Original source · versioned page text
2014-03-25 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda Pages 81-167
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE FOR A MIXED USE COMMUNITY TITLE DEVELOPMENT AT EENIE
CREEK RD, 99 & 191 HOLLETT RD NOOSAVILLE AND 106, 108-142 TIDSWELL RD
WEYBA DOWNS
Author Senior Development Planner, Denis Wallace
Community & Development
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU12/0208
Attachments 1. Proposed Precinct/Zone Plan
2. Indicative Development Layout
3. Cut and Fill Plan
4. Proposed Koala Habitat Offset Planting Areas
5. Rural Holiday Accommodation Approved Plan
6. Hofmann Rural Residential Approved Plan
7. Koala SPRP Habitat Mapping
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Northbrook Corporation Pty Ltd
Proposal Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use under
Section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Scheme 2009
to vary the effect of The Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan
2000 Planning Schemes for a mixed use community title
development.
Properly Made Date 20/12/2012
Information Request Date 28/02/2013
Information Response Date 28/10/2013
Decision Due Date 5/5/2014
Number of Submissions 1,071
of which 985 were Properly Made
and 84 were Not Properly Made
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Eenie Creek Rd, 99 & 191 Hollett Rd Noosaville Qld
4566 and 106, 108-142 Tidswell Rd Weyba Downs Qld
4562
RP Description and Lot Areas Noosa Council Local Government Area
Lot 2 RP 160983 (93.099ha)
Lot 2 SP 179590 (12.52ha)
Lot 7 RP 46782 (1.986ha)
Lot 53 SP 163571 (110.0ha)
Page 81 of 231
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original 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.
Full text of sections 2 to 86 (of 87)
Section 2
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Lot 1667 M 37772 (44.414ha)
Sunshine Coast Local Government Area
Lot 11 SP 250714 (40.52ha)
Lot 12 RP 893393 (0.6108ha)
Existing Use of Land Vacant / Detached House / Rural
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Regional Landscape & Rural Production Area
Planning Schemes The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011)
Maroochy Plan 2000 (24 October 2011)
Land Subject to The Noosa Plan
Locality Tewantin & Doonan Locality
Zones Rural Settlement
Rural
Open Space Conservation
Assessment Type Impact
Land Subject to Maroochy Plan 2000
Strategic Plan Designation Agricultural Protection
Rural or Valued Habitat
Planning Area Northern Coastal Plains Planning Area
Planning Precinct Water Resource Catchment Area
Assessment Type Impact
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s determination of an application for Preliminary
Approval for a Material Change of Use under Section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Act to vary
the effect of The Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 for a mixed use community title
development at Eenie Creek Rd, 99 & 191 Hollett Road Noosaville and 106 & 108-142 Tidswell
Rd Weyba Downs.
The application is before Council due to the degree of conflict with the local planning schemes
that affect the site, the scale and significance of the proposal and the level of public interest in the
application (1,071 submissions were received during the public notification period).
Page 82 of 231
Section 3
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The development is to be known as Noosa on Weyba and comprises a mix of residential,
community, commercial and open space uses for up to 1,008 dwellings to be established under a
multi-level community title structure. The development is outside the urban footprint areas of the
South East Queensland Regional Plan and would normally be prohibited but is preceded by a
State Biodiversity Development Offset Area (BDOA) gazettal that allows the application to be
made. If the application is approved the BDOA agreement requires the transfer of three of the
site’s component allotments totaling 139.5ha be transferred to public ownership as national park.
This land dedication is considered to pose the development’s primary community benefit.
The site is ecologically constrained and drains into the highly sensitive receiving wetlands and
waterways of the Lake Weyba and Noosa River systems. The applicant submits it has taken an
integrated design approach to achieve triple bottom line sustainability outcomes and protect and
enhance the site’s environmental values. A number of desirable sustainability measures are
posed but, overall, the assessment finds significant environmental and social risks are also
posed. The proposal seeks to modify the landform through major earthworks and clear all
vegetation within urban precincts to provide for intensive residential development. This approach
is not considered to appropriately respond to the site’s environmental, natural resource, open
space and Aboriginal cultural heritage values and constraints.
The development raises numerous planning conflicts and concerns relating to: the SEQ Regional
plan; Aboriginal cultural heritage; koala conservation; water quality; environmental corridors;
scenic and residential amenity; open space and conservation values; infrastructure capacity and
provision; bushfire; traffic and transport; and urban design outcomes.
Concurrence agency conditions directed to be applied by the Department of Transport and Main
Roads and Department of Environment and Heritage adversely impact on the development and
are considered fatal to the application. The Sunshine Coast Council has also directed Noosa
Council to refuse that part of the development that falls within its local government area.
Critically, the assessment finds the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds exist to
overcome the development’s planning conflicts. The community benefits posed are considered
to be either minor or significantly outweighed by the development’s impacts.
It is recommended the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
A. REFUSE Application No. MCU12/0208 for a Preliminary Approval for Material Change of
Use under Section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Scheme 2009 to vary the effect of The
Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 Planning Schemes for a mixed use community title
development situated at Eenie Creek Rd, 99 & 191 Hollett Rd, Noosaville and 106 & 108-
142 Tidswell Rd Weyba Downs for the following reasons:
1. The development conflicts with the Desired Regional Outcomes of the South East
Queensland Regional Plan as it does not represent sustainable expansion of the
region’s urban footprint.
2. The development is inconsistent with the South East Queensland Koala Conservation
State Planning Regulatory Provisions as it results in clearing of koala habitat.
3. The development raises substantial conflicts with The Noosa Plan and Maroochy
Plan 2000 and fundamentally offends their land use intents.
4. The development will have a net adverse impact on koala conservation values.
Page 83 of 231
Section 4
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5. The development will have unacceptable impacts on the ecological values of the site
and its environs including:
i. Habitat and water quality of wetlands and waters of the Lake Weyba and
Noosa River systems;
ii. Flora and Fauna including rare and threatened species; and
iii. Existing fauna corridors.
6. The development represents an inefficient and poorly located extension to Noosa’s
urban footprint and will result in unacceptable social and sustainability outcomes in
regard to:
i. Pedestrian and cycle connectivity;
ii. Accessibility to activity centres and transport nodes;
iii. Public transport provision;
iv. Residents’ level of car dependency; and
v. Delivery and ongoing maintenance of infrastructure.
7. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the development will not adversely
impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage values.
8. The development is located outside areas planned for urban infrastructure and will
adversely impact on the existing trunk infrastructure network.
9. The development provides insufficient social infrastructure to meet the needs of its
future residents.
10. The development would use limited remaining treatment capacity at Noosa’s sewage
treatment plant at the opportunity cost of planning for future development in the
Noosa area.
11. The development will have unacceptable impacts on Walter Hay Drive’s function and
role as Noosa’s preferred primary entrance route.
12. The development will have undesirable impacts on the scenic amenity and natural
character of the area and the inter-urban break experienced along Walter Hay Drive.
13. The development’s residential intensity significantly exceeds reasonable expectations
for existing local residents and adjacent visitor accommodation businesses and will
unduly impact on the area’s amenity.
14. The development poses unacceptable risks to people and property due to bushfire
hazard.
15. The development will place residents at unacceptable exposure levels to mosquitos,
biting midges and associated arboviruses, the management of which is likely to result
in financial impositions on Council.
16. Concurrence Agency conditions directed by the Department of Environment &
Heritage Protection significantly impact on the development’s functionality and would
result in a substantially different development. The conditions require significant
changes, which would also be likely to cause additional persons to make submissions
objecting to the changes if circumstances allowed.
Page 84 of 231
Section 5
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
17. The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient grounds exist to overcome the
development’s conflicts with relevant assessment instruments.
B. Refuse that part of the application that falls within the Sunshine Coast Council local
government area, as directed by the Sunshine Coast Council in its concurrence agency
response dated 5 February 2014.
REPORT
1 PROPOSAL
The application seeks preliminary approval under Section 242 of the Sustainable Planning Act to
vary the effect of The Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 for a mixed-use community title
development. The development is to be known as Noosa on Weyba and comprises a mix of
residential, community, commercial and open space uses to be established under a multi-level
community title structure.
The site sits outside the urban footprint areas identified in the South East Queensland Regional
Plan, which normally prohibits urban development, but this application has been made possible
by the State’s gazettal of a Biodiversity Development Offset Area (BDOA) over the site. The
BDOA agreement requires the transfer of three of the site’s component allotments (139.5Ha) to
public ownership as national park if the application is approved.
The applicant proposes a Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan to generally override the local planning
schemes’ provisions for the site by applying differing codes and levels of assessment to future
development. The Plan identifies four primary urban precincts with varying densities and
character. The proposed precinct plan is shown below and included at A3 size as Attachment 1.
Figure 1 – Precinct Plan
Page 85 of 231
Section 6
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The precincts are arranged into zones, being Detached Housing, Attached Housing, Rural
Settlement and Neighbourhood Centre zones. An Open Space Conservation Zone surrounds
the urban precincts. In general terms, the urban precincts can be described as follows:
Precinct Area Description
No.
1 14.7ha Lakeside detached housing (6.4ha) abutting an attached
housing zone (7.0ha) and neighbourhood centre (1.3ha)
that includes a small commercial component (600m2)
2 12.6ha Detached housing divided by an environmental and
drainage corridor
3 28.5ha Detached housing area (26.6ha) separated by Walter Hay
Drive and including an attached housing zone (1.9ha)
4 7.8ha Retirement and aged care precinct (3.9ha) adjacent rural
residential (2.9ha) and detached housing areas (1.3ha)
Allowable uses identified for the urban zones include:
Zone Consistent Uses
Detached Housing Detached Dwelling, Small Lot Dwelling, Relative’s Apartment,
Duplex, Home Based Business, Estate Sales Office
Attached Housing Detached Dwelling, Small Lot Dwelling, Relative’s Apartment,
Community Residence, Duplex, Multiple Dwellings, Retirement &
Aged Care, Relocatable Homes, Home Based Business,
Rural Settlement Cultivation, Animal Husbandry, Detached Dwelling, Ancillary
Dwelling, Relative’s Apartment, Community Residence, B&B,
Rural Visitor Accommodation, Emergency Service Shed, Home
Based Business, Estate Sales Office
Neighbourhood Centre Offices, Medical, Veterinary, Café/Restaurant, Retail Shop,
Salon, Hardware Store, Garden & Lifestyle Centre
Detached Dwellings are defined as houses on lots of 450m2 or more and Small Lot Dwellings are
those on Lots smaller than 450m2. Minimum Lot sizes are as follows:
Use Type Lot Size
Small Lot Dwelling 350m2 - 449m2
Detached Dwelling 450m2 +
Duplex 600m2 +
Multiple Dwellings 800m2 +
(Retirement, Special Needs, Conventional)
Commercial 1,000m2 +
The Locality Plan prescribes a mix of residential dwelling densities ranging between 5 – 32
dwellings per hectare. Maximum building heights are proposed at 2 storeys within the Detached
Housing and Rural Residential zones and up to 3 storeys in the Neighbourhood Centre and
Attached Housing zones. The Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan also proposes differing built form
provisions (such as boundary setbacks, site cover and consequential gross floor areas) to those
sought in comparable urban areas under the Noosa and Maroochy planning schemes.
Page 86 of 231
Section 7
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The applicant provided the indicative development layout plan below (and included at A3 size as
Attachment 2) but notes this is a conceptual plan for information purposes only and is not to
form an approval document or constrain the proposal.
Figure 2 – Indicative Layout Plan
The potential dwelling yield posed by the Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan is as follows:
Precinct Dwellings (Min – Max)
1 326 - 353
2 164 - 189
3 279 - 347
4 107 - 119
Total: 876 - 1008
An extensive network of interconnected active and passive open space recreation and
conservation areas are proposed, with the development to provide a range of local active and
passive recreation parks, fenced off-leash dog areas, lakefront parks, linear parks, integrated
stormwater treatment areas, drainage reserves, buffer areas and nature refuges. An existing
lakeside house is also proposed to be redeveloped into a residents’ community facility.
The development has obtained Earthcheck certification from the Centre for Sustainable Design at
the University of Queensland against its Global Precinct Planning and Design Standard. The
certification is linked to commitments from the developer to address environmental, social and
economic goals that meet Earthcheck’s criteria for environmentally sustainable design. The
proponent submits that the development will include a raft of sustainability measures, including:
Energy efficiency through passive design
Water conservation and re-use
Energy efficient systems and fixtures
Use of sustainable building materials
Page 87 of 231
Section 8
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Promotion of healthy active lifestyles
Integrated environmental features
Environmental education programmes for staff, owners and visitors
The sustainability measures will be implemented in a number of ways. A set of Architectural
Design Guidelines have been drafted to control building orientation, materials, colours, fencing
and the like. The Guidelines are referenced in the development codes that would apply to future
uses on the site. The application states the bodies corporate will implement and fund the
requirements of a Koala Management Plan and maintain vegetation remnants, revegetation
areas and stormwater treatment infrastructure. Responsibilities will include:
Maintenance of koala and fauna fencing
Restriction of pet breeds, sizes and numbers
Contributions toward management of feral animals in the expanded section of national park
Monitoring and management of fauna and the biodiversity values in the development
Provision of a quarterly newsletter to residents addressing environmental issues
Establishment and maintenance of environmental interpretive signage within the
development
Maintenance of a number of roads and parks within the development
Maintenance of fire breaks around the development
Maintenance and mowing of mosquito buffers.
Sustainability provisions will mainly be implemented through body corporate by-laws and the
applicant suggests the community management schemes will require
24 hour / 7 day management of the estate by staff to police by-laws. The applicant estimates
body corporate costs at approximately $1 million dollars per year or $25 a week per dwelling.
The development proposes to connect to all standard services, with substantial works required to
extend some networks to the site. Sewer and water will be reticulated to the development and
the Noosa Heads Sewage Treatment Plant is anticipated to treat outflows for a population of
approximately 2,370 people. The location of the site will require construction of a number of new
pump stations to send effluent 6.5km to the treatment plant.
Page 88 of 231
Section 9
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The development will require the construction of a new network of roads and preliminary layouts
and designs have been submitted for various local, service and collector roads. The primary
access point to the development is via a new roundabout on Walter Hay Drive. The roundabout
is a full dual lane, four node arrangement to provide access to the precincts to the east and west
of Walter Hay Drive. An indicative road layout plan showing the primary roads is shown below.
Figure 3 – Indicative Primary Road Layout
Maximum speed limits on collector streets are proposed at 60km/h with traffic slowed to 40km/h
through the primary fauna corridor to avoid fauna strikes.
Page 89 of 231
Section 10
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Access from Precinct 3 to Precinct 4 is proposed via a private road within the site adjacent to the
Hollett Road reserve. Both precincts are to be accessed via Walter Hay Drive. A plan indicating
the future delineation between Council and Body Corporate areas of responsibility for roads,
paths, stormwater devices, landscaping and the like is shown below.
Figure 4 – Plan of Council and Body Corporate Areas of Responsibility
(Body Corporate areas show blue/green, Council areas shown tan)
Public parking is proposed within the Hollett Road reserve north of Precinct 2, approximately 850
metres west of the lake. Direct public access to Lake Weyba is proposed only via pedestrian
paths between and around the lakefront residential lots, with those lots representing the
development’s main presentation to the lake. A 60 metre building setback will generally be
provided to the lake, comprising:
40m primary lakefront buffer zone
10m stormwater management zone
10m building setback within the rear of lakefront residential lots
Page 90 of 231
Section 11
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
As shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5 – Proposed Buffer to Lake Weyba
Extensive cut and fill earthworks are proposed, primarily to fill flood affected land to create
Precinct 2. Engineering plans indicate a total fill volume of roughly 149,000m 3, with the material
to be excavated primarily from a ridgeline adjacent the lake in Precinct 1 and from a number of
areas within Precinct 3. The plan below indicates the areas of cut (shown as warm colours) and
fill (shown as cool colours) and is included at A3 size as Attachment 3.
Figure 6 – Cut and Fill Plan
Page 91 of 231
Section 12
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The extent of earthworks and urban densities will require extensive clearing of existing vegetation
within the residential and commercial footprints and for road construction. The application
material does not provide total tree clearing numbers but does estimate approximately 11,200
non-juvenile koala food trees will be cleared. The applicant indicates this represents only 3% of
the total koala food trees present on the full site and proposes substantial offset plantings. Offset
plantings estimated at up to 40,826 trees are proposed in areas scattered throughout the site, as
indicated in Figure 7 below and included at A3 size as Attachment 4.
Figure 7 – Proposed Koala Habitat Offset Planting Areas
The applicant suggests that Noosa on Weyba will provide additional residential land supply
adjoining a Major Activity Centre (Noosa Business Centre) and can be considered as infill
development similar to that to the North (via Lake Entrance Boulevard) and South (Weyba
Estate). It submits the development thereby forms a logical expansion of the urban area within
the Noosa/North Maroochy locality.
1.1 Supporting Documents
Extensive specialist reports and supporting documents form part of the application material, they
include:
Planning Report
Urban Design Report and Landscape Concept
Civil Engineering Report
Geotechnical Report
Water & Sewer Report
Flood Study
Stormwater Management Plans
Page 92 of 231
Section 13
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Coastal Plan Report
Ecological Report
Koala Report
Property Vegetation Management Plan
Bushfire Report
Traffic Report
Traffic Acoustic Report
Groundwater Report
Contaminated Land report
Agricultural Land Report
Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan
Electrical & Communication Services Report
Sustainability Report
Needs Report
Biting Insects Report
Community Title Report
Cultural Heritage Report
1.2 Application Includes Grounds to Support
The application material recognises that the proposal must demonstrate sufficient grounds to
gain approval to justify the development’s conflicts with relevant planning instruments. 34 items
are listed by the applicant in support of the development. Further details and discussion of the
grounds are included in Section 6.6 of this report.
2 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OVERRIDING LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES
Division 2 of the Sustainable Planning Act provides for the granting of a preliminary approval. A
preliminary approval, if given, would approve the Noosa on Weyba development for urban use
but would not authorise development to proceed without further development permits being
issued such as: reconfiguring a lot applications to create the precincts/ residential lots; material
change of use applications for the higher density residential attached housing, retirement and
commercial uses; and various operational works and building approvals.
Section 242 provides for the type of preliminary approval sought by the applicant, which would
override the local planning scheme provisions to the extent detailed in the application. An
approval would consent to the changes in land use and apply differing codes and levels of
assessment to future development.
The Act does not require a preliminary approval for development but they commonly provide for
an orderly assessment framework for large staged developments, such as proposed.
Page 93 of 231
Section 14
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSESSMENT ROLES
The application is unique in that it straddled local government boundaries affected by the recent
Council de-amalgamations. The Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013
dealt with this scenario and the ongoing assessment roles of the Sunshine Coast Council and
Noosa Council. In accordance with Part 5 - Amendment of Sustainable Planning Act 2009, on 2
January 2014 Sunshine Coast Council decided that Noosa Council would become the
Assessment Manager for the application. Consequently, under Section 952 (10), Sunshine
Coast Council became a concurrence agency for the application in relation to the part of the
development within its local government area. Details of their concurrence response are
provided in the consultation section of this report.
The assessment material, internal and external consultant expert reports and advice have been
common to both Councils’ assessments. Corresponding text is, therefore, common to both the
Sunshine Coast Council’s concurrence assessment report and this report.
4 SITE DETAILS
4.1 Background/Site History
Three development approvals of note have previously been issued for the site, as follows:
Property Approval Details
Description
191 Hollett Rd A rezoning application was approved over the site on 1 August 1997,
Noosaville approving a change of the site’s zoning to Special Residential and
(Lot 53 permitting the development of a maximum of 80 rural residential lots and 2
SP163571) rural lots. This rezoning was gazetted in 1 May 1998. The associated Plan
of Development established footprints for future development and open
space areas. It also established the development parameters for the site,
including lot density and lot size. The rezoning & Plan of Development were
superseded with the adoption of The Noosa Plan in 2006.
108 – 142 Development Permit for Rural Holiday Accommodation (24 villas) approved
Tidswell Rd, via Court Order on 16 August 2004 for Planning & Environment Court
Weyba Downs Appeal No.4676 of 2012 – G N & J D Mantle vs Sunshine Coast Council.
(Lot 11 The approval is for rural holiday accommodation in the form of a resort and
SP250714) spa complex comprising 24 villas, reception area, restaurant, spa, pool,
meeting room and a 3 bedroom manager’s residence. A maximum of 108
persons are allowed to occupy the site at any one time. A copy of the
approved plan is included as Attachment 5.
