Desired Environmental Outcome as it
allows for residential use of land outside of the urban growth boundary. This type of land use is
not consistent with the expected character and amenity of the locality where agricultural and
conservation type land uses are expected.
Page 43 of 78
Section 44
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The proposal would be in conflict with the following Overall Outcomes of the Tewantin and
Doonan Locality Code:
12.7.2
c) Urban development is limited to land within the Urban Footprint as shown on Map ZM8;
j) Rural settlement, at varying densities consistent with the environmental constraints of the
area, offer high levels of amenity and moderate to high levels of convenience, accessibility
and servicing;
bb) For the Rural Zone—rural land is protected and appropriately managed such that:-
i. the scenic and environmental values, the distinct rural amenity and agricultural
productivity of the locality are preserved and are not adversely impacted as a
consequence of development on or adjacent to that land; and
These Overall Outcomes are not satisfied as the proposal accommodates urban development
outside of the Urban Footprint. The approved lot densities are not consistent with the
environmental constraints of the site which contains juvenile koala habitat trees and land
identified as Riparian Buffer. Furthermore the proposal does not protect the scenic and
environmental values, the rural amenity and the agricultural productivity of the land. The location
of the proposed development with respect to convenience, accessibility and servicing is
consistent with other rural residential subdivisions.
It is also considered that the proposal is not consistent with Specific Outcome 16 of the Tewantin
and Doonan Locality Code which requires that:
There are no significant adverse effects on biodiversity, native vegetation, native fauna habitat,
landscaped quality, water quality or cultural heritage values, including those related to—
a) changes to natural drainage;
b) management of fire risk;
c) erosion and the transport of sediments off site;
d) unmanaged public access;
e) effluent disposal;
f) changes to fauna habitat and behaviour; and
g) disturbance of buildings and features, including natural features of cultural heritage
significance
The development, if approved in its current form, will give rise to clearing of protected vegetation
for development in a rural zone.
The planning report submitted with the application identifies that the approved development
results in dedication of significant open space which will result in considerable community
benefits through the long-term conservation of areas with ecological values.
Protection of the sites ecological values are not reliant on the approvals requirement to dedicate
open space as the Biodiversity Overlay (Riparian Buffer and Environmental Protection Area) now
applies to the site.
The South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions have
come in to effect since the original approval. In accordance with the provisions the site is
identified as being in a Koala Assessable Area and containing areas identified as bushland
habitat. The provisions require that premises outside of the Urban Footprint do not remove non-
juvenile koala habitat trees in areas defined as bushland habitat.
The approved layout requires the removal of non-juvenile koala habitat trees in bushland habitat
in an area outside the urban footprint (refer lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13). In order to comply with
this provision these lots would require amendment.
Page 44 of 78
Section 45
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
The Riparian Buffer is located within a section of the site and some of the proposed lots are
located in this area. The establishment of new lots within the Riparian Buffer is not supported by
the Noosa Plan.
A considerable time has elapsed since the date of the ecological assessment reports, some of
which are more than a decade old. Therefore the currency of the data has expired and cannot be
considered relevant.
Bushfire
The current State Planning Provisions came into effect after the original approval. The current
bushfire hazard mapping assesses bushfire hazard differently to the previous bushfire mapping
used in the original assessment. When assessing the original application the hazard assessment
concluded that areas of the site had medium bushfire hazard rating. The current mapping system
identifies that the site contains significant areas which are mapped as having high potential
bushfire intensity. As a result of the changes setback/buffer areas may require an amended
subdivision layout. An updated bushfire management plan has not been provided with this
application.
Stormwater and Acid Sulphate Soils
The original approval included conditions relating to Stormwater and Acid Sulphate Soils. The
conditions require an Integrated Stormwater Management Plan and an Acid Sulphate Soil and
Groundwater Investigation and Management Plan to be submitted with any application for
Operational Works. The conditions required that the reports be in accordance with the guidelines
that were relevant at the time the decision was made.
Currently officers require preliminary stormwater management plans be provided with the lot
reconfiguration application for assessment. This information is reviewed and considered prior to
an approval being issued to ensure that proposed lot layouts can accommodate the
recommendations and works required in accordance with these types of reports. In this instance
the guidelines referenced in the Acid Sulphate Soils condition requires updating and the
stormwater report may require the lot layout to be amended to accommodate the report
recommendations.
Reconfiguring a Lot Code
With regard to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code the proposal is not consistent with the following
overall outcomes:
b) compatible relationships between land uses;
g) lots that avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment and landscape and
minimise the risk of hazards for people and property;
l) residential development which is consistent with the developed character of its particular
neighbourhood;
m) rural residential development only where it has good levels of convenience and
accessibility to towns and villages; and
The use of the rural land for the purpose of a residential subdivision is not consistent with
surrounding rural land uses and the rural character of the area. The siting of the proposed
subdivision does not provide for reasonable connectivity with the Noosaville commercial precinct
as residents would be required to initially navigate away from the commercial area.
The planning scheme requires that new lot sizes have a minimum area of 100 hectares. The
approval permits lot sizes that are significantly less than the current planning scheme
requirement. The approved lot sizes are generally 4000m2 in area. The approval included some
larger lots however the maximum lot size is 16.87ha which is considerably smaller than the
current 100 hectare requirement.
Page 45 of 78
Section 46
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Infrastructure Charges
Adopted Infrastructure Charge Notices No’s 449, 150, 451, 452 were issued according to Stages
1 to 4 with the original approval.
An extension to the currency period would not trigger any additional Infrastructure Charge
Notices (ICN’s) as all the networks are already covered by the previously issued ICN’s which
continue automatically.
Planning Act 2016
The new planning laws commenced on 3 July 2017 and if a new application were to be lodged it
would be considered under this new framework. The Planning Regulations 2017 prescribe the
regulated requirements of the Planning Act 2017.
The Planning Regulations 2017 identify that subdividing a lot completely or partly in the SEQ
regional landscape or rural production area is prohibited development. Prohibited development is
development for which an application may not be made.
(b) the community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
It is important to note that considerable time has lapsed since the original re-zoning of the land in
1998, which has provided the property owner with substantial opportunity to act.
It is likely that many current members of the community would not be aware of the development
approval as the application to subdivide the site in 2006 was code assessable and did not require
public notification and the land is zoned as Rural. Considerable time has also elapsed since the
application was lodged in 2006 with a decision being determined by the Planning and
Environment Court in 2013.
The applicant advises that four of the seventeen adjoining properties have had a change in
ownership since the original application was lodged.
It is acknowledged that a sign has recently been erected on site. However this sign has been
placed on a section of Walter Hay Drive where there is limited opportunity for it to be interpreted
as there is no pedestrian access and vehicles are permitted to drive at 80km/h.
(c) whether, if the request were refused:
(i) further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development
application; and
(ii) the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
If the extension request was refused and a new application was to be submitted it would require
code assessment, therefore no further rights to make a submission would be available.
(d) the views of any concurrence agency for the approval…
The application was referred to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning
who raised no objection to the proposed extension.
Further clarification was sought from the agency whose advice included:
SPA does not offer any parameters for which a concurrence agency can or must assess
against. Given the extension request is about a time period that Council imposes, and not
the department, the department would need to have a significant reason under the
jurisdiction of the original concurrence agency role, in order to offer an objection to
Council.
