Council Report and conditions 152006.1999.2

152006.1999.2 - extension to currency period for development permit to reconfigure a lot (52 lots & park) at 191 hollett road, noosaville

Document information

Author	Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment & Sustainable Development Department

Index	ECM/Application/152006.1999.2

Attachments	1. 	Approved Pan
2. 	Planning Regulation 2017 Part 16 Division 1

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	JS Hoffman
Proposal	Extension to Currency Period
Properly Made Date	7 July 2017
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	191 Hollett Road, Noosaville
RP Description	Lot 53 SP 165371
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
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 August 2017 and refuse Application No. 152006.1991.02 for an Extension to the Currency Period for Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (52 lots and park), situated at 191 Hollett Road Noosaville for the following reasons:
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 and the development would be prohibited under the Planning Regulations 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 extension will align with sunset clause within condition 5, which specifies 6 years for the completion of the development.
The report submitted with the application considers that the request for the extension to the currency period can be supported having regard to the following matters:
The age of the approval which is relatively new (4 years old);
The request for extension under the Planning Act 2016 for the 2 years is the first extension for the currency period to be extended;
The applicant incurred considerable expense to obtain the development approval, with that process taking about 7 years. The approval went through a rigorous assessment process.
Condition 16 of the approval required the execution of an infrastructure agreement (IA) to set out the obligations to obtain approval for road opening/closure of Old Hollett Road. Under the terms of the IA, Council are required to complete particular actions to allow the opening/closing of road. In this regard Council have advised that the road opening/closure application was lodged with the DNRM in early 2014 and that “this is being progressed by Council’s property section but is still with the State for a decision”.
In the circumstances, we consider it would be unreasonable for Council to refuse the 2 year extension, given that the approval is reliant on completion of a road opening / closure process that is being undertaken by a third party.
The request for a two year extension aligns with the sunset clause outlined in condition 5 of the approval;
The conditions placed on the existing Planning and Environment Court approval comply with contemporary planning standards and future operational works applications can be assessed against current laws and policies;
Council accepted and approved the application for the approval on the basis of the exemption provisions of the then SEQ Regional Plan. The existence of the approval means no further assessment against the SEQ Regional Plan is necessary;
Our client, John Hofmann, has been suffering from serious health concerns for some time and has been incapacitated from progressing the development. Despite not being a planning ground per se, it is considered that the s87 Planning Act provides Council a largely unfettered discretion to consider any matter the assessment manager thinks relevant;
Our client’s commitment to extending the life of this approval has been demonstrated via the recent lodgement of the Survey Plan for the first stage of the development;
The approved development layout is generally in keeping with the current State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAPs) in relation to vegetation requirements, setbacks to environmental constraints including buffers for bushfire management. These constraints are directly comparable under Council’s current overlay mapping constraints;
The approval conditions of the Court order include specific requirements in respect to these constraints which relate to concurrence agency matters of State Environmental Significance.
The DILGP has indicated, in relation to our client’s extension request lodged under SPA, that it does not object to an extension to the currency period of the approval;
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;
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 and low impact recreational use 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.
The current approval conditions are consistent with current laws and policies in the following respects: -
The engineering conditions which have been placed on the existing development approval are considered to be consistent with current engineering design requirements and standards. Reference is made to Civil Engineering conditions 18 to 37 and conditions 68 to 78. It is noted that the subsequent operational works application will be assessed in accordance with local laws and policies applicable at the time of lodgement.
The development is required to be undertaken in accordance with the Court’s approval conditions including those of the referral agencies Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The approved development setbacks and environmental conditions are considered generally consistent with current laws and policies in regard to site constraints including vegetation and bushfire hazard.
We note that this approval was issued under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, with an Adopted Infrastructure Charges Notice issued by the then (pre-de-amalgamation) Sunshine Coast Council. Infrastructure contributions applicable to this development approval can be updated to reflect Noosa Council’s current adopted infrastructure charges resolution, as required.
Significant public interest grounds exist to support preserving the approval including:
Significant community benefit by way of parkland dedication and construction of pedestrian pathway network;
Protection of vegetation areas in perpetuity through parkland dedication and vegetation covenants;
Community need for additional range of housing choices and options. It is considered that there is a need and market for rural residential development within the Noosaville locality having regard to limited areas available for development due to environmental constraints.
