Original source · versioned page text
2021-05-11 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (11.7 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.
AGENDA
Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 11 May 2021
commencing at 9.30am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Clare Stewart, Tom Wegener
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very 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.
Full text of the other 63 sections
Section 2
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES 3
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 3
3 PRESENTATIONS 3
4 DEPUTATIONS 3
5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 4
1 OPW20/0114 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D209 OF
2020 - REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS - JETTY
AT 1/4 PORTSIDE CT, NOOSAVILLE 4
2 MCU20/0106 – REPRESENTATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 1 ARCADIA
ST, NOOSA HEADS 10
6 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE 40
3 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MARCH
2021 40
4 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPDATE
– 3RD QUARTER 2020-21 51
7 CLOSED SESSION 64
Page 2 of 64
Section 3
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
1 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES
2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
The Minutes of the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting held on 6 April 2021 be
received and confirmed.
3 PRESENTATIONS
Nil.
4 DEPUTATIONS
Nil.
Page 3 of 64
Section 4
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
5 REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 OPW20/0114 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D209 OF 2020 -
REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS - JETTY AT 1/4
PORTSIDE CT, NOOSAVILLE
Author Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
Environment & Sustainable Development
Index ECM/ Application/ OPW20/0114/ Case/ Australian Sunrise Citrus
Attachments 1. Legal Advice
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 May 2021 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. D209 of 2020 and agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the following
conditions:
Approved Plans
1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless
otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
20.046 Sheet 1 of 2 E Site Plan prepared by Kunkel Building Design 6 August 2020
Sheets
20.046 Sheet 2 of 2 E Floor Plan, Floor Framing Plan & Typical Section 6 August 2020
Sheets prepared by Kunkel Building Design
Currency Period
2. The development approval lapses if the works have not been completed and all conditions
of approval been complied with by 20 May 2023, unless an application to extend the currency
period is approved by Council.
Site Specific Conditions
3. The approved plans must be certified by a suitably qualified Registered Professional
Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) as being suitable for the intended use prior to the
commencement of construction. A copy of the certified plans must be submitted to Council
for records purposes.
4. The Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) bears full responsibility for all
structural aspects of the jetty.
General Conditions
5. All structures must be designed and constructed such that they are free standing within the
waterway and are not connected to or behind the revetment wall.
6. All structures must have no detrimental effects on stormwater drains and/or easements.
Page 4 of 64
Section 5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
7. Jetties must have a level-walking surface of R.L 1.000 A.H.D or be level with the top of the
revetment wall.
8. A rigid handrail must be fitted on one side of the walkway.
9. No posts or vertical supports of the proposed jetty are to extend vertically from the structure
unless they provide necessary support for the handrail.
10. No boatlifting devices are to be attached or moored at the jetty structure for the purpose of
elevating a vessel above the water without Council approval.
11. There must be no electrical reticulation system carrying electricity in excess of 24 volts
beyond the revetment wall unless all switches and power outlets are positioned above the
1%AEP flood level.
12. Lighting associated with the use must be designed, installed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with Section 3 of AS4282 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.
13. Rock scour protection, wrapped in geotextile, extends from 750mm up to approximately
5000mm from the face of the revetment wall in Noosa Waters. Piles are to be:
a. Located clear of this rock protection where applicable; or alternatively
b. Where the scour protection extends beyond 750mm:
i. Prior to driving piles, the rocks are to be removed to expose the geotextile and
the geotextile cut neatly to allow it to be turned back. During pile driving, care is
to be taken to ensure the geotextile is not damaged. At the completion of pile
driving, the fabric is to be turned down around the pile and the rocks replaced
around the piles
14. The jetty is to be used for private purposes only with no commercial operations to be
undertaken.
15. Boat repair activities are not permitted on site.
16. Wastewater and sullage must only be disposed of at approved pumpout facilities.
17. The mooring facility must not be utilised for live-aboard purposes.
18. Any construction and post construction activity is not to impact on the condition of the
waterway, and is to be conducted so as not to breach the Environmental Protection Act EPA
(1994) and the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009.
19. Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland that states that the jetty
is constructed in accordance with best practice methods and is structurally sound must be
submitted to Council. This certification must be submitted to Council within three (3) months
of the completion of the works. A final inspection and approval of the structure by Council’s
Inspector is also required. Please contact Council’s Development Assessment Branch on
5329 6500 to arrange the inspection.
20. After completion, the proposed works must be maintained in a sound state of repair in
accordance with the approved plans
Performance Bond
21. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $2500 must be
submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval, prior to
commencement of works. The cash bond or trading bank guarantee will be returned on
performance of the conditions of approval less any costs incurred by Council in respect of
enforcing performance of this permit. Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or
guaranteed sum to effect compliance with conditions.
Page 5 of 64
Section 6
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
REPORT
On 13 November 2020, an application for a 6m x 1.5m jetty to be constructed on the common
boundary between the exclusive use areas for Units 1 and 2 (to enable the jetty to be shared
between owners) was refused under delegation for the following reasons:
1 The proposal is contrary to the Watercourses Works Code as the proposal will lead to
cluttering and adverse amenity impacts on the character and amenity of the waterway and
the structural integrity of the revetment wall.
2 The proposal would result in adhoc development as the proposal does not address the
developments overall demand for mooring of vessels and will therefore lead to further
applications for additional jetties which has the potential to clutter the waterway.
3 The jetty is shared between 2 unit owners in a complex of 20 units and is not sufficient to
moor the historical quantity of vessels in busy times without mooring the vessels unlawfully
directly to the revetment wall.
4 The proposal is not well located for other unit owners to share the jetty as the proposal is
located to the most southern portion of the development.
5 The jetty is not accessible to other unit owners not subject to this application because it is
only accessible from the exclusive use area for units 1 and 2, with the exclusive use areas
generally blocked by landscaping.
6 The proposal does not meaningfully address the historical demand of mooring of vessels
along the frontage of the canal and therefore has the potential to lead to adverse impacts on
the structural integrity of the revetment wall.
7 The proposed jetty would require a further development application for Material Change of
Use for a landing under The Noosa Plan 2020 and therefore the application is piecemeal.
Page 6 of 64
Section 7
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Figure 1 – Locality Plan
Figure 2 – Plans of proposed jetty
Page 7 of 64
Section 8
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
The application was refused as it was not considered that the application met the following specific
outcome and probable solution, with the development having common property along the canal:
Specific Outcomes Probable Solutions
O12 Works for jetties are designed and S12.6 Unit developments with common property
constructed for the sole purpose of providing along canal frontage met the following—
access to vessels and are sited and designed
a) a maximum of 2 jetties per unit development; b)
to avoid—
jetties are shared between unit owners;
a) cluttering of watercourses;
c) a minimum of 20m separation is provided
b) excessive traffic volumes within foreshore between each jetty;
areas, on adjoining lands and within the
d) the jetty is setback a minimum of 3m from the
watercourse; and
prolongation of boundaries; and
c) unacceptable risks to personal and public
e) jetty heads and pontoons are not constructed
safety;
(Refer Figure 14-37);
The development consists of 20 dwellings units with an approximately 100m frontage to the canal
located not far from the lock and weir.
The existing development includes 1 x T jetty generally centrally located along the canal frontage
and the proposal would result in a total of 2 jetties for the development. The existing jetty does not
satisfy the demand for vessels of the development and as such during busy periods, vessels are
unlawfully moored (tied) to the revetment wall creating a risk to its structural integrity.
The proposal results in 2 jetties for the unit development, provides greater than 20m separation
between jetties and meets the prolongation provisions, but access to the proposed jetty is restricted
to the 2 dwelling units subject to this application. Access to the proposed jetty for other unit owners
is otherwise difficult as each unit has exclusive use area to the canal boundary generally
demarcated by landscape hedging. This creates a barrier for other unit owners and combined with
access being through exclusive use areas, access to the jetty is problematic. Furthermore, the jetty
is located to the most southern extent of the development making it inconvenient for mooring of
vessels from units located to the centre or further north.
The delegated officer report at the time noted that while there may be some grounds to approve
more than 2 jetties given the site’s extensive canal frontage, no overall plan was submitted to
Council to address how other unit owners will access the proposed jetty. Furthermore given the
number of units in the complex, it was considered unlikely that 1 new jetty would address the
number of vessel moorings required by the development and there are concerns that the need for
additional jetties will clutter the watercourse and result in adhoc development.
As a result of Council’s decision to refuse the proposed change, the applicant lodged an appeal to
the Planning & Environment Court seeking that the jetty be approved subject to reasonable and
relevant conditions.
During the course of the appeal, Council received legal advice on the prospects of the appeal. A
copy of the advice is included as Attachment 1 but in summary the advice is as follow:
Page 8 of 64
Section 9
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
The merits of the Appeal are in favour of the Appellant. The Court would be unlikely to decide
the Appeal in Council’s favour because of the lack of hard impacts relating to the proposed
development. It is likely the Court would find that the proposal complies with the relevant
assessment benchmarks and therefore must be approved.
A resolution of the Appeal which resulted in approval of the proposed development would
not prevent Council from refusing future applications for jetties at Portside which caused a
‘cluttering’ impact on the character and amenity of the watercourse. Future development
applications for jetties at Portside would be for a material change of use (code assessable)
for a Landing and operational works (code assessable) under the Noosa Plan 2020. The
former would be subject to obtaining the owner’s consent, which would include the consent
of the body corporate of Portside. In other words, the body corporate of Portside would have
greater control on the lodgement of future applications in comparison to the current
operational works application.
We recommend that Council attempt to resolve the Appeal at the mediation on 13 April 2021,
on the basis that the Appeal be allowed, but none of the declarations sought by the Appellant
are made.
The code requirements primarily seek to stop the proliferation of jetties along the canal to protect
the character and amenity of the area, navigational, operational efficiency and safety, and access
to the canal and the Noosa River by Noosa Water Residents. The proposed jetty will not impact
these matters and will not directly result in cluttering of the waterway. Further, the legal advice has
confirmed that the approval of this jetty will not prejudice the assessment of further jetty applications
for additional jetties for this development, which may lead to cluttering of the canal contrary to the
code requirements.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil
Finance & Risks
Council’s planning solicitor for the appeal has advised that prospects are not good as the proposed
jetty in itself does not have an actual impact on the character, amenity or navigational safety of
Noosa Waters Canal as a result of any cluttering of the watercourse.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
McCullough Robertson – Troy Webb
Internal Consultation
Case Management Working Group
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Community Services Corporate Services
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Support Director Director
Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities Fleet
Libraries & Galleries ICT
Local Laws Procurement
Waste & Environmental Health Property
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 9 of 64
Section 10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 10 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
4 McCullough
=|Robertson
Legal opinion - Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v
Noosa Council Appeal D209 of 2020
Noosa Council
Dated: 24 March 2021
Level 11 66 Eagle Street | QLD 4000 | GPO Box 1855 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia | ABN 42 721 345 951
Telephone +61 7 3233 8888 Fax +61 7 3229 9949
Offices Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Newcastle mecullough.com.au
Page 10 of 64Section 11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 11 of 64
U
r
>
a
z
a
©
>
=a
DR wn oO wv eo ~ a oa > > = w N _ oa m o
S o oo 6 a 3 9» x + m
S > 3 94 < & o 68 Q) 2
S a g § a = a 2
& e& 9 3 ® 5 a oa <
° 7 ee 259 9:eR Fe pPES O 5
< — ' 2h —
= J 3 ° = So 3 i < 3 e < 3 a 2 oO
1 sg a2 6 + o ! 5 % G & 3 = Oo =
— i = & ® 6 = = t © t 9 So a t 3
1 a =. 1 g : 1 1 I 1 =r
! f o BP + & © + @ + F B Be 8 =
c i ' 5B 8 + © wm | B&B + Fg B i 9 oO m
& robo oP 2 ¢ << § |: B ft @ §$ & ft B 2
2 PoP Pf My fos rs | p # 2 ft Oo
2 i ¢ > 8 i & 8 | Bit seed} S 4
5 ; + ¢ &© | @ KR | FB | F BE i ft ct Oo
3 i re? rr O
3 1 1 1 wo 1 1 1 1 na ' — S 3 1 1 oO
' 1 1 1 wo 1 1 1 1 1 1 © 1 1
> sof Fo om 6 Um UU UlUcdlUlUElUd UB = =
B oF of 8 £ £ P £ Po o£ PPS F FY Hh =
a. rr ” =
a i - |
a PoP bm at
§ PoP bb BB m
8 a m
Q poe ofl hm US =
d PoP PRR EE m
9 PoP od: PoP Pod PoE odo? bob dg =o
y fof o£ £ £ 8 f fb bf of f bo op obog z
= a a ©
3 rr
3 rr >
8 fob obo dob bo dob PoE bo o£ bo EG &
3 i °
. pe of fF ¢g o£ og fF £ £ fF f ww og oF oO
> ' 1 ' 1 t 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 '
3 i >
3 PoP ob Bb BB
g a
8 a rr a a
2g eR bP Rm ce
x e o£ o£ £ € # § £ £ £ ££ 8 fb fo og
5 a a
a v=
2 rr OA =
te re re re oO
© PoP oF $ o£ £ $ $ £ £ £ #£ £ Pt oe =
= PoP bP BB Et +o >
= a a Ye ~<
°o ay - - - - 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' owe ho
= eo “ a > °o a uo u > > w N ol a a oS 5
® nm
> —_hSection 12
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 12 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
-|Robertson
Legal opinion
Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020
Executive summary
(a) The declaratory relief sought by the Appellant is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and in any
event unlikely to be granted, subject to expert evidence about the impacts of tidal waters on the
Noosa Waters Canal being obtained.
(b) The merits of the Appeal are in favour of the Appellant. The Court would be unlikely to decide
the Appeal in Council's favour because of the lack of hard impacts relating to the proposed
development. It is likely the Court would find that the proposal complies with the relevant
assessment benchmarks and therefore must be approved.