Ultimately, it is Council’s decision as to whether the request is approved. And, SPA offers
rules for the assessment manager to decide the request, within s388, which includes
having regard to the current laws and policies applying to the development – this is where
Council would consider any applicable regional plan, any SPRPs, SPPs, etc.
Page 46 of 78
Section 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
4. CONSULTATION
IDAS Referral Agencies
Initial application
Department of Natural Resources & Water (DNR&W)
The initial application was referred to the Department of Natural Resources & Water (DNR&W)
as a concurrence agency due to the site containing mapped vegetation and a wetland regional
ecosystem. DNR&W finalised their assessment on 27 June 2008 and directed Council to refuse
the application. The applicant subsequently suspended the decision period to make
representations to DNR&W and when this period expired requested that Council not decide the
application for an extended period.
DNR&W did not revise their decision and directed Council to refuse the application as:
o The proposed lot boundaries are located in an area of remnant endangered regional
ecosystem and remnant of concern regional ecosystem and will result in fragmentation of
these areas;
o Assessable vegetation to be cleared will reduce the water quality of the natural wetland as
there will be an increase in the amount of pollution and nutrients entering the wetland from
the effluent disposal systems and the runoff from buildings and roads that will be
established in the area mapped as a wetland regional ecosystem;
o The area of aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be reduced on the site;
o Clearing of assessable vegetation in proximity to a watercourse is likely to be undertaken to
define the boundary between lot 81 and park and will reduce the area of aquatic and
terrestrial habitat on the site;
o Several of the large areas of remnant vegetation are fragmented by lot boundaries and
clearing for fences may fragment the connectivity of this vegetation and increase the area
subject to weed invasion;
o The proposal does not maintain the current extent of endangered regional ecosystem and
remnant of concern regional ecosystem due to likely clearing for fencing of lot boundaries
and would change the structure of the ecosystem; and
o An area of approximately 2 hectares identified as essential habitat is proposed to be
cleared for buildings and allotment boundaries. A large amount of fill will be required to
raise the level of this area so it no longer gets inundated.
During the appeal process the permit applicant amended the proposed layout which resulted in
reduction in lot yield from 81 lots to 52 lots and a park. DNR&W did not object to the new layout
and provided conditions. The conditions were to ensure that:
o Assessable vegetation associated with natural wetlands and watercourses are protected to
maintain water quality and habitat.
o The current extent of the regional ecosystems and endangered regional ecosystems are
maintained.
o Areas of remnant vegetation are retained to maintain ecosystem functioning, remain in the
landscape despite threatening processes and maintain connectivity to adjacent properties.
o The current extent of essential habitat is maintained.
Page 47 of 78
Section 48
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The application was referred to the EPA as the site is situated partly within a Coastal
Management District. On 2 May 2008 the Agency provided conditions for approval.
The application was also referred to the Environmental Protection Agency as the site was
identified as being contaminated. On 2 April 2008 the Agency advised the site has been deleted
from the Environmental Management Register.
Advice
Department of Natural Resources & Water (DNR&W)
The application was referred to the Department of Natural Resources & Water as an advice
agency due to the potential for acid sulphate soils on the site. DNR&W provided their advice on
27 June 2008 recommending that an acid sulphate soils management plan be undertaken.
Energex
The application was referred to Energex for Advice as an Energex transmission line traverses the
site. No response was received from Energex, but it is noted that the line traverses through a
proposed park area, well clear of the proposed BLE’s on lots.
Current application
The application was referred to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning
who are a Concurrence Agency.
The Department responded on 5 May 2017 with their response forming part of this report.
5. CONCLUSION
The application for an Extension to the Relevant Period for 152006.1999.01 relating to
development permit for reconfiguration of a lot (52 lots & park) for 191 Hollett Road Noosaville is
recommended for refusal. The development is not consistent with the South East Queensland
Regional Plan or the Noosa Plan (2016) and there is insufficient justification for the proposed
development. Council’s response to the draft South East Queensland Regional Pan,
ShapingSEQ, has identified that there is no need for additional subdivision outside the Urban
Footprint as Council is able to meet the projected population targets within the Urban Footprint.
Accordingly the development is not in the community’s interest. Furthermore it is considered that
the community have insufficient awareness of the proposal.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 48 of 78
Section 49
ATTACHMENT 1: APPROVED PLAN
Page 49 of 78
ENT 1: , .
GE4| TOTAL | “A y U Y Mi 4 —
pace i - 2 Wij i)
ATT ne Us V3 L>
AGE 2] STAGE A]STAGEA j VY jy fo : HY
ACHM f L Wr eens
1: APPROVE ia.
D PLAN sm
E ume
sveuswot Low rine > Sm Saas yop f DN, hf \ 2 —< i fy YX. ee x GE
seems een TOTAL Te | ae s29éha| 10 ha VY ip ae (x LE “7
Sad AOFPAR SORKoeL ey Th mA WP “GG My
6 14 2 A LR Ee aoe :
seer Sian eset ie | a x SATs od) OL
cians 2:8 = Pecuma soul be ps Ly A ry Tae P10 —/ any Y WZ, /
, meceereetti nee son SK, =| ME m Pe ms Y Gy /
Sfonn Me in i ra Uy Wi
ic Smee / | EVES ee es foe | Q) N | Pree } i; SLL f. /
maa ei BIO ,— ==} y rsh eee he Mi
———es oA : Ue — } eS . fosp Nisa 3 Mibiy bon
~ bo) yy (a et . () bf , LW
Y | j REN AG SY
ey | Rs ee ik \ | % , EM NY f
DATORY Vy, 83 / M AK AY A
all Lif oF ay NNN ef aK
ne DE) ij = eA ze } Vif XY iA,
os / See oy) OX \
cei eras 7 (re GCE Aspe = | ; V7 , Dvn yY
—— : y b (et f.% “; Yih, ste ——\— =
scarce Shen Ppl GlRNR ie J Zax =
eee Wy, UE acne L <i _ :
rn ay Yh eZ I
is ag al H Vj; Le; 4p p [Pas HH, ca at 3 Lif ROAD ay ~~
Mi FAL, 5 /¢ Z 5; 7 fi 7 :
iss sre? ace 1S eT i, Zp a aa xX = M7751. ug aa
i a = EE aan a a ah Se 2 2a ne — 49 of 78
S sence eek ” ~ ime ie econ Page
et . a 0 _ ee : se ane espa ete a
SS Sete pee ff i; ae ; = —— secur cnc = se naa
* 6 ay ee —— = . ¥ eee
' —— SCALE: @ Al rene o—_ |e oe]
eee ——— 1:2500 cae —
——— ecoieneaieomctoneuneit:
OnsutSection 50
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
ATTACHMENT 2:
DIVISION 3.1 STATE PLANNING REGULATORY PROVISION
Page 50 of 78
Section 51
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Page 51 of 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
(7) The subdivision is consistent with a
development approval for a material change
of use of premises that has not lapsed,
where—
{a) the application for the development
approval was properly made before
31 October 2006; or
(b) the material change of use was
assessed by a referral agency against
Division 2 of the applicable State
planning regulatory provisions; or
(c) the material change of use is
identified in Division 2, Table 2B,
Column 2.