The Sunshine Coast Council refused the most recent application to extend
the approval on the basis that the approval failed Sustainable Planning Act
tests for consistency with current planning provisions, level of community
awareness and the present likelihood of submitters objecting to the
development. An appeal against that decision was lodged on 30 November
2012 and is currently ongoing.
Page 94 of 231
Section 15
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
191 Hollett Rd Development Permit for Reconfiguration of a Lot (52 Lots & Park) approved
Noosaville via Court Order on 5 July 2013 for Planning & Environment Court Appeal
(Lot 53 No.344 of 2009 – John Hoffman vs Sunshine Coast Council and Chief
SP163571) Executive under the Vegetation Management Act. The majority of the
development is located on the western side of Walter Hay Drive, with only
two rural lots and parkland located on the eastern side. The 49 approved
rural residential lots range in size from 4,000m2 to 1.14ha and are not
connected to town water or sewerage.
The approved residential areas partly correspond with Precincts 3 and 4 of
the current application. Access to the development is via Hollet Road, with
no access via Walter Hay Drive.
The approval requires upgrades to Hollett Road and thereby differs notably
from the Noosa on Weyba application, which does not propose to upgrade
Hollett Road to Eumundi Noosa Road west of Precinct 3.
A copy of the approved plan is included as Attachment 6.
The applicant submitted the following composite representation of the existing approvals over the
site:
Figure 8 – Existing Approvals
4.2 Pre-lodgement Meeting
A pre-lodgement meeting was held with the applicant on 25 September 2012 to discuss the
proposal. The applicant was given preliminary advice on the areas of primary concern for
Council’s assessment and the specialist assessment reports that would be needed to accompany
any application. Council’s chairperson for the meeting has confirmed that the applicant was
advised that it appeared there were insufficient grounds in favour of the proposal to overcome the
planning conflicts and the development was unlikely to be supported.
Page 95 of 231
Section 16
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
4.3 Site Description
The subject site comprises seven allotments with a total area of approximately 303ha and is
located to the south of Noosaville. The land is directly adjacent Lake Weyba to the east and has
roughly 1.6km of lake frontage, though some is buffered by an unformed esplanade (road
reserve). The development site itself has about 400m of direct lake frontage.
Walter Hay Drive, a major arterial road running north-south, transects the site. Approximately
90ha of the site sits to the west of Walter Hay Drive, with the balance located to the east,
adjacent the lake. The site is also traversed by Hollett Road (running east-west) and abuts
Tidswell Road (running north-south); both are unsealed and provide the only existing formalised
access to the site. An Energex transmission line and an associated easement traverse the
northwest of the site.
The site forms part of an extensive coastal lowlands system and is very low lying, being between
0m and 20m AHD. The land is generally gently undulating to flat, with slopes mostly below 5%.
Some moderate slopes are present in the form of natural embankments and constructed dams.
Some gentle ridges are present toward the west of the site but the most prominent topographical
features are embankments toward Lake Weyba and its tributaries. The site contains a
substantial portion of Eenie Creek (roughly 1.8km) and sections of Keyser Creek, to its south,
with both flowing to the Lake.
The site is part of an area of land that provides a corridor for native wildlife to move between
areas of protected habitat in the locality, including Noosa National Park, Lake Weyba, Tewantin
State Forest, Weyba Nature Refuge and Tainsh’s Nature Refuge. It contains substantial areas of
significant vegetation and habitat, including mapped areas of Endangered and Of Concern
Regional Ecosystems and essential habitat known to support a wide range of fauna including
species scheduled in the Nature Conservation Act Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation1994
and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Mapping identifies 8
Regional Ecosystems present, including: Melaleuca and Eucalyptus open forest (Of Concern);
Melaleuca tall open forest (Not of Concern); Eucalyptus and Corymbia open forest (Of Concern);
Eucalyptus woodland (Endangered); sedge/heathland (Of Concern); Banksia low woodland (Of
Concern); closed sedgeland (Not of Concern); and wet heath (Not of Concern).
Areas of the site are identified wetlands under State Mapping and Lake Weyba is listed in the
Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, considered high ecological value waters under the
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 and is a declared Fish Habitat Area. Ephemeral
wetland areas are also present, though their extent and makeup has been affected by a regular
slashing regime maintained on the site, evident through aerial photography.
Page 96 of 231
Section 17
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The location of the site in relation to its surrounds is shown in the images below:
Figure 9 – Site Location
Figure 10 - Aerial Photograph of Site
Page 97 of 231
Section 18
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The site straddles the Noosa and Sunshine Coast local government boundaries and is affected
by both corresponding planning schemes. The location of the local government boundaries and
the applicable planning precincts/zonings are shown below:
Figure 11 - Site Zonings/Precincts
(Extent of Maroochy Plan 2000/Sunshine Coast Council area on the site shown hatched)
4.4 Surrounding Land Uses
The land abuts a mix of residential, rural, open space conservation and community infrastructure
land uses. A section of the Noosa National Park is adjacent the northern boundary, together with
a number of parcels of Bushland Reserve associated with the Noosa Business Centre and a
residential estate accessed via Lake Entrance Boulevard. The Noosa Business Centre sits
further afield, with Noosa Civic shopping centre accessed approximately 1.5km to the north along
Walter Hay Drive. A number of detached housing lots along Lake Entrance Boulevard/Aspera
Place also abut the northern boundaries of the site, though there is no road link from that estate
to the subject site.
In its north-eastern corner, the site almost entirely surrounds an allotment containing the Noosa
airstrip. The airstrip is a low-key facility used by private pilots and small commercial operators
and does not provide a commercial airport facility.
Directly to the west of the site are rural residential lots accessed via Hollett Road and the Noosa
Par 3 Golf Course. A large (321.9ha) Council-owned allotment sits to the south-east of the site.
The Noosa refuse station is located in its south-eastern corner but the majority of the lot is
undeveloped and a portion is dedicated as nature refuge (known as Weyba Nature Refuge).
Lake Weyba is directly to the east of the site. Weyba Downs residential estate is further afield to
the south-west and comprises a mix of rural-residential and rural lots.
Two large allotments sit directly adjacent the site’s south-eastern boundary and contain detached
houses and visitor accommodation developments (cabins), known as Eumarella Shores and
Lake Weyba Cottages. The majority of the Eumarella Shores property remains undeveloped and
is dedicated as nature refuge (Tainsh’s Nature Refuge).
Page 98 of 231
Section 19
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5 DECLARED BIODIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT OFFSET AREA
5.1 Background/Gazettal details
The site has been declared a Biodiversity Development Offset Area (BDOA) under State
Planning Policy 2/10: Koala Conservation in South East Queensland (SPP 2/10). The
declaration was made by the then Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State,
Paul Lucas, on 3 February 2012.
State Planning Policy 2/10 provides that the Planning Minister may declare an area to be a
Biodiversity Development Offset Area for the purposes of achieving a net benefit for koala
conservation. The stated aim of this policy is: to ensure that koala habitat conservation is taken
into account in planning processes within the South East Queensland Koala Protection Area,
contributing to a net increase in koala habitat in south-east Queensland, and assist in the long
term retention of viable koala habitat populations in south-east Queensland.
The BDOA mechanism operates within a policy framework comprising the South East
Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, State Planning Regulatory Provisions and State Planning
Policy 2/10 Koala Conservation in South East Queensland. Associated Statutory Guideline
01/10 Biodiversity Development Offset Area-Koala Conservation provides further specific
guidance in terms of purpose and process for declaring a BDOA.
The South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031 State Planning Regulatory Provisions
(section 1.5(1)(b)) provides for an area in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area or
Rural Living Area to be designated as a Biodiversity Development Offset Area. The effect of the
Biodiversity Development Offset Area designation is that sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the South East
Queensland State Planning Regulatory Provisions do not apply to the development. As a
consequence, South East Queensland Regional Plan provisions that would prohibit the
application for urban development outside the urban footprint are suspended.
According to the Statutory Guideline, the declaration of a BDOA provides an opportunity to
potentially transfer development from one parcel of land (the send site) to another parcel of land
(the receive site) in the interest of biodiversity conservation. A development application is then
lodged over the ‘receive’ site and if approved, a net benefit to koala conservation values occurs
through ongoing protection within the ‘send’ site of significant biodiversity values and habitat
connectivity in the South East Queensland region.
Local Government and State agency roles and responsibilities under the Sustainable Planning
Act are unaffected by the declaration and the development application must be assessed on
merit against relevant State and local planning instruments. Specifically, the BDOA does not
imply or direct development approval by the assessment manager.
In order to assist the Minister in making his decision, the Department referred the applicant’s
BDOA proposal to the Sunshine Coast Council on 3 November 2010. A report on the matter was
considered at the Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 11 November 2010 and focused on the following
key issues:
Habitat values present on the “send” site.
Existing development entitlements of the send site.
The send site’s connectivity and integration into local open space and biodiversity
networks.
Likelihood of long term protection of the send site under the proposal.
Development potential and suitability of the “receive” site.
Page 99 of 231
Section 20
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Critically, the report highlighted that the send site lots are outside the Urban Footprint under the
SEQ Regional Plan, are zoned either Open Space Conservation or Rural and have minimal
existing development rights. Thus, the send site was not considered at risk of development or
significant impacts on koala habitat values, such as from vegetation loss and fragmentation.
Sunshine Coast Council resolved to advise the Department that it did not support the proposed
Biodiversity Development Offset Area, as it was likely to lead to a development outcome that
would not provide a net benefit to koala conservation values in the area. The following reasons
were given:
The ‘send’ sites have significant protection of their current habitat values through zonings
under The Noosa Plan 2006 and the protection of existing significant vegetation under the
Vegetation Management Act.
The ‘send’ sites currently have minimal development entitlements.
There is only limited potential to approve development entitlements over the ‘receive’ sites
due to their existing or potential habitat values for koalas.
The Department subsequently advised the Sunshine Coast Council that the Minister gave in-
principle support for the BDOA declaration on 12 December 2011, subject to the negotiation of
an infrastructure agreement with the applicant. An infrastructure agreement was executed
between the State and the applicant on 20 January 2012. The agreement requires the applicant
to lodge a development application over the receive site within 12 months of the BDOA
declaration and for the send site to be transferred to the State for inclusion into the Noosa
National Park following the issue of a development approval over the receive site. The BDOA
declaration was gazetted on 3 February 2012.
Correspondence from the State did not indicate how it assessed the BDOA application or
considered the proposal would be of net benefit to koala conservation values. Notably the
applicant made undertakings to the State during the BDOA assessment that the development
would meet Table 7 of the SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions (which
prohibits clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees) but the development application does not
meet those provisions.
Sunshine Coast Council’s position on the BDOA was raised with the applicant during the current
application process. The applicant responded:
Council should note that the BDOA is not a process which should be assessed as part of a
Preliminary Approval for a Material Change of Use. It was a separate application which was
gazetted on 20 January 2012. Notwithstanding this, a summary of DLGP’s reasoning for
gazetting the Noosa on Weyba BDOA Infrastructure Agreement has been provided as follows to
demonstrate the benefits of the project.
While it is acknowledged that in preparing the Noosa on Weyba BDOA Infrastructure Agreement,
EHP (formerly DERM) and SCRC did not provide their support, DLGP were of the opinion that
the BDOA Agreement would result in a significant net benefit for koala conservation in Noosaville
and South East Queensland for the following reasons amongst others:
The proposed BDOA ‘Send’ site is located in Noosaville location adjacent to Lake Weyba
and the Noosa National Park. The send site constitutes a significant adjunct to the Noosa
National Park to the north and together with an existing vegetation corridor to the south in
the receive site provides a major potential link between heavily vegetated SCRC owned
land to the south (i.e. as a nature refuge) and the national park.
Page 100 of 231
Section 21
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The BDOA ‘Send’ site is heavily vegetated with 91.3% of the 139.5 hectares being covered
by Bushland Habitat (Low to Medium) vegetation.
The BDOA Agreement could result in an additional 139.5 hectares being transferred to the
State for inclusion into the Noosa National Park, with approximately 98% of the area
constituting Bushland Habitat which is very suited for koala conservation purposes.
There are no current development approvals or rezoning approvals affecting the BDOA
‘Send’ site that may result in further loss of koala habitat.
The BDOA ‘Receive’ site which the applicant is seeking to develop and use as an offset in
exchange for the transfer of koala habitat has areas of significant clearing used for small
scale grazing activity.
The BDOA ‘Receive’ site has a development approval for rural holiday accommodation
over part of the site consisting of 24 villas, a restaurant, reception building, managers
residence, other ancillary service buildings and outdoor recreation facilities (i.e. including
tennis courts and swimming pool).
It is noted that the development application and development approval affecting the BDOA
‘Receive’ site can be progressed by the applicant regardless of whether a BDOA is
declared – i.e. consent has already been granted for the rural holiday accommodation on
Lot 11 which enables the proponent to develop the site without the need to provide koala or
other environmental offsets, particularly to the extent offered by the send site. Similarly the
development application for the reconfiguration of Lot 53 is the subject of an appeal and if
approved by the court would enable the proponent to also develop the site. (N.B: This
consent has now been approved).
Council planning and environmental officers remain strongly of the view that the BDOA is
inconsistent with the stated purpose of such declarations under the State Planning Policy.
5.2 BDOA Send & Receive Sites
The BDOA declaration identifies the 7 allotments that form the subject site for this development
application. 3 lots comprise the ‘send’ site and 4 lots form the ‘receive’ site. The details are as
follows:
Send Site Receive Site
Lot Description Area (ha) Lot Description Area (ha)
Lot 7 RP 46782 2.0 Lot 2 SP 179590 12.5
Lot 2 RP 160983 93.1 Lot 53 SP 163571 110.0
Lot 1667 M 37772 44.4 Lot 11 SP 250714 40.5
Lot 12 RP 893393 0.6
Total: 139.5 Total: 163.6
Page 101 of 231
Section 22
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
A plan showing the gazetted send and receive sites is shown below.
Figure 12 – Plan of Send & Receive Sites
(Send sites shown tan, Receive sites shown blue)
As the proposed development footprint is contained within the receive site and no works are to
occur within the send site apart from offset plantings, references to the subject site in the
assessment section of this report can generally be read as referring only to the receive site.
5.3 Transfer of Development Rights Under BDOA Declaration
Statutory Guideline 01/10 Biodiversity Development Offset Area - Koala Conservation states that
the purpose of the associated State Planning Policy includes:
The declaration of a BDOA provides an opportunity to potentially transfer development from one
parcel of land (being the send site) to another parcel of land (being the receive site) in the
interest of biodiversity conservation.
As Sunshine Coast Council advised the State when asked for its views on the Noosa on Weyba
BDOA application, the send sites in this case have minimal development rights. Notionally, the
development rights of the 3 send site allotments consist of 1 dwelling, an information centre and
low intensity rural land uses. The proposed development application for up to 1,008 dwellings
and mixed uses, therefore, does not seek to remain within the confines suggested by the
purpose of the State Planning Policy.
In effect, the development application seeks to benefit from the removal of the SEQ Regional
Plan impediments to urban development on the receive site but proposes development of a
significant intensity, far exceeding that of the send site potential, and which can only be
supported on merit, where sufficient grounds exist to overcome the planning conflicts.
Page 102 of 231
Section 23
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5.4 Validity of Biodiversity Offset Declaration
The validity of the BDOA declaration has been questioned by the Friends of Lake Weyba, a
community group opposed to the development. The group’s solicitor wrote to the Minister for
State Development, Infrastructure and Planning seeking clarification as to how the BDOA could
have been lawfully made. The group’s main point of contention is that State Planning Policy
2/10: Koala Conservation in South East Queensland, Section 2.6 states that the policy applies to
making or amending a local planning instrument or structure plan or designating land for
community infrastructure and should not apply to a development application. The group received
responses from the Minister advising that the declaration was appropriately made under Section
5 of the SPP, which states:
The planning Minister, may by gazette notice, declare an area to be a biodiversity development
offset area (BDOA) for the purposes of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2013
Regulatory Provisions. (sic)
Council obtained its own legal advice that indicates:
The BDOA declaration is valid and would likely withstand judicial scrutiny as the Minister
acted within his powers.
While there may be doubts about the merits of the declaration, they would not provide a
basis for a legal challenge.
Even if it the declaration were found to be invalid, there are strong factors acting against a
court exercising its discretionary power to enforce the finding because it would be contrary
to the applicant’s interests. Notably, the time elapsed since the declaration has seen the
applicant expend significant resources on making the development application.
The advice, therefore, is strongly against a challenge to the BDOA declaration.
6 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Specialists
The application was forwarded to Unitywater and the following Sunshine Coast Council and
Noosa Council specialists:
Development Engineer
Hydraulics and Water Quality Specialist
Landscape Officer
Environment Officer
Ecology Specialist
Urban Designer
Traffic Engineer
Transport Networks & Innovation Officer
Social Policy Officer
Strategic Land Use Planning Officer
Economic Development Officer
Infrastructure Planning Officer
Page 103 of 231
Section 24
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The application was forwarded to the following external specialists:
Traffic Engineering Expert (Beard Traffic Engineering)
Economic Expert (Norling Consulting)
Bushfire Expert (Rob Friend and Associates)
Ecology Expert (BAAM Ecological Consultants)
Good Quality Agricultural Land (Land Resource Assessment and Management)
Their assessments form part of this report.
6.2 Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the
following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policies
the South East Queensland Regional Plan
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
any Structure Plan or Master Plan in place for declared areas
any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land
the Planning Schemes for the local government areas
any Temporary Local Planning Instrument in place for the local government area
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the
sections that follow.
6.3 State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policies
The following State Planning Policies are applicable to this application:
State Planning Policy 1/92 Development and the Conservation of Agricultural Land
State Planning Policy 2/02 Planning and Managing Development Involving Acid Sulfate
Soils
State Planning Policy 1/03 Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide
State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters
State Planning Policy 1/12 Protection of Queensland’s Strategic Cropping Land
With the exception of SPP4/10 and SPP 1/12, the above State Planning Policies have been
deemed by the Minister for Local Government and Planning as appropriately reflected in the local
government planning schemes and therefore do not warrant a separate assessment.
State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters
The SPP seeks to ensure water quality objectives for new development are met in order to
protect environmental values. The stated outcomes sought by the policy include:
Development avoids adverse impacts on Queensland waters or, where this is not feasible,
adverse impacts are minimised and any residual adverse impacts offset.
Section 4.2 states that, in order to meet the outcomes of the Policy, development:
Page 104 of 231
Section 25
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Avoids or minimises development impacts arising from altered stormwater quality and flow by
providing for development and construction activities in accordance with acceptable design
objectives.
The Policy includes a Development Assessment Code that applies to the application. The
submitted stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment control plans meet the
acceptable outcomes of the Code. The requirements of the SPP are, therefore, met by the
application. Notably though, this does not mean that impacts on water quality will not result. In
particular, untreated stormwater release limits for the construction phase are only to SPP
Guidelines and regular sediment runoff during construction is highly likely.
Generally speaking, the SPP is drafted in the context of planned or committed development and
seeks best practice water quality and flow controls accordingly. Significant water quality
concerns are raised in this assessment due to the development’s location in a highly sensitive
environment. Intensive urban activity, such as proposed, is specifically prohibited under the local
planning provisions to avoid impacts on Eenie and Keyser Creeks, Lake Weyba and the Noosa
River System. Further details of the water quality concerns are provided later in this report.
State Planning Policy 1/12: Protection of Queensland’s Strategic Cropping Land.
The site was mapped as containing Strategic Cropping Land under State Planning Policy 1/12
Protection of Queensland’s Strategic Cropping Land. During the application process, the
applicant underwent a State assessment that resulted in the removal of the Strategic Cropping
Land designation for the site. Therefore the SPP no longer applies.
South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 - 2031
The site is located within the Regional Landscape and Rural Production area of the South East
Queensland Regional Plan. As the proposal is for urban development and subdivision within the
Regional Landscape and Rural Production area, it would normally be prohibited by Regional Plan
provisions. However, as a result of the BDOA declaration for the site, sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the
SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions do not apply.
The stated purpose of the Regional Plan is to manage growth and change in the most
sustainable way to protect and enhance quality of life in the region. Its strategic and policy
provisions are relevant to the application as it seeks to supplant the provisions of two local
government planning schemes that affect the site to allow for a significant urban development.