(c) However, the Appeal is not obviously doomed to fail. Should Council wish to progress the matter
to trial, intricate statutory interpretation arguments in support of a refusal position are open but,
in our view, are unlikely to succeed. Should Council wish to proceed, we suggest Counsel be
briefed to advise on the matter.
(d) A resolution of the Appeal which resulted in approval of the proposed development would not
prevent Council from refusing future applications for jetties at Portside which caused a
‘cluttering’ impact on the character and amenity of the watercourse. Future development
applications for jetties at Portside would be for a material change of use (code assessable) for a
Landing and operational works (code assessable) under the Noosa Plan 2020. The former would
be subject to obtaining the owner's consent, which would include the consent of the body
corporate of Portside. In other words, the body corporate of Portside would have greater control
on the lodgment of future applications in comparison to the current operational works
application.
(e) We recommend that Council attempt to resolve the Appeal at the mediation on 13 April 2021, on
the basis that the Appeal be allowed, but none of the declarations sought by the Appellant are
made.
(f) | We have noted some strategic planning matters for Council's consideration at paragraphs 8.18
and 8.21 below.
Background
1 Proposed development
1.1 Australian Sunrise Citrus Pty Ltd wishes to develop a new jetty at the common boundary of the
exclusive use areas of units 1 and 2 of 4 Portside Court, Noosaville (being Lots 1 and 2 on
BUP 103414).
1.2 The jetty would benefit only the owners of units 1 and 2 of the ‘Portside’ apartment complex
(Portside). Portside is a complex of 20 units.
1.3 The continuous lot along the canal frontage is common property (Lot 0 on BUP103414), which is
allocated to various unit owners as exclusive use area under the Community Management
Scheme for Portside (CMS).
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Advice on Prospects - Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020
Page 12 of 64Section 13
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 13 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
=|Robertson
1.4 Historically, Council has dealt with the owners and management of Portside in regard to guests
and residents mooring / tying vessels to the revetment wall. There is currently one operational
jetty which services Portside, located between units 11 and 13 and adjoining common property
access.
1.5 The body corporate for Portside (Body Corporate) has written to Council to advise that they are
not supportive of the development, under the assumption that there will be a maximum of two
jetties approved at Portside.!
1.6 In the original development application, the jetty was proposed wholly within the exclusive use
area of Lot 1. An information request by Council raised the issue of pedestrian access to the jetty
by other residents of Portside and noted that ‘Council is unlikely to support any proposal that
requires the other property owners to leave the development site and access the jetty through
the adjoining land’?
1.7 The issue of sharing the proposed jetty between the Portside owners appears to stem from a
number of policy and factual matters:
(a) The Watercourses Works Code, 012 (in particular $12.6 and $12.7) indicates that
‘Council is unlikely to support a jetty application for the exclusive use of one unit owner’;
(b) the canal frontage is Common Property, but each unit has exclusive use rights conferred
by the CTS of the Courtyard directly in front of it;
(c) there is a common area within Portside with canal frontage;
(d) there is already one communal jetty for Portside, which is shared between residents;
(e) the original proposal itself indicated that the jetty was to be shared amongst owners
within Portside on a first in, first served basis. The proposal has since been changed to
allow for private use of the jetty by the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2.
2 Development Application
2.1 The subject development application for operational work was properly made on 7 July 2020, and
was code assessable (Development Application).
Qed The Development Application identified Lot 1 on BUP103414 as the location of the premises.
2.3 It identified Lot 502 on RP839224 (Noosa Waters) as the water body or watercourse the
premises is ‘/n or adjacent to’.
2.4 The development application did not identify Lot 0 on BUP103414 (Common Property Lot) as
being land to which the development application related.
2.5 Owner's consent was addressed by Stratum Legal, the Appellant’s representative, in the covering
letter for the development application, which asserted that only the owner of Lot 1’s consent was
required, though it is not clear upon what basis, in terms of the requirements of section 51(2) of
the PA.
2.6 On 2 August 2020, the Body Corporate formally opposed the code assessable application by
email, on the basis the proposed jetty was to be a communal jetty, and therefore would affect
1 Letter from Body Corporate for Portside to Mark Lewis, Noosa Shire Council dated 12 October 2020.
2 Information Request dated 2 August 2020.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 2
Page 13 of 64Section 14
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 14 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
-|Robertson
the Community Titles Scheme. The email stated the Body Corporate had not been consulted by
the applicant regarding the jetty. The Body Corporate appears to be operating under the
assumption a maximum of 2 jetties are allowed at Portside, and that any future proposed jetty
must be shared between all owners.
ZT On 14 September 2020, the applicant responded to Council's information request. The Applicant’s
response involved a changed approach to the sharing of the proposed jetty:
(a) the application was amended to be made by the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2;
(b) the location was changed so that the jetty was to be situated on the prolongation of the
‘common boundary between Lot 1 and Lot 2 (Lot 0 remained left off the DA Form 1
location details);
(c) the jetty will be the private property of the Applicants and will not be located within the
common property for the Scheme;
(d) the body corporate has no role in the maintenance or otherwise with respect to the
administration of the jetty.
2.8 As a result of the proposed changes, the applicants submitted:
(a) they no longer rely upon probable solution 12.6 of the Noosa Plan, but now rely on
compliance with $12.7 (this was confirmed in P&E Law’s submissions to the Court at the
review on 22.01.2021);
(b) the position of the Body Corporate was irrelevant.
3 Refusal and Appeal
3.1 An internal memo from Council officers dated 26 October 2020 made the following key
comments:
(a) the existing jetty at Portside does not satisfy the demand for vessels of the development
and as such during busy periods vessels are unlawfully moored to the revetment wall,
creating a risk to its structural integrity;
(b) Portside has common property along the canal, and therefore Probable Solution 12.6 of
the Watercourses Works Code is the applicable benchmark (not 12.7 as posited by the
Applicants);
(c) the proposal results in 2 jetties for the unit development and provides greater than 20m
separation between jetties, and meets the prolongation provisions of the scheme, but
access is restricted to the 2 dwelling units and therefore not sufficiently shared between
owners;
(d) while there may be some grounds to approve more than 2 jetties on this quantity of
canal frontage, no overall plan has been submitted to Council to address how other unit
owners will access the proposed jetty.
3.2 The delegated officer’s report relies on Probable Solution 12.6 of the Watercourses Works Code
to refuse the development application.
3.3 Council decided to refuse the application on 13 November 2020.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 3
Page 14 of 64Section 15
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 15 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
3.4 In its decision notice date 18 November 2020, Council gave the following Reasons for Refusal:
‘Council decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:
L The proposal is contrary to the Watercourses Works Code as the proposal will
lead to cluttering and adverse amenity impacts on the character and amenity of
the waterway and the structural integrity of the revetment wall.
1 (sic) The proposal would result in adhoc development as the proposal does not
address the developments overall demand for mooring of vessels and will
therefore lead to further applications for additional jetties which has the potential
to clutter the waterway;
2, The jetty is shared between 2 unit owners in a complex of 20 units and is not
sufficient to moor the historical quantity of vessels in busy times without mooring
the vessels unlawfully directly to the revetment wall;
Z: The proposal is not well located for other unit owners to share the jetty as the
proposal is located to the most southern portion of the development;
4. The jetty is not accessible to other unit owners not subject to this application
because it is only accessible from the exclusive use area for units 1 and 2 with
the exclusive use areas generally blocked by landscaping.
5. The proposal does not meaningfully address the historical demand of mooring of
vessels along the frontage of the canal and therefore has the potential to lead to
adverse impacts on the structural integrity of the revetment wall.
6. The proposed jetty would require a further development application for Material
Change of Use for a landing under the Noosa Plan 2020 and therefore the
application is piecemeal.’
3.5 The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal against Council's decision on 15 December 2020.
3.6 The relief sought can be segregated into two components:
(a) declaratory relief; and
(b) merits grounds.
Instructions
4 Advice on prospects
4.1 The purpose of this legal opinion is to provide initial strategic advice to Council about its
prospects of success in the Appeal. That is, the likelihood of the Appeal being dismissed by the
Court at hearing.
4.2 The advice will be provided in four parts:
(a) Whether the consent of the body corporate was required for the original application;
(b) prospects of the declaratory relief sought by the Appellant;
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 4
Page 15 of 64Section 16
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 16 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
-|Robertson
(c) analysis of the merits of the proposal; and
(d) the policy and practical impacts, should the proposed development be approved.
Advice
5 Owner’s Consent
5.1 Section 51(2) of the PA states the circumstances in which the written consent of the owner of a
premises the subject of a development application must be given:
‘(2) The application must be accompanied by the written consent of the owner of the
premises to the application, to the extent—
(a) the applicant is not the owner; and
(b) the application is for—
(i) a material change of use of premises or reconfiguring a lot; or
(li) works on premises that are below high-water mark and are outside a
canal; and
(c) the premises are not excluded premises’
5.2 It is not clear on what basis Stratum Legal asserted owner’s consent was required for the
proposed development, being operational works. Owner's consent is not typically required for an
operational works application unless the works are on premises that are below the high-water
mark and are outside a canal.
5.3 The term ‘Aigh-water mark’is not defined in the PA. It is defined in the Coasta/ Protection and
Management Act 1995 (Qld) as ‘the ordinary high-water mark at spring tides‘
5.4 The phrase *‘ ovts/de a cana/‘limits the requirement for owner’s consent only where operational
works such as a jetty are proposed seaward of the boundaries of an artificial waterway. In this
instance, consent to the application is not required unless the works were proposed outside the
lock and weir structure of the Noosa Waters Estate.
5.5 Accordingly, we are of the view that owner's consent was not required for the Development
Application.
6 Declaratory relief
6.1 The Notice of Appeal seeks declaratory relief pursuant to section 47(2) of the Planning and
Environment Court Act 2016 (Qld) (PECA).
6.2 The Appellants seek a declaration under section 47(2) of the PECA that:
(a) the Noosa Plan 2006 including amendments to 8 June 2018 (the Planning
Scheme) in:
(i) Division 14 — Assessment table for development other than material
change of use Table 11.12 in Column 1, where it identifies the type of
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 5
Page 16 of 64Section 17
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 17 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
development as ‘carrying out operational works in Noosa Waters canal’;
and
(ii) Division 21 — Watercourses Works Code, Table 14 — 65 ‘Operational
Works within Noosa Waters canal’;
incorrectly identifies the construction of a jetty in the Noosa Waters canal as
operational work rather than building work;
(b) the reference to operational works in the Planning Scheme in:
(i) Division 14 — Assessment table for development other than material
change of use Table 11.12 in Column 1, where it identifies the type of
development as ‘Carrying out operational works in Noosa Waters canal’
and
(ii) Division 21 — Watercourses Works Code, Table 14 — 65 'Operational
Works within Noosa Waters canal’
should be interpreted to refer to building work rather than operational work for
the purpose of this appeal; and
(c) the appeal be determined as an appeal in relation to a code assessable building
works to be assessed against the Watercourses Works Code, Table 14 — 65
Operational Works within Noosa Waters canal.’
6.3 Our view is that the prospects of the Court making the declaration sought are low, given that:
(a) the declaration sought is not within the jurisdiction of the Court on Appeal
(section 47(2));
(b) even if the declaration was within the jurisdiction of the Court, there is no utility in
making the declaration sought and it is therefore inappropriate to do so; and
(c) even if the Appellants were able to satisfy the Court of (a) and (b) above, the declaration
should not be made, because:
(i) the proposed development is operational works under the Planning Act 2016
(Qld) (PA); and
(d) it would be incorrect for the Court to read a different type of development into a
table of assessment as a matter of statutory interpretation.
Threshold question
6.4 It is our view that the declaration sought under section 47(2) of the PECA in relation to the
correctness of the Noosa Plan 2006 Planning Scheme falls outside this Court’s appeal jurisdiction
under section 47 of the PECA.?
6.5 Put simply, the Appeal is against Council’s decision to refuse an operational works application.
The correctness of the description of the Development Application is not within the gambit of the
Court's jurisdiction on Appeal from that particular decision.
3 See Perivall v Rockhampton Regional Council [2019] QPELR 96 ( Periva/f), at [31] to [65], in particular [58] to [60]
and [64] to [65] in relation to the Court's jurisdiction under section 47 PECA.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 6
Page 17 of 64Section 18
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 18 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
-|Robertson
6.6 The declaration sought and the allegations relied on in support amount to an attempt at a
collateral challenge to Council's reliance on its own planning scheme during the development
assessment process, and to the validity of the Noosa Plan 2006 generally.
6.7 The declaration could be sought by way of originating application under the Court’s general
declaratory jurisdiction under section 11 of the PECA. Whether it could be established that the
Court's power to make the declaration sought is engaged under section 11 of the PECA in all the
circumstances is another matter, which we will not consider separately, but is likely answered by
our analysis below.
No utility
6.8 Further, there is no utility in the Court making the declaration sought. There is no dispute
between the parties that the Watercourses Works Code, Table 14 — 65 Operational Work in
Noosa Waters Canal, is the applicable code against which the proposed development should be
assessed.
6.9 There is no controversy to quell between the parties. The Appellant is seeking a form of ‘advisory
opinion’ from the Court for ulterior purposes. It should therefore be considered hypothetical and
not suitable for judicial resolution by way of declaration.*
6.10 Based on our analysis of recent relevant decisions of the P&E Court, the Court would be more
likely than not to refuse to make the declaration sought by the Appellant due to its lack of utility.
Substantive argument against declaratory relief — operational works
6.11 In any event, our view is the Court would not accept the substantive grounds raised in support of
the declaratory relief sought by the Appellants, as the interpretation approach taken to both (a)
the legislation generally; and (b) the Planning Scheme, is incorrect.
