Decision Notice - Refusal - 010.2007.00001259.001 [As Published] · 132007.1259

Page 2

                                                                                      2007/1259

3.    The proposed development has the potential to cause significant detriment to the Noosa
      National Park, with the stormwater management plan for the site inadequately demonstrating
      that:
      (a)    Runoff from the site which discharges into the National Park will be appropriately treated
             to ensure that the downstream ecosystem will not be adversely affected; and
      (b)    Adequate runoff treatment can be achieved in the development footprint and some
             modification to the layout may be required to achieve required treatment areas;
4.    Any necessary roadworks and/or road dedications that could assist in offsetting the adverse
      traffic impacts of the proposed development would significantly impact on the development
      proposal and could not be easily accommodated in the current proposal;
5.    There are significant deficiencies in the proposed layout within the development site, which
      would lead to unacceptable safety and operational problems, with regard to vehicle and
      pedestrian conflicts;
6.    The proposal is contrary to the Specific and Overall Outcomes of the Eastern Beaches Locality
      Code to protect and retain the caravan park for low cost visitor accommodation needs and
      integrate Visitor Accommodation Type 4 development with a caravan park. The proposed
      development does not ensure low cost accommodation is retained as found in a caravan park;
7.    The proposal is contrary to the Specific and Overall Outcomes of the Eastern Beaches Locality
      Code for professional offices on the western side of David Low Way, which present a domestic
      scale and form of architecture. The proposal includes restaurants and shops of a commercial
      scale and dominant form, which is not in keeping with the nearby development;
8.    The proposed development is contrary to the Specific and Overall Outcomes of the Eastern
      Beaches Locality Code for the scale and form of buildings to be low rise, of a compatible scale
      and bulk, and sited to maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape
      elements. The development is excessive in terms of its density, height and building bulk, lacks
      soft landscaping and fails to maintain the visual continuity and pattern within the street;
9.    The proposed development is contrary to Specific Outcomes (O3 & O4) and Overall Outcomes
      of the Transport, Roads and Drainage Code as the development will adversely impact on traffic
      operations and traffic safety on the David Low Way;
10.   The proposed development is contrary to the Specific Outcomes (O9, O10 and O11) and
      Overall Outcomes of the Driveways and Car Parking Code to provide adequate manoeuvring
      areas for service vehicles and ensure car park designs do not conflict with pedestrians;
11.   The proposed development is contrary to Specific Outcome O6 of the Water Sensitive Design
      Code to ensure run-off that leaves the site is treated so as to not adversely impact on the
      ecology and hydrology of downstream environmental flows;
12.   The proposed development is contrary the Desired Environmental Outcomes for residential
      uses to be developed consistent with the expected character and amenity for the particular
      locality, with the development not respective of its setting, neighbouring development and site’s
      natural features;
13.   The proposed development is contrary to the Desired Environmental Outcomes for a tourism
      industry to be developed and sustained which offers a range of accommodation types, as the
      proposed development does not ensure low cost accommodation is retained as found in a
      caravan park;
14.   The application relies on inadequate or irrelevant planning grounds to justify its departure from
      the provisions of The Noosa Plan; and




                                                                                   Page 2 of 9

Page 3

                                                                                     2007/1259


15.    The application attracted a number of public submissions opposed to the development and
       these have raised valid concerns generally reflected in the previous grounds for this decision.

4      REFERRAL AGENCIES

The IDAS referral agencies applicable to this application are:

 Referral Trigger           Referral Status     Referral Agency       Referral Address

 Site contains              Concurrence         Department of         PO Box 573
 assessable vegetation                          Natural Resources     NAMBOUR QLD 4560
                                                & Water

 Site in an area which      Concurrence         Environmental         Contaminated Land Unit
 has been given area                            Protection Agency     GPO Box 2771
 management advice for                                                BRISBANE QLD 4001
 unexploded ordnance

 Wetlands                   Advice              Environmental         Eco Access Customer
                                                Protection Agency     Service Unit
                                                                      PO Box 15155
                                                                      CITY EAST QLD 4002

 Conservation Estate        Advice              Environmental         Eco Access Customer
                                                Protection Agency     Service Unit
                                                                      PO Box 15155
                                                                      CITY EAST QLD 4002

 Acid Sulfate soils         Advice              Dept Natural          PO Box 573
                                                Resources & Water     NAMBOUR QLD 4560

A copy of each referral agency response is attached.