The applicant contends that limited future residential land supply within the Noosa/North
Maroochy area is a ground for urban expansion. In particular, it identifies the site’s proximity to
the Noosa Business Centre, which is identified as a Major Activity Centre under the Regional
Plan, as supporting the regional planning intent. However, the Sub-Regional Narrative for the
Sunshine Coast in Part C of the Plan states:
The SEQ Regional Plan estimates that the Sunshine Coast will require 98,000 additional
dwellings by 2031 to accommodate its expected regional growth. These additional dwellings can
be accommodated by developing existing urban-zoned land and the major longterm Regional
Development Areas of Caloundra South and Palmview. The Sunshine Coast’s residential growth
areas will be further planned to create sustainable, balanced and affordable communities. This
planning will ensure that growth occurs in an appropriate sequence and is coordinated with
necessary infrastructure.
Page 105 of 231
Section 26
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The Regional Plan does not identify the need for expansion of urban areas at the northern end of
the Sunshine Coast. There is sufficient development capacity within the draft Sunshine Coast
planning scheme and The Noosa Plan to accommodate the Regional Plan dwelling targets and
increased density for the region, without the need to approve other development outside
identified urban growth areas. Notably, the draft Sunshine Coast planning scheme has advanced
through State interest checks, which specifically addressed the region’s growth capacity.
The applicant submits that the development meets all the Desired Regional Outcomes listed in
the Regional Plan. This view is strongly refuted. An assessment against the development’s
consistency with the Desired Regional Outcomes of the SEQ Regional Plan Part D – Regional
Policies is provided below.
Desired Regional Outcome Assessment
1. Sustainability and climate Does not comply
change
Elements of the proposed residential design guidelines
The region grows and changes in and water re-use strategies advance sustainability
a sustainable manner - principles but, overall, the development does not meet
generating prosperity, maintaining this outcome.
and enhancing quality of life,
minimising the use of resources, The development will suffer from poor levels of
providing high levels of accessibility and public transport. Its location and
environmental protection, layout will entrench car dependency for most residents
reducing greenhouse gas when accessing goods and services. The development
emissions and becoming resilient precincts represent a piecemeal and inefficient
to natural hazards including the extension to Noosa’s urban footprint that require undue
projected effects of climate works and infrastructure.
change and oil supply
vulnerability.
2. Natural Environment Does not comply
A healthy and resilient natural The proposal will have unacceptable impacts on the
environment is protected, biodiversity values of the site and surrounding sensitive
maintained and restored to habitat areas. The development will result in the loss of
sustainably support the region’s significant habitat, sever or restrict critical
rich biodiversity and ecosystem environmental corridors and is likely to impact on a
services including clean air and range of terrestrial and aquatic species of flora and
water, outdoor lifestyles and other fauna, including a number of rare and threatened
community needs that critically species. Koala numbers in the area will likely be
underpin economic and social reduced, with urban development known to pose the
development. primary risks to their survival.
3. Regional Landscape Does not comply
Key environmental, economic, The local government planning schemes seek to
social and cultural values of the protect the environmentally sensitive and non-urban
regional landscape are identified character of the site. The relatively intensive urban
and secured to meet community development will be out of character with its setting and
needs and achieve ecological impact on the valued landscape.
sustainability.
The extension of Noosa’s urban footprint to the south
will reduce the inter-urban break and the scenic
amenity of the area’s principal entrance.
Page 106 of 231
Section 27
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
4. Natural Resources Does not comply
Regional natural resources and While no significant impacts on extractive or agricultural
rural production areas are resources will occur, unacceptable risks are posed to
protected, managed, enhanced adjacent mapped fish habitat areas, which conflicts with
and used sustainably. the identified SEQRP principles and policies to achieve
this outcome.
5. Rural Futures Not applicable
Rural communities are strong and The application does not propose, or impact upon, any
viable with sustainable economies rural communities.
contributing to the health, wealth,
character and liveability of the
region.
6. Strong Communities Does not comply
Cohesive, inclusive and healthy The development proposes a mix of densities,
communities have a strong sense development types, retirement living provisions and
of identity and place, and access recreation opportunities for residents that would
to a full range of services and advance some principles sought by the Regional Plan.
facilities that meet diverse
community needs. The development fails to promote an urban area that
integrates with the existing community, addresses
community infrastructure needs, accessibility or
protection of culturally significant places or landscapes.
Nor has the application demonstrated it addresses
housing affordability in any meaningful sense. Public
submissions during the public notification of the
application also indicate the development does not
respond to particular community needs or meet
community aspirations for this place.
7. Engaging Aboriginal and Does not comply
Torres Strait Islander
Peoples The area is known to be culturally significant and the
applicant has not engaged with Aboriginal traditional
Aboriginal and Torres Strait owners.
Islander peoples are actively
involved in community planning
and decision-making processes,
and Aboriginal traditional owners
are engaged in business about
their country.
Page 107 of 231
Section 28
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
8. Compact Settlement Does not comply
A compact urban structure of The residential precincts are not contiguous with
well-planned communities, existing residential areas, do not allow high levels of
supported by a network of accessibility or encourage alternate transport options.
accessible and convenient The precincts form isolated pockets of development
centres and transit corridors and represent an inefficient expansion of Noosa’s
linking residential areas to urban footprint.
employment locations establishes
the context for achieving a
consolidated urban settlement
pattern.
9. Employment Location Complies
Plan for employment to support a This outcome is mostly concerned with the provision of
strong, resilient and diversified land for business and economic uses, which generally
economy that grows prosperity in does not apply to the proposal.
the region by using its competitive
advantages to deliver exports, A minor commercial component is included in the
investment and sustainable and development, which is appropriate to support
accessible jobs. residential development of this scale. The development
would also provide some limited ongoing employment
opportunities but would generate net demand for
employment. The proximity to the Noosa Business
Centre would see additional spending on goods and
services provided in the Centre and somewhat support
its role and function.
10. Infrastructure Does not comply
Plan, coordinate and deliver The development raises concerns in relation to the
regional infrastructure and following infrastructure aspects:
services in a timely manner to Demands on community infrastructure have not
support the regional settlement been considered in detail and additional facilities
pattern and desired community may be required to support the expanded
outcomes.
population.
The development will use limited remaining
treatment capacity at Noosa’s sewage treatment
plant, which would be at the opportunity cost of
future development.
The proposed new roundabout on Walter Hay Drive
to serve substantial residential populations on either
side of that road will impact on the road’s role and
function as a limited access, primary southern
entrance route.
Page 108 of 231
Section 29
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
11. Water Management Does not comply
Water in the region is managed Water cycle systems within the completed development
on a sustainable and total water would meet or exceed urban development standards
cycle basis to provide sufficient for water treatment, control and re-use. Such standards
quantity and quality of water for are acceptable for planned or committed development
human uses and to protect areas but the receiving environments of this site contain
ecosystem health. sensitive areas of high ecological importance.
The development poses unacceptable risks of impacts
to wetlands and waterways of the Lake Weyba system.
Particular concern is raised by untreated water runoff
from protracted construction activity, for which sediment
control standards are significantly lower than for the
completed development and environmental harm is
highly likely.
12. Integrated Transport Does not comply
A connected and accessible In relation to public transport the Department of
region based on an integrated Transport & Main Roads’ concurrence response limits
transport system that is planned the potential for a bus route to the north-south collector
and managed to support more street linking precincts 2 and 3 and continuing south
compact urban growth and along Tidswell Road. No routes extending into the
efficient travel; connect people, precincts, as proposed by the applicant, are supported
places, goods and services; and by the Department. The concurrence response also
promote public transport use, casts doubt on whether any bus route will be provided,
walking and cycling. it states: [the Department’s concurrence response]
does not imply that a bus service will be provided to the
development. Any new services have to be assessed
against other priorities across the network, available
funding and funding constraints, and the ability of the
road network through the new urban area to allow for
the efficient routing of a service, amongst other relevant
considerations.
Even if a bus route is provided, the development will be
poorly served by public transport. Its relative isolation
will mean that pedestrian and cycle modes will not be
viable transport options to residents for the vast
majority of their needs and car dependency will be high.
The proposal conflicts with many of the key strategic and policy provisions of the Regional Plan.
Significant conflicts arise in relation to urban containment; infill targets; well-connected and
walkable communities around urban activity centres; providing sufficient buffers to waterways to
maintain resilience to ecosystems, people and property; avoiding impacts on significant
biodiversity values; engaging with traditional owners; and addressing social and community
needs for infrastructure, aged care and affordable housing.
The proposal is inconsistent with the South East Queensland Regional Plan’s Desired Regional
Outcomes.
Page 109 of 231
Section 30
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The following State Planning Regulatory Provisions (SPRP) apply to the application:
SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions
Draft Coastal Protection State Planning Regulatory Provisions
Assessment against each is provided below.
SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The site is within a Koala Assessable Development Area mapped under the SEQ Koala
Conservation SPRP and is subject to the assessment provisions of Table 7.
The application material seeks to assess part of the development (being the collector road linking
precincts 2 and 3 through bushland habitat areas) against the less stringent provisions of Table 4
for community or linear infrastructure development. However, Council officers understand those
provisions apply to works such as rail lines, gas pipelines, and similar major infrastructure
projects and the SPRP does not provide the opportunity to separately assess an urban road
within an urban development application. The Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection provided advice confirming this interpretation in its concurrence response.
An assessment against the SPRP Table 7 is provided below.
Table 7, Column 2 - Assessment Criteria Assessment
1. To the extent the premises is outside Does Not Comply
the Urban Footprint and not in an
urban area under a planning scheme, The premises is located outside the urban
footprint and not in an urban area under the
site design does not result in the
planning scheme. The development will
clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat result in the clearing of at least 2,418 trees
trees in areas of bushland habitat. from Bushland Habitat areas (see App. B
Table 2 of the applicant’s Koala Impact and
Net Benefit Assessment report) on the site
and along Tidswell and Hollett Roads.
2. To the extent the premises is inside Not Applicable
the Urban Footprint, site design must
avoid clearing non-juvenile koala The development is not inside the urban
footprint.
habitat trees in areas of bushland
habitat, with any unavoidable clearing
minimised and offset in accordance
with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala
Habitat in South East Queensland
Policy at a ratio of five new koala
habitat trees for every one non-
juvenile koala habitat tree removed or
an equivalent cash contribution.
Page 110 of 231
Section 31
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
3. Site design must avoid clearing non- Does Not Comply
juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of
high value rehabilitation habitat, and The site design does not avoid clearing non-
juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of high
medium value rehabilitation habitat,
value rehabilitation habitat, and medium
with any unavoidable clearing value rehabilitation habitat but proposes to
minimised and offset in accordance clear at least 2,240 trees within these areas.
with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala
Habitat in South East Queensland The minimisation of unavoidable clearing
Policy at a ratio of five new koala has not been demonstrated with the
habitat trees for every one non- applicant proposing offset plantings to
compensate for clearing koala food habitat
juvenile koala habitat tree removed or
trees rather than modifying the design to
an equivalent cash contribution. avoid clearing.
The areas selected for offset plantings will
be artificially overstocked with offset
plantings thus impacting on the ecological
values of the ecosystem. It appears the
offset planting proposal does not include
clearing necessary to bring services to the
area such as power water and sewer.
4. Site design provides safe koala Does Not Comply
movement opportunities as
appropriate to the development type The site design will cause loss of habitat,
and significant intensification of urban land
and habitat connectivity values of the
use. Traffic impacts coupled with the
site determined by reference to the reduction in connectivity between habitat
factors for consideration in Schedule will significantly impact on safe koala
2. movement opportunities.
5. During construction phases: Can be conditioned to comply
a. measures are taken in construction
practices to not increase the risk of
death or injury to koalas; and
b. native vegetation that is cleared
and in an area intended to be
retained for safe koala movement
opportunities is progressively
restored and rehabilitated.
6. Native vegetation clearing is Can be conditioned to comply
undertaken as sequential clearing
and under the guidance of a koala
spotter where the native vegetation is
a non-juvenile koala habitat tree.
7. Landscaping activities provide food, Can be conditioned to comply
shelter and movement opportunities
for koalas consistent with the site
design.
Page 111 of 231
Section 32
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The development conflicts with the SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory
Provisions.
Draft Coastal Protection State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The Queensland Coastal Plan has been suspended and replaced with the Draft Coastal
Protection State Planning Regulatory Provision Protecting the Coastal Environment (Draft SPRP)
which commenced on 8 October 2012. This Draft SPRP is applicable to the application because
it is an impact assessable development within the coastal management district. With respect to
coastal hazards, the Draft SPRP states that areas in the coastal zone identified as having a high
risk of being affected by coastal hazards need to be carefully considered and, wherever possible,
be retained undeveloped. The proposed development is assessed as being in compliance with
the Draft SPRP because the areas of the site affected by high risk coastal hazards have mainly
been avoided and are proposed as National Park or are to remain vegetated within the
development. The exception to this is some smaller creek crossings. The medium hazard areas
to be developed are proposed to be filled to mitigate the hazard.
Some roads are located within the revised erosion prone area and within the high hazard area for
storm tide inundation. These areas are mapped as being erosion prone due to the projected
permanent tidal inundation as a result of sea level rise. In response to Council’s request for
further information, the applicant moved the main road crossing to the southern portion of
Precinct 2 to avoid the high hazard erosion prone area. A minor emergency road (fire trail) is
proposed within the high hazard area but is not considered an intensification of the existing track.
6.4 Statutory Instruments – Planning Schemes
The applicable local government planning schemes for the application are the Maroochy Plan
2000 (24 October 2011) and The Noosa Plan (8 August 2011). The following sections relate to
the provisions of each scheme.
Maroochy Plan 2000
Strategic Provisions
The southern portion of the development site (Lot 11 SP250714 and Lot 12 RP893393) is
designated a combination of “Agricultural Protection” and “Rural or Valued Habitat” Preferred
Dominant Land Uses under the Strategic Plan. The development footprint on this portion of the
site (proposed Precincts 1 & 2) is predominantly mapped as Agricultural Protection, which the
Strategic Plan generally identifies as good quality agricultural land and seeks to protect it for
agricultural purposes.
The applicant submitted an Agricultural Land Report that finds the site contains highly variable
soils and does not meet a number of recognised criteria for good quality agricultural lands.
Council engaged its own consultant, Land Resource Assessment & Management Pty Ltd, to
undertake a peer review of the applicant’s report. The peer review agreed that the land is not
good quality agricultural land.
Given the above, it is reasonable to find that the Strategic Plan provisions for protection of good
quality agricultural land should not apply to the site. Notably though, the balance areas of the
land under the Maroochy Plan are designated Rural or Valued Habitat, for which the Strategic
Plan states:
… includes land being used for rural purposes which may not have been identified as good
quality agricultural land; land with limited rural capability; … and land which, at this time, has a
preferred non-urban function.
Page 112 of 231
Section 33
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
With the negation of the good quality agricultural land designation through this application
process, it is reasonable to conclude the Strategic Plan would otherwise fully designate the
affected land as Rural or Valued Habitat. The stated strategic intent for this designation is
generally [the] retention of the land in its present situation and further states:
A key principle of the natural resources strategy, as implemented through the Code for Nature
Conservation and Biodiversity, is that, where development is proposed for sites having significant
vegetation, buildings and other infrastructure should be directed away from environmentally
sensitive areas and avoid fragmentation of important habitat corridors and linkages.
The Strategic Plan only anticipates limited development on these lands and suggests uses such
as rural tourist and visitor accommodation facilities may be appropriate where they can be
sensitively located to avoid environmental impacts.
To achieve the strategic objectives for Natural Resources the implementation measures in
Section 10.5.2 (1) specifies that:
On land shown as … Rural or Valued Habitat on the Strategic Plan Map, and/or shown as a
Special Management Area on Council’s regulatory maps, Council will not support development
which is likely to:
• unduly degrade or reduce the values of regionally significant ecosystems
• require the removal or destruction of rare and threatened flora or its habitat; and
• otherwise impact on the habitat so as to threaten the existence of the rare and threatened
species.
Further measures in sections 10.5.3 and 10.5.4 seek to protect and rehabilitate vegetated/fauna
corridors and protect water courses, wetlands and water bodies. Critical conflicts with these
measures are also identified in this report.
Overall, the proposed development raises major conflicts with the strategic intent for the land
under The Maroochy Plan.
Local Area Provisions
The site is located in the Water Resource Catchment precinct (Lake Weyba Catchment) of the
Northern Coastal Plains Planning Area. Section 3.25.2 (1) of The Maroochy Plan 2000 states the
following vision for the area:
The Northern Coastal Plains Planning Area will retain its natural and rural landscape attributes,
dominated by Noosa National Park, Lake Weyba, large tracts of remnant vegetation and a
mosaic of rural activities. The protection of the natural and rural attributes of this Planning Area
will ensure that the Coastal Plains remains a naturally attractive rural area which provides a
pleasant gateway to the Shire and a meaningful contrast to the Shire’s urban areas and the
urban communities located in Noosa Shire to the north.
This will be achieved by:
… preventing new development or intensification of existing land uses in the Lake Weyba and
Lake MacDonald water catchment areas, and ensuring any development is compatible with the
water quality and other environmental values of these catchment areas;
preventing urban uses and urban style development from encroaching into the Planning Area
and degrading its natural/rural character;
Page 113 of 231
Section 34
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Key Character elements identified for the area in Section 3.25.3 include:
Any new development in the Planning Area is to provide for the rural landscape character to be
retained, through low density of development, retention of vegetation, provision of large building
setbacks to road frontages and the use of architectural styles which respond to and reflect the
rural setting.
The water catchments of Lake MacDonald and Lake Weyba are to be protected from adverse
impacts of new development and intensification of existing development.
The water catchment areas of Lake Weyba and Lake MacDonald are to be managed to optimise
runoff water quality, particularly through:
• limitation of new development or intensification of existing development;
• retention of vegetation, particularly adjacent to waterways and major drainage lines;
• use of best environmental and land management practices;
• use of best practice waste (including on-site effluent) disposal methods.
The banks and foreshores of Lake Weyba are to remain in public ownership, where existing. Any
new development on land parcels that have private frontage to Lake Weyba should dedicate lake
frontage into public tenure.
The planning scheme states the intent for the Lake Weyba Catchment Area of the Water Supply
Resource Area precinct:
The intention of this Precinct is to protect the valuable water and other ecological resources in
the region from pollution and to provide for the maintenance or improvement of the quality of
surface or ground water entering Lake Weyba. Any proposal which introduces a potentially
significant source of water contamination or other degradation into the catchment area is
considered contrary to the desired character of the Precinct and an undesirable environmental
outcome.
It is intended that the area’s rural or natural character be maintained, particularly through the
retention, restoration or enhancement of natural vegetation.
Development within the catchment should be very restricted and consistent with principles of
sound water catchment area management.
Any development in the catchment area is intended to provide for:
(a) the adequate protection of areas of habitat identified as having conservation significance
such that they remain ecologically sustainable;
(b) the scenic values of forested areas to be respected;
(c) the retention, restoration or enhancement of vegetation in order to:
• maintain soil stability, particularly on steep or slip prone areas,
• achieve benefits to runoff water quality,
• protect native flora and fauna, and
• contribute to scenic quality;
(d) the treatment and disposal of sewage effluent such that it does not cause environmental
harm by way of degrading water quality and that it remains ecologically sustainable; and
(e) earthworks and drainage works to be carried out so as not to allow unacceptable sediment
runoff from the site.
Page 114 of 231
Section 35
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Precincts 1 and 2 are proposed on this land, with the uses in these precincts being detached and
attached housing, aged care and commercial uses. With the exception of a single detached
dwelling, none of the proposed uses are identified as preferred or acceptable uses.
The proposed urban development fundamentally conflicts with the planning scheme’s land use
intent, which stresses the importance of the area’s environmental and open space values.
Allowance of urban development in an area corresponds with levels of construction and ongoing
impacts that must also be accepted (regardless of best practice development and management
methods employed). As such, the Maroochy Plan 2000 stance in avoiding urban development in
this location reflects the site’s environmental constraints and the significance of its natural
resource and landscape values.
Land Use and Works Provisions
The following Maroochy Plan 2000 overlays apply to this application:
Waterways, Wetlands and Fish Habitat areas
Flood Prone Land
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Management
Acid Sulfate Soils
Bushfire Prone Areas
Heritage Conservation
The following land use and development codes which regulate land use and design apply to this
application:
Code for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity
Code for Waterways and Wetlands
Code for Assessment and Management of Acid Sulphate Soils
Code for Development in Water Resource Catchment Areas
Code for Development in Bushfire Prone Areas
Code for Transport, Traffic and Parking
Code for Landscape Design
Operational Works Code
Heritage Conservation Code
Code for Integrated Water Management
Code for Erosion and Sediment Control
The primary issues arising from the assessment against both local government planning
schemes are detailed in Section 6.5 of this report.
