2021-12-07 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda - Updated

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   7 DECEMBER 2021


The applicant’s bushfire hazard assessment has been reviewed by Council’s consulting bushfire
expert who has identified that a wider APZ is required than that proposed by the applicant and that
the inclusion of the adjoining National Park land within the APZ is not appropriate. Queensland
Park’s and Wildlife Service and Partnerships (QPWS&P) have provided a letter stating that
QPWS&P cannot confirm that the department will continue to maintain this fire break at a standard
to provide adequate fire protection to neighbouring properties into the future and that the
development must not rely on QPWS&P to maintain buffer zones or fireline infrastructure on
QPWS&P managed estate, nor rely on QPWS&P hazard reduction burning and wildfire response
as part of their bushfire hazard reduction methods. To achieve a sufficient fire buffer to the adjoining
National Park, the plans would require significant amendment and therefore the application is
unable to be conditioned to comply with the planning scheme.
The siting of the ‘firebreak trail’ within lot 12 creates a situation where all bushfire protection and
access for Emergency Services is dependent on the future owner of Lot 12 and therefore places
the future owners of Lots 9 to 11 at the behest of the future owner of Lot 12. This places an
unacceptable burden on the future owner of Lot 12 and an un-necessary risk on the future lot
owners of Lots 9 – 11.
The Flood Hazard Overlay covers the entire site and the surrounding area including Lake Weyba
Drive. The applicant proposes to fill the site to create house platforms above the 1% AEP flood
level. It is also proposed that a floor level of future dwellings be constructed above the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) level to facilitate the capacity for future residents to seek refuge in place. It
is noted that access and egress for the development site will be affected for an extended duration
during a 1% AEP and a PMF event. The reliance on a floor level being constructed above the PMF
is not a satisfactory response to the flood risk as no flood warning system has been proposed to
enable future residents to decide whether to evacuate before the road becomes impassable.
The proposed extent of fill and the associated retaining walls will also result in a poor visual
outcome given retaining walls up to 1.8 metres are proposed.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee
Meeting dated 7 December 2021 regarding application RAL21/0007 for a Development Permit for
Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 lot in 12 lots, situated at 111 Lake Weyba Drive Noosaville and:
A.    Refuse the application for the following reasons:
      1.    The proposed development does not comply with Assessment Benchmark 3 of the
            State Planning Policy (Natural Hazards, Risk and Resilience) as it does not
            satisfactorily mitigate the bushfire risks to people and property to an acceptable or
            tolerable level.
      2.    The proposed development does not demonstrate compliance with Overall Outcomes
            13.30.2 a), b) and c) and Specific Outcomes O4, O10, O13, O17, O19, O20 and O24
            of the Natural Hazard Overlay Code as it compromises the safety of people and
            property from the site’s residual flood and bushfire risks.
      3.    The proposed lots are located on land that is categorised as having a high potential for
            Bushfire Intensity and the proposed bushfire measures are not satisfactory and
            inappropriately burden QPWS and the future owner of lot 12 to maintain a significant
            portion of the proposed fire buffers.
      4.    The proposed development will compromise the safety of people, as:
            a.    there is no effective evacuation route that remains passible, with sufficient flood
                  warning time, to enable people to progressively evacuate to a safe area
            b.    the proposed area for residents to shelter in place is not satisfactory given the
                  lots will be isolated for a significant period.
            c.    there is no warning system proposed for residents to decide whether to evacuate
                  before the road becomes impassable or shelter in place.

                                                                                       Page 52 of 140