6.12 The first step in categorising any development is to determine what type of development it is by
reference to the definition of development in the PA:
(a) carrying out:
(i) building work; or
(ii) plumbing or drainage work; or
(iii) operational work; or
(b) reconfiguring a lot; or
(c) making a material change of use of premises.
6.13 The Appellant alleges the proposed development, being construction of a jetty in Noosa Waters,
is ‘building work’ as opposed to the generally accepted (including by the Appellant during the
development assessment process) definition of ‘operational work’ in these instances. We pause to
note that this is only a position which has been raised in the Notice of Appeal. It was not the
original position of the Appellant, which made a development application for operational work.
6.14 Building work includes building a structure.®
4 Bass & Anor v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Ors (1999) 198 CLR 334, 355-7 [45]-[49].
> Brassgrove KB Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council[2019] QPEC 42, [38] — [42].
® Planning Act 2016 (Qld), Schedule 2.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 7
Page 18 of 64Section 19
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 19 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
6.15 However, building work does not include undertaking tidal works.”
6.16 The more persuasive view is that the jetty does constitute tidal works for the purposes of the
Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Coastal Act), and therefore the PA. The Coastal
Act defines Tidal works as:
‘l Tidal works means any of the following—
a. works in, on or above-
1. land under tidal water; or
fi, land that will or may be under tidal water because of development on or
near the land;
c. works designed to be exposed to tidal water because of shoreline
fluctuations;
d. works designed to prevent the erosion of land by the sea (whether or not
within the ebb and flow of the tide at spring tides);
e. works within the boundaries of a canal, whether above or below high-water
Mark,
2 Tidal works includes—
a. the construction or demolition of a basin, boat ramp, breakwater, bridge,
dam, dock, dockyard, embankment, groyne, jetty, pipeline, pontoon,
powerline, seawall, slip, small craft facility, training wall or wharf; and
8. works in tidal water necessarily associated with the construction or
demolition mentioned in paragraph (a); and
c. the reclamation of land under tidal water....
tidal water means—
a. the sea and any part of a harbour or watercourse ordinarily within the ebb
and flow of the tide at spring tides; or
b. the water downstream from a downstream limit as defined under the Water
Act 2000.
6.17 Relevant definitions in the Water Act 2000 are:
downstream limit, of a watercourse, means—
a. /fa point is identified on the watercourse identification map as the
downstream limit of the watercourse—the point identified on the map; or
? Planning Act 2016 (Qld), Schedule 2, definition of ‘budding work’(c)(ii).
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 8
Page 19 of 64Section 20
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 20 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
; | McCullough
=|Robertson
b. otherwise—the point to which the high spring tide ordinarily flows and
reflows in the watercourse, whether due to a natural cause or to an artificial
barrier.
2 A watercourse is a river, creek or other stream, including a stream in the form
of an anabranch or a tributary, in which water flows permanently or
intermittently, regardless of the frequency or flow events—
a. ina natural channel, whether artificially modified or not; or
5. inan artificial channel that has changed the course of the stream...
6.18 The reference to ‘canal’ in part 1(e) of the definition of tidal works is not the only interpretation
by which development in Noosa Waters can be considered tidal works, which the Appellant's
arguments do not seem to acknowledge.
6.19 We agree that Noosa Waters does not fit the legislative definition of ‘canal’ per section 9 of the
Coastal Act, as submitted by the Appellant, because access to the Noosa River is hindered by a
lock and weir structure:
‘9 Meaning of canal
(1) Canal means an artificial waterway—
(a) connected, or intended to be connected, to tidal water; and
(b) from which boating access to the tidal water is not hindered by a
lock, weir or similar structure.’
6.20 Our position is that Noosa Waters is a watercourse for the purposes of the Water Act 2000, and
that it is affected by spring tides, based on Council's instructions to us.®
6.21 Based on the little evidence to hand, our primary view is that it is likely the Noosa Waters Canal
is tidal water under both limb (a) or limb (b) of the definition in the Coastal Act. The construction
of the jetty is therefore tidal works under limb (a)(i) of the Coastal Act definition.
6.22 Our alternative view is that the proposed jetty can be considered tidal works under limb (a)(ii) of
the Coast Act definition, because it say be subject to tidal water inflows from the Noosa River, as
a result of the nature of the lock and weir structure.
6.23 Because, in our opinion, the proposed jetty constitutes tidal works, it cannot be building work.
6.24 The proposed development is therefore operational work, as defined by the PA, which is a broad
definition. It means work, other than building work or plumbing or drainage work, in, on over or
under premises that materially affects premises or the use of premises.
6.25 In any event, the interpretation of the Planning Scheme by interpolating words, as proposed by
the Appellant as part of the declaratory relief sought, is incorrect, and would ordinarily be
rejected by a Court.?
6.26 Our preliminary view about the nature of the works is subject to confirmation from a water
expert about the tidal nature of the Noosa Waters Canal. In particular, it would be helpful to
know:
§ Email from Daniel Wishaw to Kerri Coyle dated 22 January 2021.
° Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Limited v Gold Coast City Council [2018] QCA 75.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 9
Page 20 of 64Section 21
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 21 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
(a) whether the Noosa Waters Canal has a ‘high-water mark’, which has previously been
found to be a feature of tidal waters;!°
(b) how often the tidal flows overtop the weir, including whether it is best described as
‘occasional’;"' and
(c) whether the weir is a one-way flow system, or has flow reversal.
6.27 For the reasons that will become apparent in our analysis of the merits, we are not
recommending to Council that such an expert be retained to consider this issue.
7 Merits
7A Table 11.12 of the Planning Scheme categorises 'Carrying out operational works in Noosa Waters
canal’as code assessable.
Wid: The code assessable development is to be assessed against all the assessment benchmarks in
Column 3 of Table 11.12 of the Planning Scheme.!?
7.3 That means the proposed development must comply with Table 14.65 of the Watercourses
Works Code. Importantly, Table 14.65 only is nominated in column 3 of Table 11.12, not the
entirety of the code. Accordingly, the overall outcomes of the code are not assessment
benchmarks. That is somewhat unusual.
7.4 The key operative compliance provisions in the Planning Scheme provides that:
(a) Development that complies with the overall outcomes of the code complies with the
code; 3 and
(b) development that complies with the probable solutions complies with the overall and
specific outcomes of the code.'4
7.5 Council has instructed us that it is of the view the development does not comply with the
following provisions of the Watercourses Works Code:
(a) 14.161.2 — Overall Outcome (a);
(b) Table 14.65: Specific Outcome 012(a); and
(c) Probable Solution $12.6(a); (b).
As noted above, Overall Outcome (a) of the Watercourses Works Code cannot be relied upon as
an assessment benchmark for the purposes of assessing this proposal. The relevant assessment
benchmarks are set out below:
‘O12 Works for jetties are designed and constructed for the sole purpose of providing
access to vessels and are sited and designed to avoid—
a) cluttering of watercourses;
10 Boensch v City of Parramatta Council (No 2)(2019] NSWLEC 1381, at [87].
1 Nifsan Pty Ltd v Gold Coast City Counci/[1998] QPELR 66 at 118.
12 section 2.6.4(d)(i) of the Planning Scheme when read with Table 11.12.
13 section 2.6.4(d)(iiiia) of the Planning Scheme.
4 section 2.6.4(d)(iii)(b) of the Planning Scheme.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 10
Page 21 of 64Section 22
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 22 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
5) excessive traffic volumes within foreshore areas, on adjoining lands and within the
watercourse; and
c¢) unacceptable risks to personal and public safety,
' $12.6 Unit developments with common property along canal frontage met the
following—
a) amaximum of 2 jetties per unit development;
b) jetties are shared between unit owners;
Cc) aminimum of 20m separation is provided between each jetty;
d) the jetty is setback a minimum of 3m from the prolongation of boundaries; and
e) jetty heads and pontoons are not constructed (Refer Figure 14-37).’
AND
‘$12.7 For unit developments where each unit has its own individual canal frontage—
a) a joint application with the adjoining owner is made (Council is unlikely to support a
Jetty application for the exclusive use of one unit owner); and
b) Jetties are constructed as follows—
i. the jetty is shared between two unit owners;
fi. the jetty straddles the common boundary of the two units;
fii, jetty heads and pontoons are not constructed; and
tv. fencing between the two properties is setback a minimum 1m from the
revetment wall to allow for efficient access to the jetty by both owners (Refer
Figure 14-38)...”
Applicable Probable Solution
7.6 The preliminary merits issue is the determination of the applicable assessment benchmarks
(Probable Solution $12.6 as against $12.7). If $12.7 is found to be an applicable Probable
Solution, in our view Council cannot maintain its refusal, and should approve the application
because:
(a) the proposed development prima facie complies with Probable Solution $12.7;
(b) no other probable solutions are raised as potential non-compliances;
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 11
Page 22 of 64Section 23
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 23 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
S | McCullough
=|Robertson
(c) there is a relevant correlation between specific outcome O12 and probable solution
$12.7, which are the only provisions raised against the Appellant by Council, which
assumes all remaining provisions are complied with;
(d) even if $12.7 may only provide guidance ‘/n part’to O12, it is the only ‘part’ in dispute for
the purposes of the Appeal;'> and
(e) where a code assessable development complies with all assessment benchmarks,
approval is mandated by section 60(2)(a) of the PA.
DD The Appellants allege that:
(a) $12.6 and $12.7 are mutually exclusive, and $12.7 applies on the basis of the CMS
exclusive use by-law; or
(b) in the alternative that both are applicable because of the use of the conjunctive ‘AND’
used between each provision.'®
78 In our opinion the better view is that $12.6 and $12.7 are mutually exclusive, based on figures
14.37 and 14.38, which depict distinct types of lot configurations in relation to the canal frontage.
These figures are as important to the interpretation of the assessment benchmarks as words in
the Planning Scheme.”
7.9 We see $12.6 as the applicable Probable Solution, because it applies to ‘unit developments with
common property along canal frontage’. S12.6 can be contrasted against $12.7, which applies
‘where each unit has its own individual canal frontage.’ We share Council's view that the
proposed development is a unit development with common property along canal frontage,
because:
(a) the Common Property Lot runs along the canal frontage in front of each individual unit lot
(see Schedule 1);
(b) the Common Property Lot is a separate registered title, capable of being distinguished
from the unit lots on a title search;
(c) the ‘exc/usive use areas’ are the function of a by-law which may be changed at any time
by the body corporate, at its own prerogative;
(d) the ‘exc/usive use areas’ do not negate that the Common Property Lot is owned by the
owners of the Portside lots, as tenants in common, in shares proportionate to the interest
schedule lot entitlements of their respective lots.1®
7.10 It is certainly arguable that the proposed development does not comply with S$12.6(b), though it
does appear to comply with all other limbs of the Probable Solution. A finding of non-compliance
would rely on a particular interpretation of ‘shared’ which is not inherent in the plain meaning of
the provision. That is, that S12.6(b) requires the jetty not just be ‘shared between unit owners’,
but be shared between all unit owners. This would involve an argument that a more unorthodox
approach to interpretation should be adopted by the Court.
15 See Andema Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [2020] QPEC 46, [21].
16 See the Appellants’ particularised list of matters in support of approval.
17 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), Schedule 1, definition of word.
18 Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), section 35(1).
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 12
Page 23 of 64Section 24
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 24 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
; | McCullough
=|Robertson
7.11 In any event, if the Appellant can demonstrate that the proposed development is a consistent use
that complies with the specific outcomes, in our view it will comply with all of the relevant
assessment benchmarks.!9
7.12 The relevant Specific Outcome, 012, does not, on its face, appear to be breached by the
proposed development. That is, the approval of one jetty will not of itself lead to the ‘c/uttering of
watercourses’. In our view it is doubtful whether the Court would accept an argument that the
words ‘so/e purpose of providing access to vessels’ connotes something more than some access
to some vessels. However, an interpretation argument would need to be made that the phrase
should be read in the context of the definition of ‘access’in the Planning Scheme, which states:
‘access means the practicable means of entry for persons or vehicles—
(a) from a constructed road to a Jot that abuts that road; or
(bh) where provision is made for access by way of an easement, from a constructed road
to a lot by way of an easement over contiguous land which abuts that road.’
7.13 As noted above, this would be an unorthodox argument, made to resolve ambiguity in how the
defined word ‘access’ should be applied in the context of 012, which relates to jetties on lots with
canal frontage.
7.14 In our opinion, it is more likely than not that the Court would find compliance with specific
outcome O12 in the circumstances, and therefore compliance with all of the assessment
benchmarks.
Impact of any non-compliance
7.15 The planning rationale behind the code seeks to stop the proliferation of jetties along the canal,
while still allowing for medium density residential development, to protect (1) character and
amenity, (2) navigational and operational efficiency and safety, and (3) access to the canal and
Noosa River by Noosa Waters residents.”
7.16 Even in the event that non-compliance with specific outcome 012 could be established, the
pertinent question then becomes whether approving this jetty, on the basis that it complies with
the code, prejudices future action Council may need to take in order to achieve this planning
outcome.
7.17 Weare instructed that further jetties will likely need to be approved at the Portside development
in future to service the residents there.
7.18 Even if non-compliance could be maintained, Council has the ability to approve the application
despite non-compliance.”
7.19 Alternatively, if the proposed jetty is approved, the residents within the Portside development
may seek a third jetty at the subject site. An application for a material change of use for a
Landing would need to be made under Noosa Plan 2020 as it would be code assessable.