The Noosa Plan
Locality Provisions
Precincts 3 and 4 of the development site are located in the Tewantin and Doonan Locality under
The Noosa Plan and zoned Rural Settlement and Rural. The proposed uses within these
precincts comprise detached and attached housing, aged care and rural residential land uses.
None of the proposed uses are identified as consistent with the zoning of the land on which
they’re proposed (with the rural residential use proposed on Rural zoned land).
Page 115 of 231
Section 36
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The proposed development raises major conflicts with the identified character of the locality and
the outcomes sought for the area. The overall outcomes sought for the locality under the code
include:
12.8.2 a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to —
i be compatible with other uses and works;
ii maintain the safety of people and works;
iii avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other
premises including acoustic and visual qualities; and
iv avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native
habitat removal, fragmentation and attrition;
12.8.2 e) Multiple housing in the form of duplex units and villas for permanent residents
are generally focused on areas close to the Tewantin Business Centre, community
facilities, parks and public transport services;
12.8.2 f) Retirement villages and relocatable home parks providing higher density living
are located within easy access of the business or neighbourhood centres;
12.8.2 m) The following roads are protected as part of Noosa’s major road network—
….
vii Walter Hay Drive;
12.8.2 n) The key character and entry-defining role of the following roads are protected
from visually intrusive development—
….
iv from the south along Walter Hay Drive and Eumundi Road, flanked by State
Forest, bushland and rural residential development;
12.8.2 p) The environmental, aesthetic and scenic values of the locality, or watercourses
just outside the locality, are protected and maintained. These include—
i the Noosa River;
ii Lakes Cooroibah, Doonella and Weyba;
iii Cooroibah, Wooroi, Cranks, Eenie and Keyser Creeks and their associated
riparian communities;
….
viii lowland areas in their natural state; and
ix major open space network links between Lake Cooroibah, Tewantin State
Forest, Lake Weyba and open space areas to the south;
12.8.2 q) Areas of native remnant or regrowth vegetation, including their biodiversity and
habitat values are protected;
Page 116 of 231
Section 37
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
12.8.2 x) For the Rural Settlement Zone—detached housing on large lots—
i is the dominant building form, to the general exclusion of other uses;
ii incorporate designs that respond to, and are integrated with site characteristics
including slope and native vegetation;
iii contribute to the rural or semi-rural character and amenity of the area;
iv may be located in close proximity to working farms or other rural industries; and
v offers a relaxed rural lifestyle for residents;
12.8.2 y) For the Rural Zone—rural land is protected and appropriately managed such
that the scenic and environmental values and the distinct rural amenity are preserved and
are not adversely impacted upon as a consequence of development on or adjacent to that
land;
The development conflicts with these overall outcomes and does not align with the land use
intent for the area. Particular concern is raised by the intensity of the urban development in an
environmentally sensitive location, sought to be protected for its rural and open space character,
and the following impacts:
The proposal seeks to modify the natural landform through bulk earthworks and removes
all existing vegetation within the proposed urban areas.
The development is likely to have significant impacts on flora and fauna in the area,
including koalas and other rare and threatened species.
The receiving waters of Eenie and Keyser Creeks and Lake Weyba are likely to suffer
significant impacts, particularly from the protracted construction phases of the
development.
The scenic amenity values of Lake Weyba and Walter Hay Drive will be negatively
impacted.
Walter Hay Drive’s protected status as a limited access road and preferred southern
entrance to Noosa will be significantly impacted upon by the development.
Amenity of surrounding residents and adjacent rural tourist accommodation businesses will
be unduly affected by a significant increase in the usage of Lake Weyba and its foreshore
(which fall within The Noosa Plan area) and the development intensity far exceeds
reasonable expectations for existing residents in the area.
The proposal does not find higher-order support in The Noosa Plan and the Desired
Environmental Outcomes of the planning scheme further entrench the conflicts. The
development is found to have major conflicts with the planning intent for the site, its environs and
the role of Walter Hay Drive under The Noosa Plan.
Land Use and Works Provisions
The following codes which regulate land use and design are applicable to this application:
Residential Uses Code
Reconfiguring a Lot Code
Engineering Works Codes
Landscaping Code
Page 117 of 231
Section 38
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The following overlay codes are applicable to this application:
Biodiversity Overlay Code
Natural Hazards Overlay Code
Natural Resources Code
The primary issues arising from the assessment against both local government planning
schemes are detailed below.
6.5 Primary Assessment Issues
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Lake Weyba and its surrounds are known to be of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. A
number of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are recorded in the area, with the Indigenous Cultural
Heritage Study of Noosa Shire (April 2004) listing it as an area of significance. The Maroochy
Plan 2000 precinct description for the Lake Weyba Catchment Area also recognises the
catchment as being the homeland of the Gubbi Gubbi Aboriginal people.
A search undertaken of the Department of Environment & Natural Resource Management’s
Cultural Heritage Database and Register indicates a midden and scarred tree are known to exist
on Lot 1667 M37772 (which forms part of the send site to be dedicated as National Park). The
search did not indicate any recorded sites on the development site lots but the likelihood of sites
existing is high.
The applicant was asked to consult with the Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the site (now the
Kabi Kabi First Nation people, with their Native Title claim registered from August 2013), and
undertake a Cultural Heritage Assessment. As the development has the potential to disturb or
destroy Aboriginal cultural heritage places, it is important that the proposal demonstrates cultural
heritage issues have been identified and appropriately addressed. In its Further Information
Response the applicant provided a “Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report”. The report includes
cultural heritage search results and observations from site inspections but did not seek traditional
owners’ views on the cultural significance of the site or the development. The report submits
that:
No historic cultural heritage constraints were identified during [the] assessment. It is
unlikely that any significant historic cultural heritage will impact on the development
potential of the Project Area.
Future heritage assessment works as part of a development application may be required
by Council. However, it is anticipated that in the event that Council did require such works,
they would be minimal.
The report recommends discussions with traditional owners be undertaken in order to prepare a
Cultural Heritage Management Plan. The applicant submits this would be undertaken as part of
further approvals required for the site and suggests that is reasonable, given the application only
seeks a preliminary approval.
Page 118 of 231
Section 39
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Discussions with staff at the Department of Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural
Affairs indicate that, while the applicant may have met its initial obligations under the Aboriginal
Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and might choose to further assess cultural heritage values and
engage with traditional owners later, Council is likely to have separate considerations in relation
to its assessment. Notably, the applicant’s report states that “Section 6 of the Duty of Care
Guidelines acknowledges that there may be residual cultural values...[despite it having being
exposed to ground disturbance]...and one of the objects of the legislation is to involve Aboriginal
people. Having regard to this, and the proximity of the Project Area to an important
environmental feature in Lake Weyba, we do not recommend relying on a Duty of Care
Assessment alone”.
Given the sites’ potential cultural heritage values and the application’s significant conflicts with
local planning provisions, it is considered important that a better understanding of cultural
heritage issues be available for this assessment. Accordingly, Council staff made contact with
the traditional owners in order to seek their views on the significance of the land. Kabi Kabi First
Nation’s cultural heritage representative provided the following feedback:
… it is important to note that any such surviving objects and/or areas of Aboriginal cultural
heritage remain highly significant to the Kabi Kabi people. Similarly, the Kabi Kabi people have
identified that Lake Weyba and its surrounds are highly significant to them on a number of levels
- such significance can only be assessed and managed by the Kabi Kabi people and as such, as
indicated by [the applicants cultural heritage consultant], I and the Kabi Kabi people would
strongly argue that the Due Diligence assessment in isolation is deficient for the purposes of
managing the proponent's duty of care.
From what is known about the area, the likelihood of impacts on cultural heritage values from the
development is high. Such impacts could arise in relation to tangible sites or artefacts but, of
major concern, are the impacts caused by the intense urban development on what is probably a
culturally significant landscape. A precautionary approach should preclude approval of this
application until the applicant has sought the views of the traditional owners and demonstrated
how cultural heritage issues can be addressed.
Koala Habitat and Net Benefit Assessment
Existing Habitat Values
Koala habitat within the development footprint is mapped as containing medium and low value
bushland values and medium and low value rehabilitation values under the State Planning
Regulatory Provisions mapping, as shown below and at A3 size as Attachment 7.
Page 119 of 231
Section 40
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Figure 13 – Koala SPRP Habitat Mapping
The land adjacent Lake Weyba contains mature and old growth scattered Blue Gums within a
grazed paddock. These lands are bordered by vegetated lands to the south, west and north, with
Lake Weyba on the eastern boundary. The land to the west of Walter Hay Drive contains mainly
a mix of Melaleuca forests and Scribbly Gum forests with scattered patches of Bloodwoods and
Ironbarks in grazed paddocks.
All lands contain primary and secondary koala food trees with the most important food trees
located close to water sources and within areas lacking dense understorey. Notably, some
important koala food trees are not within the mapped bushland areas or mapped as remnant
vegetation under the Vegetation Management Act but exist as scattered trees in paddocks or are
located within road reserves.
It is apparent from the surrounding Nature Refuges, current low intensity land uses and existing
vegetation that the site provides a koala habitat area.
Net Benefits / Impacts
The application material proposes the use of body corporate structures and associated levies to
regulate and fund on-going koala safety provisions such as fauna fencing. The body corporate
structure, in association with the dedication of the northern lands for National Parks and provision
of fauna fencing, is the justification for claiming a net benefit to koalas in the area.
The applicant submitted an overview/assessment of the net benefit posed by the development
undertaken by Professor Carrick, a recognised Koala expert. Mr Carrick’s full assessment was
not provided and it’s unclear whether he considered the existing land use protections and
constraints over the site or contemplated whether lesser development would provide better
outcomes. His brief overview provided by the applicant states:
Page 120 of 231
Section 41
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
It is my opinion that environmental offsets should generally be the ‘last resort’ for developments
impacting on koalas. On the other hand, it is my experience that more often than not it is easier
to achieve ecologically sustainable development in larger scale developments (such as Noosa on
Weyba) rather than small ones (where options are usually quite limited for satisfactory ecological
outcomes to be realised).
Another key aspect of the proposal is that it will be developed under a Community Title – this
gives some comfort that koala protection measures to be put in place integral to the proposal are
less likely to be eroded over time and provides a mechanism to generate the ongoing resourcing
that will be needed for maintaining the long term requirements for the koala conservation aspects
of the proposal.
In the particular circumstances of the ‘Noosa on Weyba’ proposal, it is my opinion that the case is
persuasive that a better outcome for koalas will be achieved by this sort of holistic approach, in
contrast to the likely outcome of the piecemeal developments already approved or in prospect for
the area.
Mr Carrick’s inference that the site is at risk of piecemeal development that would have greater
impacts on koalas is not supported. The Hofmann Consent Order represents the only currently
secured development rights on the site. It allows rural residential development west of Walter
Hay Drive and continuing rural use east of Walter Hay Drive. The impacts associated with low
intensity rural and rural residential use, limited road and infrastructure upgrades and a much
smaller residential population are significantly less than the impacts posed by the current
development. Should the further tourist villa approval for the lakefront land (currently in appeal)
proceed, its impacts are also very minor in comparison.
The application also relies heavily on the body corporate arrangement to justify the proposal in
an ecologically sensitive location, without consideration of less intensive development that would
likely provide greater benefit to koala conservation values.
Existing Koala Population
The application material fails to provide an estimate of the koala population within the
development area. The supplied material describes findings of characteristic scratch marks and
droppings of koalas but doesn’t accurately document where these were located. No sightings of
koalas during the survey period were recorded. The application material concludes the koala
population is in low densities on the site and not uniformly distributed. It also states the koala
survey confirms the general accuracy of the mapped habitat values of the site.
The ambiguity around the habitat values and koala records, coupled with the lack of maps
showing documented evidence of habitat usage, do not provide for an adequate detailed
assessment of the likely impact of the development on the existing koala population or give
surety that koala conservation values can be adequately accommodated by the development
design and/or conditions of approval.
Proposal
The application material states upwards of 11,000 koala food trees will be cleared to enable the
development to proceed in the proposed manner. Offsite impacts associated with the provision of
water, sewer, telecommunication and power infrastructure do not form part of the offset
calculation clearing estimates and it is likely the proposed layout and associated infrastructure
requirements will require additional clearing. The clearing of 5,515 koala food trees is proposed
to be offset by the provision of 5 trees for every 1 removed. The offset plantings are proposed
throughout the development site and the send site.
Page 121 of 231
Section 42
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The use of development offsets is predicated on the premise of avoidance first, mitigation second
and offsetting unavoidable consequences. The proponent does not propose to avoid clearing but
suggests a combination of mitigation and vegetation offset methods to justify urban development
in a non-urban setting. Some offset plantings proposed will create pockets of artificially high
koala tree densities. Some offset planting are proposed within flood zones and densely
vegetated areas. The scattering of offset planting locations within existing vegetation
communities and flood prone lands and artificially high densities create additional management
and compliance complexities in order to meet the offset criteria.
The use of offset plantings does not adequately address the direct impacts of clearing of koala
food trees, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, introduction of intensive urban land uses and
time–lag delays for the maturation of offset plantings.
Potential Impacts
The urbanisation of bushland has long been established as a major cause in the decline of koala
populations in South East Queensland and produces a number of deleterious factors directly
associated with koala mortality. The initial clearing of koala food trees and refuges causes loss
of forage resources, resting sites, recruitment trees and natural habitat variability. Disease has
also contributed to koala population decline in South East Queensland and has been linked to
stress factors.
Urban development causes Koalas to cross roads, back yards, parks and obstacles in their
natural territorial movements. Koalas do not alter their movements across the landscape or
otherwise “learn” to avoid new hazards. The increased amount of time spent on the ground in an
urban environment exposes them to increased risk and associated stress.
The proposed new roads through koala habitat and projected traffic levels throughout the
development are highly likely to cause koala deaths. Reliance on artificially slow speed
environments or fauna fencing to mitigate the impacts of road trauma and partially justify urban
development in a rural setting is not supported.
Koala Conservation Conclusion
A comprehensive koala survey has not been undertaken and koala habitat values have not been
adequately ground-truthed or documented. Based on the submitted information and the known
impacts of urban development, the applicant’s claim that the development will result in net
benefits for the local koala populations are, at best, conjecture. A more likely outcome is the
development will have a deleterious and significant impact on koalas and their habitat - both
during construction and as a result of the intensification of land use.
In short, the development is highly likely to result in a decline in the koala population in the area
and have a net impact on koala conservation values.
Old Growth Trees
The development will result in the removal of approximately 250 old growth “habitat” trees as a
result of major bulk earth works (cut and fill) and road-works. The majority of these trees will be
lost within proposed Precincts 1 and 2 and within the Hollett and Tidswell Road Reserves.
A lack of definitive information submitted relating to the fauna use of these trees and hollows
does not provide the clarity of information required to make an informed decision on the impacts
of the proposal. Mitigation of the impacts of the development by imposing relevant conditions is
not possible due to the extent of proposed earthworks and urban intensity proposed for each
precinct.
Page 122 of 231
Section 43
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Due to the known requirements of threatened species in the area for hollow dependent denning
and breeding, the retention of hollow bearing trees on the site should be maintained, in the
absence of any definitive data concerning their usage. The retention of hollow bearing trees
within each precinct and in the road reserves precludes a large portion of the proposed
residential development.
Environmental Corridors
The submitted Ecological Report includes the plan below identifying the proposed fauna corridors
and a range of “safe fauna passage infrastructure”, comprising underpasses (culverts) and
overpasses (canopy bridges such as posts with connecting ropes).
Figure 14 – Fauna Passage Plan
The fauna corridors proposed are limited in width, contain stormwater treatment infrastructure,
adjoin high density urban development and are bisected by roads, sewer, power and bikeways.
Some wildlife access mitigation will be provided along some roads, but these measures do not
offset the current existing seamless north/south movement across the landscape. The
development will also remove the majority of the “broad acre” habitat for Grey Kangaroos and
many “open country” birds.
Retention of the north/south tract of land adjacent to Lake Weyba in a rural setting is necessary
to ensure the on-going function of this tract as an important ecological corridor. Severing this
corridor with urban development will force fauna to cross Walter Hay Drive. Other fauna will
remain within the newly isolated tracts of land, thus limiting normal fauna dispersal movements.
Page 123 of 231
Section 44
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Previous planning decisions have seen the creation of an artificial barrier, being Walter Hay
Drive, impacting on fauna movement in an east/west direction. This has effectively isolated the
north/south tract from fauna habitat west of Walter Hay Drive, with the exception of two fauna
underpasses. The provision of fauna crossings and directional fencing is an unsatisfactory
attempt to preserve fauna affected by the development, particularly if they can be avoided
through alternate layouts or more appropriate land uses. In addition, the road crossings and
fencing are a high maintenance feature of the roadworks and their maintenance is essential to
their ongoing operation and effectiveness. Due to budgetary constraints and competing interests
of the body corporate, these fauna crossing devises could be overlooked and their effectiveness
reduced or nullified.
In addition to the wildlife mitigation measures, the applicant has proposed the creation of a
40km/h speed zone over that section of the link road through the corridor, a distance of
approximately 500 metres. This is purportedly to manage the impacts of the road on fauna within
this ecologically sensitive area. Such an arrangement is not considered to be appropriate or
effective because of the expected traffic volumes, the rural setting of the road and the extent of
devices required to reduce traffic speeds. It is well recognised that a speed limit sign in its self
does not limit speed and will create an enforcement issue. The 40km limit and any speed
devices would further restrict the public transport accessibility into the development and increase
travel times.
This section of the link road would most likely be sign posted at 60km/h, which is typical for such
a road in this particular environment. Measures to minimise the impacts on fauna of the
proposed link road should therefore not rely upon the presence of an artificially low speed limit,
which is both ineffective and a safety hazard.
In addition to the new road corridor, it should also be noted that the more open and straight
nature of Tidswell Road to the south of Precinct 2 means a higher speed environment of 70-
80km/h would be in operation on this stretch of road. No fauna fencing is proposed along this
section of road by the development and, although this can be conditioned, it would further restrict
fauna movement within and around the area to the south between Weyba Nature Reserve,
private nature reserves and Noosa National Park.
Buffer to Lake Weyba
The development application proposes a 50 metre wide buffer instead of the 100 metre wide
minimum buffer nominated by the Maroochy Plan 2000 Waterways and Wetlands Code, the Draft
Coastal Protection State Planning Regulatory Provision (SPRP) and Coastal Protection State
Planning Regulatory Provision. The Noosa Plan recommends a minimum buffer width of 200
metres to Lake Weyba. The proposed buffer includes stormwater treatment infrastructure, a
recreational path, lawn areas and limits the amount of revegetation and natural regeneration
within the buffer. The proposed lot layout also allows private lots to border the buffer, rather than
an esplanade road as would generally be sought.
The proposed buffer and its accompanying infrastructure and on-going management will not
provide adequate foraging for Koalas (noting this area supports the majority of suitable soils for a
key Koala food tree (Eucalyptus tereticornis - Blue Gum/Forest Red Gum) or a suitable corridor
for most habitat (forested) dependant fauna. The proposed buffer does not adequately address
the “bottleneck” effect the development will have on fauna passage in a north/south direction.
Urban development within precinct 1 and 2 will cause fauna to seek alternative routes for
passage, thus utilising the foreshore route.
Page 124 of 231
Section 45
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Based on the information supplied there are no sound grounds to accept reduced buffer widths
for this development proposed on the shores of the internationally recognised Noosa River
Wetlands. Substantially wider precautionary buffer widths than proposed are considered
necessary to provide for ambulatory boundaries, rising water levels due to climate change,
increased competition for resources, provide contingency for unintended consequences of
development to better protect sensitive receiving environs and maintain the natural visual
amenity of Lake Weyba.
Native Frog Habitat
Core and seasonal habitat of native acid frogs will be destroyed within development precincts
one and two. This will occur due to the excavation and re-profiling of the existing drainage line
(Keyser Creek) and the filling of the flood plain west of this drainage line. The downstream frog
habitats associated with Keyser Creek will also be impacted during major rainfall events (events
beyond the capacity of standard erosion control design/fences) initially with silt runoff associated
with bulk earthworks and then the on-going earthworks associated with residential construction.
Urban development results in on-going downstream impacts associated with runoff, elevated
nutrients, herbicides, pesticides and other pollutants, all of which have major impacts on native
frogs and result in the dominance of some species (those adapted to urban environments) over
the more specialized species of wallum acid frogs.
