Original source · versioned page text
2020-06-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
The original of this document is very large (10.8 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
7. The proposed development will adversely impact on the vegetated character of the
adjoining pedestrian path in Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve enjoyed by residents and
visitors to the area due to the scale and extent of development proposed along this
boundary and limited landscape opportunities to screen the development. The proposed
works for the driveway and associated retaining walls are also likely to adversely impact on
the vegetation within the road reserve and result in the removal of some existing mature
vegetation.
8. The proposed stormwater management strategies for water quality for the multiple housing
development on lot 1 conflict with the Water Sensitive Design Code, which requires natural
treatment strategies and systems and are contrary to the Reconfiguration of Lot Code.
9. The proposed proprietary device has not been accepted by Stormwater Australia as a
satisfactory water quality treatment system for this area. Therefore, the proposed
development may adversely impact on the downstream ecosystem due to changes in water
quality.
10. The proposed development is contrary to the draft Noosa Plan provisions which are more
protective of the site’s environment values and consequently more restrictive of
development.
11. The application attracted a considerable number of public submissions raising valid
grounds of objection to the development.
12. The proposed development is contrary to Schedule 10 Division 3 of the Planning
Regulation 2017 as the development is situated in a koala assessable development area
and does not avoid, minimise or mitigate interfering with koala habitat or propose a
satisfactory offset to address any significant residual impact.
13. The proposal is contrary to the State Planning Policy as the proposed development will
adversely impact on koala habitat, with koala populations recognised as being matters of
both national and state environmental significance.
Finance & Risk
It is premature at this stage to provide advice on the likely prospects of the appeal. There will be
costs associated with this appeal, particularly given the range of issues associated with this site a
number of experts will be required as part of an appeal and should this proceed to trial.
There are no current court orders for the appeal.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Wakefield Sykes - Solicitor
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 41 of 55
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.