19 Andema Pty Ltd v Noosa Shire Council [202] QPEC 46, [15] — [24].
20 On our reading of specific outcome O10.
21 Planning Act 2016, section 60(2)(b).
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 13
Page 24 of 64Section 25
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 25 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
| McCullough
-|Robertson
8 Noosa Plan 2020 assessment
8.1 As discussed below, future development at Portside for new jetties will involve both the Common
Property Lot and Lot 502 on RP839224 (Noosa Waters Lot). The Common Property Lot is
included in the Medium Density Residential Zone in the Noosa Plan 2020. The Noosa Waters Lot
is also in that same zone by operation of section 1.3.4 of the Noosa Plan 2020. Table of
assessment 5.5.2 categorises a Material Change of Use for a Landing as code assessable
development, required to be assessed against the Applicable Local Plan Code (Noosaville Local
Plan Code), Medium Density Residential Zone Code and the Waterways works code, as well as
requiring an operational works application.
Owner’s consent
8.2 Future development applications for any further jetties at Portside will require a material change
of use for a Landing, and as such require owner's consent with respect to ‘the premises’ to which
the application relates. As we noted in paragraph 5.1 above, the consent of the owner of the
premises is required for a material change of use application.
8.3 The concept of ‘premises’ in the context of section 51(2) of the PA means the land the subject of
the assessable development for which the approval is sought.22 In the case of a future application
for a jetty at Portside under the Noosa Plan 2020, the ‘premises’ would be the land the subject of
the material change of use for a Landing.
8.4 Given the jetty structure that is the key element of the Landing use would be located on the
Noosa Waters Lot and attached to the Common Property Lot, we are of the opinion that both the
Noosa Waters Lot and the Common Property Lot would form part of the land the subject of the
Landing use.
8.5 The real question is not whether consent is required, but who would be required to give consent
to such a development application.
8.6 The cases cited in the covering letter submitted with the Development Application supported a
proposition that the owners of Lots 1 and 2 (and the beneficiaries of the exclusive use areas
under the CMS) would have an exclusive right to receive rent for the area.2? Whether the party
who has the ‘exc/usive right to use and possess property prima facie has the right to its fruits and
profits is a different question, in our view, to whether a body corporate is required to give its
consent as an ‘owner’ to a particular development application under the PA.
8.7 In the case of Wright v Brisbane City Council(2008) QPELR 10, Rackemann DCJ held, with
respect to a case decided under superseded legislation, that although it is the owners of the lots
who own the common property as tenants in common, it is the body corporate which is the entity
that would be entitled to receive the rent for the lease of the common property in the event that
it were let to a tenant.”
8.8 Based on the Court's reasoning in Wright, it is our opinion that there is a persuasive argument
that the ‘owner’ of the Common Property Lot for the purposes of the PA is in fact the body
corporate.
8.9 While in our view, the body corporate is likely to be viewed as an ‘owner’ of the Common
Property Lot for the purposes of the PA, a separate question arises as to whether it is the owner
22 Bon Accord Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council & Ors [2008] QPEC 119, [22].
23 North Point Brisbane [2012] QBCCMCmr 355, [105]-[111]; Baleda Pty Ltd v North Point Brisbane & Anor [2013]
QCATA 184, [68]-[82].
24 Ballada Pty Ltd v North Point Brisbane & Anor [2013] QCATA 184, [77].
25 at 12-13, [11]-[15].
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 14
Page 25 of 64Section 26
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 26 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
; | McCullough
=|Robertson
of the ‘premises’ to which the application applies. Whether a body corporate’s consent is
required for the purposes of a development application has been considered by the Court on
numerous occasions. The key principles which can be distilled are:
(a) “In any such scheme for the control of land use the two critical integers, land and use,
each involves a question of definition, what land and what use?...it will be one of them,
the integer of use, that will dictate the precise identity and extent of the other integer,
the land the subject of the application’,*
(b) that there is a legal connection between lot owners in respect of certain interests is not
the question, but whether the connection is relevant to the use that is being applied
for;?
(c) the need to use common property for access purposes where individual lot owners in a
strata titled unit complex applied for a material change of use of a unit is unlikely to give
rise to a need to obtain the consent of the body corporate, because there was no
‘planned development upon the common property; 8
(d) whether a physical structure is to be built on common property appears to be a relevant
consideration; #
(e) the ability of other lot holders and the body corporate to have an opportunity to have
their respective interests considered through the submission process has been put
forward as a reason for not requiring a body corporate’s consent to any application.°*°
8.10 Asa matter of fact, a jetty structure (similar to that proposed here) would need to be connected
to the Common Property Lot. The Common Property Lot is therefore an indispensable component
of the jetty use. In our view, it can be considered more than an ‘access lot’, and indicates there is
development planned upon the common property of Portside.
8.11 Applying the relevant principles, Council officers would have a strong case for requiring the
consent of both the Body Corporate, and Council as trustee of the Noosa Waters Canal, to any
future applications triggering a material change of use for a Landing at the Portside complex on
the basis that the premises to which such an application is made includes both of those lots.
8.12 This statutory owner's consent requirement in itself would prevent the mischief Council is
concerned about occurring in relation to the proliferation of jetties at Portside. In the recent case
of Highgate Partners Qld Pty Ltd v Sunshine Coast Regional Counci{ [2021] QPEC 15, it was
accepted at paragraph [42] that the general purpose of requiring owner's consent is to enable an
owner of land to exercise control over matters that affect their land. We have considered this
issue primarily from the perspective of the Body Corporate for the Common Property Lot rather
than Council for the Noosa Waters Lot as, in our experience, most government agencies will give
owner's consent and assert regulatory control via the development assessment process which is
triggered.
Merits under Noosa Plan 2020
8.13. While the Local Plan Code overrides the Zone Code and Works Code to the extent of any
inconsistency, and the jetty could be assessed against the entirety of these three codes, rather
26 Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council (1980) 145 CLR 485 at 501.
2? Bartlett v Brisbane City Counci/[2004] 1 Qd R 610 at 617, [18] (Bartleté).
28 Savage Vv Caitns Regional Counci{(2015] QPELR 848; Savage v Cairns Regional Councif[2016] QCA 103 at 108.
29 Trowbridge & Anor v Noosa Shire Council & Ors [2018] QPELR 501.
© Bartlett at [28].
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 15
Page 26 of 64Section 27
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 27 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
; | McCullough
=|Robertson
than only one table, the Waterways Works Code provides specific guidance in relation to jetties
within Noosa Waters Estate.
8.14 Under the Noosa Plan 2020 s.5.3.3(4), code assessable development that complies with the
performance or acceptable outcomes complies with the purpose and overall outcomes of the
code.
8.15 Substantially similar provisions (PO19, AO19.6 and AO19.7) to the Noosa Plan 2006 have been
carried over — that is, the key operative Performance Outcome would be: ‘Development is
designed and constructed for the sole purpose of providing access to vessels and are sited and
designed to avoid—{(a) cluttering of waterways’. This does not give Council a clear mandate to
refuse applications on the basis that a maximum of 2 jetties per multiple-dwelling are allowed,
and access must be shared.
8.16 Despite the fact that three separate codes constitute the relevant assessment benchmarks for a
development application for a Landing at Noosa Waters under the Noosa Plan 2020, there would
still need to be an actual impact on the character, amenity or navigational safety of Noosa
Waters Canal as a result of the cluttering of the watercourse to warrant a refusal, in our view.
8.17. The extent of the impacts caused by any future development applications would be a matter of
fact and degree and depend upon expert evidence being obtained in support of Council's position
in any future appeal.
8.18 If Council wishes to ensure that where a unit development has common property as canal
frontage, there are a maximum of two jetties per multiple dwelling, and that the jetties for
multiple dwellings must be shared between all owners, it may consider, via scheme amendment,
including more specificity in the overall outcome or performance outcome. This approach would
align with the performance-based planning system.
Recommendation
8.19 While elements of the Appellant’s case are, in our view, bound to fail, it is our view that the Court
is ultimately more likely to accept the Appellant's grounds for approval of the Development
Application as they relate to the merits of the application, when assessed against the O12 and
$12 provisions of the Planning Scheme noted above.
8.20 We recommend that Council attempt to resolve the Appeal at the mediation on 13 April 2021, on
the basis that the Appeal be allowed, but none of the declarations sought by the Appellant are
made. This would trigger a need for Council to propose a conditions package and any mediation
agreement could allow for that.
8.21 If Council wishes to limit the number of jetties on common property lots to two per unit
development and require sharing between all owners, it may consider seeking to incorporate
these limitations higher up in the hierarchy of scheme provisions in the Noosa Plan 2020 for body
corporate titling. That is more specificity could be incorporated in a performance outcome or
overall outcome in the Waterways Works Code. This would trigger a scheme amendment
process.
8.22 In any event, the fact that a Landing is a material change of use under the Noosa Plan 2020
means that the owner's consent to future development applications is required. This would
include the consent being needed from the body corporate of Portside. The Body Corporate could
decide not to give consent to the making of any future application. If it adopts that position it
need not provide reasons and there is no challenge available to a proponent with respect to an
adverse owner's consent decision.
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 16
Page 27 of 64Section 28
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 28 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
; | McCullough
=|Robertson
Contact details
Partner: Troy Webb
Writer: Jane Bowness
Direct line: 07 3233 8928
Email: [email protected]
Our reference: JEB: TAW: 164650-00012
ky ALG
re o”
Signed by:
Troy Webb
Dated: 24 March 2021
60909286v2 | Legal opinion — Australian Sunrise Citrus & Ors v Noosa Council - Appeal D209 of 2020 17
Page 28 of 64Section 29
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 29 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
2 | McCullough
=|Robertson
Schedule 1
Jetty Application
Lots Burp 030s wes
—_ ao z — S aa _ . 3 t ga | 4 Pa a
ri r: hi uo al es y, y 4 ; | . iat 1 P9- |
at lee Ve | ge ee
Sd oe ss ! is en
é. gt? a; | i a 2 : a f
=e = ss Di ee) wa aT A . ye 7]
PN RA Le, | Aenleel
, ) = + Ga - i
G + TT sa yy )
id § a
5 1 1 2 13 4 1335 1602 3 2 19 :
5 1 1 2 13 5 1780 1567 3 2 0 y
5 1 1 2 13 6 1808 1572 21 30 36 r
5 1 1 2 13 7 1918 1555 2 2 33 i
5 1 1 2 13 8 1995 1539 51 39 5 aan)
5 1 1 2 13 9 2110 1590 36 13 73 g
4 1 1 2 14 0 653 1575 1488 142 -1
5 1 1 2 14 1 653 1575 42 82 31 al
5 1 1 2 14 2 1140 1612 3 23 0 ,
5 1 1 2 14 3 1223 1628 2 12 50 1
5 1 1 2 14 4 1261 1612 62 105 0 ‘
5 1 1 2 14 5 1354 1621 3 4 85 }
5 1 1 2 14 6 1398 1612 58 53 42 x
5 1 1 2 14 7 1854 1613 42 51 0 ha
5 1 1 2 14 8 1917 1625 16 8 0 os
5 1 1 2 14 9 2017 1618 20 43 41 i
5 1 1 2 14 10 2094 1612 47 54 26 [™
4 1 1 2 15 0 650 1664 1526 36 -1
5 1 1 2 15 1 663 1659 51 51 30 oe
5 1 1 2 15 2 735 1659 52 51 15 om
5 1 1 2 15 3 820 1659 39 51 29 wr
5 1 1 2 15 4 1148 1667 43 31 0 Ts
5 1 1 2 15 5 1315 1668 6 4 0 f
5 1 1 2 15 6 1774 1693 3 7 14 a
5 1 1 2 15 7 2102 1669 8 11 35 by
4 1 1 2 16 0 740 1700 784 110 -1
5 1 1 2 16 1 740 1773 8 2 78 >
5 1 1 2 16 2 758 1700 50 97 0 SS
5 1 1 2 16 3 838 1779 13 21 41 a
5 1 1 2 16 4 884 1753 4 6 0 ,
5 1 1 2 16 5 1159 1790 1 3 73 |
5 1 1 2 16 6 1190 1732 110 73 44 “afte
5 1 1 2 16 7 1328 1748 61 62 52 ay
5 1 1 2 16 8 1483 1748 26 17 28 ~~
4 1 1 2 17 0 1020 1771 815 238 -1
5 1 1 2 17 1 1020 1840 33 8 22 x
5 1 1 2 17 2 1193 1803 16 206 0 )
5 1 1 2 17 3 1360 1771 202 138 31 AP
4 1 1 2 18 0 695 1978 1434 48 -1
5 1 1 2 18 1 754 1977 43 51 25 aay,
5 1 1 2 18 2 926 2014 5 2 69 :
5 1 1 2 18 3 1117 1982 51 40 70 =
5 1 1 2 18 4 1306 2006 70 17 17 ans
5 1 1 2 18 5 1535 1978 1 3 0 }
5 1 1 2 18 6 1623 1984 133 33 11 eae
5 1 1 2 18 7 1875 1980 33 27 23 a7
4 1 1 2 19 0 625 2977 1549 36 -1
5 1 1 2 19 1 625 2979 141 34 85 60909286v2
5 1 1 2 19 2 833 2977 1 30 67 |
5 1 1 2 19 3 890 2983 56 26 96 Legal
5 1 1 2 19 4 958 2984 83 25 92 opinion
5 1 1 2 19 5 1051 2994 15 3 85 —
5 1 1 2 19 6 1074 2983 114 21 96 Australian
5 1 1 2 19 7 1199 2984 84 20 96 Sunrise
5 1 1 2 19 8 1293 2984 65 20 93 Citrus
5 1 1 2 19 9 1368 2984 19 20 92 &
5 1 1 2 19 10 1395 2984 37 20 93 Ors
5 1 1 2 19 11 1442 2989 13 15 92 v
5 1 1 2 19 12 1465 2984 70 20 96 Noosa
5 1 1 2 19 13 1545 2983 81 21 93 Council
5 1 1 2 19 14 1637 2994 8 3 93 -
5 1 1 2 19 15 1654 2983 78 26 96 Appeal
5 1 1 2 19 16 1745 2984 57 20 96 D209
5 1 1 2 19 17 1813 2983 23 21 96 of
5 1 1 2 19 18 1844 2984 56 20 96 2020
5 1 1 2 19 19 2149 2984 25 20 96 18
4 1 1 2 20 0 1954 3313 289 44 -1
5 1 1 2 20 1 1954 3313 105 44 96 Page
5 1 1 2 20 2 2074 3314 49 34 96 29
5 1 1 2 20 3 2139 3313 42 35 96 of
5 1 1 2 20 4 2194 3314 49 34 96 64Section 30
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
2 MCU20/0106 – REPRESENTATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE FOR A FOOD & DRINK OUTLET AT 1 ARCADIA ST, NOOSA HEADS
Author Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU20/0106
Attachments 1. Amended Decision Notice
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Noosa Junction Properties P/L
Development Approval Material Change of Use - Food and drink outlet
Representations Received on 16 February 2021
Number of Submissions for N/A
Original Application
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 1 Arcadia St Noosa Heads Qld 4567
RP Description Lot 232 RP 95668
Land Area 496m²
Existing Use of Land Commercial Business
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Zone Major Centre
Precinct Noosa Junction Hospitality Precinct
Local Plan Area Noosa Heads Local Plan Area
Overlays Not Applicable
Assessment Type Representations made to original approval
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 May 2021 regarding representations made in relation
to Application No. MCU20/0106 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Food and
drink outlet situated at 1 Arcadia St Noosa Heads and:
A. Agree to amend conditions 3, 6 and 9 to read as follows:
3. The approved use must not operate outside the hours of 6am to 12am, 7 days a week,
except that use of the outdoor dining must cease at 10pm Sunday to Thursday.
