2017-07-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

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