2017-11-07 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                              7 NOVEMBER 2017


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.
An appeal was lodged with the Planning & Environment Court on 19 September 2017 submitting
that Council’s decision was wrong and that the request should have been approved.
It is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded accordingly.


Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 17 August 2017, Item 5, Page 5
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment
Committee dated 11 July 2017 and the further report to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 July 2017
and refuse Application No. 152006.1999.01 for an extension to the Relevant Period for a
Development Permit to Reconfigure a Lot (52 lots and park) situated at 191 Hollett Road,
Noosaville for the following reasons:
1.   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 Regulation 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.


Finance & Risk
Should the matter proceed to trial there will be costs in defending the appeal. It is premature to
advise on potential prospects of the appeal.


Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Wakefield Sykes Solicitor




                                                                                   Page 23 of 65