Stage 2 Request to Extend Relevant Period

Page 2

2. BACKGROUND


By way of background, a development approval (preliminary approval) was issued over the land on 20 June 2011
for a Material Change of Use for Visitor Accommodation (Type 4) being 20 dwellings, commonly referred to as
Beach Road Retreats Stage 2. The current lapsing date of the approval is 6 June 2015 (refer Condition 4).


The application had been properly made in October 2008. Not long after lodgement of the development
application, the global financial crisis struck and severely impacted the property market, with the impacts of this
crisis prevailed for lengthy period of time.


It is considered that the relevant period for the Material Change of Use is approaching which is the motivation for
this request.


3. REQUEST TO EXTEND RELEVANT PERIOD


Under Section 383 of SPA, an extension to the relevant period of twenty-four (24) months is requested.


Whilst we acknowledge the relevant period is referenced in Condition 4 this request is taken to not be a request
to change the condition for the following reasons:
   Section 3 of the Development Permit concerns the Relevant Period of the Approval, and states that the
    relevant period is set out in the conditions.
   An extension to the ‘Relevant Period’ is required to be made in accordance with s383 of the SPA.
   A previous request was made with respect to Beach Road Retreats Stage 1, in accordance with this provision
    of the SPA and duly accepted and processed by Council.


The facts and circumstances in support of the requested extension are as follows:
   The appointed receivers were tasked with advancing this development application, and ultimately obtained
    a preliminary approval in June 2011, such that the site could be properly put to market for sale with this
    approval in place. For various reasons, this marketing and sale process took longer than expected and our
    client only acquired the site in early 2013.
   Our client has a committed interest in completing the project, and an extension to the relevant period is
    necessary to provide sufficient time to obtain a development permit consistent with this preliminary approval,
    and necessary to deliver the project.
   Though economic conditions have improved in recent years, visitor accommodation projects maintain a
    reasonably high risk profile, and require ideal market conditions. The requested extension will allow for this
    development to be completed within an acceptable economic and market cycle.
WOLTER CONSULTING GROUP                                                                               PAGE 2

Page 3

   Finally, the proposal remains consistent with the current planning scheme which supports visitor
    accommodation on land in the Visitor Mixed Use Zone.


4. ASSESSMENT MANAGER DETERMINATION OF REQUEST


Section 388(1) of SPA sets out the matters to be considered by the assessment manager in determining the
request. These are as follows:


(a) The consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with the current laws and policies applying to the
    development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure contributions, or infrastructure
    charges payable under an infrastructure charges schedule; and
(b) The community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
(c) Whether, if the request were refused-
      (i) further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development application; and
     (ii) the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
(d) The views of any concurrence agency for the approval under section 385.”


The following provides a response to these matters:


Subsection 1(a)


The Development Approval (Council reference: 132008.1779.1) was assessed and granted under the provisions
of the Noosa Plan 2006. Since the approval was issued Council has not adopted or commenced a new Noosa
Planning Scheme. We have reviewed the proposal with respect to the existing Noosa Plan and consider that it
remains consistent with the provisions of this current instrument.


Subsection 1(b)


The request to extend the relevant period of the development approval is within the reasonable expectations of
the community as it is currently valid and seeks to facilitate the carrying out of development subject to a
development permit being issued which is consistent with this preliminary approval (refer Condition 2).


This development also remains consistent with the current planning scheme. Furthermore, the site is within a
reasonably lowly populated locality, and the original master plan approval process involved wide consultation with
community and interest groups.


WOLTER CONSULTING GROUP                                                                              PAGE 3

Page 4

Subsection 1(c)


If this request to extend the relevant period of the development approval was refused, the proponent would be
required to prepare and lodge a new development application which would be subject to impact assessment and
consequently third party appeal rights.


As it stands, the proponent is required to submit a development application seeking a Council approval of a
development permit which is consistent with this preliminary approval. This application would be subject to impact
assessment and accordingly affords the opportunity for public submission.


Notwithstanding the above, given that the planning provisions have not altered and simultaneously no changes
are proposed to the approved development, no new submissions would be expected.


Subsection 1(d)


This request requires referral to SARA as the State Government Coordinating agency because the Department
of Natural Resources and Water (DNRW) was a Concurrence Agency for the original application. It is noted that
any views of the concurrence agency are to be taken into consideration in the determination of this request.


5. COUNCIL FEES


In accordance with Council’s fees and charges schedule, the nominated fee an extension to relevant
period is:
   $1,370 for minor matters as determined by Council, and
   $2,303 for more substantial matters as determine by Council.


The proponent has submitted this request contemporaneously with the request to extend the approval for
Beach Road Retreats Stage 1. We are asking that Council agree to one total fee of $2,303 for both
requests on the following basis:
   Both approvals are very similar in terms of content and issues with the primary difference being that
    Stage 1 is a development permit and Stage 2 is a preliminary approval
   The concurrent lodgement allows Council to consider these matters at the same time, and therefore
    provides a resource efficiency
   In the event they had been advanced as one application, the total fee would have been $2,303


We await your consideration and advice regarding total fees payable.

WOLTER CONSULTING GROUP                                                                              PAGE 4

Page 5

6. CONCLUSION


In conclusion, based on the facts and circumstances presented herein, it is recommended that the requested two
(2) year extension to the relevant period be approved by Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We
ask that Council now process this request at their earliest convenience and should you have any queries
regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely,
Wolter Consulting Group




…………………………………..
Andrew Crawford
Director / Manager Planning Services




WOLTER CONSULTING GROUP                                                                            PAGE 5