Despite some inconsistency with current laws and policies, it is considered that the matters discussed above, when considered in context, justify approval of the extension. In addition, the dedication of over 52.7ha of the site for open space purposes as required by the approval provides significant public interest benefits over and above the benefits that would be achieved through the site’s rural zoning. The proposed dedication will facilitate conservation and also provide for passive and active recreation opportunities which would not be possible without the approval.
site details
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, Weyba 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.
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.
On 28 April 2017 an application to extend the currency period was received under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. This application was determined at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 20 July 2017 where it was determined to refuse the application.
On 29 June 2017 the applicant lodged survey plans for sealing for the first stage of the development. An Operational Works application has not been made and accordingly no works required prior to plan sealing have been commenced.
site details
Site Description
The subject site has an area of 110 hectares and is located south of the Noosa Shire 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.
Subject site
Subject site
Figure 1: Locality Plan
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.
assessment
Pursuant to section 87 of the Planning Act 2016 (PA):
When assessing an extension application, the assessment manager may consider any matter that the assessment manager considers relevant, even if the matter was not relevant to assessing the development application.
The matters which are considered to be relevant to the assessment of the application are discussed in detail below:
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.
The Planning Regulation 2017 identifies that subdividing a lot completely or partly in the SEQ regional landscape or rural production area is prohibited development (a copy of the relevant provision is contained at Attachment 2). Prohibited development is development for which an application may not be made.
Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed extension of time does not accord with the current policies and regulatory requirements of the SEQRP. Notably the exemptions from the SEQRP that the current approval relied upon would not apply today. 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.
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 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.
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—
changes to natural drainage;
management of fire risk;
erosion and the transport of sediments off site;
unmanaged public access;
effluent disposal;
changes to fauna habitat and behaviour; and
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 and low impact recreational use 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.
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.
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.
Timeframe since the original approval
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.
Since the development approval was issued in 2013 the property owner could have undertaken a range of activities to progress the development approval. These activities include:
Lodgement of an Operational works application for Operational Works for Subdivisional Works;
Lodgement of amended plans with Council to satisfy the requirements of the Decision Notice;
Subdivisional works including road works;
Environmental works to the park, lots and parts of Hollett Rd; and
Submission of detailed management plans relating to stormwater and acid sulphate soils.
The property owner has not undertaken any of these steps to progress the development.
Submission of the Survey Plan
The applicant maintains that:
Our client’s commitment to extending the life of this approval has been demonstrated via the recent lodgement of the Survey Plan for the first stage of the development
Whilst it is acknowledged that a Survey Plan for the first stage of the development has been lodged it is noted that the submission of this plan is in breach of Condition 1 of the approval which states:
Unless otherwise stated, all works required by the conditions of this Decision Notice as relevant to each particular stage must be completed prior to submission of the subdivision plan to Council for compliance assessment for the particular stage.
Furthermore, no Operational Works application has been lodged and no works have been undertaken as required under the original approval.
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:
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;
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;
The area of aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be reduced on the site;
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;
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;
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
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:
Assessable vegetation associated with natural wetlands and watercourses are protected to maintain water quality and habitat.
The current extent of the regional ecosystems and endangered regional ecosystems are maintained.
Areas of remnant vegetation are retained to maintain ecosystem functioning, remain in the landscape despite threatening processes and maintain connectivity to adjacent properties.
The current extent of essential habitat is maintained.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The initial 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 initial 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 initial 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
Under the Planning Act 2016 this extension application is not required to be referred to the referral agencies for comment.
conclusion
The application for an Extension to the Currency Period for 152006.1999.02 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		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer		Community Development		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Facilities		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Services	x	Environment & Sustainable Development		Infrastructure Services
	Community Engagement		Building & Plumbing Services		Asset Management
	Customer Service		Development Assessment		Buildings and Facilities
	Governance		Economic Development		Civil Operations
	People and Culture		Environmental Services		Disaster Management
			Strategic Land Use Planning		Infrastructure Planning, Design and Delivery
					

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 13 of 13

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	8 AUGUST 2017