6. Amplified music must cease to operate in outdoor spaces by:
a. 9pm Sunday – Thursday
b. 10pm Friday and Saturday
9. Any solid structure for the required planter boxes/pots must have an interesting finish
to enhance the softening effect of the landscaping.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Page 30 of 64
Section 31
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
REPORT
1. BACKGROUND
A development approval for a Food and drink outlet was issued on 10 December 2020 under
delegated authority.
The applicant suspended the appeal period on 20 January 2021 and made representations on 16
February 2021 to the development approval conditions. The representations primarily relate to the
conditioned operating hours, the requirement for no amplified music and finish requirements for
planter boxes.
The application was required to follow a code assessment process and so was not required to be
publicly notified for comment from the community.
2. ASSESSMENT
An assessment in relation to each of the submitted representations is provided below:
Condition 3 – Operating Hours
3. The approved use must not operate outside the hours of:
a. 6am to 10pm Sunday to Thursday
b. 6am to 12am Friday and Saturday
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant requests that the hours of operation be amended to be consistent with the
surrounding restaurants which may operate on any night until 12am.
Arcadia Walk is a one way street that currently supports a number of restaurants and commercial
tenancies. Many of the restaurants in the street were established without the need for a planning
approval as they had existing lawful use rights and as a result there are no conditions of approval
limiting the hours of operation for these restaurants. Other restaurants that were required to obtain
an approval, including the site directly adjoining the subject premises, have the ability to operate
until 12am on any given day.
The condition is considered unreasonable and places the premises in a compromised situation
where surrounding premises have an unfair advantage in terms of trade. The hours of operation
make it difficult for the subject premises to compete with adjoining premises in the street or
comfortably accommodate two seatings.
There are also many periods over the year when premises experience higher than normal demand
and may operate after 10pm during the week including:
School holidays
Long weekends
Special event weekends such as the Noosa Tri, Eat and Drink festival, cycling events/car
shows/Melbourne Cup etc.
The applicant also notes that many hospitality staff do not work normal office hours have varying
work rosters and may work up to 7pm or 8pm 7 days a week which generally equates to resort
reception closing times. On average these hospitality workers head to Noosa Junction for the food
and outdoor dining options and may not arrive until after 8pm.
The outdoor dining area which triggered the requirement for an application has an area of 24m 2
and is partially under the existing eave of the buildings. The location of the subject area, existing
commercial buildings, roadways and car parking areas will assist in minimising any impacts of
patrons dining on the surrounding residential areas. The premises are approximately 133m from
residential development in Bottlebrush Avenue, 218m from dwellings in Wyandra Street and 207m
from dwellings in Berrima Row and no amplified music is proposed. See Figure 1 below.
Page 31 of 64
Section 32
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Figure 1 –Existing buildings screening site
The applicant notes that when the Noosa Plan 2020 was initially notified for public submissions,
no hours of operation were detailed for the Major Centre zone and Noosa Junction precinct. The
applicant suggests that they have been advised that hours of operation were later included as a
change to the Noosa Plan as a result of concerns by surrounding residents. No liaison with the
relevant traders association was undertaken and as a result, inappropriate limitations have been
proposed for the major centre zone and hospitality precincts.
The area is specifically identified by the Noosa Plan 2020 as a Hospitality Precinct, with a primary
active frontage, public congregation and activation area and a special place – arrival/meeting/town
character.
Assessment of Representation
Condition 3 was included on the approval reflective of the Noosa Plan 2020 Business Activities
Code acceptable outcome for the site as set out below. The condition seeks to address potential
noise impacts for residents in the area, with complaints previously received by Council about music
and patron noise coming from the Junction late at night impacting on their amenity.
It is agreed that many business in the Noosa Junction do not have any conditions limiting their
hours of operation, having established under prior planning schemes when such a requirement did
not apply. Notwithstanding this, there are very few businesses in the Noosa Junction that operate
until midnight, 7 days a week. A review of the website for businesses in close proximity to the
subject site finds that Eddie Cheeba’s at 5/1 Arcadia Street advertises their opening hours until
11pm Wednesday and Thursday and 12am Friday and Saturday and Theo’s Social Club at 2A/14
Sunshine Beach Rd until midnight, 7 days a week. Otherwise, the advertised hours of businesses
all suggest the businesses in proximity to the site do not open after 10pm Sunday to Thursday and
Page 32 of 64
Section 33
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
only open till midnight on Friday and Saturday.
It is considered that the current acceptable measure AO11.2 is overly restrictive for a business
area identified as a major centre, particularly for enclosed areas which offer some means to
mitigate patron noise. However, noise from patrons in outdoor dining areas is difficult to
satisfactorily manage and has the potential to significantly impact on residential amenity in the area
and for this reason it is reasonable to more closely manage outdoor dining areas. The applicant
has not demonstrated through an acoustic report that noise from the outdoor dining area will be
screened by existing buildings with buildings spaced apart in areas along Sunshine Beach allowing
noise through.
It is therefore recommended that the representations be agreed to in part to allow the restaurant
to operate till midnight 7 days a week, but that the outdoor dining area cease at 10pm Sunday to
Thursday. Should Council wish to further revisit the hours specified by the planning scheme in
Noosa Junction in the future then it is suggested that condition for the outdoor dining hours could
also be reviewed, following consultation on the planning scheme with the community.
Condition 6 – Amplified music
6. No amplified music is permitted.
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant considers the condition to be an unreasonable imposition on the proposed use of
the premises due to no other restaurants in the Noosa Junction area having restrictions on the use
of amplified music and that no speakers will be able to be utilised for the outdoor area at any time.
The condition also appears to directly conflict with the requirements of the Business Activities code
AO14.3 which permits amplified live music on site.
As previously detailed the site is contained in the Major Centre zone and the Noosa Junction
Hospitality Precinct the aim of which is to:
Development specifically supports and provides entertainment including live entertainment,
in suitable locations, in premises such as cafes, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, cinemas and
markets and other associated activities to serve the community and promote visitation to the
centre, particularly at night.
Suitable locations, where entertainment uses and street activation is encouraged and may
occur into the evenings and late nights, are identified to inform and manage expectations of
operators and the community.
A review of the planning scheme reveals no specific requirements that prohibit amplified music on
site. The condition to limit the use of speakers on site for mood/atmospheric background music is
unreasonable and is requested to be deleted.
Assessment of Representation
The applicant in response to Council officer’s information request advised that there would be no
amplified music played on site and that they were willing to accept a condition in this regard.
The applicant has not provided any acoustic report to support their request to delete the condition.
Notwithstanding, it would be reasonable to change the condition to reflect the acceptable outcomes
of the Business Activities Code (specifically AO14.3). Notably condition 7 of the Decision Notice
includes requirements for acoustic live music consistent with AO14.2.
Performance Outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Live Music AO14.1
PO14 Where the site is adjacent to land in a residential zone
Live music creates entertainment for patrons and (excluding Tourist Accommodation Zone), the Noosa
vibrancy within the streetscape and is sited to avoid Business Centre High Density Residential Precinct, or
significant impacts on surrounding residential land uses. the Rural Residential Zone live music is contained within
an enclosed acoustically treated environment.
Page 33 of 64
Section 34
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Performance Outcomes Acceptable outcomes
AO14.2
Acoustic live music (not reliant on electric or electronic
equipment) ceases to operate in outdoor spaces by
9:00pm Sunday – Thursday, and by 10:00pm Friday and
Saturday, except if located within the Hastings Street
Mixed Use Precinct or Noosa Junction Hospitality
precinct where it can operate until 10:00pm Sunday -
Thursday, and by 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday.
AO14.3
Amplified live music ceases to operate in outdoor space
by 7:00pm seven days per week, except if located within
Hastings Street Mixed use precinct or Noosa Junction
Hospitality precinct where it can operate until 9:00pm
Sunday - Thursday and 10:00pm Friday and Saturday.
Condition 9 – Planter Boxes
9. Any solid structure for the required planter boxes/ pots must have an interesting finish such
as timber panelling or the like and not a rendered masonry finish to enhance the softening
effect of the landscaping.
Applicant’s Representation
The condition is considered unreasonable, irrelevant and overly prescriptive. The prohibition of
use of a rendered masonry finish fails to recognise that concrete rendering can have an interesting
texture, colour and finish. The condition is requested to be modified to “any solid structure for the
required planter boxes/pots must have an interesting finish to enhance the softening effect of the
landscaping.”
Assessment of Representation
The applicant’s representations are agreed.
3. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
It is concluded the requested changes to the operating hours and requirements for amplified music
may be supported in part to recognise the important role the Noosa Junction plays as a major
centre for the shire and as a place intended for restaurants, entertainment and live music at night.
However, this should also be balanced with the need to maintain nearby residents with a
reasonable level of amenity and for this reason it is appropriate to impose some restrictions on the
operating hours and playing of amplified music in outdoor dining areas where noise is difficult to
mitigate.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
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 34 of 64
Section 35
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 35 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
fe} NOOSA COUNCIL
Officer: Patrick Murphy
Direct Telephone: 07 5329 6436
Our Reference: MCU20/0106
Your Reference: 02903
17 December 2020
Noosa Junction Properties P/L
C/- Martoo Consulting Pty Ltd
PO Box 1684
NOOSA HEADS QLD 4567
[email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Amended Decision Notice
Planning Act 2016
| refer to your application and advise that on 10 December 2020, Council decided to approve the
application subject to conditions.
On 17 December an Amended Decision Notice was issued addressing administrative error in the
original notice.
Details of the decision are as follows:
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No: MCU20/0106
Street address: 1 Arcadia St Noosa Heads Qld 4567
Real property description: Lot 232 RP 95668
Planning Scheme: Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020)
2. DECISION DETAILS
Council decided to issue the following type of approval:
° Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Food and drink outlet
3. | CURRENCY PERIOD OF APPROVAL
The currency period for this development approval is stated in the conditions below.
4. ASSESSMENT MANAGER CONDITIONS
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
A. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with prior to
the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the use continues.
NOOSA COUNCIL
ABN: 97969 214 12 PO Box 141 P. (07) 5329 6500 [email protected]
TEWANTIN QLD 4565 F. (07) 5329 6501 www.noosa.qid.gov.au
Document Set ID: 21322318 Begerkehe
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/12/2020
Page 35 of 64Section 36
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 36 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Approved Plans
2. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the
approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless
otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
- - Outdoor Use Area Plan, prepared by Clo 29.09.20
Studios Interior Design
- - Indicative Furniture and Landscape Layout 11.11.20
036514.01 (Sheet - Plan for Lease Purposes of Lease 2/3 in lot | JW (as
1 of 2) 232 on RP95668 prepared by Bennett & received by
Francis Council on
09/10/2020)
036514.01 (Sheet - Diagram prepared by Bennett & Francis Received by
2 of 2) Council on
09/10/2020
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. | The approved use must not operate outside the hours of:
a. 6amto 10pm Sunday to Thursday
b. 6am to 12am Friday and Saturday
4. The requirements of this decision notice must be included in the Community Management
Statement for any body corporate for the subject site.
5. | The approved outdoor dining area must not exceed the size of the kitchen and food storage
area of the associated Food and Drink Outlet tenancy (2 & 3).
6. No amplified music is permitted.
7. Acoustic live music (not reliant on electric or electronic equipment) ceases to operate in
outdoor spaces by:
a. 10:00pm Sunday — Thursday
b. 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday
Outdoor dining treatment
8. Prior to commencement of the use, a minimum of 3 landscaped planter boxes or potted
plants with a pot size of 100 litres must be set within 1m of the outer extents of the outdoor
dining area. Such pots/ boxes shall be planted out with vegetation that is between 0.5m and
2.0m in height and a minimum foliage width of 0.4m at the time of planting and of a species
suited to the conditions in which they will be situated. The required landscaped planter
boxes/ pots shall be maintained for the duration of the use.
9. Any solid structure for the required planter boxes/ pots must have an interesting finish such
as timber panelling or the like and not a rendered masonry finish to enhance the softening
effect of the landscaping.
10. Existing garden beds must be retained and enhanced with native species in accordance with
Council’s PSP3 landscaping Plants and Guidelines.
11. Placement of planter boxes/ pots and outdoor seating must maintain suitable pedestrian
access to and through the outdoor eating area.
