Skip to the record
The first. The best. The only NoosaWatch™.

Original source · versioned page text

2016-12-12 General Committee Agenda

of 81

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                             12 DECEMBER 2016


Based on current workload trends, the Planning Act 2016 is highly likely to impact on the ability of
the DA Planning team to meet the statutory time frames imposed, and provide timely, considered
advice on planning matters and ultimately impact on the planning outcomes for Noosa Shire.
Current service levels will not be able to be maintained with current arrangements and practices.
There is also the real possibility of deemed approvals occurring and missed concurrence agency
responses.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 25 September 2014, Item 5, Page 18
That Council note the report by the Manager, Planning & Environment and Strategic Planner to
the Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 16 September 2014 and request the
Chief Executive Officer to make a submission to the draft Planning and Development Bill 2014
and Planning and Environment Court Bill 2014 generally seeking that:-
A.    The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning undertake consultation
      on the draft Planning and Development Regulations and Guidelines where much of the
      practical impacts of the legislation changes for the community, development industry and
      local governments will be located;
B.    Local governments and their communities should continue to retain the ability to decide
      through their planning schemes which developments will be required to be publicly notified
      and have third party appeal rights;
C.    Where an application conflicts with the planning scheme, the onus of proof should be on
      the applicant to prove the merits of the proposal and justify the inconsistency rather than
      what appears to be an onus on the assessment manager to prove that the intent of the
      planning scheme should be upheld;
D.    Section 89 of the Planning and Development Bill 2014 be amended to remove the
      requirement for local governments to provide a notice to applicants and owners that their
      approval will lapse, as this should be the responsibility for applicants and owners to
      monitor;
E.    A time limit requirement be included for Conversion Applications and Offset Establishment
      Cost review requests to be made and undertaken during the period for a Negotiated
      Decision Notice to reduce uncertainty for local governments;
F.    An allowance be included for Local Governments to index all Infrastructure Charges from a
      set base date in accordance with the applicable index to address increasing infrastructure
      costs;
G.    Councils should have the ability to issue an Infrastructure Charges Notice for minor
      changes to development approvals issued prior to 1 July 2011 that involve an increase to
      the intensity of the development and for extensions to the currency period; and
H.    Provide within the P&D Bill the ability for local government planning schemes to also apply
      to assessment of uses within the local government tidal area/river lease areas to support
      improved management of marine activities and address potential impacts on adjacent
      foreshores and uses.

Ordinary Meeting, 15 January 2015, Item 1, Page 3
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner and the Manager, Planning &
Environment to the General Committee dated 12 January 2015 and request the Chief Executive
Officer to make a submission to the Dept of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
regarding the following points:
A.    The Planning & Development Bill and Planning & Development Regulations are not clear in
      the decision rules, particularly for those applications which conflict with the planning
      scheme. It is considered that where an application conflicts with the planning scheme, the
      onus of proof should be on the applicant to prove the merits of the proposal and justify any
      inconsistencies;


                                                                                     Page 30 of 81
Log in to download the original file

2016-12-12 General Committee Agenda(PDF, 6MB).pdf · 5.9 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.