Original source · versioned page text
2021-05-11 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda
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.
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 64See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.