2017-08-08 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                    08 AUGUST 2017


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      and the information in these reports is now outdated.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 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;

                                                                                       Page 68 of 84