2017-07-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

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