Document Set ID: 21322318 Page-2:00S
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/12/2020
Page 36 of 64Section 37
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 37 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Amenity
12. The operation of the food and drink outlet and associated activities must not result in
environmental nuisances such as noise, visual or odour impacts that unreasonably diminish
the amenity of the area or surrounding uses.
Building Appearance
13. Ground floor shopfront glazing along the Arcadia Street frontage must be fully transparent to
a minimum of 65% of the street frontage to allow passive surveillance and encourage social
interaction
Currency Period
14. This development approval lapses if the use has not happened by 11 December 2026 unless
an application to extend the currency period is approved by Council.
5. REFERRAL AGENCIES
Not applicable.
6. ADVISORY NOTES
The following notes are included for guidance and information purposes only and do not form part
of the assessment manager conditions:
Advertising Devices
1. All Advertising Devices must comply with Schedule 10 of Subordinate Local Law No.1
(Administration) 2015 including both temporary and permanent signage. All freestanding,
pylon or pole signs or signage that is illuminated requires approval from Council prior to being
installed. All signage identified in s6 of Schedule 10 of Subordinate Local Law No. 1 is
prohibited from being erected in the Shire.
Infrastructure Charges
2. All developments and/or changes to existing developments may require payment of
“Infrastructure Charges” (as applicable) in accordance with Council's “Charges Resolution”
made pursuant to the planning legislation and regulations current at the time of issue. For
further information, please refer to https://www.noosa.qlid.gov.au/planning-
development/development-tools-quidelines/infrastructure-charges
7. PROPERTY NOTES
Not applicable.
8. VARIATION APPROVAL DETAILS
Not applicable.
9. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PERMITS REQUIRED
Not applicable.
10. SUBMISSIONS
Not applicable.
11. RIGHTS OF APPEAL
You are entitled to appeal against this decision. A copy of the relevant appeal provisions from the
Planning Act 2016 is attached.
During the appeal period, you as the applicant may suspend your appeal period and make written
representations to Council about the conditions contained within the development approval. If
Council agrees or agrees in part with the representations, a negotiated decision notice will be
issued. Only one negotiated decision notice may be given.
Document Set ID: 21322318 Page:sots
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/12/2020
Page 37 of 64Section 38
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 38 of 64
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
12. OTHER DETAILS
If you wish to obtain more information about the decision, electronic copies are available on line at
www.noosa.qid.gov.au or at Council Offices.
Yours faithfully,
/)
/
/ |
7}
i A
Patrick Murphy
Coordinator Planning
Enc: Appeal Rights
Approved Plans/Documents
ce. Unitywater
Document Set ID: 21322318 Page-tot's
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/12/2020
Page 38 of 64Section 39
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Page 39 of 64
_@. | NOOSA :
S Appeal Rights
4 mM CO U a 'S I iL PLANNING ACT 2016 & PLANNING REGULATION 2017
Chapter 6 Dispute resolution (3) The appellant or, for an appeal to a tribunal, the registrar must,
Part 4 Appeal rights within the service period, give a copy of the notice of appeal to —
229 Appeals to tribunal or P&E Court (a) the respondent for the appeal; and
(1) Schedule 4 of the Planning Act 2016 states - (b) each co-respondent for the appeal; and
= (c) for an appeal about a development application under schedule
(2) ‘Matters that may be:appeaied to 1, table 1, item 1 — each principal submitter for the
(i) either a tribunal or the P&E Court; or development application; and
(ii) only a tribunal; or (d) for and appeal about a change application under schedule 1,
(iii) only the P&E Court; and table 1, item 2 — each principal submitter for the change
y 5 1 1 1 13 3 1473 1174 116 21 96 application;
5 1 1 1 13 4 1597 1174 37 17 96 and
4 1 1 1 14 0 582 1199 1521 36 -1
5 1 1 1 14 1 582 1200 27 20 61 (b)
5 1 1 1 14 2 628 1199 40 17 52 Ths
person (e) each person who may elect to become a co-respondent for the
(i) who may appeal a matter (the appellant); and appeal, other than an eligible submitter who is not a principal
(ii) whois a respondent in an appeal of the matter; and submitter in an appeal under paragraph (c) or (d); and
(ili), who is a co-respondent in an appeal of the matter; and () for an appeal tothe P&E Court — the chief executive; and
j Z (g) for an appeal to a tribunal under another Act — any other
(iv) ang Ry elect to be a co-respondent in an appeal of the person who the registrar considers appropriate.
(2) An appellant may start an appeal within the appeal period. (4) The service period is —
aa (a) ifa submitter or advice agency started the appeal in the P&E
(3) The appeal period is Court — 2 business days after the appeal has started; or
(a) Lo ey eer ‘ ee (b) otherwise - 10 business days after the appeal is started.
agency; or (5) A notice of appeal given to a person who may elect to be a co-
(b) for an appeal against a deemed refusal — at any time after the Tespondent must state the efter orsubsechor (9).
deemed refusal happens; or (6) A person elects to be a co-respondent by filing a notice of election,
(c) for an appeal against a decision of the Minister, under chapter an ii a 10:busmess: days after the notice: of
7, part 4, to register premises or to renew the registration of PP 9 P .
premises — 20 business days after a notice us published under 231 Other appeals
SECON. 2ASHS) oF (4)or (1) Subject to this chapter, schedule 1 and the P&E Court Act, unless
(d) for an appeal against an infrastructure charges notice — 20 the Supreme Court decides a decision or other matter under this
business days after the infrastructure charges notice is given Act is affected by jurisdictional error, the decision or matter is non-
to the person; or appealable.
(e) for an appeal about a deemed approval of a development (2) The Judicial Review Act 1991, part 5 applies to the decision or
application for which a decision notice has not been given — matter to the extent it is affected by jurisdictional error.
30 business days after the applicant gives the deemed
; 4 (3) A person who, but for subsection (1) could have made an
approval notice to the assessment manager; or application under the Judicial Review Act 1991 in relation to the
(f) for any other appeal — 20 business days after a notice of the decision or matter, may apply under part 4 of that Act for a
decision for the matter, including an enforcement notice, is statement of reasons in relation to the decision or matter.
given to the person. (4) In this section -
Note — decision includes-
cate REA COUT ACETOG TNE COIS DOWSE CA OxTOIKE LG Soa (a) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; and
(4) Each respondent and co-respondent for an appeal may be heard (b) other conduct that relates to the making of a decision; and
in the appeal. (c) the making ofa decision or failure to make a decision; and
(5) If an appeal is only about a referral agency's response, the (d) a purported decision; and
assessment manager may apply to the tribunal or P&E Court to
withdraw from the appeal. (e) adeemed refusal.
(6) To remove any doubt. It is declared that an appeal against an a for a decision or matter, means the decision or
infrastructure charges notice must not be about-
(a) the adopted charge itself: or (a) is final and conclusive; and
(b) for a decision about an offset or refund- (b) may not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed,
set aside or called into question in any other way under the
(i) the establishment cost of trunk infrastructure identified in Judicial Review Act 1991 or otherwise, whether by the
a LGIP; or Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity; and
(ii) the cost of infrastructure decided using the method (c) is not subject to any declaratory, injunctive or other order of
included in the local government's charges resolution. the Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity
230 Notice of appeal on‘ahy:ground.
(1) An appellant starts an appeal by lodging, with the registrar of the 232 Rules of the P&E Court
tribunal or P&E Court, a notice of appeal that- (1) A person who is appealing to the P&E Court must comply with the
(a) isin the approved form; and rules of the court that apply to the appeal.
(b) succinctly states the grounds of the appeal. (2) However, the P&E Court may hear and decide an appeal even if
the person has not complied with the rules of the P&E Court
(2) The notice of appeal must be accompanied by the required fee. . P
Page 5 of 5
Document Set ID: 21322318 9
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/12/2020
Page 39 of 64Section 40
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
6 REPORTS FOR NOTING BY THE COMMITTEE
3 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – MARCH 2021
Author Development Assessment Manager, Kerri Coyle
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/Subject/ All Applications
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Assessment Manger to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 May 2021 regarding planning applications that have
been decided by delegated authority.
REPORT
The Local Government Act 2009 allows, by resolution, a local government to delegate its powers
to the Mayor, CEO, a standing committee or a joint standing committee and the CEO to delegate
those powers to another employee of Council.
Under the current delegations for the Planning Act 2016 the ability to manage, assess and decide
a range of development applications are delegated to officers with the exception of the following
which are reported to Council for a decision:
a) an application for a variation request mentioned in section 61 of the Planning Act 2016 to
vary the effect of the planning scheme;
b) the approval of an application where there is substantial non-compliance with a stated policy
of the Council or a high order provision of the Planning Scheme being a desired
environmental outcome, or an overall outcome of a code;
c) the refusal of any application where Council is the assessment manager;
d) requests for change representations, and change applications to change or delete conditions
that were imposed by Council at an Ordinary Meeting or a Special Meeting;
e) and an application for a proposed development of significant community interest.
It should be noted though that due to the strict time frames of the Planning Act 2016, officers under
the current delegations have the ability to decide an application where the application has the
potential for 'deemed approval'.
In accordance with the current delegations, a wide range of development applications are decided
by Council officers each month, with a limited number of applications reported to Council for a
decision.
The following applications were decided by delegated authority during the month of March
(excluding applications seeking to remove a tree(s) adjacent to a building or structure):
Page 40 of 64
Section 41
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
1. Application No.: EXE21/0004
Application Type: Exemption Certificate
Applicant: Project BA
Registered Plan: Lot 4 M 371125
Location: 475 Kennedys Road Pomona
Proposal: Exemption for Building Work – Shed
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 30/03/2021
2. Application No.: EXE21/0005
Application Type: Exemption Certificate
Applicant: Project BA
Registered Plan: Lot 8 RP 838780
Location: 499 Black Mountain Road Black Mountain
Proposal: Exemption for Building Work – Shed
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 18/03/2021
3. Application No.: 132002.220202.1
Application Type: Material Change of Use - Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: Lot 4 AP 19222
Location: Cooroy Noosa Road Tewantin
Proposal: Upgrade Telecommunication Facility
Decision: Agree
Decision Date: 2/03/2021
4. Application No.: 51989.108.17
Application Type: Material Change of Use - Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: Carma Building Group Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: Lot 1 SP 141238
Location: 25 Nannygai Street Noosaville
Proposal: Change to Development Approval (Demolish & Rebuild 3 x units - 11, 12
& 33 (Retirement Village)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 26/03/2021
Page 41 of 64
Section 42
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
5. Application No.: MCU21/0001
Application Type: Material Change of Use
Applicant: Project BA
Registered Plan: Lot 4 SP 103522
Location: 297 Lawnville Road Black Mountain
Proposal: Dwelling House (within 200m of Agricultural Land)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 16/03/2021
6. Application No.: MCU21/0006
Application Type: Material Change of Use
Applicant: Jesterbella Pty Ltd T/A Ultra Steel Buildings
Registered Plan: Lot 20 RP 141938
Location: 161 Cooroy Belli Creek Road
Proposal: Dwelling House (Within 200m of Agricultural Land)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 31/03/2021
7. Application No.: 51994.1308.05
Application Type: Material Change of Use - Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: D & M O'Gorman - Adapt Town Planning
Registered Plan: SP 186498 & Lot 1 SP 221528
Location: 1/33 Viewland Drive Noosa Heads
Proposal: Change to Development Approval - Additions to unit 1
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 26/03/2021
8. Application No.: MCU20/0136
Application Type: Material Change of Use
Applicant: BDH Group Investments Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: BUP 3943
Location: 41 Sunshine Beach Road Noosa Heads
Proposal: Office & Shops
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 11/03/2021
Page 42 of 64
Section 43
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
9. Application No.: MCU20/0142
Application Type: Material Change of Use
Applicant: Integral Constructions Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: Lot 913 P 93121
Location: 64 Lorikeet Drive Peregian Beach
Proposal: Dwelling House in Coastal Protection
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 09/03/2021
10. Application No.: MCU20/0145
Application Type: Material Change of Use
Applicant: Noosa Council
Registered Plan: Lot 372 MCH 3843
Location: 31 Butler St Tewantin
Proposal: Open Space Type 1 Sport & Recreation (Lights)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 08/03/2021
11. Application No.: RAL20/0024
Application Type: Reconfiguring a Lot
Applicant: Scott Frew
Registered Plan: Lot 11 SP 216099
Location: 1327 Cooroy Belli Creek Road Ridgewood
Proposal: Lot Reconfiguration - Access Easement
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 15/03/2021
12. Application No.: RAL20/0032
Application Type: Reconfiguring a Lot
Applicant: Trevor & Rosemary McCracken
Registered Plan: Lot 5 RP 209025
Location: 20 Curry Court Cooroy
Proposal: Lot Reconfiguration (1 into 2)
Decision: Development Permit
Decision Date: 25/03/2021
Page 43 of 64
Section 44
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
13. Application No.: RAL21/0002
Application Type: Reconfiguring a Lot
Applicant: Newshill Pty Ltd ATF Boys 2 Unity Trust
Registered Plan: Lot 1 RP 103723 & Lot 248 MCH 4539
Location: 173 Eumundi Noosa Road & 3 Leo Alley Road Noosaville
Proposal: Boundary Realignment & Access Easement
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 19/03/2021
14. Application No.: RAP16/0035.01
Application Type: Referral Agency Planning Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: R Funk
Registered Plan: Lot 115 SP 266173
Location: 18 Sanctuary Avenue Noosa Heads
Proposal: Change to Retaining Walls & Fencing (Dwelling House)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 29/03/2021
15. Application No.: RAP21/0001
Application Type: Referral Agency Planning
Applicant: John Frame
Registered Plan: Lot 25 RP 88934
Location: 14 Mainsails Square Noosa Heads
Proposal: Additions to Dwelling House (Site Cover)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 31/03/2021
16. Application No.: RAP21/0003
Application Type: Referral Agency Planning
Applicant: Noosa Building Certifiers
Registered Plan: Lot 483 RP 868305
Location: 64 Shorehaven Drive Noosaville
Proposal: Roof top Terrace, Setbacks & Wall