Page 51 of 78Section 52
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
5 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL D59 OF 2017 REFUSAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE (DETACHED HOUSE X
19) AT 90 BEACH ROAD NOOSA NORTH SHORE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Lisa Pienaar
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU16/0075
Attachments Nil
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Mr CC Strudwick, Mr PSJ Trowbridge
Proposal Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises -
Detached House x 19
Properly Made Date 29 June 2016
Information Request Date 28 July 2016
Information Response Date 29 November 2016
Decision Due Date 20 April 2017
Number of Submissions 14 properly made submissions and 1 not properly made submission
11 submissions objected to the proposal
3 submissions supported the proposal
1 submission was impartial
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Beach Road Holiday Homes – numbers 2-4, 6, 8, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29,
31, 32, 34-36, 38, 42,43 located at 90 Beach Rd Noosa North Shore
RP Description Lots 2-4, 6 & 8, 19-20, 23-24 SP 186174
Lots 27, 29, 31-32, 34-36, 38, 42-43 SP 215779
Land Area Lot sizes range from 254m 2 to 360m2
Existing Use of Land The land currently has 48 eco-cabins utilised for visitor accommodation,
described as Beach Road Holiday Homes. Associated facilities such as
a pool, tennis court, games room, children’s play room and BBQ areas
and visitor car parking are also located on the site.
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area
Locality Noosa North Shore
Zone Visitor Mixed Use
Overlays Biodiversity Overlay – Environmental Protection Area
Natural Hazard – Bushfire (Medium Hazard)
Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay (High Potential 0-5m AHD)
Assessment Type Impact
Page 52 of 78
Section 53
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding Planning and Environment Court Appeal D59
of 22 May 2017 and agree to defend the appeal.
REPORT
A report on this application to seek to convert existing eco-cabins (previously approved for visitor
accommodation) to detached houses (permanent living) was considered by Council at its
Ordinary Meeting on 20 April 2017.
The officer report recommended that Council refuse the application.
Council, at its Ordinary Meeting on 20 April 2017 resolved to refuse the Material Change of Use
of application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed use, defined as a Detached House under The Noosa Plan is inconsistent
with the long term strategic planning and is an inconsistent use in a Visitor Mixed Use zone
and is contrary to the Overall Outcomes of the Noosa North Shore Locality Code and the
strategic intent of The Noosa Plan, which seeks to protect substantial key sites for visitor
accommodation, with the subject site identified as one of the key sites;
2. The non-protection of substantial key sites for visitor accommodation will adversely impact
upon a viable tourism economy for Noosa;
3. The proposal has the potential to increase pressure to provide additional infrastructure and
services on the Noosa North Shore, contrary to The Noosa Plan and Local Government
Infrastructure Plan; and
4. The applicant does not provide sufficient grounds to justify the conflict with the Planning
Scheme and the proposal will not result in any significant benefits to the community.
The applicant has subsequently appealed the decision seeking that the application be approved
subject to reasonable and relevant conditions. Notably, there were 11 submitters who made a
submission against the application who have elected to join the appeal.
It is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded accordingly.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 20 April 2017, Item 3, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 April 2017 and refuse Application No. MCU16/0075
for a Development Permit for 19 Detached houses, situated at 90 Beach Road, Noosa North
Shore for the following reasons:
1. The proposed use, defined as a Detached House under The Noosa Plan is inconsistent
with the long term strategic planning and is an inconsistent use in a Visitor Mixed Use zone
and is contrary to the Overall Outcomes of the Noosa North Shore Locality Code and the
strategic intent of The Noosa Plan, which seeks to protect substantial key sites for visitor
accommodation, with the subject site identified as one of the key sites;
2. The non-protection of substantial key sites for visitor accommodation will adversely impact
upon a viable tourism economy for Noosa;
3. The proposal has the potential to increase pressure to provide additional infrastructure and
services on the Noosa North Shore, contrary to The Noosa Plan and Local Government
Infrastructure Plan; and
4. The applicant does not provide sufficient grounds to justify the conflict with the Planning
Scheme and the proposal will not result in any significant benefits to the community.
Page 53 of 78
Section 54
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Finance & Risk
It is premature at this stage to advise on the likely prospects of the appeal. There will be costs
associated with defending the appeal.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Wakefield Sykes – Solicitor
Internal Consultation
Nil.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office X Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance X Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 54 of 78
Section 55
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (STORMWATER NETWORK PFTI &
SOW)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator, Oddbjorn Ludvigsen
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP)
Attachments 1. Stormwater Network Future Projects for LGIP SOW
2. LGIP Stormwater - PFTI Maps
(Note: Attachments provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the staff review and proposed update of the Stormwater network for the
Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) and Schedule of Works (SOW) for updating the current PIP
to a LGIP. It follows on from the report on the Desired Standards of Service (DSS) for this
network presented to Council at the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting of 11 April 2017
and adopted on 20 April 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding the review of the Stormwater
network required for the new Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) under The Noosa
Plan 2006 and approve:
A. The Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps provided in Attachment 2 to the report
noting the service catchments being limited to the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) area for
preparing the SOW model;
B. The Stormwater Network Future Projects for including in the LGIP Schedule of Works
(SOW) provided in Attachment 1 noting that the base costs estimates will be refined
following completion of the excel SOW Model; and
C. Note that further amendments will be made to the SOW and incorporated in a subsequent
LGIP to be prepared for the new Planning Scheme that reflects Council’s further network
planning.
REPORT
This report presents the staff review and proposal for the Stormwater network for the new LGIP
for Council’s review and endorsement relating to:
A. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps; and
B. Stomwater Network Future Projects for LGIP Schedule of Works (SOW).
1. Primary Considerations of Review
The review of the Desired Standards of Service (DSS) for the Stormwater network was reported
to Council on 11 April 2017 and adopted on 20 April 2017 making minor updates to reference
current controlled document versions.
Page 55 of 78
Section 56
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Primary considerations for undertaking the review of the Stormwater network for the LGIP were
briefly discussed at the LGIP workshop held on 19 January 2017 which proposed:
discontinuation of the current PIP’s Riparian Works category in order to align with “trunk”
infrastructure items within the “Statutory Guideline 03/14 Appendix B – Indicative trunk
infrastructure land or works” ; and
the PFTI future works be limited to specific projects.
Notably, the riparian works of the current PIP was primarily based on a weeding program budget
by the Environmental branch at that time. This type of work no longer constitutes “trunk”
infrastructure that is supported by detailed planning under current LGIP requirements.
The following sections provide information on the statutory guideline requirements and the
proposed Plans for Trunk Infrastructure for the existing network and the future trunk infrastructure
land and works in relation to Stormwater.
2. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI)
The Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) must identify the trunk infrastructure that the local
government considers necessary to service at least the projected urban development inside the
Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) at the DSS. This does not prevent planning beyond the time
horizon of the PIA and identifying trunk infrastructure outside the PIA.