The site is known to contain suitable frog habitat and the applicant was requested to survey for
threatened frog species within the site. The survey effort was limited to sub-optimal times for
identification of cryptic species through call-back survey. No records of frogs have been supplied
with any application material. The lack of scientific rigor associated with the survey effort and lack
of data to enable peer review creates significant uncertainty as to the extent of frog habitat, frog
species and response measures necessary to ensure viable future populations.
The alteration of natural drainage systems in Precinct 2 will drastically alter local frog habitat and
the urbanisation of the catchment will lead to inevitable changes to water /soil chemistry. The
uniqueness of acid frog habitat and changes to their natural acidic environs has led to their
decline in numbers to such an extent their existence is classified as “threatened”. The absence of
information does not allow the imposition of reasonable and relevant conditions and the
precautionary approach should otherwise prevail.
Watercourses and Wetlands
The extent of bulk earthworks to modify the landform to accommodate the development does not
appropriately account for the habitat requirements of acid frogs, in-stream aquatic fauna, and
downstream impacts on receiving waters such as Keyser Creek and Lake Weyba.
There is a real and significant threat that Lake Weyba and Keyser Creek will be contaminated
with sediment after significant rain events due to the extensive earthworks. The risk of
contamination comes from the exposure of large areas of land by stripping topsoil and
vegetation, stock piling and re-profiling extensive tracts of land. The duration these works are left
exposed will depend on the staging, weather and opportunity costs associated with the
management of the project. The extent of earthworks proposed to overcome the natural features
of the land to make it suitable for urban development is a good indication the land is unsuited to
the proposed use.
The proposed works and the lack of scientific rigor associated with fauna sampling do not provide
clarity regarding the impacts of the works and use within this sensitive receiving environment.
Page 125 of 231
Section 46
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Flooding, Stormwater Management and Constructed Waterbodies
Flood Impacts - Regional
To facilitate the proposed development, large areas of the site below the existing 100 year ARI
flood level are proposed to be filled with no compensatory floodplain storage being provided.
The main areas to be filled are within Precinct 2 where a 25,600m3 loss of flood storage is
proposed.
The applicant has modelled the potential impact of filling all flood affected residential areas,
limited development areas and rural use areas that have been predominately cleared. These
areas are quite limited in extent and the cumulative impact of filling of all of these areas is a
negligible increase (maximum of 5mm) in regional flood levels.
The Lake Weyba catchment has extensive floodplain storage because of the size of the lake and
the storage available above it. Also, a significant portion of the Lake Weyba catchment is
National Park which has no further development potential. Other areas are currently rural and
rural residential where, even though not zoned for intensive development, the current application
shows that this is no guarantee that it will not be considered for future urban development.
The loss of floodplain storage is undesirable, however, the regional flood impacts posed are
minimal.
Other Off-site Flood Impacts
The existing situation within Precinct 2 is that floodwaters slowly move over a wide and flat
waterway. The proposed filling and installation of culverts to the access road to a pocket of
Precinct 2 and Precinct 1, means that the height of floodwaters will rise upstream and
downstream. Velocity will also increase but generally remain low. Downstream of the filling is
land proposed to be dedicated as National Park, so increases in flood levels and minor increases
in velocity in this area would need to consider impacts on ecological values.
Immediately to the south of Precinct 2 is a large parcel of private land with a number of cabins. A
very minor increase in flood levels is predicted on the northern boundary of this land. The area
where flood levels slightly increase is fully vegetated and is a registered nature refuge. The
predicted impacts are considered minor but the impacts on the ecological values would need to
be further considered. However, if the culverts become fully blocked, the upstream properties
will experience increased water levels by up to 1.84 metres. The upstream catchment is heavily
vegetated so major blockage of the culvert is a possibility during extreme events. To address
this, consideration would need to be given to amending at least some of the crossings to a bridge
structure or culvert with a clear opening height greater than 3m and width greater than 5m to
avoid blockage.
Residual Flood Risk (Probable Maximum Flood)
Allotment levels are proposed to be set 500mm above the peak 1% AEP + Climate Change flood
levels. In terms of the residual flood risk, some of the proposed detached house areas will be
inundated during events greater than a 1% AEP event. However, people in these areas can
progressively move to higher ground and get to flood free urban areas and Walter Hay Drive
during probable maximum flood events. Areas of the site proposed for retirement village/aged
care are located above the probable maximum flood. In addition, trafficable access from Walter
Hay Drive is proposed to the retirement village/aged care sites during a Probable Maximum
Flood for emergency access.
Page 126 of 231
Section 47
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Stormwater Quality/Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
The entire development is located in the Lake Weyba catchment. The majority of the
development discharges to Lake Weyba via Eenie Creek, with some development within Precinct
1 discharging directly to Lake Weyba.
Water quality sampling undertaken by the applicant shows that the water quality in Lake Weyba
and Eenie Creek currently does not meet the water quality objectives in terms of total suspended
solids and total nitrogen concentrations. This is an indication that the system is already under
stress from existing uses within the catchment area.
The proposed Water Sensitive Urban Design strategy incorporates rainwater tanks, bioretention
basins, bioretention swales, vegetated swales and litter baskets. The proposed stormwater
quality treatment train has been modelled as exceeding current best practice load based
reduction targets. Rainwater tanks form a critical component of the proposed stormwater quality
treatment train. The tanks also form part of a broader strategy to manage the impacts on the
ecology of the downstream system by reducing changes in the volume of stormwater discharged
and frequency of stormwater discharges.
Although the proposed stormwater quality treatment train exceeds best practice load based
reduction targets, it is uncertain how much of a change this represents from the existing situation.
This uncertainty is because a large portion of the site is currently used for agriculture and water
quality sampling from which typical loads for agricultural land have been determined is variable
depending on the season.
Stormwater quality treatment devices, other than those proposed to be located within existing
road reserve areas, are proposed to remain in body corporate ownership and represent a
significant responsibility for the body corporate to maintain.
Erosion and Sediment Control
There is a real and significant threat that Lake Weyba waters and Keyser Creek will become
contaminated with sediments after significant rain events, due to the extensive earthworks
undertaken to alter the land form to make it suitable for urban development.
A Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Strategy was submitted with the application and this
strategy proposes best practice erosion and sediment control practices to be followed during the
construction phase of the development. The document shows that if the areas of the site
proposed to be developed were disturbed all at the same time and no control measures
implemented then the soil loss from the site would be 3,963 tonnes per year. The Engineering
Report estimates that the total amount of earth proposed to be moved during the cut and fill
operation is 148,684 m3, which based on a conservative bulk density of
1.5 tonnes/m3 is the equivalent of 223,000 tonnes of soil. The depth of cut is proposed to exceed
2.5 metres on the ridges and fill is proposed to exceed 2.5 metres on areas currently subject to
flooding.
The discharge criteria used is for controlled releases and the basins are only proposed to be
sized for the 85th percentile, 5 day rainfall event. Analysis undertaken of the effectiveness of
basins sized for the 5 day, 85th percentile rainfall event shows that more than half of the total
runoff volume from a construction site is uncontrolled releases and typically has concentrations
over an order of magnitude greater than controlled releases. This analysis shows that reliance on
basins alone to prevent degradation of the downstream environment will be ineffective.
Page 127 of 231
Section 48
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The submitted strategy proposes a treatment train approach including staging of the area opened
up at any one time. Compliance with such a strategy over the years of construction will be
dependent on the effectiveness of an erosion and sediment control compliance and enforcement
program. Staging the earthworks will be a costly exercise based on the preliminary earthworks
design results summarised in the engineering report. The nature of the development and the
filling required for Precinct 2 results in unbalanced earthworks volumes within each precinct.
This severely hampers an earthworks contractor’s ability to stage the earthworks and limit the
disturbed area at any one time.
Although best practice may be conditioned upon the bulk earthworks, once the bulk earthworks is
completed the house building phase will commence. Erosion and sediment control for individual
house building sites is regulated under the Environment Protection Act and similar to bulk
earthworks is dependent on an effective Council compliance and enforcement program with
multiple owners and builders and contractors. The house building phase of the development
represents another potentially significant source of water contamination.
Depending on the scale of uncontrolled releases the coarse sediment typically settles out in the
drainage lines downstream of the site (areas identified as open space conservation and National
Park dedication) with finer materials extending down through the system through Eenie Creek,
Lake Weyba and Weyba Creek.
Overall, the scale of the bulk earthworks proposed for this development, without any doubt, will
introduce a potentially significant source of water contamination and lead to degradation of the
receiving catchment area.
Acid Sulphate Soils
The applicant proposes substantial areas of cut and fill, within areas identified as potentially
having acid sulphate soils. An Acid Sulphate Soil Assessment was provided with the application.
Whilst the number of boreholes on site does not meet the specific guidelines, the results from
testing 16 samples show that there is a presence of Acid Sulphate Soil material in certain soils to
a depth commensurate with the envisaged works (0.0 – 1.5metres). The applicant has also
acknowledged that further sampling and testing will be required when the nature and area of
disturbance is determined.
This is a potentially low risk strategy for acid sulphate soils if the development can implement an
appropriate management plan to mitigate the release of acid and associated metals during
earthworks. This strategy is heavily reliant on high quality implementation programmes and
enforcement from the local government and other state agencies. Without successful
implementation, this is a potentially significant source of water contamination on nearby sensitive
receiving environments as identified in other areas of this report. If the development were to limit
the extent of cut and fill, the potential risks would be significantly reduced.
Bushfire
The vegetation surrounding the subject site is mapped under Maroochy Plan 2000 as medium
bushfire hazard. The applicant submitted a bushfire report that outlines a number of mitigation
measures proposed to enable the development layout to comply with the relevant planning
scheme provisions. Under the proposal, most buildings will be setback from the hazardous
vegetation by a nominal distance of 30 metres for access and fire management purposes.
Page 128 of 231
Section 49
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The report also acknowledges that the proposal will result in some allotments being within an
area affected by the relevant Australian Standard (AS3959-2009). While the Australian Standard
is not applicable in the Development Assessment phase of the process, it does, provide an
indication that for some parts of this development, life and property will be located within areas
affected by bushfire hazards.
The 30 metres setback proposed for the developed is based on the recommended setback of 1.5
times the canopy height (suggested by the applicant as being 20 metres). Based on a review of
the regional ecosystem technical descriptions and the heights provided by the applicant for the
canopies of each regional ecosystem type, the required setbacks should be a minimum of 45
metres in some areas (based on a canopy height of 30 metres).
Further demonstration with respect to the location, widths and effectiveness of firebreaks would
be required to ensure this infrastructure is appropriate for all lots. Providing a layout with larger
lots in some locations adjacent the firebreaks would make more appropriate use of the available
space for firebreaks and setbacks.
The applicant has maintained two access options linking Precincts 1 and 2 to Walter Hay Drive to
the northwest and along Tidswell Road to the southwest. However, in terms of bushfire
protection, the length of these two access points through areas of hazardous vegetation poses
an increased fire risk for new residents.
With respect to the two areas within Precinct 3 north of the power line easement, in their current
layout, these are not supported on the basis of hazard and access as well as indicative lot size.
A solution which allowed for larger lots, ring roads and improved access to the larger lots for
emergency services may be an acceptable solution for these two areas.
In respect to Precinct 4, the single Rural Residential allotment cannot be supported due to the
constraints of primary and alternate access routes for the building envelope. The applicant has
identified this western portion of Precinct 4 as being an aged care facility. While the site abuts
areas which are currently cleared to its west, south and to a lesser extent to the east, the area
does abut areas that contain hazardous vegetation and which will remain as hazardous
vegetation. In addition, access to this part of precinct 4 appears to be via new road works
identified for Precinct 3. A combination of hazardous vegetation, potential smoke hazards during
a bushfire event (be it controlled or uncontrolled) and the length of roadway makes this facility
problematic and without further detail in terms of serviceability the current proposal for this facility
cannot be supported.
Although some aspects identified above can be conditioned, the suitability of urban development
in this location is not considered appropriate and the development in the current form will
increase the risk to persons and property. Appropriate access could not be conditioned without
substantial clearing of native vegetation along the road corridors and would exacerbate
environmental impacts caused by the development.
Traffic and Transport
Traffic Access
All vehicle access to proposed development within the Noosa Council area (Precincts 3 and 4) is
obtained via the proposed roundabout on Walter Hay Drive. No regular vehicle access is
proposed between that part of the development west of Walter Hay Drive and the existing Hollett
Road reserve through to Eumundi-Noosa Road, although this link will be available as an
alternative emergency vehicle access route.
Page 129 of 231
Section 50
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Vehicle access to development within the Sunshine Coast Council area (Precincts 1 and 2) is
proposed via a link road consisting of an upgraded Tidswell Road (joining with Eumarella Road to
the south) and a northern road extension to the proposed Walter Hay Drive roundabout, utilising
part of the existing Hollett Road reserve and a new road through the proposed Open Space
Conservation Zone. Traffic generated by development within these two precincts travelling
to/from the north is most likely to use this link road (including the new road through the Open
Space Conservation Zone) to get to the proposed Walter Hay Drive roundabout, whereas traffic
travelling to/from the south is most likely to use this link road (including an upgraded Tidswell
Road) to get to Eumarella Road.
Based on the range of potential dwelling numbers proposed by the applicant and the generation
rates contained in the submitted traffic impact assessment report, the likely daily traffic volumes
for the development are summarised below. It is estimated that approximately 60% of
development traffic will travel to/from north of the site (e.g. via Walter Hay Drive to Noosaville,
Noosa Civic, Noosa Heads etc) and 40% of traffic will travel to/from south of the site (e.g.
Sunshine Motorway to Peregian Springs, Coolum, and Maroochydore or Eumundi-Noosa Road
to Eumundi and the Bruce Highway).
Daily Traffic
Precincts Estimated Daily Traffic Access Location
Generation
1&2 3,300 – 3,700 vehicles per day Link road to new Walter Hay Drive
roundabout (for northern traffic (60%))
Link road (Tidswell Road) to Eumarella
Road (for southern traffic (40%))
3&4 2,400 – 3,000 vehicles per day New Walter Hay Drive roundabout
The link road serving Precincts 1 and 2 should be constructed to a Distributor road type (Noosa
Plan) or District Collector road type (Maroochy Plan 2000) to ensure safe operation for all users,
including vehicles, on-road cyclists and buses. While it may be possible to adjust carriageway
widths at certain points along this link road to take account of localised constraints and minimise
impacts on existing vegetation, it is considered essential that paved shoulders be provided for the
entire length of the link road – including along the section of new road proposed through the
Open Space Conservation Zone.
It is considered essential for emergency vehicle access and general day-to-day traffic
connectivity (to both the north and the south) that the proposed link road from Walter Hay Drive
to Tidswell Road is provided in its entirety. Planning Scheme Policy No 6 – Transport, Traffic
and Parking (Maroochy Plan 2000) requires all residential areas greater than 100 lots to have
more than one street access. If the link road is not provided in its entirety (e.g. vehicle access to
Precincts 1 and 2 is limited to Tidswell Road only (southern access/egress)), then Precincts 1
and 2 would effectively be located at the end of a very long cul-de-sac. This is not consistent
with good urban development and connectivity principles. Furthermore, it does not provide an
adequate alternative access for emergency vehicles or evacuation route for residents in the
event of bushfire.
Page 130 of 231
Section 51
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Speed Management in Ecologically Sensitive Areas
The applicant has proposed the creation of a 40km/h speed zone over that section of the link
road between Precincts 2 and 3 in the vicinity of the Hollett Road reserve – a distance of
approximately 500 metres - to manage the impacts of the road on fauna within this ecologically
sensitive area. Such an arrangement is not considered appropriate or effective because:
the roadway is located in a rural-type area, remote from urban development, where the
introduction of an isolated and low speed limit is unexpected by drivers. This creates a
potential safety hazard, significant non-compliance issues and frustration for drivers
the proposal is not consistent with State guidelines for speed limits (Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices), which permits 40km/h speed zones to be considered only in front
of schools, local residential streets, or on roads through strip shopping centres, commercial
areas or business districts where there is obvious and frequent pedestrian activity along
and across the road
creation of a 40km/h zone would require the frequent placement of severe traffic calming
devices (such as speed platforms or chicanes). Experience has shown that even with the
frequent placement of such devices on through traffic roads, a reduction in the 85th
percentile speed to 40km/h is not achieved and the devices themselves become a vehicle
safety hazard and ongoing maintenance concern
the introduction of traffic calming devices creates a potential hazard for on-road cyclists.
The construction of bicycle bypasses around such hazards would result in the need to
provide a wider pavement footprint and impact further on adjacent vegetation
experience has shown that, in addition to performance issues within the isolated speed
limited zone itself, drivers who use the road on a regular basis speed-up along other
sections of roadway in the local area (including residential streets within the Precincts
themselves) in order to make-up any real or perceived loss in travel time
in any case, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads requires the link
road to operate as a bus route, the design guidelines for which specifically require the
roadway to not impede the potential for the safe and efficient movement of buses and do
not support the use of traffic calming devices.
This section of the link road would most likely be sign posted at 60km/h, which is typical for such
a road in similar settings. Measures to minimise the impacts on fauna of the proposed link road
should not, therefore, rely upon the presence of an artificially low speed limit, which is both
ineffective and a safety hazard.
It should also be noted that the more open and straight nature of Tidswell Road to the south
means a higher speed environment of 70-80km/h would be in operation on this stretch of road
between the southern end of the site (Precinct 2) and Eumarella Road.
Impacts on External Road Network
Council engaged traffic expert, Colin Beard of Beard Traffic Engineering, to peer review the
applicant’s traffic report and assess impacts on the local road network. Mr Beard maintained a
position that he does not support the proposed new roundabout on Walter Hay Drive and the
applicant was advised of this at an early stage. His peer review finds:
I do not support the development of the primary site access via a new roundabout on Walter Hay
Drive, because of the importance of the maintenance of uninterrupted traffic flow on that road
link. It might be possible to locally reduce the posted speed limit to 80 km/hour, but not to the
lower speed, with the reversal of priority, necessarily involved in a four-way roundabout.
Page 131 of 231
Section 52
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Pedestrian/Cycle Networks
The applicant has proposed pathways throughout the development and conditions could be
applied to ensure pathway and on-road cyclist networks are provided within and between each
precinct and connect to external networks. However, the fragmented and dispersed nature of the
development, with long and extended pathway linkages, does not support a sound walkable
environment. The usability of the network is questioned in terms of convenience, safety and
security. Although extensive, the proposed pedestrian networks will generally only service
‘localised’ recreational walking trips and will not support walking and cycling as a convenient
mode of transport to neighbouring attractors such as Noosa Business Centre, major public
transport nodes, employment, services, schools and public facilities. This is contrary to the
principles of Sunshine Coast Council’s Active Transport Plan and Sustainable Transport
Strategy.
The major road crossing proposed at the new Walter Hay Drive roundabout will pose a barrier to
walking and cyclist movements between the precincts and connections to the neighbouring
residential and the business centre. Even if a roundabout is installed at this location as proposed,
traffic speeds on Walter Hay Drive will still be significant and therefore make safe crossing of
Walter Hay Drive by pedestrians and cyclists (including children, older pedestrians, and
recreational users) difficult. It is highly likely a grade separated crossing of Walter Hay Drive
would be required, by way of either an overpass or underpass.
Public Transport
The Department of Transport and Main Roads has provided a condition as part of its
concurrence agency response requiring the link road for Precincts 1 and 2 from the proposed
Walter Hay Drive roundabout through the Open Space Conservation Zone to Tidswell Road to
provide for a bus route. The department also makes the caveat in its response that “This
condition does not imply that a bus service will be provided to the development. Any new
services have to be assessed against other priorities across the network, available funding and
funding constraints, and the ability of the road network through the new urban area to allow for
the efficient routing of a service, amongst other relevant considerations.”
If a service is provided, the bus route indicated by the Department will not provide convenient
public transport access to Precincts 1 and 4 or the western part of Precinct 3, as these areas are
beyond the generally accepted maximum 400 metre walking distance to a bus stop. New
residential areas should be located on a public transport corridor that provides high frequency
services (at least every 20-30 minutes). Current Translink service levels would only provide a
service every hour (Route 622) and it is unlikely the frequency would change in the short term to
make public transport viable.
The overall layout of the development in separate development pockets does not provide direct
and convenient accessibility to the primary bus route and does not lend itself to being efficiently
serviced by public transport.
Road Traffic Noise
A preliminary Road Traffic Noise assessment was submitted in support of the proposed
development. Whilst the preliminary report does not provide final detail of road traffic noise
mitigation, it indicates there will be a combination of acoustic barriers (ranging from 2.0m to 2.4m
in height) and building façade upgrades that will ensure the development achieves the relevant
noise criteria for noise sensitive uses. The preliminary assessment also indicates acoustic
barriers are to be set well back from Walter Hay Drive and that visual amenity can be mitigated
through buffer plantings.