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 08/03/2021
Page 44 of 64
Section 45
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
17. Application No.: SPS21/0001
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: David & Nola Croucher
Registered Plan: Lot 879 SP 102594
Location: 11 Saltwater Avenue Noosaville
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 03/03/2021
18. Application No.: SPS21/0002
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Adam & Joanne Watts
Registered Plan: Lot 237 RP 160522
Location: 26 Ray Street Sunshine Beach
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 03/03/2021
19. Application No.: SPS21/0003
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Noel Malcolm Gurney
Registered Plan: Lot 121 RP 842150
Location: 8 Mermaid Quay Noosaville
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 12/03/2021
20. Application No.: SPS21/0005
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Jason Kieseker
Registered Plan: Lot 29 SP 188268
Location: 9 Grosvenor Terrace Noosa Heads
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Refused
Decision Date: 17/03/2021
Page 45 of 64
Section 46
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
21. Application No.: SPS21/0006
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Keith Edward Caldwell & Julia Leslie Caldwell
Registered Plan: Lot 224 RP 810723
Location: 4 Surfside Court Sunshine Beach
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 29/03/2021
22. Application No.: SPS21/0007
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Gaye Pogson
Registered Plan: Lot 328 RP 136796
Location: 3 Woodlark Rise Sunrise Beach
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 30/03/2021
23. Application No.: SPS21/0008
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: Robert William Mair
Registered Plan: Lot 101 RP 88934
Location: 21 Nairana Rest Noosa Heads
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 30/03/2021
24. Application No.: SPS21/0009
Application Type: Request to Apply Superseded Planning Scheme
Applicant: WV & AC Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Wishart Investment Trust
Registered Plan: Lot 277 RP 856192
Location: 39 The Peninsula Noosaville
Proposal: Detached House - Short Term Accommodation
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 31/03/2021
Page 46 of 64
Section 47
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
25. Application No.: DBW20/0042
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: NND Constructions
Registered Plan: Lot 2 RP 220473
Location: 68 Hayward Road Lake Macdonald
Proposal: Shed in Biodiversity
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 05/03/2021
26. Application No.: DBW20/0053
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: EarthCert Building Approvals
Registered Plan: Lot 63 RP 906096
Location: 19 Pepper Berry Place Black Mountain
Proposal: Extension to Shed in Riparian Buffer Area
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 15/03/2021
27. Application No.: DBW20/0059
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: Coastal Building Certifications
Registered Plan: Lot 3 N 21840
Location: 53 Orient Drive Sunrise Beach
Proposal: Additions to house in Coast Protection (Carport & Stairway entrance to
dwelling)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 30/03/2021
28. Application No.: DBW21/0001
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: David Morris
Registered Plan: Lot 80 SP 208642
Location: 64 Lancaster Lane Cooroibah
Proposal: Shed outside of Building Envelope
Decision: Refused
Decision Date: 09/03/2021
Page 47 of 64
Section 48
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
29. Application No.: DBW21/0004
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: Project BA
Registered Plan: Lot 14 RP 836908
Location: 11 Solitaire Street Doonan
Proposal: Shed in Biodiversity
Decision: Refused
Decision Date: 24/03/2021
30. Application No.: DBW21/0009
Application Type: Building Works
Applicant: Bruce Tjin
Registered Plan: Lot 605 P 93120
Location: 79 Oriole Avenue Peregian Beach
Proposal: Dwelling House (Parapet exceeds 50% of width of front facade)
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 31/03/2021
31. Application No.: OPW18/0341.01
Application Type: Operational Works – Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: Blue Care
Registered Plan: Lot 6 RP 901384
Location: Grasstree Court Sunrise Beach
Proposal: Ecological Management Plan
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 04/03/2021
32. Application No.: OPW18/0343.02
Application Type: Operational Works - Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: Blue Care
Registered Plan: Lot 9 SP 252905
Location: Ben Lexcen Drive Sunrise Beach
Proposal: Ecological Development Plan
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 01/03/2021
Page 48 of 64
Section 49
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
33. Application No.: OPW20/0145.02
Application Type: Operational Works – Minor Change to Approval
Applicant: Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: Lot 3 SP 246584
Location: Noosa Civic 28 Eenie Creek Road Noosaville
Proposal: Earthworks
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 18/03/2021
34. Application No.: OPW21/0044
Application Type: Operational Works
Applicant: John & Julie Lee
Registered Plan: Lot 463 RP 868304
Location: 77 Shorehaven Drive Noosaville
Proposal: Boat Lifting Device
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 17/03/2021
35. Application No.: OPW21/0064
Application Type: Operational Works
Applicant: Advisory Services (QLD) Pty Ltd
Registered Plan: GTP 910
Location: Noosa Terrace 83 Noosa Pde NOOSA HEADS
Proposal: Vehicle Crossover
Decision: Approved
Decision Date: 23/03/2021
Page 49 of 64
Section 50
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Previous Council Consideration
Council receives monthly reports on planning applications that have been decided by delegated
authority.
Finance
Nil.
Risks & Opportunities
Nil.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Nil.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Support Director Director
Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities Fleet
Libraries & Galleries ICT
Local Laws Procurement
Waste & Environmental Health Property
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 50 of 64
Section 51
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
4 ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPDATE – 3RD
QUARTER 2020-21
Author Acting Director Environment and Sustainable Development, Anthony Dow
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 69.14 Environment and Sustainable Development Reports
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Acting Director Environment and Sustainable Development to
the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 May 2021 providing an update on
operations of the Environment and Sustainable Development Department for the period 1 January
2021 to 31 March 2021.
REPORT
The adopted organisation structure includes the following branches under the Environment and
Sustainable Development Department:
Environmental Services;
Strategic Land Use Planning;
Economic Development;
Development Assessment; and
Building and Plumbing
This report provides a brief summary regarding recent achievements, current priorities and future
initiatives for the Environment and Sustainable Development Department.
Page 51 of 64
Section 52
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Director’s office
Short Term Letting – Superseded DA processing an average of 5 STL Resource and organisational planning Next stage of STL Local Law
Planning Scheme Application and planning scheme applications each month for introduction of STL local law process
Draft Local Law Compliance Officer dealing with STL Management of STL consultation
related complaints with the peak holiday period including extensive
period resulting in many complaints communication
STL Draft Local Law issued for public
consultation in early April. Significant
community interest
Key strategic policy Implementation of processes to enact & Continue to support and guide the Continue to support and guide the
monitor Noosa Plan 2020 Ministerial adoption of CHAP including adoption of CHAP including
conditions stakeholder engagement through to stakeholder engagement through
Continued supporting Council’s efforts to revised deadline of November 2021 to revised deadline of November
resource & manage the Kin Kin quarry Continued management of 2021
issue with a focus on the legal challenge expectations and process related to Continued management of
Overall management of the CHAP Ministerial conditions expectations and process related
adoption process and continued work to to Ministerial conditions
engage with key stakeholders
Social and Community Housing Potential Planning scheme amendment Continue to lead and explore multiple Continue to progress this
options paper presented to Council in the options to address housing needs important issue
quarter and follow-ups underway
Continue to support State Local MPs
Housing Advisory Group
Economic Development Advanced research & content for the Innovation Zone at Noosa Business Innovation Zone at Noosa
revised Economic Strategy Discussion Centre Business Centre
Paper FireTech Living Lab project FireTech Living Lab project
Leading engagement with owners of development development
Noosa Business Centre to contribute to Revised Economic Strategy Revised Economic Strategy
outcome of Innovation Zone on the site
Continuation of $2.5m Firetech Program
with hosting of global virtual event
attended by 250+ with 13 countries
represented
Page 52 of 64
Section 53
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Environmental Services
Implementation of the ZEN Councillor workshop in March 2021 to Climate Change Response Plan Continued solar and energy
Organisational Strategy look at pathway options to zero net currently out for public comment – efficiency projects throughout
emissions by 2026. from the 24 March. Council facilities.
Stakeholder engagement on the Supporting the waste team in Collate Climate Change
Climate Change Response Plan. development of the new Waste Response Plan feedback and
Climate Week (21-28 March) Strategy finalise report to Council.
undertaken with high participation at Noosa North Shore Holiday Park Organise the Noosa Youth
over 20 events, including the Electric and Tewantin Splash Park solar Climate Summit in partnership
Vehicle Expo. installations. with the Noosa Environmental
Education Hub.
Flying-fox management Completed installation and activation of Delivery of subsidised services Delivery of subsidised services
sprinkler system at north-west corner of program to residents around program to residents around
Wallace Park. Wallace Park and Kin Kin. Wallace Park and Kin Kin.
Intensive community engagement with Undertake tree management work at
several hundred thousand Little Red Kin Kin when the ground is dry
Flying-foxes at Wallace Park in enough to access the site.
February.
Deliver subsidised services program to
residents around Wallace Park & Kin
Kin.
Ongoing monitoring of flying-fox
numbers at Wallace Park;
o Jan BFF (409), GHFF (290),
LRFF (35,761)
o Feb LRFF (166,838)
o Mar LRFF (44,183)
Damage to vegetation caused by Little Red Flying-foxes at Wallace Park,
which left the site in late March.
Page 53 of 64
Section 54
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Private Land Conservation Ongoing collation of existing and new Continue delivering the LfW Continue delivering the LfW
Partnerships - Land for Wildlife (LfW) flora and fauna records into a single program, sign up new properties, program, sign up new properties,
and Voluntary Conservation database with associated map layers. revisits on demand, roll out LfW revisits on demand, roll out LfW
Agreements (VCA) Uploaded data into WildNet. incentive program to members for incentive program to members
Compiled final list of split-zoned current financial year. for current financial year.
properties for incorporation into the Identify strategic freehold properties Place conservation covenants
next planning scheme amendment. in the landscape to target for LfW over 4 new VCA properties.
Updated Council website with better promotion (based on size, remnant Delivery of on-ground works to
info on LFW and VCA programs. veg coverage, and connectivity to VCA properties.
existing protected areas).
Promote VCA program to LfW
members.
Community Bushland Care Program Developed annual work plans for most Finalise remaining group annual Continue to provide logistical and
groups. work plans for all the groups. technical support to all group –
Delivered Frog Identification workshop Upgrading the Bushcare Webpage. business as usual.
in partnership with MRCC. Developing a process for monitoring Deliver two more educational
Undertook Climate Week tree planting online WHS induction attendance. workshops.
on March 28 at Girraween Nature Organizing herbicide training
Refuge. (ACDC) for a number of volunteers.
The Heathland Drive Restoration project Organising new uniforms for 200+
has entered its 4th year and has volunteers.
surpassed expectation with more than Planning for National tree Day and
75% of primary works completed and Bushcare Big Day Out.
now at the maintenance stage.
Yurol Ringtail Project DAF continue hardwood harvesting in Continue to support community Work with DES, QPWS,
Yurol SF. information, customer queries and Greenfleet, Landcare to finalise
QUT successful in grant to undertake a engagement with HQP and DAF to the Ecological Restoration Plan
drone project to look at wild dog impacts ensure stakeholder and community for pine and hardwood plantation
on koalas, with Yurol-Ringtail to be one awareness of harvesting underway. areas
of the sites. Draft the Yurol-Ringtail SFs
Ecological Restoration Plan in
consultation with key stakeholders
and the Transition Committee
Working with QUT on baseline koala
survey for the Yurol-Ringtail project.
Page 54 of 64
Section 55
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Pest Management Completed 3rd quarter of Biosecurity Priority weed control on State road Complete 4th quarter of
Surveillance Program including the reserve areas as part of annual Biosecurity Surveillance program
inspection of properties in Kin Kin, contract with Transport & Main property inspections.
Pinbarren, Cooran and the parts of Roads. Feral Deer control in the Lake
Como that are within the Noosa Council Fox control trapping near marine MacDonald area corresponding
boundary (38 properties were Turtle nesting sites at Peregian and with the mating season.
inspected). Marcus Beach.
Undertook feral pig control on Noosa Complete final inspection of
North Shore airstrip to quickly manage properties for the identification and
the population causing significant mapping of Cat’s Claw Creeper
damage at the site. weed infestations, and liaise with
Intensive wild dog trapping program Landcare over initial on-ground
undertaken at Federal, Ridgewood, works as an outcome of the surveys.
Pinbarren, Cooroy Mountain, Kin Kin Undertaking first wild dog baiting
and Cootharaba. program for 2021, working with 19
participating private properties.
Feral pigs in trap at Noosa North Shore airfield
Noosa River Management In partnership with Maritime Safety Working with NRSAC members to Support development of NRSAC
Queensland, completed Terms of finalise the Terms of Reference for and work with MSQ to deliver on
Reference for Noosa River Stakeholder the group. actions where relevant.
Advisory Committee (NRSAC). Providing support to NRSAC
NRSAC Expression of Interest opened subcommittees tasked with
on 18 February and closed on 5 March investigating specific issues.
with 20 applications. 14 of the nominees
appointed to the committee.
First meeting of NRSAC held on 14
April.
Page 55 of 64
Section 56
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
The Nature Conservancy Partnership 9 public information sessions held in Finalising project implementation Finalise and submit permit
– Oyster Ecosystem Restoration December with 38 attendees. High level plan and site management plan. applications to authorities for
Project of support for project and restoration Finalising permit documentation and review.
sites presented. undertaking pre-lodgment meetings Support local groups technically
Engineering and bathymetry works with relevant authorities. with implementation of
largely completed. Designing projects and entering into community engagement projects.