The PFTI section of the LGIP comprises PFTI maps and Schedules of Works (SOW) table for
each trunk infrastructure network. It also consists of a SOW model being an excel based
spreadsheet prepared in accordance with SOW User Manual included in Appendix C of the
Statutory Guideline.
i. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps
Guideline requirements
These maps must separately identify the:
existing and future trunk infrastructure network;
future trunk infrastructure labelled with a unique map reference to cross reference to the
schedule of works (SOW) table; and
service catchments being the areas for which the network demand projections are stated in
the planning assumptions reflecting the unique servicing patterns for the network.
Draft PFTI Maps provided for Council’s review
The new LGIP PFTI maps proposed for the Stormwater network are provided in Attachment 2.
These are provided in the same format as the PIA maps according to the planning scheme
localities. However, the intended network service catchments have been limited to the Priority
Infrastructure Area (PIA) area for this network since the SOW model’s demands are to be based
on impervious areas primarily relating to urban development. These PFTI maps show the:
existing “trunk” infrastructure items updated in accordance with the primary considerations
of review described in section 1 of this report; and
proposed future “trunk” infrastructure land and works identified for the Schedule of Works
(SOW) provided in Attachment 1 and detailed further in sub-section ii below.
ii. Schedule of Works (SOW) Table (for future works only)
Guideline requirements
The SOW table includes information derived from the “excel based” Schedule of Works Model
(refer following sub-section iii) and must state the following for each item of future trunk
infrastructure identified on the PFTI maps:
unique map reference to cross reference the item shown on the PFTI maps;
brief description of the item;
Page 56 of 78
Section 57
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
estimated timing expressed in terms of specific years or time periods (e.g. 2016–2021);
and
establishment cost for land or works stated in current cost terms and be consistent with the
SPA definition of ‘establishment cost’.
Draft future trunk projects provided for Council’s review
At the current time, the future network stormwater master planning has not commenced,
however, in order to enable the updating of the current PIP to a LGIP within the timeframe
required, the methodology for determining the future trunk infrastructure items for the Stormwater
network has been undertaken by Council’s Infrastructure Planning and Design and Asset
Planning teams in accordance with the primary considerations of review described in above
section 1 of this report and as follows:
existing stormwater network items have been reviewed to align with Statutory Guideline
03/04 Appendix B – Indicative trunk and non-trunk infrastructure;
based on stormwater service catchments limited to the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA)
relating to urban development;
future trunk stormwater projects;
o to rectify current staff known deficiencies of a priority nature and contained in Council’s
5 year Capital Works Program to 2021; and
o proposals under currently available Stormwater/Flood management and/or mitigation
plans or reports.
The future “trunk” projects is provided in Attachment 1 for Council’s review and endorsement
and details the:
project ID that is linked to and shown on the PFTI maps;
location and project description of the future works;
planning basis for the future works;
estimated timing for provision of the proposed future works based on:
o projects already completed as listed in the 2014-2016 time cohort;
o projects allocated to the 2016-2021 time period aligned with Council’s 5 year Cap X
program; and
o the remaining future projects allocated to the later time cohorts 2021-2026 and 2026-
2031 as considered appropriate for when the works may be required and on an
acceptable budget cost allocation per year. Council does not currently have a 10 year
or longer term Cap X program available as this is also currently being developed.
base cost estimate with the basis/supporting information on which the estimate has been
derived.
This will provide the basis for formalising the SOW Table required for the LGIP however the costs
will be further refined following completion of the excel SOW model as briefly explained in section
iii below.
The final draft LGIP will be provided for Council’s review and approval prior to proceeding to the
State review.
iii. Schedule of Works (SOW) Model
The SOW model is an excel based spreadsheet model that must be prepared in accordance with
the SOW User Manual included in Appendix C of the Statutory Guideline. The State Department
of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning has provided the model for local government
use in the preparation of the LGIP.
Page 57 of 78
Section 58
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
In relation to the SOW table, the model requires general financial information and generic inputs
(such as discount, escalation, site condition multiplier, contingency etc) along with the base
costing of the infrastructure for each service catchment. The model then calculates the
infrastructure items as a Refined Asset Value at the Present Day Value which is then placed into
the PFTI-SOW table of the LGIP.
The excel SOW model can only be finalised following Council’s preliminary endorsement of the
PFTI maps and future “trunk” projects for the SOW proposed in Attachments 1 and 2.
Full details and requirements of the model was previously detailed to Council in the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting Report of 12 July 2016.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 28 August 2014, Item 5, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Officer to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 19 August 2014 and:
A. Resolve to undertake an amendment to the Priority Infrastructure Plan in accordance with
the recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and corresponding new
Statutory Guideline 03/14;
Ordinary Meeting, 11 February 2016, Item 4, Page 5
That Council note the report by the Manager Infrastructure Planning and Design to the
Infrastructure & Services Committee Meeting dated 2 February 2016 and adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Noosa Traffic Study as prepared by Holland Traffic Consulting Pty Ltd.
Ordinary Meeting, 21 July 2016, Item 9, Page 8
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 July 2016 and approve the Priority Infrastructure Area
(PIA) Maps provided at Attachment 1 for the proposed Local Government Infrastructure Plan
(LGIP) to replace the current Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) of the current Noosa Plan planning
scheme.
Ordinary Meeting, 15 December 2016, Item 5, Page 4
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 December 2016 and;
A. Approve the Planning Assumptions contained in the report and provided in Attachments 1,
2 and 3 for proceeding with the new Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) of the
current Noosa Plan planning scheme;
B. Note a future report to Council may be presented to adjust population and development
projections in Attachment 3 if any major discrepancies are discovered following
completion of the staff final review of the supporting DMaTT GIS output data; and
C. Request the CEO to write to Unitywater thanking their staff in providing the DMaTT
population and development data for use in Council’s LGIP and to commit Council’s
ongoing support and assistance in future DMaTT updates.
LGIP Workshop held on 19 January 2017
Page 58 of 78
Section 59
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Ordinary Meeting, 20 April 2017, Item 3, Page 3
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 April 2017 and approve the Desired Standards of
Service (DSS) for the stormwater network provided in Attachment 1 for proceeding with the new
Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) under The Noosa Plan 2006.
Finance & Risk
Council needs to have amended its current Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) to a Local
Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) by 30 June 2018 in order to continue issuing
infrastructure charges and impose conditions about trunk infrastructure on development.
Since January 2014 to May 2017, $8,140,336 has been collected in infrastructure charges
equating to a current average of $198,545 per month or $2,382,537 per annum. The 2016/2017
budget has conservatively estimated the infrastructure charges revenue at $1,687,329 and at the
time of writing this report, $2,861,837 had been receipted by Council for this financial year.