Page 132 of 231
Section 53
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
A comprehensive road traffic noise assessment and noise barrier setbacks to minimise visual
amenity impacts can be conditioned with a preliminary approval. However, it is unclear what
ecological impacts the acoustic fencing may have.
Mosquitos and Biting Midges
The Maroochy Plan 2000 Strategic Plan outlines the key planning strategies for minimising biting
insect issues. The strategy is to discourage residential development in locations where large
populations of mosquitoes and biting midges are known to breed. No such provisions are
included in The Noosa Plan but the issue is relevant to the entire development, given its location.
The applicant submitted a Biting Insect Investigation and Risk Management Report, which
concludes that the risk presented by biting insects can be adequately managed. The primary
management measures are the removal of breeding habitat through the earthworks phase and
the establishment of a 30 metres cleared open space buffer, which may include mowed grass,
sparsely distributed trees and roadways. The management measures require amendment to the
current layout and conflict with a number of ecological outcomes expressed to justify the
development proposal.
The provision of open space buffers is a commonly accepted method of minimising the
abundance of mosquito and will reduce the number of mosquitos traveling between harbourage
vegetation and sensitive receivers. Although the buffers will reduce mosquito numbers, they will
not prevent mosquito problems. Such measures are generally considered best practice in
planned urban areas or where development commitments exist but raise concerns in the context
of this unplanned urban area.
The required ‘mowed grass’ buffers will result in mowing at a much greater frequency to reduce
harbourage of biting insects. The proposed 30 metre open space buffers will extend in some
places into ecological corridors and thus conflict with the ecological protection outcomes
suggested by the applicant. The development’s proximity to mosquito breeding grounds will
potentially increase complaints to the body corporate and Council and is likely to incur ongoing
resources to maintain the required buffers and control mosquito populations.
The proposed removal of breeding habitat through earthworks, civil works and hydraulic works is
also proposed as one of the primary control measures for mosquitos and biting midges proposed
by the applicant report. This is a reasonable response, particularly in regard to the areas
proposed to be cut or filled to accommodate roadways and development allotments. However,
the proposed removal of breeding habitat through earthworks phase would also extend into areas
which are to be set aside, protected and revegetated to achieve the required ecological and
offset outcomes for the site. The removal of mosquito breeding habitat will be in direct conflict
with these ecological outcomes.
Visual Amenity
The proposal has not addressed visual amenity concerns raised during the assessment arising
from its exposure to Walter Hay Drive and will remain visible at this location. The Noosa Plan
seeks to protect the inter-urban break to Noosa’s southern approach and buffers between towns
and villages are integral to the character of the Sunshine Coast. Vegetation buffers are not
proposed to be continuous along this route and acoustic fencing will be required to attenuate
noise from the road. The development’s visual amenity impact on Walter Hay Drive does not
comply with the requirements of the scheme.
Page 133 of 231
Section 54
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Architectural photomontages submitted with the application of the development’s Lake Weyba
presentation appear to misrepresent the likely outcome. It’s unclear if they accurately represent
the altered landform from bulk earthwork cuts adjacent the lake and the full built form potential of
the houses in Precinct 1. The montages also show retained existing mature trees behind new
houses - which will not be the case, as all trees within the urban lots are to be removed. Trees
are also indicated within the 10m stormwater management zone and additional trees are shown
within the buffer to the lake, which is contrary to other application material. The development’s
potential impact on the visual amenity of Lake Weyba is significant and conflicts with both local
planning scheme provisions in this regard.
Affordable Living & Positive Ageing
The Sunshine Coast Affordable Living Strategy and Sunshine Coast Positive Ageing Strategy are
relevant to this proposal. The applicable policy statement within the Affordable Living
frameworks states – Council will strive to achieve a provision of housing and aged care that
promotes positive housing and ageing in place.
The Sunshine Coast Affordable Living Strategy 2010-2020 contains a framework of 7 outcomes
and associated principles, being:
Housing diversity
Housing affordability
Self-contained neighbourhoods
Transport options
Supportive environments
Resource efficiency, and
Economic Development.
The policy has been created to provide guidance on how specific housing needs may be
achieved. The proposal for a range of lot sizes and a retirement living meets some of the
outcomes/principles identified in the strategy as follows:
Caters for a range of dwelling types and income levels;
The staging of the proposal would allow for adaptability of the product to meet the changing
needs of the market; and
Provision of a retirement living units goes some way to the intention of self-contained
neighbourhoods.
Although there are some positives, the Needs Assessment does not expand on the type or use of
the 220 dwellings planned for retirement living, other than to identify them as “predominately
Independent Living Units with some small one bedroom low care apartments”.
The current “ageing in place” philosophy, as supported by the State Government, seeks planning
and development of aged care whereby residents are able to move through differing and
increasing levels of care as their needs change. While the proposal may assist in the early
stages of ageing in place, the Noosa on Weyba development does not further support the
“ageing in place” philosophy, requiring residents to move away from the neighbourhood as their
care needs increase. The applicant has not demonstrated that the inclusion of Independent
Living Units is best suited to this particular site, as the location relies heavily on private vehicle
usage and is not easily accessible to a range of services and conveniences.
Page 134 of 231
Section 55
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The affordability of the housing products on offer within the development is unknown and
comments on their consistency with the Affordable Living Strategy cannot be confirmed. The
affordability is likely to be less than areas within the urban footprint, given the extensive
earthworks and infrastructure servicing/upgrade requirements, in addition to ongoing body
corporate costs associated with maintenance and environmental responsibilities.
Social Infrastructure
The information request identified a concern that the proposed increase in population would
place greater demand on social infrastructure in the locality and conflict with the Social
Infrastructure Strategy. The application submits that the development will not generate the need
for additional social infrastructure, but instead will increase the number of people utilising the
existing infrastructure.
Recent studies of existing nearby social infrastructure (including Verrierdale Hall and a range of
meeting spaces in Noosaville) indicated these are currently well utilised and close to capacity.
The increase of over 2,000 residents within the locality will place greater pressure on these
facilities and is likely to require additional community meeting spaces. Additional social
infrastructure within proximity to the development is not planned to be delivered within the time
frame of the Noosa on Weyba development and given the spatial relationship with Noosa is likely
to place greater financial strain on the Noosa local government area.
Approval of this development would require further detailed assessment of community social
infrastructure needs to determine if the applicant should be required to contribute toward new or
upgraded facilities or early delivery of planned infrastructure.
Energy Efficiency In Building Design & Water Conservation
The proposal aims to deliver some desirable sustainability measures for future building
construction. A number are to be delivered through residential design guidelines proposed to be
implemented when individual building designs are submitted for future planning or building
approvals. The design guidelines suggest that buildings will be oriented to the north to achieve
passive energy efficiencies; however, the guidelines would need to be clarified and strengthened
if they are to be effective development control tools.
10,000L water tanks are also proposed with most of the dwellings (with alternate communal
arrangements for some attached dwellings). The submitted Integrated Water Cycle Management
Plan finds:
… a 10kl rain tank configuration could supply approximately 96% of the standard residential
household demands for toilet cisterns, garden irrigation and laundry use. This in turn represents
approximately 25-30% of the total household demand, representing a significant, sustained offset
from the bulk water supply system serving the Noosa area.
The proposed passive design and water conservation measures align with the Sunshine Coast
Council strategies that also transferred to Noosa Council and are desirable. They do not,
however, present grounds to support the development in themselves. It should also be noted
that they are somewhat at odds with recent changes in State regulation, which has seen the
removal of certain sustainability requirements from Queensland Development Codes and
prohibition of residential design covenants elements in order to promote housing affordability.
Consequently, onerous sustainability requirements are now more difficult to sustain via
conditions of a development approval.
Page 135 of 231
Section 56
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Sewerage Infrastructure
Sewerage capacity is a primary infrastructure consideration for this development, with the site
falling outside areas planned to receive urban infrastructure. The application was referred to
Unitywater for review of the water and sewerage infrastructure requirements. Unitywater
identified the following critical issues:
The subject lots are located outside of the urban footprint for the South East Queensland
Regional Plan and are consequently outside of Unitywater’s headwork area.
Due to this application location, Unitywater have not allowed/envisaged any demand for this
site within any existing network planning.
From the Water and Sewerage Analysis prepared by Cardno in September 2013, there are
numerous deficiencies, firstly within the report and secondly within Unitywater’s network that
is expected to provide the required level of service for this development.
Water supply to this development appears to be feasible with the developer undertaking
appropriate water main augmentations within the network at their full cost.
Sewerage from the site through the network can be provided with various augmentations to
be undertaken at the developer’s cost.
The existing sewage treatment plant, owned by Unitywater and operated by ‘Degremont’
currently has limited ‘spare’ capacity to cater for further growth.
If some ‘spare’ sewage treatment capacity were to be allocated to this development it should
be recognised that it may limit future options to increase demand from within the existing
urban boundary.
Unitywater indicates it is prepared to apply conditions for approval of the development, with all
associated network and infrastructure costs to be covered by the developer and subject to an
infrastructure agreement. Such costs would not be eligible for trunk infrastructure offsets as the
site is outside the Priority Development Area under the Councils’ Adopted Infrastructure Charges
resolutions.
While willing to support approval of the application, Unitywater have stressed that, ultimately, it is
a matter for Council to decide if spare capacity should be allocated to this unplanned
development. Discussions indicate the following key considerations:
Approval of the development would bring the Noosa Heads Sewage Treatment Plant closer
to the need for a major upgrade (costing possibly in the order of $30M). Such upgrade costs
could not reasonably be applied to this development.
The future upgrade cost is likely to be prohibitive for future additional (i.e. currently
unplanned) development.
Given the above, approval of the development will effectively be at the “opportunity cost” of
other future development Council might prefer (such as additional development within
existing urban areas).
The opportunity cost of approving the development is a significant concern and an undesirable
outcome of the proposal.
Page 136 of 231
Section 57
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Need
Need is an important consideration for this assessment. Since the development is broadly
contrary to the planning intent for the land under both local government planning schemes, need
is a ground that may present sufficient community benefit to overcome the conflict. Need in the
development sense is commonly recognised as relating to community wellbeing. A development
may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing. Wellbeing may be
improved by access to new services or facilities or a range of other ways.
The applicant submitted a Needs Assessment and subsequent addendum prepared by its
consultant, RPS. The submitted reports suggest a number of significant economic social and
community benefits are posed by the application, with these principally derived from:
The value of the BDOA land to be dedicated as National Park, its use by the community
and tourists, and the resultant economic activity.
The environmental controls and protections to be secured under the development’s
Community Management Schemes.
The provision of additional urban land supply at the northern end of the Sunshine Coast,
which RPS identifies as currently unsatisfactorily constrained.
The provision of an estimated 220 retirement/aged care dwellings to address a growing
undersupply in the area.
The employment generated by the development during its construction and operation. 260
construction jobs per year and a further 141 on-site and 177 off-site operation jobs are
estimated.
Collection of additional stamp duty and rates by government.
Council engaged its own economic specialist, Norling Consulting, to undertake a peer review of
the RPS reports and other application material. Its review found the following:
We have found no fundamental errors within the methodologies or calculations undertaken within
the two Reports prepared by RPS. We agree that the proposal would generate benefits including
employment and financial benefits (stamp duty, rates, etc), as is the case when developing any
new residential estate. Therefore, these same benefits could be realised if residential
development was to occur within the Urban Footprint, which has sufficient capacity to
accommodate growth beyond 2031. It is also agreed that eventually, the restriction of new
residential lands in the Noosa area, combined with continued interest and demand for living in
the area will lead to real price increases of scarce residential land, thereby forcing lower paid
workers to live outside the Noosa area. This is an inevitable consequence of demand exceeding
supply.
There are a number of areas where we disagree with RPS:
The location of the subject site is outside the Urban Footprint as identified in the SEQ
Regional Plan. The purpose of designating land within the Urban Footprint is to identify
land that can meet the urban development needs of the region to 2031 in a more compact
form that can be efficiently serviced by necessary infrastructure. While there may be less
than 15 years supply of land within the Noosa District and Maroochy North District, the
Sunshine Coast must be viewed as a whole. The State Government and Council have
made a valid policy decision to direct the majority of future population to the southern parts
of the Sunshine Coast, particularly Palmview and Caloundra South.
Page 137 of 231
Section 58
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The subject site is identified as part of the Regional Landscape and Rural Protection Area
under the SEQ Regional Plan. The intent of this Area is to protect the identified land from
inappropriate development, particularly urban or rural residential development.
Furthermore, “these areas support the lifestyle and wellbeing of the regional population,
primarily located in the Urban Footprint.” This is particularly relevant to Noosa which is an
internationally recognised tourist destination and one of the most desirable places in the
world to live. One thing that sets Noosa apart and adds to its desirability is its high
proportion of vegetated land compared to developed land. The introduction of 876 new
dwellings over land that is intended to be protected is not consistent with the planning
framework nor with Noosa’s values.
The addition of the 139.5ha to the Noosa National Park is unlikely to increase the number
of visitors to the Noosa National Park. In terms of its usage, the vast majority of the park’s
visitors concentrate in Noosa Heads, so the small addition would be unlikely to result in
increased visitation unless different facilities or natural features were provided.
The proposal represents the addition of discrete pockets of residential development which
is not conducive to an efficient and well planned community. This would be particularly
problematic for retirement facilities, whose residents require easy access to essential
infrastructure and services. Retirement facilities would be more appropriately located within
the Urban Footprint.
The proposed layout, comprising discrete pockets of residential development, fails to
support public transport usage, simply contributing to a greater level of motor vehicle
usage.
The proposed neighbourhood centre is not well located to service the proposed
development. It is located in the south eastern part of the proposal. Residents living in the
north western part of the development would be more likely to flow north to Noosa Civic
rather than travel to the proposal centre.
Mr Norling’s findings are supported. While the northern end of the Sunshine Coast may be
approaching constrained land supply in the coming years, this is not unexpected. The adopted
government approach to residential growth on the Sunshine Coast has been to direct the majority
of new development to the southern end of the region. A substantial portion of new dwellings are
also planned via infill development within the existing urban footprint. The SEQ Regional Plan, in
combination with the existing and draft local government planning schemes, cater for growth in
the region accordingly.
Notably, the public notification period resulted in a very poor level of community support for the
development. Council’s experience has shown that submissions in support of a development will
be made where need exists. While by no means definitive, this further suggests the proposal
does not respond to community needs.
Overall, the applicant is considered to have overstated the community benefits likely to result
from the proposal and has not demonstrated a significant level of community need exists for the
development.
6.6 Grounds to Support the Application Despite Planning Conflicts
Given the extent of the development’s conflict with planning provisions for the site, it is crucial
that grounds be identified that overcome the conflicts. Section 329 of the Sustainable Planning
Act 2009 requires sufficient grounds must exist to justify a decision, despite a conflict with a
relevant instrument. Grounds are simply defined in the SPA as matters of public interest and can
be taken to include matters such as: planning instruments that are incorrect or have been
overtaken by events (i.e. are out of date); outcomes that address identified community need; and
outcomes that provide overriding community benefit.
Page 138 of 231
Section 59
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The applicant acknowledges the need for such grounds and originally described 34 in its
application. Council staff considered many of those grounds to be insufficient or extraneous and
requested the applicant to provide its summary, overarching grounds. The applicant’s Further
Information Response indicated it felt its original 34 grounds were consistent with the SPA
requirements but did provide a consolidated list of 10 primary grounds, discussed below.
Assessment of Applicant’s Grounds for Approval
BDOA - Expanded Noosa National Park Benefits (Grounds 1 - 3)
1. In September 2007, the former Noosa Shire boundary (the Noosa District) was designated as
a biosphere region by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s
(UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program. The Noosa Biosphere Reserve consists
of 150,000 Ha of land and sea and since 2007 the primary focus has been to ensure the area
is valued, looked after and conserved. The proposed Noosa on Weyba development will
comply with the initiatives associated with the Noosa Biosphere through transferring 139.5 Ha
of the site to the State for the purposes of inclusion into the Noosa National Park, with an
estimated value of $18,600,000, at no cost to the public.
Assessment – Agree in Part
It is agreed that the dedication of the BDOA “Send Site” land to National Park required by the
State under the executed Infrastructure Agreement poses a community benefit. This is
considered to be the primary benefit in favour of the proposal; however, its importance is
overstated. The applicant grossly overestimates the value of the land to be dedicated, based on
a simple, equivalent developable residential zoned land value extrapolation. The land is more
likely valued at a maximum of $4M - $7M, which is far less than the applicant’s figure of $18.6M.
Notably, Council collects ratepayer funds for environmental land purchases through its
environmental levy. Such a purchase of the send site, at a fair market rate, could be seen as a
significantly better environmental outcome than the BDOA arrangement proposed, linked as it is
to intensive urban development on neighbouring lands that will have a net impact on the
biodiversity values of the area.
2. The transfer of 139.5 Ha of the Noosa on Weyba site to the State for the purposes of
inclusion into the Noosa National Park will link together two isolated sections of Noosa
National Park causing a large contiguous section of National Park. The dedication of the
BDOA ‘Send’ land will provide the opportunity to unlock the major component of Lake Weyba
and provide public access to a greater range of National Park and the 1.6kms of Lake Weyba
shoreline, with these areas currently not generally accessible to the general public due to
restrictions caused by private ownership of the surrounding land.
Assessment – Agree in Part
It is agreed that the National Park dedication of the BDOA “Send Site” National Park is desirable
insofar as it enhances linkages of conservation land from the Noosa National Park to the North,
to the nature refuges to the south and further National Park lands further to the south. However,
the proposed development compromises the function of this environmental corridor by placing a
significant urban development, and associated road infrastructure, within the corridor, the net
result clearly being to the detriment of the corridor.
Page 139 of 231
Section 60
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Increased public access to new foreshore areas has the potential to be of community benefit,
though it must be noted that formal public access facilities are currently not provided within any of
the western portions of Noosa National Park and Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service have
advised Council that it does not have the capacity to provide or maintain any new active
recreation infrastructure within the proposed park addition.
3. The additional 139.5 Ha of BDOA ‘Send’ Land to be included as part of Noosa National Park
will increase the area of the total National Park by approximately 5% of which is expected to
increase the number of visitor nights to Noosa National Park by 5%, or 88,116 visitor nights
annually. The increase in visitor nights is also expected to generate an increase in
expenditure of approximately $11.8 million. The increase in demand for facilities and services
as a result of the expected rise in visitor nights is envisioned to have a flow on effect with the
employment industry, with an estimated 19 full time equivalent jobs to be generated in the
tourism industry as a result.
Assessment – Disagree
The suggested increase in tourism visitation is refuted. Any increase in tourism would be
dependent on the level of active recreation facilities provided within the expanded National Park,
which Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service has indicated is not supported. Council’s Economic
Specialist, Norling Consulting, concurs and advised:
It is our view that the additional 139.5ha would not increase visitor numbers by 5%. The
Noosa National Park is a large park extending from Noosa Heads down to Coolum. In terms
of its usage, the vast majority of the park’s visitors concentrate in Noosa Heads. The small
addition would be unlikely to result in increased visitation unless different facilities or natural
features were provided.
While some potential for future tourism opportunities may exist, the applicant’s projections are
grossly overstated and are not considered a ground to support of the application.
Environmental Benefits (Grounds 4 - 6)
4. A proposed wide wildlife corridor (approximately 370m) will be maintained between the
expanded National Park and the Council Wildlife Refuge to the south west of the subject
site (at the intersection of Hollett and Tidswell Roads) and enhancements will be created
under and over the roadways to support wildlife movement in this area.
The Noosa on Weyba Development will further protect and enhance the flora and fauna in
the surrounding locality through the extension of the partially completed Koala proof /
wildlife exclusion fencing (with the existing exclusion fencing extending from the Hollett
Road underpass in a southerly direction for a distance of only approximately 1 km) for the
full length, both sides, along Walter Hay Drive from the Eenie Creek Road to the Eumarella
Road roundabout, at no cost to the public.
Assessment – Disagree
Maintenance of an existing corridor is a relevant consideration for the assessment but is not a
ground to overcome the planning conflicts. Moreover, the functions of existing corridors on the
site are severely compromised by the development, with the result being net impacts to fauna.
Page 140 of 231
Section 61
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
5. As part of the Noosa on Weyba project a community education and stewardship strategy
will be developed and implemented to ensure that all residents and visitors are aware of
the Koala habitat (and other broader biodiversity) values of the Noosa on Weyba locality.