6-monthly report provided to Council, as agreements with local groups. Continue collecting oyster shells
per the Alliance & Funding Agreement. Engaging more restaurants in Shuck and curing them.
Don’t Chuck project. Secure fisheries permit for
community work.
Secure agreement with an
interstate shellfish hatchery to
support breeding of local rock
oysters.
Bushland Reserve Management Public consultation undertaken on the Working with State on Nature Finalise Noosa LGA Multi-
draft Bushland Strategic Management Refuge declaration over several land Agency Fire Management Plan
Plan and Strategic Fire Management parcels. Project.
Plan Working with partner agencies on Bring the draft Bushland
Provided data and participated in development of Noosa LGA Multi- Strategic Management Plan and
annual Area Fire Management Group Agency Fire Management Plans. Strategic Fire Management Plan
with other fire management agencies. Invitation to Quote process for to Council for endorsement.
Consult/notify adjacent property owners Noosa Bushland Operational
of proposed 20/21 Fire Trail/Fuel Assessment project.
Reduction program and undertaking Bio-retention basin renewal capital
works. design and procurement (Cooyar
Continued bio-retention basin Street).
maintenance program Engaging with our contractor of the
First Hazard Reduction Program burn 2021 planned burns program.
undertaken in mid-April.
Works 4 Queensland Natural Areas Team of four finalised training and Completion of planting project at Finalise 2021 projects, reporting
Crew started working in the field at priority Peregian Beach. to W4Q.
sites at Cooroy, Heritage Park and Supporting Bushcare Groups with Look to extend the group until the
Eastern Beaches. on-ground work, including the end of 2021.
Completion of planting project at Coastal Connect grant project on the
Ashgrove Park in Cooroy. Eastern Beaches.
Supporting the botanic gardens
team.
Page 56 of 64
Section 57
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Work crew at planting site at Ashgrove Park
Noosa Trail Network Noosa Trail Masterplan Stakeholder Communicate track closures related In consultation with the Noosa
Group Terms of Reference were to the forestry work in the Yurol- Trail Masterplan Stakeholder
finalised and the second meeting held in Ringtail areas. Group, prepare an options paper
February. One-on-one consultations with for the trail network covering user
Contract for full audit of the Trail stakeholders. needs, standards and final
Network awarded in March. locations of the trail network
contingent on funding models to
Update report presented to Council in
support management by QPWS
the March round of meetings.
and Council on land under their
control.
Seek State and Federal funding
opportunities to initiate
implementation of Trails
Masterplan.
Strategic Land use Planning
Noosa Plan 2020 First administrative amendment Supporting the implementation of the Continue work on Amendment
completed (minor administrative new Noosa Plan internally and no. 2 for Noosa Plan 2020 –
changes) externally. various matters to be included
Continued to gather baseline Further amendments underway for Progress housing needs
information for ongoing monitoring improvement of workability and to assessment and wider Housing
processes. align with State policies. Choice project with other
Discussions with State on Coastal stakeholders
Erosion
Page 57 of 64
Section 58
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Whole of Shire Climate Change Workshop with councillors Consultation on Climate Change Review submissions and
Response Plan Finalised draft Climate Change Response Plan until 30 April consider next steps to finalise.
Response Plan, endorsed by Council for Continue stakeholder engagement
consultation
Stakeholder workshops and meetings
Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan Finalised draft Coastal Hazards Reviewing submissions Ongoing stakeholder
Adaptation Plan (CHAP), endorsed by Further stakeholder engagement engagement
Council for consultation following confirmation of extended Work towards finalising CHAP
Consultation complete timeframe for the submission of the
CHAP to LGAQ
Business as Usual activities General advice and advocacy. General advice and advocacy. General advice and advocacy.
Customer enquiries. Customer enquiries. Customer enquiries.
Contribution to development application
assessments.
Economic Development
Local Economic Plan (LEP) The strategic intent of the LEP and the Focus on developing a Local Finalise Discussion Paper for
implementation associated 68 actions continue to be Economic Strategy discussion paper community consultation
delivered by Council and its partners. for targeted and general consultation Finalise LEP Strategy and public
The LEP review is underway with 3 in May 2021 release
workshops held with Councillors and the
Business Roundtable.
Continued delivery of the COVID
Response Business Support
Frameworks and operation of the
Business Roundtable.
Business Support and Development Professional Services Panel revamped Finalise Business Conceirge Continue to host and review the
and relaunched Program operation and activity of the
Worked with Tewantin Traders to Continue to develop external Business Round Table
develop a 3-5 year evidence based communications – enewsletter, EcDev brand, creative and
Action Plan social media, web site content for development
Working with Business Association to deeper engagement Review Professional Services
enable the delivery of precinct based Continue to support all business Panel Program for need and
projects funded by Tourism Noosa – groups including the operation of the relevance
public art, visitor information Business Roundtable. Continue to lead a flexible and
infrastructure, RV entry statement & site COVID safe education & compliance co-ordinated approach across
upgrades will be led by Councils EHOs Council to support business
The Council hosted Business recovery
Roundtable has evolved into a very
Page 58 of 64
Section 59
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
successful collaboration with an ‘Consume local’ concept rolled out in Test Business Concierge
adopted Charter of operation. partnership with Tourism Noosa, Program internally and externally
The second business resilience survey Buy Noosa and Eat Noosa including consideration of
was completed with 200 participants. Providing ‘concierge’ services to key adopting the State Governments
Results published in February 2021 clients on an as needs basis. Business Friendly Council
The Economic Development team Digital Hub Director continues to Program
continues to work directly with Business provide mentoring services and
Associations, including Tewantin, manage the transition of potential
Pomona, Cooroy, Noosa Junction, new tenants.
Sunshine Beach, and Noosaville
Key business concierge support was
provided to multiple businesses in the
period
Industry & Sector Development Tourism Education Sector – NETA focus on Focus on next steps for the Future
Collaborating with Tourism Noosa on progressing Learning Hub proposal Skills Learning Hub following
future focused wedding industry Education Sector – Engage NETA outcomes from the Feasibilty
development & business events Coordinator following the resignation Study
strategy of Andrea Tattam Digital Hub expansion – lead
Tech/Digital Agribusiness/Food – support the role design of next stage as part of
The Digital Hub is operating at full out of FAN Noosa Rufous Street project.
capacity & the technology school Agribusiness/Food – continue to
holiday programs have been a huge support local food initiatives
success. Tourism – work with TN to support
FireTech Program now has over $2.5M and grow the Wedding Industry and
worth of funding for the 3 components activate the business events market
of business growth program, FireTech Digital Hub – continue strong growth
expos and the FireTech Living Lab. and plan for expansion. Focus on
Digital Connectivity Infrastructure Plan execution of $2M Firetech Program.
for Noosa in early stage of conceptual
design. Meetings held with
infrastructure providers & SCC
colleagues.
Education
NETA (Education and Training Alliance)
fully incorporated, met with Noosa
Councillors and have developed a
Learning Hub Feasibility ITQ.
Page 59 of 64
Section 60
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Food & Agriculture
Food and Agribusiness Network (FAN)
partnership agreement with Noosa
Council activated.
www.eatlocalnoosa.com.au industry led
initiative that connected our local
produce market to the consumer,
initially in response to COVID
restrictions impacting the seafood
industry supply chain.
Communications and Marketing Significant resources between Ec Dev & COVID response and recovery COVID response and recovery
Program Environmental Health teams has been communications and messaging. communications and messaging.
dedicated to provide targeted & relevant Partnership with Tourism Noosa,
COVID safe information to businesses Buy Noosa and Eat Noosa to
Supported comms to business promote the ‘consume local’
regarding pre-Easter lockdown. program to residents and visitors
E-newsletter & targeted updates
published to a distribution list of 1,500+.
Leadership & Strategy Program Economic Development team continue Support and influence regional Support and expand Council’s
to build relationships and meet with the priorities through involvement with consultation with the business
following individuals and agencies: RDA, Sunshine Coast Business sector in relation to major
LGAQ, Department of Industry, Council and others. strategic policy and decision
Austrade, Advance Queensland, RDA Continue to represent economic and making matters.
Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast business interests across Council
Council ED team activity.
Economic Development team
contributed to the following Council
projects :
o Overall COVID response
o Rufous Street PCG (next stage
Digital Hub)
o Kin Kin Quarry issue management
o Management of cross-council
interactions with Tourism Noosa
Business as Usual activities Represent Council at a range of Client management and inward Ongoing business enquiry
business and network forums. business enquiries. management.
Meetings with key stakeholders
internally / externally.
Page 60 of 64
Section 61
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Development Assessment
Auditing program for Advertising Implementation of Local Law signage Auditing program temporarily ceased Continue auditing program for
Devices requirements, with signage applications due to COVID-19. advertising devices – Noosa
being processed under the Local Law Temporary additional signage Civic & Hinterland area.
Workshop with councillors & business permitted for some businesses
group on signage local law impacted by COVID-19.
requirements
Business as Usual activities Monthly reporting to Treasury Qld State Negotiations on NBN appeal Continued assessment of
Government and Australian Bureau of underway. Development Applications lodged
Statistics on development approval Assessment of a number of under The Noosa Plan 2006 and
information. Superseded Planning Scheme The Noosa Plan 2020.
Development Activity Monitoring Pilot applications. Ongoing management of
Project Completed with LGAQ Issue of Infringement Notices to Kin Infrastructure Charges issued
Trial for Serratore Appeal completed Kin Quarry and preparation work for and receipted including relief
and awaiting judgement further evidence collection. provided in assistance to Covid-
BNB Super and Mason Appeals Working with Council ICT Branch in 19.
successfully settled developing electronic application Review Infrastructure Charges
processes & for planning deferred & delayed staged
applications. payments relief provided in
Working with individual businesses assistance to Covid-19 to apply
to address their circumstances and after 1 July 2021.
COVID-19 impacts.
Ongoing management of
Infrastructure Charges issued and
receipted including relief provided in
assistance to Covid-19.
Building and Plumbing
Business as Usual activities Continue to deliver customer services Continue to promote Council’s one Ensure Council’s record
request with existing resources. stop shop, building and plumbing management documentation is
Continue to work on resourcing of application service counter as this compiled as per legislative
building and plumbing teams in counter is now open and fully obligations to Australian Bureau
ensuring the delivery of legislative functional. of Statistics (ABS), Unitywater,
obligations in building and plumbing Maintain legislative plumbing Queensland Treasury and the
services and record management application timeframes, plumbing Queensland Building
obligations (review existing structure of team requires to fill vacant plumbing Construction Commission.
building team recruit vacant plumbing Inspector position to meet existing Maintain resources & budget
inspectors position) application workloads – overtime commitments in regards to
legislative plumbing application
Page 61 of 64
Section 62
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Delivery of monthly reporting to Qld benefits required to maintain timeframes.
State/ Federal Government agencies. increased workloads at this point Continue to identify leadership
Branch received new scanner for Identified resourcing for record and resources for building
existing hard copy file transfer to management of exiting & legislative document lodgement and
electronic adaptation to fully electronic register obligations reported within relaxation obligations.
service. next years budget requirements (fee
for service activities)
Plumbing and Building Audit, This quarter Council had two requests Maintain obligations to investigate Implement stage 3 backflow
Educational Programmes to investigate swimming pool emersions emersions as requested. prevention device programme
and Swimming Pool Immersions and prepare reports for Qld Health Organise a local industry swimming (shire drinking water protection
Continue to investigate swimming pool pool committee, in promote industry programme)
complaints (RMs) expectations and legislative Continue to investigate & report
Maintain audit reporting for non-building requirements. findings from swimming pool,
compliance within Forest Acres within Work with residents within the Lake Spa & Pond Emersions as
Lake MacDonald catchment area. MacDonald Area in seeking building directed from Qld Health.
Stage Two backflow prevention device compliance issues. Implement local industry
programme has now been Develop stage 3 Backflow swimming pool working group
completed.(shire drinking water prevention device program within the program promoting consistency
protection programme) shire. in delivery of legislative
obligations & local compliance
support networks.
Prepare industry service agent
meeting this quarter (scheduled
for 12 May 2021)
Compliance Approvals – Council and Continue to undertake desk top study Continue to seek performance Complete report of outstanding
Community. and file management of Internal Council based compliance criteria for North Council building files & prepare
Building files (stage one completed, Shore Caravan Park report of outcomes & actions
next stage underway). Maintain audits for on-site waste undertaken.
Maintain compliance inspections and water systems within the Cooran Undertake compliance
performance targets for North Shore Area of the shire. inspections for waste water
Caravan park. Maintain building and plumbing treatment facilities within non-
Completed compliance inspections for compliance shire wide, addressed sewered areas within the shire.
Boreen Point Caravan Park this quarter around 456 complaints Report outcomes of ongoing
water meter billing savings to
Finance Branch
Continue to undertake building
and plumbing approval permits
for internal departments.
Page 62 of 64
Section 63
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
BRANCH ACTIVITIES RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS CURRENT PRIORITIES THE NEXT QUARTER
Ensure all non-revenue work
undertaken is recorded and
reflected within budget process.
Maintain to deliver complaint
services to residents with existing
resources.
Electronic Plumbing Application Worked with ICT Branch for the Continue to work with Council’s ICT Continue to work with ICT team
Project implementation of Councils electronic team for the expansion of this pilot to identify strategies for the
Plumbing and Building application programme to encompass all seamless delivery of this
approval programme for customers. Council building and plumbing programme to all customers.
Promote the extension of this customers. Promote electronic application
programme to all customers Further develop strategies for the service at next proposed
delivery of this programme to all consultants and contractors
customers (ongoing). meeting.
Page 63 of 64
Section 64
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 11 MAY 2021
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
Nil.
Risks & Opportunities
Nil.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
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 X Director Director
Community Engagement X Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance X Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture X Environmental Services Disaster Management
X Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
7 CLOSED SESSION
Nil.
Page 64 of 64