A long term risk of LGIPs is the commitment ultimately made to provide future infrastructure at
the desired standards of service to meet development growth.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Director, Corporate Services
Acting Director, Planning & Infrastructure
Manager, Planning & Environment
Coordinator, Asset Planning
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities x Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Disaster Management
Governance x Infrastructure Planning & Design
Human Resources x Planning & Environment
Sustainability Strategic Land Use Planning
Page 59 of 78
Section 60
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN (TRANSPORT NETWORK PFTI &
SOW)
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator, Oddbjorn Ludvigsen
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP)
Attachments 1. Transport Network Future Projects for LGIP SOW
2. LGIP Transport - PFTI Maps
(Note: Attachments provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the staff review and proposed update of the Transport network for the Plans
for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) and Schedule of Works (SOW) for updating the current PIP to a
LGIP. It follows on from the report on the Desired Standards of Service (DSS) for this network
presented to Council at the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting of 7 February 2017 and
adopted on 16 February 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding the review of the Transport
network required for the new Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) under The Noosa
Plan 2006 and approve:
A. The Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps provided in Attachment 2 to the report
noting that the locality sub-catchments will be combined into two larger transport
catchments for the Noosa Coastal Area and the Noosa Hinterland Area when preparing the
SOW model;
B. The Transport Network Future Projects for including in the LGIP Schedule of Works (SOW)
provided in Attachment 1 noting that the base costs estimates will be refined following
completion of the excel SOW Model; and
C. Note that further amendments will be made to the SOW and incorporated in a subsequent
LGIP to be prepared for the new Planning Scheme that reflects Council’s further network
planning.
REPORT
This report presents the staff review and proposal for the Transport network for the new LGIP for
Council’s review and endorsement relating to:
A. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps; and
B. Transport Network Future Projects for LGIP Schedule of Works (SOW).
Page 60 of 78
Section 61
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
1. Primary Considerations of Review
The primary considerations made in undertaking the review of the Transport network for the LGIP
were discussed at the LGIP workshop held on 19 January 2017 and detailed in the report to
Council on 7 February 2017 and adopted on 16 February 2017 on the Desired Standards of
Service (DSS). This provided information, details and outcomes for progressing the Transport
network component of the LGIP as follows:
i. The current Statutory Guideline 03/04 advocates:
a single “transport” network containing road, pathway & public transport infrastructure
components rather than 3 individual networks; and
“trunk” infrastructure is now generally contained in the “trunk” road corridors (or to a
specific destination/facility) as contained in Appendix B of the Guideline detailing
indicative trunk infrastructure.
ii. The resulting DSS amendments adopted by Council for the Transport network:
updated references to current design and construction standards & specifications;
clarified that “trunk” infrastructure for the Transport network is generally considered:
o to align within (or adjacent to) “trunk” road corridors;
o provides main through linkage connections; and
o to specific high use destinations and facilities.
iii. The PFTI future works to be primarily based on:
any 2014-2016 trunk type projects completed;
Road “trunk” future works based on:
o Noosa Traffic Study to 2036 recommendations;
o major proposed upgrades in capital works program; and
o to identify Main Roads controlled roads issues.
Pathway “trunk” future works based on:
o identified missing links; and
o major “trunk” path upgrades in capital works program.
Bus stop “trunk” future works based on:
o Council’s Passenger Transport Accessible Infrastructure Program (PTAIP).
The following sections provide information on the statutory guideline requirements and the
proposed Plans for Trunk Infrastructure for the existing network and the future trunk infrastructure
land and works in relation to Transport.
2. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI)
The Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) must identify the trunk infrastructure that the local
government considers necessary to service at least the projected urban development inside the
Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) at the DSS. This does not prevent planning beyond the time
horizon of the PIA and identifying trunk infrastructure outside the PIA.
The PFTI section of the LGIP comprises PFTI maps and Schedules of Works (SOW) table for
each trunk infrastructure network. It also consists of a SOW model being an excel based
spreadsheet prepared in accordance with SOW User Manual included in Appendix C of the
Statutory Guideline.
Page 61 of 78
Section 62
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
i. Plans for Trunk Infrastructure (PFTI) Maps
Guideline requirements
These maps must separately identify the:
existing and future trunk infrastructure network;
future trunk infrastructure labelled with a unique map reference to cross reference to the
schedule of works (SOW) table; and
service catchments being the areas for which the network demand projections are stated in
the planning assumptions reflecting the unique servicing patterns for the network.
Draft PFTI Maps provided for Council’s review
The new LGIP PFTI maps proposed for the Transport network are provided in Attachment 2.
These are provided in the same format as the PIA maps according to the planning scheme
localities as the intended network service “sub” catchments. However, to correctly reflect the
transport/traffic planning undertaken, these sub-catchments will be combined into two larger
transport catchments for the Noosa Coastal Area and the Noosa Hinterland Area when preparing
the SOW model. These PFTI maps show the:
existing “trunk” roads, bridges, pathways and bus stops infrastructure items updated in
accordance with the primary considerations of review described in section 1 item ii of this
report; and
proposed future “trunk” infrastructure land and works identified for the Schedule of Works
(SOW) provided in Attachment 1 and detailed further in sub-section ii below.
ii. Schedule of Works (SOW) Table (for future works only)
Guideline requirements
The SOW table includes information derived from the “excel based” Schedule of Works Model
(refer following sub-section iii) and must state the following for each item of future trunk
infrastructure identified on the PFTI maps:
unique map reference to cross reference the item shown on the PFTI maps;
brief description of the item;
estimated timing expressed in terms of specific years or time periods (e.g. 2016–2021);
and
establishment cost for land or works stated in current cost terms and be consistent with the
SPA definition of ‘establishment cost’.
Draft future trunk projects provided for Council’s review
The methodology for determining the future trunk infrastructure items for the Transport network
has been undertaken by Council’s Infrastructure Planning and Design and Asset Planning teams
in accordance with the primary considerations of review described in above section 1 item iii of
this report.
The future “trunk” projects have been grouped into road, pathway and bus-stop categories and is
provided in Attachment 1 for Council’s review and endorsement and details the:
project ID that is linked to and shown on the PFTI maps;
location and project description of the future works;
planning basis for the future works;
estimated timing for provision of the proposed future works based on:
o projects already completed as listed in the 2014-2016 time cohort;
o projects allocated to the 2016-2021 time period aligned with Council’s 5 year Cap X
program; and
Page 62 of 78
Section 63
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
o the remaining future projects allocated to the later time cohorts 2021-2026 and 2026-
2031 as considered appropriate for when the works may be required and on an
acceptable budget cost allocation per year. Council does not currently have a 10 year
or longer term Cap X program available as this is also currently being developed.
base cost estimate with the basis/supporting information on which the estimate has been
derived.
This will provide the basis for formalising the SOW Table required for the LGIP however the costs
will be further refined following completion of the excel SOW model as briefly explained in section
iii below.
The final draft LGIP will be provided for Council’s review and approval prior to proceeding to the
State review.
iii. Schedule of Works (SOW) Model
The SOW model is an excel based spreadsheet model that must be prepared in accordance with
the SOW User Manual included in Appendix C of the Statutory Guideline. The State Department
of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning has provided the model for local government
use in the preparation of the LGIP.
In relation to the SOW table, the model requires general financial information and generic inputs
(such as discount, escalation, site condition multiplier, contingency etc) along with the base
costing of the infrastructure for each service catchment. The model then calculates the
infrastructure items as a Refined Asset Value at the Present Day Value which is then placed into
the PFTI-SOW table of the LGIP.
The excel SOW model can only be finalised following Council’s preliminary endorsement of the
PFTI maps and future “trunk” projects for the SOW proposed in Attachments 1 and 2.
