2021-09-13 General Committee Meeting Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                 13 SEPTEMBER 2021


     Where the development is assessable under the Superseded Planning Scheme, the
      application is made and refused, approved with conditions or approved in part; or
     Where the adverse change is a public purpose change.
However, pursuant to s30(4) of the Act an adverse planning change does not include a planning
change that:
(a)   has the same effect as another statutory instrument, other than a TLPI, for which compensation
      is not payable; or
(b)   is made to comply with the regulated requirements; or
(c)   includes infrastructure in a planning scheme, or removes or changes the infrastructure shown
      in a planning scheme, including under a designation; or
(d)   is about matters included in a LGIP; or
(e)   is made—
      (i) to reduce a material risk of serious harm to persons or property on the premises from natural
          events or processes (bush fires, coastal erosion, flooding or landslides, for example); and
      (ii) under a provision of the Minister’s rules that applies specifically to the making of a planning
           change to reduce the risk; or
(f)   is about the relationships between, the location of, or the physical characteristics of, buildings,
      works or lots, if the yield achievable is not substantially different from the yield achievable
      before the change; or
(g)   is made under section 276(1)(c) to identify all or part of a local government area as a party
      house restriction area
Notably for (f) above, the yield achievable is not substantially different from the yield achievable
before the change, in relation to building work for a residential building, if the gross floor area of the
residential building - (a) is not more than 2,000m2; and (b) is reduced by not more than 15%.
The applicant maintains that the changes are adverse planning changes which have reduced the
value of an interest in the premises and that refusal to apply the SPS to a development application
may trigger claims for compensation. It is the applicant’s position, supported by an indicative
assessment of comparative land values prepared by a valuer, that the highest and best use of the
site under the Noosa Plan 2006 is a Showroom/Office development. Whilst under the Noosa Plan
2020 it is an Office and Medical/Health Care Service. The indicative assessment identifies no
difference in land value between the highest and best use under the Noosa Plan 2006 and Noosa
Plan 2020.
The assessment though also states that any purchaser would need to obtain development approval
for a showroom/office development given the zoning requires an impact assessable development
application to be submitted and any settlement would most likely be subject to this. As a result, there
would be an increased timeframe associated with settlement with most buyers requiring 12-months
for obtaining development approval. The assessment suggests that the increased timeframe
associated with settlement results in a decrease of value when undertaking a present value
calculation.
A review of the applicant’s valuation was undertaken by an external valuer for Council who agreed
that the applicant has identified the highest and best use for the land under the SPS. However,
Council’s valuer does not agree that Office and Medical/Health Care Service are the highest and
best use under the Noosa Plan 2020. It is the external valuer’s position that the highest and best use
under the Noosa Plan 2020 is Office and Food and Drink Outlet. On this basis, the external valuer
considers that the land value associated with the highest and best use under the Noosa Plan 2020
is greater than the SPS.
The applicant’s assessment that there is a decrease in value due to the timeframe associated with
an impact assessable application is also not supported by the external valuer as the lot is within the

                                                                                         Page 20 of 135