Request to Extend Relevant Period - 152006.1999.01

                                                                                              =_
                                                                                              - ...
                                                                                              U •••
                                                                                                                !lI~

                                                                                                      NCONSUlTANTS


The matters outlined within s388 are not prioritised and none of the stated matters in s388 prevail over one
another. Further, s388 does not mandate refusal of the request due to the Inability to comply with anyone of the
considerations.


We consider that the request for an extension to the relevant period is supportable in accordance with s388 of
the SPAon the following grounds:


BACKGROUND

On 01 May, 1998, Council gazetted the rezoning granted over the site on 01 August, 1997, changing the zone to
'Special Residential' and permitting the development of a maximum of 82 residential lots. The approved plan of
development 9S0SSS.PSBprepared by Downes Survey Group sets out the development rights under the zones
endorsed on the plan, and contains the relevant development criteria for the land. This included a maximum
number of 80 Rural Residential allotments and 2 Rural Pursuits allotments. The approved plan outlined that the
land use entitlements for both Rural Residential Areas and Rural Pursuits Areas, were applicable, as if the land
was located within those zones at any tim~.


This position is repeated in the conditions of the rezoning approval (03004TR), which run with the land and
remain binding on successorsin title.


Under the approval, the applicant was required to dedicate a large portion of land for the Walter Hay Drive road
reserve, which has had significant benefit to the local road network within Noosaville.


At Council's ordinary meeting on 19th October, 2006, Council confirmed that the subsequent development
application for reconflguration could be assessedagainst the Superseded Planning Scheme.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 development application (superseded planning scheme) for reconfiguration, originally for eighty two (82) lots
plus one (1) park lot, was lodged with Council on 12 September, 2006.


DNRM, acting as concurrence agency, directed Council to refuse the application originally. Accordingly, Council
issued a Decision Notice of Refusal on 16 November, 2009, under the Integrated Planning Act 1997.


The decision was appealed through the Planning and Environment Court, and was approved with conditions on
13th July, 2013, under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.


It is noted that 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.




JFP Ref: Ml775                                                                                                       Page 2