Full details and requirements of the model was previously detailed to Council in the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting Report of 12 July 2016.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 28 August 2014, Item 5, Page 9
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Officer to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 19 August 2014 and:
A. Resolve to undertake an amendment to the Priority Infrastructure Plan in accordance with
the recent amendments to the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and corresponding new
Statutory Guideline 03/14;
Ordinary Meeting, 11 February 2016, Item 4, Page 5
That Council note the report by the Manager Infrastructure Planning and Design to the
Infrastructure & Services Committee Meeting dated 2 February 2016 and adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Noosa Traffic Study as prepared by Holland Traffic Consulting Pty Ltd.
Ordinary Meeting, 21 July 2016, Item 9, Page 8
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 July 2016 and approve the Priority Infrastructure Area
(PIA) Maps provided at Attachment 1 for the proposed Local Government Infrastructure Plan
(LGIP) to replace the current Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) of the current Noosa Plan planning
scheme.
Page 63 of 78
Section 64
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Ordinary Meeting, 15 December 2016, Item 5, Page 4
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 December 2016 and;
A. Approve the Planning Assumptions contained in the report and provided in Attachments 1,
2 and 3 for proceeding with the new Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) of the
current Noosa Plan planning scheme;
B. Note a future report to Council may be presented to adjust population and development
projections in Attachment 3 if any major discrepancies are discovered following
completion of the staff final review of the supporting DMaTT GIS output data; and
C. Request the CEO to write to Unitywater thanking their staff in providing the DMaTT
population and development data for use in Council’s LGIP and to commit Council’s
ongoing support and assistance in future DMaTT updates.
LGIP Workshop held on 19 January 2017
Ordinary Meeting, 16 February 2017, Item 6, Page 4
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 7 February 2017 and approve the Desired Standards of
Service (DSS) for the Transport network provided in Attachment 1 for proceeding with the new
Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) under The Noosa Plan 2006.
Finance & Risk
Council needs to have amended its current Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) to a Local
Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) by 30 June 2018 in order to continue issuing
infrastructure charges and impose conditions about trunk infrastructure on development.
Since January 2014 to May 2017, $8,140,336 has been collected in infrastructure charges
equating to a current average of $198,545 per month or $2,382,537 per annum. The 2016/2017
budget has conservatively estimated the infrastructure charges revenue at $1,687,329 and at the
time of writing this report, $2,861,837 had been receipted by Council for this financial year.
A long term risk of LGIPs is the commitment ultimately made to provide future infrastructure at
the desired standards of service to meet development growth.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Director, Corporate Services
Acting Director, Planning & Infrastructure
Manager, Planning & Environment
Manager, Infrastructure Planning & Design
Coordinator Design
Coordinator, Asset Planning
Page 64 of 78
Section 65
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities x Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Disaster Management
Governance x Infrastructure Planning & Design
Human Resources x Planning & Environment
Sustainability Strategic Land Use Planning
Page 65 of 78
Section 66
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
8 INVESTIGATION OF STORMWATER POLLUTION IN NOOSAVILLE INDUSTRIAL
AREA
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Environmental Health, Geoff Atherfold
Community Services Department
Index ECM / Subject / 62.1 Waterways
Attachments 1. Investigation into Stormwater Pollution from Noosa’s Industrial
Activities (33 page attachment provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Environmental Health to the Services and
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 providing an update on the investigation of
stormwater pollution in the Noosaville Industrial Area and:
A. Continue to work in partnership with relevant industries to facilitate dissemination of
information on environmental compliance and sharing of knowledge within various industry
groups; and
B. Request staff to prepare amendments to the Noosa Shire Council Local Law No 1
(Administration) 2015 to be considered by Council at a future date, that:
1. Make the operation of industrial premises a ‘prescribed activity’ which requires
approval and sets out relevant environmental conditions;
2. Introduce a risk based annual inspection program of industrial premises to monitor
compliance with the environmental conditions of the approval; and
3. Provide for the recovery of fees for undertaking the risk based annual inspection
program and approval process.
REPORT
1. Purpose
This report is to inform Councillors of the results of investigations implemented under a new
initiative in the 2016/17 budget where Council approved funding for the engagement of additional
resources in Environmental Health Section to undertake a review of the industrial premises in
Noosaville in the vicinity of Rene Street to ascertain potential pollution sources impacting on
Eenie Creek.
2. Background
Noosa has a large number of waterways with significant ecological and recreational value, that
could potentially be impacted by poor industry waste management practices and/or ageing
infrastructure. An initial project was undertaken by an environmental health student working with
the environmental health team as part of her studies, which involved an investigation into the
quality of stormwater exiting from drainage points into Eenie Creek. The stormwater drainage
area captures stormwater from the Noosaville Industrial Estate in the Rene Street precinct.
Page 66 of 78
Section 67
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
As result of this preliminary investigation and identification of pollution in Eenie Creek, Council
agreed to fund a dedicated inspection program in 2016/17 to determine if the pollution resulted
from Industrial premises in the area.
The subsequent Inspection Program approved by Council, examined the industrial activities in
this industrial estate, that had previously been licensed and inspected by Council under the
Environmental Protection Act as an Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) under an annual
Licensing Program.
3. Environmental Protection Act and Licensed Environmental Relevant Activities
(ERA’S)
Up until 2013, local authorities were charged with a legislative responsibility to license and
inspect industrial activities that had the potential to release a contaminant into the environment
during the conduct of that industrial activity. These activities were described as Environmentally
Relevant Activities ERA’S). Some examples of these activities are industries involved in concrete
batching, boat building/maintenance, spray painting, mechanical workshops, asphalt
manufacture and metal work etc.
In 2013 as part of the Queensland Government’s green tape reduction exercise, the Government
removed the requirement for most of these industrial activities to be licensed. Council previously
licensed 120 ERA’s, but is now only licensing 19 premises including boat building, metal
recovery, and asphalt industries.
Previously licensed activities had license conditions covering all aspects of site management in
terms of waste, water or air discharges. These conditions transferred across to become planning
approval conditions under the Sustainable Planning Act. This enables enforcement options under
either the Sustainable Planning Act, or the environmental nuisance or harm provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act, if a complaint is made to Council. This process is not proactive and
has resulted in a significant impact on the environment.
The major concern for local authorities when this amendment was proposed, was the loss of
revenue to enable local authorities to inspect and monitor these activities and manage any
enforcement matters.
Since 2013 Council’s involvement with these activities has been solely complaint driven, i.e.
responding to complaints concerning nuisances from noise, odour and dust. Unless there is
some visually obvious waterway discolouration from oil or paint etc., any waste management
problems causing contamination of stormwater are not identified. Previously the regular
inspection of ERA’s proactively identified defects and enabled staff to rectify potential sources of
pollution.
4. Initial project - Noosa industrial estate stormwater pollution investigation
This project was undertaken by an environmental health student Helen Eyre working with Council
in 2016 as part her work experience requirements. The investigation and subsequent report
formed part of her university qualification requirements. Helen went on to complete her studies
and graduated at the end of 2016 with a Bachelor of Natural Science, Environment & Health.
The investigation undertaken over several months, involved water sampling from 2 stormwater
outlets collecting stormwater from the Noosaville industrial area and discharging into Eenie
Creek.
