2015-09-15 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                              15 SEPTEMBER 2015


Colin Beard’s peer review indicates that, while some relaxation of the rate is justified, the applicant
has not adequately demonstrated the proposed parking provision will be sufficient. He finds:
The development as proposed would not provide sufficient on-site parking to accommodate design
peak parking demands reasonably expected to be generated, so that the proposed development
would have adverse impact on the convenience of use of the entire Noosa Business Centre.
Public Transport
Mr Beard sought further assessment of the existing and future need for bus interchange facilities
for the NBC, but the applicant responded:
The location of the existing interchange is considered appropriate to service the existing centre
and the proposed development.
In Mr Beard’s opinion this matter remains unresolved and he advises:
I am not convinced that the northern portion of E6 is the right location for the bus interchange. At
the time the NBC master plan was being developed, the inter-regional bus interchange now at the
Junction was proposed on this site at the NBC. Without the inter-regional function, a location
immediately adjacent to Walter Hay Drive is less important. I think that, if the bus interchange (or
perhaps a series of discrete bus stops) is going to effectively serve the whole of the future NBC as
it is now planned, that is not the right location, and simply leaving the bus stops outside Noosa
Civic 1 is not really an ideal choice either.
In summary, the original bus interchange planning has been superseded by other works at the
Junction, and nothing specific has replaced it. More bus route planning effort is required before
this issue can be satisfactorily resolved.
Infrastructure Planning
The development site is subject to the Noosa Shire Business Centre Infrastructure Agreement
Clause 10.3.a. of which provides future stages of development with immunity from Council
infrastructure conditions and charges provided the intensity of development does not exceed
Master Plan 2 (now the current Master Plan provisions within The Noosa Plan). Clause 10.3.b. of
the Infrastructure Agreement enables additional work and payment of infrastructure
contributions/charges can apply should any future stages of development exceed the Master Plan
2 intensity.
As this application for retail use exceeds the intensity of Master Plan 2, it will be subject to
infrastructure charges in accordance with Council’s current Charges Resolution. The extent of any
infrastructure charge issued will relate to the difference in any approved quantity of retail use and
impervious area versus that envisaged by Master Plan 2 (per the infrastructure agreement).
Notably, Master Plan 2 forms the basis for the Planning Scheme and also the assumptions about
the type, scale, location or timing of future development contained in Council’s current Local
Government Infrastructure Plan “LGIP” (i.e. Priority Infrastructure Plan “PIP”).
As a consequence of the development being inconsistent with the LGIP development assumptions,
should infrastructure works that are not identified in the LGIP but are subsequently required to
maintain the safety and efficiency of the infrastructure network, such works would be conditioned
as a non-trunk infrastructure requirement as a responsibility of the development.
Whilst the legislation allows applications for “non-trunk” infrastructure to be converted to “trunk”
infrastructure in accordance with the criteria stipulated in Council’s charges resolution, a
conversion application for this development would not be supported as it is not consistent with the
development assumptions of the LGIP (Master Plan 2 and Planning Scheme). However, the
applicant may appeal to the court against a refusal of a conversion application.




                                                                                      Page 99 of 189