2020-10-06 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                6 OCTOBER 2020


The two provisions of the scheme said to found the basis for non-compliance are Overall
Outcome (a) and Specific Outcome O11 of the Watercourses Works Code. Neither provision
requires handrails ‘consist of vertical posts and a horizontal rail with no decorative infills…’.
Rather, both provisions in our opinion are high-level provisions containing very broad statements
relating to character and amenity.
The statement in the Assessment Report that ‘Any infill of the hand rails is inconsistent with the
Watercourse Works Code’ does not find support from the words used in the Watercourses Works
Code, which relevantly states at Specific Outcome O11:
‘Works are designed and sited to ensure—
a)     they are contained within the prolongation of boundaries of the lot;
b)     that when a vessel is berthed it does not encroach over the prolongation of boundaries of
       the lot;
c)     a high level of visual amenity is maintained when viewed from the watercourse and
       adjoining lands;
d)     the works avoid conflicts with uses in the water and on the foreshore and adjoining lands;
e)     materials blend with the natural surrounds;
f)     cluttering of watercourses is avoided;
g)     excessive traffic volumes within foreshore areas, on adjoining lands and in the water are
       avoided; and
h)     they reflect the character and setting of the work’s immediate surrounds or the locality’
To apply the above provisions to find non-compliance in the circumstances of this case, where
the Minor Change Application concerns one white timber jetty’s handrail with ‘cross’ infill design
would be difficult in our view. The design reflects the design of the residential property which
adjoins it. This is especially so where the residential property in the same style has been
approved, and has a ‘Hamptons style’ façade which is exposed to the canal.
We have reviewed the Watercourses Works Code and are unable to find any more specific
provision that Council could rely on to assist in maintain a refusal position.
No further specificity has been added to the provisions of the Waterways Works Code in the new
Noosa Plan 2020, to which regard might be had by the Court under the Minor Change
assessment regime. The new Noosa Plan 2020 is therefore not of any assistance to Council in
this matter.
A discretionary argument under section 81 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) about there being a
clear planning strategy that cumulative impacts be avoided does not appear to be available.
Following this advice, officers subsequently agreed to recommend settlement of the appeal to
Council.
Given Council officers long standing practice of requiring a consistent open style of handrail in
Noosa Waters, and Noosa Waters Residence Association previous comments on this appeal, the
matter has been raised with Council’s strategic planning team for consideration in future
amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2020, Item 3, Page 24
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. D63 of 2020 and agree to defend the appeal.




                                                                                   Page 46 of 47