5      SUBMISSIONS
There were two properly made submissions about the application. In accordance with Integrated
Planning Act 1997 the name and address of the principal submitter for each properly made submission
is provided and attached.

6      RIGHTS OF APPEAL

You are entitled to appeal against this decision. A copy of the relevant appeal provisions from the
Integrated Planning Act 1997 is attached.

7      OTHER DETAILS

Should you wish to obtain more information about Council’s decision, electronic copies are available
on line at www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au or at Council Offices.
Yours faithfully,



Kerri Coyle
ACTING MANAGER – LAND USE



                                                                                   Page 3 of 9

Page 4

                                                                                 2007/1259


                                         List of Submitters
                                         INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 & 1998 REGULATION




Jill Chamberlain
The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland
PO Box 275
CALOUNDRA QLD 4551


Mrs R J Gorrie
210 David Low Way
PEREGIAN BEACH QLD 4573




                                                                               Page 4 of 9

Page 5

                                        2007/1259


Referral  Agency      Conditions                    –
Environmental Protection Agency
INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 & 1998 REGULATION




                                      Page 5 of 9

Page 6

  2007/1259




Page 6 of 9


[OCR of page images]
2007/1259

 

IDAS C-6

Defence advises that development or land use rezoning proposals for land within a ‘substantial’ zone
should only proceed following the conduct of UXO investigation and clearance activities. Defence
maintains a list of commercial UXO investigation and remedial search contractors that it accredits to
carry out this work.

Defence also recommends that owners or occupiers of potentially affected land and workers and
contractors employed on the land need to be aware of the procedure if a suspect object is found.

As the EPA has no record of the site being further investigated or remediated, it is considered that
there remains a possibility of UXO being found on it.

4 Conditions
The following concurrence agency conditions are to be attached to any approval:

41 Prior to the commencement of any excavation, earthworks or soil disturbance related to this
development, that part of the site to be so worked is to be subjected to investigation and,
where necessary, appropriate remedial action.

4.2. Any person employed to work on any part of the site where Condition 4.1 has not been
satisfied is to be forewarned in writing by the applicant.

This warning is to explain that information available to the EPA indicates a potential for
residual UXO exists on the site and work should proceed with due caution. It is to state the
procedure to be followed by any person finding an object suspected of being explosive
ordnance or component thereof:

Do not disturb the object.

Take action, where appropriate, to prevent it being disturbed by another person.
Note its approximate dimensions and general appearance.

Note the route to its location.

Advise the Police as soon as possible.

4.3 Following investigation and any remedial action taken to satisfy Condition 4.1 above, the
applicant is to submit a report, prepared in accordance with current guidelines, to the EPA for
assessment. The EPA is to subsequently advise the Noosa Council and the applicant of its
assessment in regard to Condition 4.1 being satisfied.

4.4 No gravel, rock, sand or soil is to be removed from the site without written EPA approval.

45 The applicant is to advise the owner and any occupier of the site of the above responsibilities.
5 Additional comments or advice

Applicants may contact the EPA’s Contaminated Land Unit on (07) 3224 5644 or visit the Defence
website http://www.defence.gov.awuxo/ for the details of current UXO investigation and remedial
search contractors. The EPA accepts reports based on investigative and remedial work carried out

by these contractors.

Investigation and remedial action to satisfy Condition 4.1 typically involves sampling/search —
programs with detection equipment unless the use of such equipment is:

VER2

Page 6 of 9

Page 7

  2007/1259




Page 7 of 9


[OCR of page images]
2007/1259

 

IDAS C-6

* considered unwarranted by a UXO contractor due to the extent of any prior excavation or
earthworks or, conversely, of any filling proposed as part of the development program; or

* prevented or made impracticable by the presence of a structure, stockpile, natural barrier or
metal waste.

In the latter case, alternative action may be appropriate to minimise the risk in the first instance. For
example, where the risk of exposure to any UXO that may exist is reduced by the presence of a
structure or natural barrier, issuance of the standard UXO waming (see Condition 4.2) may suffice
while the structure, stockpile or barrier remains in place. Where a structure is to be removed or
reduced as part of the development program, protective precautions, commensurate with any greater
tisk to which workers might then be exposed, may need to be considered. Progressive assessment
will be necessary where such circumstances exist. Unless, at the completion of preliminary works,
there is evidence then available to the UXO contractor that any residual risk is negligible, the use of
detection equipment will typically be required to confirm the site’s status.