This community education and stewardship strategy will include provision for measures
such as the following:
Information packages for prospective residents concerning:
- the environmental values of the Noosa on Weyba site locality;
- specific design features of the Noosa on Weyba project that respond to those
important environmental values;
- specific BC regulations and controls that residents and their guests would need
to comply with to ensure that important environmental values are protected.
Issue of a regular (e.g. quarterly) Environmental Newsletter providing information:
- concerning notable environmental observation or events within the Noosa on
Weyba locality (e.g. commencement of Koala breeding season);
- reminding residents of their environmental management obligations under the
BC regulations; and
- contact details for the reporting of sick/injured wildlife or free-roaming dogs.
Initiation of a Noosa on Weyba Land Care Group (or similar) that is designed to
provide residents with the opportunity to become actively involved in the monitoring
and management of the biodiversity, including Koala habitat, values of the Noosa on
Weyba.
Establishment and maintenance of environmental interpretative signage throughout
the Noosa on Weyba project that provides residents and visitors with information
concerning the Koala ecology and conservation issues of relevance to the Noosa on
Weyba locality.
In addition to educating the community on environmental features, the proposed
Community Title Scheme Body Corporate levies structure will also contain an
environmental levy to maintain the Koala proof / wildlife exclusion fencing and provide
funds to manage feral animals in the expanded Eenie Creek section of the Noosa National
Park.
The Noosa on Weyba development will also incorporate an Integrated Water Cycling
Management scheme which, in conjunction with the latest stormwater management
technique, will aid in improving the stormwater quality impact on surrounding waterways.
The stormwater quality treatment of the Noosa on Weyba development employs a range of
innovative measures to ensure the best results. These include:
- 10 kilolitre rainwater tanks for each residential lot. (This is more than twice the
requirement of Queensland Development Code)
- Bio-retention street trees and bio-retention gardens incorporated into the road
reserve
- Bio-retention basins
- Vegetated bio-retention swales
- Litter baskets
- Natural wetland areas
- Buffers to environmentally sensitive areas
Page 141 of 231
Section 62
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Assessment – Disagree
The environmental initiatives are desirable but are not considered sufficient grounds to justify the
development and a number point to the intrinsic risks of the development’s location within
environmentally sensitive areas. Such ongoing management measures can also become
problematic for Council when called upon to monitor and enforce requirements.
Many of the sustainability measures cannot be mandated via a development approval and should
be viewed only as voluntary aspects of the proposal. In essence, the development must
demonstrate sufficient grounds for approval irrespective of such offerings.
6. Should a Development Approval be granted the land owners have applied to the Qld State
Government to have the subject site declared a registered Wildlife Refuge to further protect
the environment and the surrounding ecosystem. The dedication of the BDOA ‘Send’ land
will result in only 19% or 58ha of the 303ha total site area is to be developed into net urban
uses footprint (this excludes the environmental buffers) therefore allowing for approximately
81% or 245ha to be either deemed as National Park or environmentally protected land.
Assessment – Disagree
It is agreed that securing of additional environmental lands within the receive site is desirable,
however, these areas are protected by significant existing planning constraints. The additional
environmental reserves are not sufficient grounds to support the development.
7. The Noosa on Weyba development will generate a large amount of income for both the
State and Council with the creation of $7,640,000 in Stamp Duty income to the state and
annual rates income at project completion of $661,000 will also be delivered.
Assessment – Disagree
Stamp duty and rates income are not a ground for support of a development.
8. The Noosa on Weyba Locality Plan provides for a range of housing affordability options,
including Age Care and Retirement Living, for an estimated population of 2,000 people and
the creation of housing for some 600 to 800 people that will work in the surrounding shire.
The proposed development will not only providing housing for employees of existing jobs in
the area but is also projected to create an abundance of additional employment
opportunities. The Noosa on Weyba project is also predicted to create an estimated 2,023
construction jobs during development of the estate over an anticipated 8 years with an
estimate $250,000,000 being spent on construction during that time as well as an
estimated 309 full time operational jobs in the immediate locality when the project is
completed. The proposed development will also support existing local business, employees
and the Noosa Civic Shopping Centre with annual household expenditure of $22,600,000
predicted to be created once the project is fully completed.
Assessment – Disagree
Page 142 of 231
Section 63
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
A range of housing types are proposed but there is nothing to suggest that they will be
particularly affordable. The extent of works and infrastructure to create the development will add
to the cost of dwellings and could make them less affordable than comparable development
within existing urban areas. Provision of aged care and retirement living options is desirable
within a development of this scale but it appears the applicant predominantly seeks independent
living units and is not otherwise addressing high care or aging in place needs.
Ultimately, the urban nature of the development is what might be contemplated on a centrally
located site having excellent access to activity and transport centres allowing alternate transport
options and high degrees of accessibility to residents, consistent with the regional outcomes for
new development sought by the South East Queensland Regional Plan. While the proposal
promotes some aspects of the SEQRP, it offends most. The benefits posed by Noosa on
Weyba’s housing options could only be considered as a ground for approval if the development
otherwise broadly met tests for good urban development.
Economic activity, construction jobs and limited ongoing employment generation are benefits that
would flow from the development but these are also derived from development on appropriately
designated sites.
9. Public amenity in the form of a tea house / café will be made available at the proposed
entrance to the new National Park on Hollett Road, and this will include public parking for
cars and bicycles in Hollett Road, which will all service the public visiting the expanded
National Park and accessing Lake Weyba.
Assessment – Disagree
Provision of a teahouse/café and public parking are not considered to be a sufficient ground in
support of a development of this scale.
10. The proposed Noosa on Weyba development will create and enhance the efficiency in the
use of the existing community infrastructure and facilities in the region through the following
provisions:
The project will allow for flood free emergency access / egress from the dwellings
along Lake Entrance Boulevard to the north of the subject site that currently get “cut
off” in medium flood conditions. Tidswell Road will be constructed to a “flood free”
standard which will provide existing residents along this road with flood free access.
The project will deliver sealed roads along the current dirt tracks in the Tidswell and
part of Hollett Roads road reserves at no cost to the public.
The town sewer and water connections could be made available to the adjoining
Eumarella Shores & Weyba Point Cottages developments, and properties in Hollett
Road, if those residents choose to connect to it.
An extension of the Noosa cycleway system will be provided, at no cost to the public,
which will substantially enhance cycle and walkway access to the National Park and
Lake Weyba, and create an alternative cycleway route off Walter Hay Drive to
Noosaville.
The proposed roundabout on Walter Hay Drive will,
a) Slow traffic speed down to 60kmph from 100kmph for a section of the road
which will lower the incidents of “road kill” of wildlife.
b) Create an alternate access / egress for residents in Hollett Road
c) Lower the traffic speed on Walter Hay Drive which will lower the road noise
impact on Hollett Road residents.
Page 143 of 231
Section 64
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Assessment – Disagree
None of the points listed are considered sufficient to support the development. Notably
reticulated sewerage connection to adjacent properties, including to Weyba Downs, does not
form part of the proposal and has not been assessed. The development’s impact on Walter Hay
Drive is considered a ground for refusal.
Summary of Assessment of Applicant’s Grounds for Approval
The primary benefit posed by the development is considered to be the dedication of the send site
into public tenure as national park. There is no doubt that public tenure of the send site land is a
desirable outcome. It would provide greater surety to the environmental protection of the land
and its ongoing conservation in perpetuity. Public tenure may also be of benefit by allowing
public access to the land for recreation, education and tourism purposes.
It must be recognised, however, that the send site land is protected by significant existing land
use and environmental constraints and is not considered at risk of development or other causes
of vegetation loss or fragmentation. Generally speaking, the public dedication of the send site
land can be considered a “human construct”, rather than one which significantly benefits flora
and fauna in this case. Linked as the BDOA agreement is to intensive urban development on
adjacent land, the net impacts of the proposal are considered to significantly outweigh the
potential benefits.
None of the applicant’s further grounds are considered sufficient to overcome the proposal’s
substantial planning scheme and other relevant instrument conflicts identified in this report. The
applicant has failed to discharge its onus to demonstrate grounds exist to approve the
application.
7 CONSULTATION
7.1 Sunshine Coast Council
In accordance with section 952 of the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
2013 Part 5 Amendment of Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Sunshine Coast Council decided on
2 January 2014 that Noosa Council would become the Assessment Manager for the application.
Consequently, under Section 952 (10), Sunshine Coast Council became a concurrence agency
for the application in relation to the part of the development within its local government area.
The Sunshine Coast Council advised by letter dated 5 February 2014 that it did not support the
portion of the development within its local government area and directed Noosa Council to refuse
that part of the development. Sunshine Coast Council gave the following reasons for its decision:
1. The development proposed has not demonstrated sufficient grounds in the public interest
to justify or override the identified conflicts with the planning scheme.
2. The development proposed is not located in an area planned to benefit from all relevant
urban infrastructure and current planning assumptions. The proposal requires out of
sequence infrastructure upgrades, which have not been considered for funding trunk
infrastructure. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the provisions of Maroochy Plan
2000.
Page 144 of 231
Section 65
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
3. The development proposed conflicts with the South East Queensland Regional Plan and
pre-empts the planning process for expansion of the urban footprint.
4. The development proposed will result in an unacceptable risk to people and property with
respect to bushfire hazard. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the Maroochy Plan
2000.
5. The development proposed would have unacceptable impacts on receiving waterways and
wetlands. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the Maroochy Plan 2000.
6. The development proposed would have unacceptable impacts on flora and fauna.
Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the Maroochy Plan 2000.
Given the concurrence decision of the Sunshine Coast Council, Noosa Council must refuse that
part of the development within the Sunshine Coast local government area.
7.2 IDAS Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following IDAS referral agencies:
Concurrence Agencies
Department of Transport & Main Roads
The department is a concurrence agency for State Controlled Road, Public Passenger Transport
and Railways matters. The department responded by letter dated 18 November 2013 stating that
it supported the development subject to conditions. The conditions include annotations to the
applicant’s proposed bus transport route, which have the effect of limiting the route to a simple
linear route from the new Walter Hay roundabout south to Tidswell Road. Critically, this route
implies that public buses will not be provided through the precincts as previously proposed by the
applicant and many residents will be a significant distance from the reduced route. Issues
associated with this have been discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this report.
The department also makes the caveat in its concurrence response that “This condition does not
imply that a bus service will be provided to the development. Any new services have to be
assessed against other priorities across the network, available funding and funding constraints,
and the ability of the road network through the new urban area to allow for the efficient routing of
a service, amongst other relevant considerations.”
The department’s requirements are considered to be a significant constraint on (or reflection of
the development’s inability to provide) effective delivery of public passenger transport to the
majority of the residents.
Department of Environment & Heritage Protection
The department is a concurrence agency as the development is in a coastal management
district. The department responded by letter dated 5 March 2014 providing conditions that must
be attached to any approval (with a typographical error corrected in an amended response dated
10 March 2014). Notable conditions include:
Condition 2 requires that prior to commencement of any construction work a study must be
undertaken to determine sediment basin design standards to ensure there is no net
increase in sediment and nutrient loads to Lake Weyba, with the development to comply
with those standards. Council staff understand such standards would be either
unachievable or unfeasible.
Page 145 of 231
Section 66
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Condition 4 prohibits above ground infrastructure through areas of high ecological
significance - the key effects of which will be that the collector road linking precincts 2 and
3 cannot be constructed (which will prohibit public transport provision) and a number of
pathway links will be severed.
Condition 5 requires a minimum 100m setback between the boundary of residential and the
highest astronomical tide of Lake Weyba.
Conditions 6 – 9 restrict the nature and extent of works within the buffer to Lake Weyba.
Conditions 10 - 12 restrict development in erosion areas.
Particular concern is raised by conditions 2 and 4. These are considered fatal to the feasibility
and functionality of the development. The impact of condition 4 on the development is so great
that it would result in a substantially different development and would require a new or changed
application.
The effects of the department’s conditions preclude approval of the application.
Department of Natural Resources & Mines
The department is a concurrence agency for vegetation clearing and strategic cropping land
matters. The department responded by letter dated 23 December 2013 stating that a Strategic
Cropping Land referral trigger no longer applied to the application and, in relation to clearing
vegetation, provided conditions that must attach to any development approval.
Advice Agencies
Energex
Energex is an advice agency for electricity infrastructure matters. It responded by letter dated 19
November 2013 stating they supported the preliminary approval provided all existing easement
conditions are maintained. Energex identified a number of potential conflicts with the levels of
assessment in the supplementary tables of development and confirmed that the easement
conditions remain in effect.
Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry
The department is an advice agency for development adjacent a fish habitat area. The
department responded by letter dated 22 March 2013 stating that it had no objection to the
development as posed, given the development does not involve the disturbance of marine plants.
The department’s response notes the development proposes a 50 metre buffer to Lake Weyba,
where Fisheries Queensland generally requires a 100m buffer and that the buffer should be
maximised where possible.
Third Party Advice Agency
Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport & Racing
The application was referred to the department for third party advice regarding the proposed
National Park dedication, the benefits and risks posed by the proposal and the applicant’s
assumptions regarding future active recreation infrastructure within and visitation of the new
National Park addition. The department responded by email dated 10 May 2013 as follows:
Page 146 of 231
Section 67
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Bushfire Risks
If the area is constructed as per plans QPWS is satisfied with proposed cleared areas along
the interface between the residential areas and the proposed national park offset.
A possible additional mitigation feature would be the provision of water access points (e.g.
standpipes for filling water tankers). This may be addressed through Qld Fire & Rescue
Service requirements.
Active Recreation
On the issue of QPWS providing recreation facilities or maintaining recreation facilities
provided by the developer QPWS have no intention at this stage to provide any active
recreation facilities in this area. The demand for active recreation facilities in this area will
almost entirely be generated by the proposed development and as such should rest with the
development.
QPWS does not have the capacity to maintain any new infrastructure within the proposed
national park offset and the provision of the land offset with new recreation infrastructure is
not acceptable to QPWS.
SEQ Regional Plan Referral
Department of State Development Infrastructure & Planning
The application was referred to the department as the development involves subdivision in the
Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area under the SEQ Regional Plan. The department
responded by letter dated 8 March 2013 stating that the Biodiversity Development Offset Area
(BDOA) declaration for the site suspends the provisions of the SEQ regional plan applying to
development in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area. The department, therefore,
is not a concurrence agency for this application.
7.3 Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 30 days in accordance with the requirements of the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 1068 submissions were received of which 984 were properly
made and 84 were not properly made. Approximately 37 of the submissions were in support of
the development, a small number (<10) were neutral and the balance objected to the
development.
A number of community groups and other bodies made submissions objecting to the
development, including: Noosa Integrated Catchment Association; Noosa Biosphere Association;
Sunshine Coast Environment Council; Coolum District Coast Care; Wildlife Preservation Society
of Queensland; Friends of Lake Weyba; Noosa Parks Association; Noosa Waters Residents
Association; Peregian Beach Community Association; and Eumundi, Doonan & Verrierdale
Residents Group.
Page 147 of 231
Section 68
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters:
Issues Comments
Conflict with Plans / Need / Premature
The land is intended to remain for open space The development poses unacceptable
purposes and environmental purposes. conflicts with the rural, open space and
No other three storey developments have conservation intent for the site under the
been approved around lake. local planning schemes and insufficient
need exists to justify approval of the
Zoning on two of the three parcels of land is development.
“Open Space Conservation” which is one of
the highest levels of zoning protection under
the planning scheme.
Sufficient land supply within urban footprint.
Previous proposals rejected on environmental
grounds.
Decision should not be made until new Noosa
Council established.
The development would compete with and
potentially reduce the diversity of current
existing urban development in the region.
Unsuitable Land
The land is unsuitable for urban development as:- The land is highly constrained, supports
it is low lying, poorly drained and partly flood significant habitat and forms part of a
prone, and requires substantial earthworks; highly sensitive coastal lowland system.
The nature and intensity of the
it is affected by acid sulfate soils and these will development is not appropriate to its
be released into the environment as a result of setting and is likely to result in
the development; unacceptable environmental impacts.
it supports sensitive vegetation systems, and
the proposed vegetation clearing and
significant earthworks will have a dramatic
effect on these systems;
it lies within the highly sensitive Lake Weyba
catchment and Eenie Creek systems;
it is an important fish breeding area; and
successive planning instruments have
recognised the sensitivity of the catchment by
excluding all urban development apart from
that which is directly associated with Peregian
Beach.
Part of the site is one of only 2 UNESCO “Man
in the Biosphere” reserves in Queensland and
1 of 14 in Australia.
Page 148 of 231
Section 69
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Tourism, Recreation & Noosa “Brand”
Is inconsistent with Noosa’s green image. The The extension of Noosa’s urban footprint
development creates short term jobs but will southward will reduce the inter-urban break
result in the long term depletion of Noosa’s and increase the urban expanse currently
environmental attributes. experienced by visitors to the area. The
Loss of tourism income as result of impacts. number of people using Lake Weyba is also
likely to increase and alter people’s
More permanent residents and greater use of recreational experience of the lake.
Lake Weyba for recreational purposes and
increases in pollution. The impact on tourism and the Noosa
“brand” may only be incremental but is
Development will result in pollution eventually undesirable.
extending into Noosa Sound, Noosa River, out
over the bar and into Laguna Bay, spoiling the
main surfing beach.
No parking proposed close to Lake and
restricted public access.
Lake Weyba is a sacred place and should be
protected for future generations.
Development will spoil the safe and un-crowded
place for persons with a disability to swim in
shallow waters of the Lake.
Development should not be able to use the
name “Noosa” as this trades on the highly
regarded Noosa Town Plan.
Development will result in greater demand for
lake to be dredged for powerboats.
The application does not consider the impact
upon the long-standing values placed on the
landscape.
Character, Amenity & Scale
Development is not in character with the nearby The nature and intensity of the development
Eumarella Shores, Weyba Point and Weyba will have an unacceptable impact on
Downs developments, all of which are very low neighbouring visitor accommodation and
in scale and intensity. residential developments, as it significantly
Development should not be visible from Lake. conflicts with local planning provisions and is
Will have negative impact on visual amenity and beyond reasonable expectations of existing
feel of Lake Weyba. residents. The developed character,
increased use of Lake Weyba and local
Development has potential for up to 1,000 traffic generation would cause undue
dwellings which equates to over 2,000 residents. impacts on the adjacent tourism businesses
67% of the land closest to Lake Weyba will be and surrounding residential amenity.
covered by 55% of the total development yet this
represents only 25% of the land available for
development. Development is too dense, the lots
are too small and a height of 3 storeys is too
high.
Development is more in keeping with a highly
urban development and not in this sensitive
environment.
There will be prolonged dust over the 8 years of
development.
Proposal lacks detail and is too indicative.
Page 149 of 231
Section 70
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Flooding & Drainage
Alteration of natural drainage channels The development of Precinct 2 requires a
through the site will worsen flooding impacts significant amount of fill to achieve flood
on upstream and downstream properties. immunity, as well as engineering solutions
Loss of flood storage. to ensure the flood storage and
conveyance. The extensive engineering
New development should not be allowed in works within this sensitive environment
flood risk areas. represents a significant risk and possible
The proposal necessitates extensive cut and irreversible impacts.
fill resulting in a dramatic change to the
existing landform and drainage patterns at the
expense of habitat and environment.
The water level of the lake is influenced by
tides. It is possible that flooding never
previously experienced will result with the
added run-off.
During the 1893 flood, the water level of Lake
Weyba rose by 2.5m.
Biological/microbal treatment of stormwater is
preferred to traditional methods.
Lake Weyba & Water Quality
The current vegetation and waterways act as a The development poses unacceptable
natural management of the rainwater runoff. risks to the water quality of Lake Weyba
Turning this land into virtually an open drain and Keyser Creek, in particular from
will dump tonnes of sediment into Lake construction sediment runoff from the bulk
Weyba. earthworks and civil and domestic
Lake Weyba is part of the “lungs” of the Noosa construction required by the development.
River system and has been recognised by the
Commonwealth Government as a wetland of
national importance. The development may
irrevocably compromise the high water quality
of the sensitive Lake Weyba catchment, both
during and post construction.
Healthy Waterways “A” rating of the Noosa
River is important to the branding of Noosa
and should be protected.
Reduction in water quality will result in
reduction in fish stocks or even some total
species loss within the Noosa River system
and impact on commercial and recreational
fishing.
The volume of Lake Weyba is deceptively
small due to its shallow depth, making it
vulnerable to sediment and chemical runoff,
and algal bloom infestation. The lake will not
be able to flush contaminants away due to its
benign nature. Runoff and pollution will not be
able to be controlled.