Page 67 of 78
Section 68
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
In summary, the results of the initial project indicated impacts on the adjacent waterways from
raised hydrocarbon levels, high pH levels, electrical conductivity (salts), total nitrogen and
turbidity. The hydrocarbons were identified to be in the higher carbon fractions, indicating likely
contaminants were diesel, lubrication oils, heavy duty engine oil, and components of grease;
indicative of the types of industry within the stormwater catchment under investigation.
5. Second Project – Inspection of former licensed ERA’s
This project commenced in early 2017. The project had been identified early in 2016 and
additional funding for the inspections was part of the 2016/17 budget process. This enabled the
employment of an experienced Environmental Health Officer on a casual basis to focus solely on
the project, without any impact on the day to day environmental work.
Inspections focused on industries that had been previously licensed as an ERA, and any new
industry of the same category. The industry types were mechanical workshops, car repairs, metal
yards, concrete batching, plastics/fibreglass manufacture, wood production, aquaculture and
service stations.
Given the preliminary findings from the initial inspections the program was extended to a small
number of premises outside the Noosaville area. A total of 132 businesses were inspected
throughout the entire Noosa Council area. The main areas of noncompliance were vehicle
repairers.
Mechanical workshops made up 47% of the total industry noncompliance. (Service stations
within this group made up 17% of the total industry noncompliance).
Marine repair businesses 7% noncompliance.
Wood industry 5% noncompliance.
Concrete batching industry 4%.
Although concrete batching plant noncompliance was low as a percentage of the total, the
noncompliance involved all 3 plants operating in our area. Water sampling results also indicated
cement was the likely cause of some of the stormwater pollution (high pH readings indicated the
likely source to be concrete waste).
Summary data of industry compliance vs non compliance
Page 68 of 78
Section 69
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
6. Attachment - Report on the Inspection of Premises
The attachment to this report gives a comprehensive overview of the findings during the
inspection of the industrial premises. Of relevance is the photographs that depict some of the
concerning practices discovered during the inspection program. The report is attached highlights
what happens behind the scenes at industrial premises.
7. Summary and Recommendation
The initial stormwater quality investigation found water quality impacts in Eenie Creek with
elevated levels in water temperature, pH, turbidity and hydrocarbons. The subsequent
investigation of industries within the stormwater catchment, supported concerns that industry site
management practices are likely to be a major contributor to poor water quality in Eenie Creek.
Industry was provided with advice in advance that Council was undertaking the inspection
program, so staff were for the most part, well received. Feedback to staff was that industry
welcomed an external overview of their operations, as it helped provide a level playing field, and
the external oversight achieved this outcome between competing industries.
Given the impacts on Eenie Creek and associated waterways, which include a fish habitat
reserve (Lake Weyba), and the level of noncompliant site management practices of industries
inspected, it is recommended that:
a) An annual inspection program be implemented for certain types of industry, i.e. industries
involved in activities that have the potential to release environmentally harmful
contaminants.
b) A risk based approach should be used to allow for low risk industries to be inspected every
2 years rather than annually.
c) The authority to implement such a program would require a local law amendment under the
Administrative Local Law 1.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risk
The recommendation for an annual inspection program will require a local law amendment. The
local law process may have some additional financial expense if external legal review is required.
An annual inspection program will have a fee attached to cover administration, field inspection
work and follow up environmental monitoring to confirm improvements in the stormwater
catchment entering Eenie Creek.
The inspection program will have a workload impact but will aim to be cost neutral.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The industries likely to be involved in the ERA inspection program, received written advice prior
to the inspection commencement regarding intended inspections and reasoning.
Page 69 of 78
Section 70
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Internal Consultation
Governance Advisor
Environmental Officer
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer x Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
X Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
x Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Disaster Management
X Governance Infrastructure Planning & Design
Human Resources X Planning & Environment
Sustainability Strategic Land Use Planning
Page 70 of 78
Section 71
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE
9 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - FEES & CHARGES VARIATIONS FOR 1 OCTOBER
2016 TO 31 MARCH 2017
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager, Planning & Environment, Kerri Coyle
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM / Subject / Branch Management / Planning & Infrastructure
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nil
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager, Planning & Environment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 regarding the waiver or partial waiver of
development application charges for 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 as detailed in the report.
REPORT
As part of Council’s budget each year, Council adopts its Fees and Charges for the financial
year, including its regulatory and commercial charges for lodgement of development applications.
The fees and charges policy for development applications cover a number of policy provisions
including delegation to the Director, Planning and Infrastructure to “.partially or wholly waive a
development fee where strict application of the scheduled fee is obviously unreasonable for the
type of application being received.”
This report identifies proposed applications where a fee variation has been granted for the last 6
months. Between 1 October 2016 and 31 March 2017 there were 9 proposed applications where
a partial waiver or full waiver of the development application fees was granted. The tables below
set out a summary of each application and the reason for the fee waiver.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
OPW16/0239 Adam McGuire 3 Luttons Crt Cooroy $1,645 $871
The applicant has requested consideration of a fee waiver due to the small scale of the earthworks on a
residential block. The assessment of the application is limited and a request for certification by RPEQ for
the works will be made.
Under the circumstances it is recommended that the minimum assessment fee of $871 be applied in this
instance.
Page 71 of 78
Section 72
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
OPW16/0235 Adams & 8 Eenie Creek Rd $4,473 $2,530
Sparkes Noosaville
The applicant has requested consideration of a fee waiver as the fee calculated on the size of the site
seems unreasonable. The site is already developed and the proposed operational works are for only part
of the site. The proposed works area is less than 600m2 (and not the total site area of 1410m2).
Under the circumstances it is recommended that the base fee for an area of up to 1000m2 be applied as it
covers the area of the works.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
OPW17/0016 Noosa Council Prescribed Tidal Works $1,739 Nil
for Oyster Reef
Restoration
The Oyster Reef Restoration Project is for the benefit of the Noosa community and is subject to a 50%
reduction of the application fee as defined in Council’s Schedule of Fees & Charges.
Due to the nature of the project and the potential environmental benefits to the river it is recommended the
50% balance of the application fee also be waived.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
MCU17/0005 Hope Central 113 Marara Street $59,523 $5,421
Church Limited Cooroy
The application is for the establishment of 3 Paintball fields on the Church site at Cooroy. The application
is defined as Entertainment and Dining business under The Noosa Plan and is an inconsistent use. Under
the fees and charges policy this use attracts a fee based on floor area being typically for gyms, dance
studio etc. Given the proposed use is outdoor based using approximately hectare of land, the more
appropriate fee to apply is the Open Space type 1 use being based on site area. Further, while the use is
identified is inconsistent for the site, the site is located well away from residential uses, adjacent the
railway line, is proposed to operate on a part time basis and is likely to require minimal assessment.
Therefore the multiplier fee is not appropriate.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
REC17/0004 D & F Millington Lot reconfiguration – $3,718 $2,764
Access easement
The proposal involves the creation of access easements through two properties to create an all-weather
access for the property owner without impact on adjacent properties. The scheduled fee for an Easement
Application is $3,718 and is more than the fee for a 2 lot subdivision which equates to $1,382 x 2. It is
agreed that based on the extent of likely work required to be undertaken in assessing the application a fee
of $2,764 is appropriate.
