2021-05-11 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda

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 64