Where investigation, along with any subsequent remedial action and assessment, is to be
implemented by stages to satisfy Condition 4.1 and 4.3, a preliminary investigation report should be
submitted by the applicant to the EPA along with a management plan for the proposed work. Staged
investigation/remediation is most likely to be applicable where development of smaller, built-on lots
(which can present circumstances such as those discussed above) or broadhectare sites is proposed. In
such cases, the EPA’s assessment of the report and advice to Council in regard to approval of the
development will be dependent on agreement with the management plan.

Where Condition 4.1 is to be satisfied by a whole lot or broadhectare development stage being
subjected to investigation and any necessary remedial action, the EPA, based on the subsequent
investigation/remediation report’s findings and recommendation/s, may reassess the lot, or that portion
comprising the development stage, as being remediated or not needing remediation, and advise the
applicant and Council accordingly. Otherwise, any balance of land that has not been further
investigated will retain the risk assessment made by Defence. This is unless evidence obtained from
the investigated part/s can be used to refute Defence’s assessment in regard to all or part of the
balance. In the latter case, the EPA may reassess all of the balance or the applicable part/s as being
unaffected by UXO.

6 Additional! information

This concurrence response applies only to contaminated land issues and does not remove the need to
obtain any further approval for this development which may be required by this or other legislation,
State and/or Commonwealth. Applicants are advised to check with ail relevant statutory authorities.
Applicants should also comply with all relevant legislation.

The EPA has not provided a notification to native title parties for this application. The State’s
Native Title Work Procedures indicate that the responsibility for assessment of native title issues for
an IDAS application rests with the Assessment Manager. It is recommended that the Assessment
Manager determines whether native title notification is required for this application.

*End of response*
IDAS C-6 CLM

VER2

Page 7 of 9

Page 8

                                        2007/1259


Referral  Agency    Conditions  –
Department of Natural Resources &
Water
INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 & 1998 REGULATION




                                      Page 8 of 9

Page 9

                                                                                           2007/1259


                                              Appeal Rights
                                              INTEGRATED PLANNING ACT 1997 & 1998 REGULATION




The following is an extract from the Integrated           (c) the decision to give a preliminary approval when
Planning Act (Chapter 4).                                     a development permit was applied for;
Division 8 - Appeals to court relating to                 (d) the length of a period mentioned in section
development applications                                      3.5.21 currency period;
Appeals by applicants                                     (e) a deemed refusal.
                                                              (2) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) to (d)
4.1.27.(1) An applicant for a development
                                                          must be started within 20 business days (the
application may appeal to the court against any of
                                                          “applicant’s appeal period”) after the day the
the following-
                                                          decision notice or negotiated decision notice is
(a) the refusal, or the refusal in part, of a             given to the applicant.
    development application;
                                                              (3) An appeal under subsection (1)(e) may be
(b) a matter stated in a development approval,            started at any time after the last day a decision on
    including any condition applying to the               the matter should have been made.
    development, and the identification of a code
                         1                                The Registrar for the Building and Development
    under section 3.1.6;
                                                          Tribunal may be contacted at the website
(c) the decision to give a preliminary approval when      http://www.localgovernment.qld.gov.au/
    a development permit was applied for;
(d) the length of a currency period;
(e) a deemed refusal.
    (2) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) to (d)
must be started within 20 business days (the
“applicant’s appeal period”) after the day the
decision notice or negotiated decision notice is
given to the applicant.
    (3) An appeal under subsection (1)(e) may be
started at any time after the last day a decision on
the matter should have been made.
For Building Works Only
Rights of appeal conferred by Section 4.2.9 of the
Integrated Planning Act 1997 as follows:
Division 3 – Appeals to tribunals relating to
development applications
Appeals by applicants
4.2.9(1) An applicant for a development application
may appeal to the Building and Development
Tribunal against any of the following-
(a) the refusal, or the refusal in part, of a
    development application;
(b) a matter stated in a development approval,
    including any condition applying to the
    development, and the identification of a code
                         2
    under section 3.1.6;


1
   Section 3.1.6 (Preliminary approval may override
  local planning instrument)
2
   Section 3.1.6 (Preliminary approval may override
  local planning instrument)
                                                                                        Page 9 of 9