Page 72 of 78
Section 73
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
MCU17/0020 Martoo Animal Husbandry Type $62,535 $15,634
Consulting on 2 (Aquaculture)
behalf of client
The proposal is to expand an existing aquaculture business by including an additional tenancy at another
location. The use is impact assessable and subject to a fee multiplier of x3 being an inconsistent use in
the industrial area. The request for the reduction of the fee by removing the multiplier and allowing a 25%
discount for the use in an existing building is supported. This approach is consistent with the existing
aquaculture business previously approved in the industrial area.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
Not yet lodged RG Strategic 11/1 Tingirana Cres $12,408 $4,136
Sunrise Beach (Beach
Chalet)
Entertainment & Dining
Business Type 1 -
Restaurant
The applicant is proposing to intensify the use of the tenancy which has operated as a general store/café
for many years. This will include indoor and outdoor dining but still small scale in the nature of the
operation and will not trade after 6pm.
Under the circumstances it is recommended to reduce the fee to the basic impact assessable fee and
include a discount of 25% for the proposed use being in an existing building. The x 3 multiplier for an
inconsistent use has also been waived as the proposed fee of $4,136 is considered to be in accordance
with the amount of assessment required.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
MCU17/0035 Noosa Council Noosa North Shore $38,952 $9,738
Campground
Council has engaged Martoo Consulting to prepare a MCU application for the campground refurbishment
project and Council’s Property Advisor has requested a reduction in the fee.
The application is triggered by the inclusion of an additional lot which encroaches across the property
boundary to encompass the campground and to ratify a historic camping area with existing use rights for
200 campsites, stemming from a 1996 State lease.
The additional lot is proposed to contain 12 campsites and a fee for 12 sites, being $2,292, is suggested
as the appropriate fee by the officer.
The assessment of the application covers the repurposing of the whole campground not specifically the
12 sites; therefore a more appropriate fee of $9,738 is applicable in this instance. This is calculated by
the total number of campsites including a 25% discount in recognition of the existing use and waiving the
x 3 multiplier for an inconsistent use.
Page 73 of 78
Section 74
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
OPW16/0069 TOD Noosa on 3 Emerald St Cooroy $871 Nil
behalf of IGA (IGA) – Roadworks
The proposal is to remove some overpour from the building foundations and to relay the paving in the
footpath area in front of the building at a more suitable crossfall grade. The works have been instigated by
the owner of the IGA and will be undertaken and paid for by the owner. Under the circumstances it is
recommended to waive the application fee, given the benefits to the community.
Application No Applicant Application Details Fees & Charges Fee proposed
Policy
Not yet lodged Martoo Visitor Accommodation $11,974 Base $27,921
Consulting on Type 4 Conventional
+ $435 +3 beds
behalf of client (extension to existing
visitor hostel) $12,409
106 Pacific Avenue, -$3,102
Sunshine Beach
- 25% existing
building
$9,307 x3
$27,921
The proposal is to apply to extend an existing visitor accommodation (Flashpackers) over an adjoining
site. The adjoining site is zoned Detached Housing and visitor accommodation is not identified as a
consistent use for the site under The Noosa Plan.
The proposal will require significant assessment, and is likely to result in submissions being made against
the proposal. The applicant will also need to demonstrate the need for more visitor accommodation and
that noise will be appropriately mitigated.
The fees for Visitor Accommodation Type 4 Conventional will be as per the Schedule of Fees & Charges
including a 25% reduction for the application in existing buildings with a multiplier of 3 imposed for an
inconsistent use.
It is recommended therefore that a fee waiver cannot be considered.
Previous Council Consideration
The fees and charges for development applications for the 2016/17 year were adopted by
Council at a Special Meeting on 29 June 2016.
Finance & Risk
The agreed variations to the development applications while reasonably significant (amounting to
$144,770) are considered appropriate and relative to the extent of work anticipated in the
assessment and had no significant impact on the budget for 2016-17.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Nil
Page 74 of 78
Section 75
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office x Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Disaster Management
Governance Infrastructure Planning & Design
Human Resources x Planning & Environment
Sustainability Strategic Land Use Planning
Page 75 of 78
Section 76
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
10 BUILDING STATISTICS - 2016/17 YEAR
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
ment infor mation
Author Building and Plumbing Officer, Ian Wayth
Planning & Infrastructure Department
Index ECM /Subject /Planning and Development/ Plumbing Management /
Legislation
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Building and Plumbing Officer to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 July 2017 providing the annual statistics on building applications for
the 2016/17 year.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with annual statistics on building applications.
The statistics provided within this report cover the period from 1 July 2016 to 27 June 2017.
Background
Council’s Building and Plumbing Services Branch has the responsibility for the management and
assessment of building applications as the referral agency assessor. The decision process for
these applications is undertaken with the intent to meet the requirements within the Noosa
Planning Scheme including recent amendments, and includes assessment against the Detached
House Code and Building Works Code and in some circumstances Queensland Development
Code - MP1.2.
Referral Agency Building Activities (RAB)
Council’s Building and Plumbing Branch review RAB applications on behalf of Council. These
activities include the assessment requirements for design and siting which covers boundary
encroachments for single dwellings and associated buildings on all residential land.
Process Review
The Building and Plumbing Branch has implemented a more consistent approach across all
activities and functions regarding siting variations.
Our consistent approach has resulted in a greater number of applications being issued with
conditions, as shown in the table below. Conditions are placed on applications to ensure any
development design reflects all the applicable performance provisions of the relevant Code for
the life of the development.
The table below provides details on the applications received and reviewed since July 2015 for
comparison over the last two years.
Page 76 of 78
Section 77
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Yearly Referral Agency (RAB) Statistics 1 July 2015 – 1 July 2016 –
30 June 2016 27 June 2017
Total applications received
220 195
Application Stage
Applications received waiting assessment. 0 7
Undecided applications
Applications which are still at information request stage:
Application lodged and information request sent by Council to 0 5
applicant and waiting reply.
Cancelled Applications
Applications cancelled at the request of the Applicant. 17 10
Approved without conditions:
Properly made applications with only minor issues (e.g.;
landscaping, balustrading, dual road frontage), all of which are in 0 2
line with the performance outcomes of Planning Scheme.
Approved with conditions
Applications approved which require advice and monitoring to
200 169
ensure particular outcomes of the Planning Scheme are met.
Refused applications
Application refused: Application does not meet the requirements
of the Planning Scheme, e.g. detached house code, Queensland 3 2
development code and building works code.
Appealed applications
Council’s decision process called up at the State Government
0 0
Building Development Dispute Resolution Tribunal.
Finance & Risk
Nil.
Consultation
Internal Consultation
Nil.
External Consultation
Nil.
Page 77 of 78
Section 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 JULY 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO Community Facilities Financial Services
Executive Support Community Development ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property & Facilities
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Office X Planning & Infrastructure
Community Engagement x Building & Plumbing Services
Customer Service Civil Operations
Economic Development Infrastructure Planning & Design
Governance Planning & Environment
Human Resources Strategic Land Use Planning
Sustainability
Page 78 of 78