With extensive cut proposed, there is potential
for acid sulphate soil runoff and impacts on
water quality.
Page 150 of 231
Section 71
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Clearing of trees may impact on groundwater
table.
Proposed buffer to Lake Weyba is only 40m
(excluding 10m within lots and 10m of
drainage) and is intended to be manicured
grass for fire protection not revegetated. The
buffer should be at least 100m as
recommended by current planning documents.
No vegetation within the buffer should be
removed and revegetation with plants endemic
to the area should occur.
No baseline water quality study has been
undertaken to monitor water quality impacts on
the lake.
Lake access is a positive, but should be from a
public road and not lots with direct frontage.
Public access to the lake is already provided
from existing areas.
Koalas, Frogs & Other Fauna The proposal clearly cannot be considered
Extensive clearing of both old growth and to have a net benefit to koalas. Any
juvenile koala habitat trees and development benefits posed are outweighed by the
itself will destroy one of the last healthy koala impacts caused by the location of the
habitats in the area. development footprint and its roads
adjacent to retained habitat areas and
Proposed fences to prevent koalas being killed severing movement corridors.
by cars wouldn’t be required at all if no
development was proposed – not a ground to Urban development impacts are the
support the development. primary risk to koala populations and a
reduction in the local koala population due
The application does not mention who will be to this development is almost certain.
responsible for the maintenance of the
fencing. Impacts on other fauna are also likely for
similar reasons. The applicant proposes
Koala densities within the proposed unacceptable measures to protect fauna
development site demonstrate the precarious from vehicle strikes and the development
existence of this vulnerable species removes habitat and severs, or unduly
Chopping down several thousand “non- compromises, fauna movement corridors.
juvenile” Koala habitat trees on the site then
replanting with same species, begs the
question: What do the Koalas do in the
meantime? Other species rely on trees as
well.
The Applicant’s report on Koalas states that
car strikes, habitat clearing and dogs are the
three most significant causes of Koala deaths.
This proposed development will produce all
three of these activities within a sensitive
environment.
No one can guarantee that speed limits will be
adhered to by drivers.
Page 151 of 231
Section 72
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The proposal that koala protection will be
managed by the Noosa on Weyba Body
Corporate under Body Corporate By-laws is
unrealistic and unlikely to succeed. There is no
guarantee that the Body Corporate committee
members will have the competency and
commitment to implement the Koala
Management Plan effectively. Who will police
the keeping of domestic dogs and where they
roam.
Development site currently supports conditions
suitable for endangered ground parrot.
No ongoing monitoring of species is proposed.
Proposed development includes filling a
wetland that is home to the vulnerable wallum
froglet, wallum rocket frog and wallum sedge
frog, all listed as Vulnerable under the QLD
Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation
2006.
The widening of Tidswell and Hollett roads to
22 metres will result in destruction of habitat
with removal of old growth trees.
Environmental Corridors
The land forms part of a critical corridor See above.
connecting conservation reserve and bushland The applicant’s proposal for manmade
around Lake Weyba to similar areas to the fauna crossings of unfenced roads and
south and to Noosa’s forested heartland via restricted movement corridors would
the Tewantin National Park. The proposed create unacceptable risks to fauna in the
development and associated road network will area.
sever the linkages in both directions and
alienate remaining areas of open space within
the site, diminishing their ecological value and
impacting upon fauna movement. These
corridors have been planned since the 1980’s
and have been protected by successive
planning instruments.
Fences are counter- productive to the natural
movements of the fauna in this area.
There is high value native bushland habitat
along both sides of Tidswell Road which
requires road widening.
No provision has been made for fauna fencing
along Tidswell Road and fauna kills will occur.
Page 152 of 231
Section 73
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Climate Change
Intensive urban development exacerbates major The development does not benefit from high
climate events caused by global warming. levels of accessibility, public transport or
All new developments should be set well back proximity to schools or employment nodes
from the sea and coastal flood plains due to the and will result in car dependency for its
impact of rising sea levels and increasing violent residents.
storms. The proposed setback to Lake Weyba is
Proposed clearing of trees and grasses, insufficient to protect against increased risks
increased population and vehicles will result in due to climate change.
increased carbon being released into the
atmosphere.
Urban Design
The location of the development will result in While the development site has proximity to
heavy reliance on motor vehicle for goods or Noosa’s urban area and its primary
services. commercial centre it does not benefit from
good connectivity. Residents will be highly
car dependent as a result.
Infrastructure
The subject site was never intended for urban The proposal falls outside of areas planned
development and is not planned to be serviced for community infrastructure and essential
with urban infrastructure. services and represents inefficient urban
The proposed development relies on the surplus form and delivery of the infrastructure it does
capacity of existing and planned infrastructure provide.
This is likely to result in there being no surplus
capacity to cater for contingencies and a drop in
the standard of service.
Development will generate additional burdens on
Council by way of road maintenance, water
supply, waste management and sewage
treatment. This will increase costs to Noosa
ratepayers.
Impact on capacity of the Noosa sewerage
treatment plant which is due to be upgraded in
2015.
Development brings forward water storage
deficiency of the Tewantin Reservoir to 2016.
Weyba Downs residents are currently on self-
provided tank water and should not be forced
into using town utilities if the development is
approved.
Development will require footpaths and lighting
to be provided from the site to the nearby Noosa
Civic.
Development will impact on social infrastructure
such as schools, medical services, libraries and
community services.
Rates paid would not go to Noosa where
facilities would be used.
Why should Noosa residents fund water,
sewerage and power to service development?
Page 153 of 231
Section 74
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Traffic – General
An extra 6600 vehicles per day on the existing Council’s traffic engineer has identified a
road infrastructure will impact upon the number of road upgrades as a
function and safety of the roads and will erode consequence of the development.
the liveability of the area and cause noise While projected levels of service across
pollution. intersections and roundabouts in the
Increased traffic will increase maintenance broader network may remain within
costs. acceptable levels, additional traffic on the
Heavy vehicles, noise and dust impacts over 8 local road network is generally
years of construction resulting in safety risk undesirable.
and air/noise pollution.
Upgrades to Tidswell and Hollett Roads will
increase danger for pedestrians and cyclists
using these roads.
Existing roads are unable to cope with current
traffic and wear and tear.
Traffic – Walter Hay Drive
The proposal to install a major roundabout on The impacts from the addition of a double
Walter Hay Drive between the two existing lane, four node roundabout servicing
roundabouts and within an existing 100k zone, approximately 500 dwellings to each side
will diminish the overall function and utility of of Walter Hay Drive is a highly undesirable
the road and cause trip delays. outcome. Walter Hay Drive’s function as a
Safety of local residents and commuters along limited access road and a preferred route
Walter Hay Drive will be compromised as a to Eumundi Noosa Road will be reduced.
result of traffic congestion.
Social
The development will significantly alter the The development would not result in social
social fabric of the region. The new residents problems and should be able to provide
will be socially and geographically isolated as attractive urban estates for residents but
the development is outside of the current does not promote higher order urban
urban footprint. design objectives, such as high levels of
The development will not provide affordable accessibility or public transport integration.
housing.
The development risks adverse community
problems and anti-social behaviour that arise
from overcrowding.
Page 154 of 231
Section 75
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
BDOA
The BDOA declaration is considered to be Notwithstanding the Sunshine Coast
unlawful. The BDOA underpins the ability of the Council’s prior objection to the BDOA, the
developer to make the application, and if it is primary concern with the development
unlawful then the application is not properly application is that it will have unacceptable
made. A proper and independent investigation impact on koalas and other fauna and will
of the legality and probity of the BDOA clearly be to the net detriment of the koala
declaration should be undertaken. population in the area.
The proposal to transfer 139.5ha of land to
national park tenure will not provide any
significant benefit to koalas or any other fauna,
as development will impact significantly on
existing ecological corridors. The 139.5ha of land
is already protected under a conservation
zoning. The BDOA proposal will have no net
environmental gain. the land proposed to be set
aside for ’offset’ purposes is clearly constrained
by various planning and environmental
instruments such that it cannot be reasonably
expected to be developed in any case.
Furthermore, the proposed development is likely
to destroy (or significantly impact, at the very
least) existing koala habitat.
The previous State government has ignored the
advice and objections of the then DERM and
SCRC by approving the BDOA and this should
not have occurred.
The only present threat to the environmental
values of the land being dedicated as national
park as part of the BDOA declaration is the
proposed development itself.
Employment
Application claims that the development will Employment and economic benefits will flow
create 2076 jobs over 8 years but there are only from the proposal but these benefits can be
909 jobs provided for on-site. Remaining jobs attributed to all development and are not
may go to residents outside of Noosa and grounds to justify the application.
therefore the claimed benefits to local
employment opportunities are questioned.
Job opportunities provided by the development
will be short term and will disappear at the
completion of the build. The development’s
impacts however will be long term, with a
depletion of the Noosa environment.
This type of large housing development does not
generate much work for local building industry
workers as large companies from Brisbane and
beyond are usually contracted for the build.
Noosa’s economy is founded on tourism not
construction.
Noosa does not have enough employment
opportunities to support its current population.
Page 155 of 231
Section 76
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Bushfire
The area is affected by bushfire hazard posing The proposed development will result in
a danger to future residents. Appropriate an unacceptable risk to people and
management measures will be required to property due to bushfire.
safeguard residents.
The road network is inadequate to cope with a
mass evacuation in the event of a bushfire.
Aboriginal Heritage
The development will impact on Aboriginal The area is known to be culturally
heritage values. There are registered scar significant and the potential for impacts on
trees on the site and a huge midden on the Aboriginal heritage values is high. A
shores of Lake Weyba, both of which are precautionary approach should preclude
culturally and historically significant. approval of this application until the
Consultation with local Aboriginal knowledge applicant has sought the views of the
holders has not occurred. traditional owners and demonstrated how
cultural heritage issues can be addressed.
Mosquitos
The area is subject to mosquito infestation and The application proposes methods to
the risk of disease (such as Ross River Fever) reduce mosquito numbers but their levels
is high. will still be high. Residents’ risk of disease
will therefore be increased and additional
demand will be placed on Council to
control mosquitos in the area.
Body Corporate
Potential for multiple body corporates within The ongoing viability multi-level body
the development that will be responsible for corporate arrangement does present some
ongoing items including general maintenance, risk, as does the long term affordability to
stormwater drainage and environmental residents, given the extensive
obligations. If the developer walks away early, environmental obligations.
the community is left with the costs.
Retail
The proposal includes a shopping centre and The retail component of the development
there is no demand for such given nearby does not raise a concern and would be
retail precincts in Noosaville, Noosa Heads, supported if there were sufficient grounds
Cooroy and Eumundi which all have an to support the residential component.
abundance of vacant shops.
Shops are not needed given abundance of
existing shops in region and current
vacancies.
Noosa Airstrip
The BDOA agreement does not contemplate the If the development is approved the public
need to maintain access to the Noosa Airstrip, dedication of the Send site land should
which is through the Send site land to be provide for access rights over the existing
dedicated as National Park. The dedicated land access route to the Noosa Airstrip. The
should provide for access. State should be advised of this matter
prior to any dedication proceeding.
Page 156 of 231
Section 77
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Information Requests
The applicant responded to only part of the The applicant responded to each of
information requests, which means there are Council’s information request items but did
large unknowns, particularly on the not adequately address many, including
environment issues. those related to ground-truthing and
surveys of fauna and flora present on the
site.
Support – Employment Opportunities
The development will provide strong and The majority of the employment potential
ongoing employment opportunities and posed by the development is via
financial benefit to the people of Noosa and construction jobs. The ongoing
surrounds. employment generated by the
development is minor in comparison to the
expanded population that would require
jobs.
Support – Aged Care Places
The application should be approved as The application material indicates a
according to 2011 Census data, Noosa preference toward independent living units
currently has a shortage of aged care places rather than higher care options and may
(193) and this will increase in the future. not provide for aging in place. The
Furthermore, both high care and low care applicant has not demonstrated that the
components should be included in the site is appropriate for integrated retirement
development. and aged care development and the
development fails most corresponding
tests for good urban development.
Support – More Affordable Housing Required
The Noosa region needs an injection of The development includes provision for
affordable domestic residences which will be small lots and multiple dwellings but there
suitable and appropriate for first home buyers, is nothing to suggest that it would be
for young and elderly renters, for middle aged particularly affordable, given the extensive
and elderly home owners, as well as for works required to create the precincts, the
downsizers, and the frail elderly who may be in suggested residential construction
need of lifestyle assistance. guidelines, multi-level body corporate
The documentation, maps and preliminary structures and the ongoing environmental
plans submitted to Council by the Developers and maintenance obligations.
of Noosa on Weyba appear to be offering Affordable, higher density developments
options which clearly conform with such are preferred in areas with good access to
requirements. In addition, to facilitate future employment, public transport and
expansion of the Noosa Urban Footprint, we services. The development’s location and
recommend that the urban zoning be layout would result in relatively poor levels
expanded further to the south, to of accessibility and high levels of car
accommodate future essential and other dependency.
services.
Page 157 of 231
Section 78
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
Support – Environmental Outcomes
The proposal involves extension to the Noosa It is agreed that the dedication of the send
National Park and establishment of a site to National Park is a benefit of the
dedicated Koala Habitat area, without which development but the net impact posed by
the land could be used for rural pursuits. The the adjacent urban settlement significantly
proposal provides for guaranteed koala outweighs the benefit and is an
passage between the existing national park unacceptable outcome.
and the southern wildlife refuge.
The Developer’s commitment to retain and
preserve as many existing hollow trees (dead
or alive) as possible in an effort to
accommodate resident fauna is commended.
We commend the Developer for paying
attention to providing a network of narrow one
way roads throughout the proposed project, in
order to preserve habitats.
The provision of entry/egress via a Walter Hay
Drive roundabout and an Eumundi Rd
roundabout we believe gives future residents
two relatively safe ways to exit the property in
the event of a bushfire.
Support – Good Development
The development would be a great asset to The development’s impacts and poor
the region, giving people a great chance of planning outcomes significantly outweigh
joining the Noosa area to live, build their its benefits.
homes in a great environment and creating
short, medium, and long term employment.
Supportive of all applicant’s grounds for
approval (submitted by family member of
applicant).
Support – Tourism
The Koala protected areas would be a great The BDOA dedication area has some
draw card for tourists, (we have lived in the potential tourism benefits but these are
area for 15 years and would not have seen grossly overstated by the applicant and
any more than five in that time). not supported by current visitation to the
existing national park area to the north or
advice from the Department of National
Parks, Recreation, Sport & Racing that
recreational infrastructure would not be
provided within the new national park
area.
Page 158 of 231
Section 79
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
8 INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES
If Council were to approve the development, the applicant will be required to pay infrastructure
charges for trunk infrastructure within each local government area. The charges are estimated at
$15.4M for Precincts 1 and 2 payable to the Sunshine Coast Council (including $7.5M of
Unitywater charges) and $13.0M million payable to Noosa Council (including $4.7M of Unitywater
charges).
The following networks would be applicable under the Adopted Infrastructure Charges regime:
Water & Sewerage
Transport
Public Parks and Land for Community Facilities
Stormwater (residential)
The proposed development area lies outside the Priority Infrastructure Area and has not been
included in current infrastructure planning for either the Noosa or Sunshine Coast Councils.
Infrastructure impacts and upgrades necessary to service the development are yet to be
quantified by both Councils and Unitywater.
9 CONCLUSION
The applicant has sought to design an integrated community title development and invested
significant time and resources in an effort to provide a suitably detailed proposal and respond to
Council requests for information. The application and its assessment have raised complex
environmental, planning and urban design considerations. The assessment identifies a raft of
conflicts and concerns but the proposal is not without merit. Noosa on Weyba poses a number of
positive aspects, including:
the design and setting of the estates have the potential to provide desirable residential
products likely to be well received by the market place and sell well;
the layout of the precincts and access to open space areas would afford good opportunities
for active and passive recreation for residents;
elements of the proposed integrated water management strategy and sustainability
measures would advance some associated Council strategies;
the tiered community title approach provides potential to entrench environmental
management and sustainability measures beyond that of standard residential development;
and
the scale of the development would generate significant economic activity having flow on
employment and commercial benefits.
By far the most significant benefit of the development though is considered to be the dedication
of the BDOA send sites to expand the Noosa National Park. The transfer of this environmentally
and culturally significant land to public ownership is desirable and would provide community
benefits.
Part of the premise for BDOA agreements is that development is transferred from
environmentally significant land to more suitable sites to protect it from the risk of development.
In this case though, the concept of transferring development rights is abandoned and a major
urban development that will expand Noosa’s urban footprint is proposed.
The site and its environs have significant environmental, natural resource and open space values
and constraints and is also known to be of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. The land use
approaches of The Noosa Plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 respond to these values by specifically
avoiding urban development. This is considered appropriate, given the impacts associated with
urban development, even where it incorporates best practices. Noosa on Weyba fundamentally
conflicts with the planning intent of both local planning schemes.
Page 159 of 231
Section 80
PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 25 MARCH 2014
The applicant claims to have taken an integrated approach to the development design in order to
achieve triple bottom line sustainability outcomes and protect and enhance the site’s
environmental values but this view is strongly opposed. The development approach of modifying
the landform through major earthworks and clearing all vegetation within urban precincts to
provide for intensive residential development does not appropriately respond to the site’s values
and constraints and poses unacceptable risks and impacts.
The level of intensity of Noosa on Weyba’s urban precincts are what that might be contemplated
on a centrally located site providing high levels of connectivity and accessibility that would
advance contemporary principles of good urban design. While the development site is proximate
to Noosa’s urban fringe and its principal business centre, it is unable to connect to them in any
meaningful way due to the presence of Eenie Creek and adjacent conservation lands. As a
result, the development will provide poor levels of accessibility and will entrench car dependency
for residents. This car dependency may be no greater than some existing urban areas of Noosa
and the Sunshine Coast but should not be accepted when considering unplanned urban
expansion.
The development raises numerous planning conflicts and concerns relating to the SEQ Regional
plan; aboriginal cultural heritage; koala conservation; water quality of the Lake Weyba and Noosa
River Systems; environmental corridors; scenic and residential amenity; open space and
conservation values; infrastructure capacity and provision; bushfire; public transport; and urban
design outcomes.
Concurrence agency conditions directed to be applied by the Department of Transport and Main
Roads and Department of Environment and Heritage significantly impact on the development and
are considered fatal to its functionality. The Sunshine Coast Council has also directed Noosa
Council to refuse that part of the development that falls within its local government area.
Critically, the applicant has failed to discharge its onus to demonstrate sufficient grounds exist to
overcome the development’s planning conflicts. This assessment finds that the submitted
grounds are either minor or significantly outweighed by the development’s impacts.
The development is recommended for refusal, with detailed reasons listed in the
recommendation.
Page 160 of 231
Section 81
Attachment 1 – Proposed Precinct/Zone Plan
Page 161 of 231
Attachment 1 — Proposed Precinct/Zone Plan
Precinc! Zone Approx Net Area (ha) lot Ste Bullding Height
Min Mox.
a
Lae SS Neighbourhood Centre 13 800m? *
Attached Housing 7.0 27 1-2
Atte fs 64 600mF +
re
ml oS
a) ome Cut a Oetoched Housing 126 164 189 him + 1-2
‘Te ri cum Fill Attached Housing Pd 600m +
() Q100 Extents ’ Oetoched Housing 26.6 aye 12
’ - K Caheephsal eceet ot comeans
Attached Housing 3.6 100 107
Detached Housing 13 mF + 1-2
pe ONE Sa Rees eels sere 29 nia 2
Total dw
A Residentict only, 1000m* minimum lot size for mixed uses,
(ot size based on existing porce! area,
ie i N
a
SS SE — ——" Sr>- iy
fr,
eo enees
Her ay
ee Ste
me 42
fect ea
wAey eee? pan eters: _
Peretes:
/|
\,
NOOSA ON WEYBA | PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY NORTHBROOK CORP PTY LTD
“See ~~ AR OE | ot Rc 0 = m Pe “= OME - toeoT ae AT OT oe TT) Cee en eer
NRE Ce RO RT Oke RE NRTA! FoR
Page 161 of 231Section 82
Attachment 2 – Indicative Development Layout
Page 162 of 231
Attachment 2 Indicative Development Layout
San ore ey ae Ee bs Yay i ‘eh
is 4
a -* ee:
+ ee | iy Pi
ee ay
eT eine x fi 1] a
tj
: Pi ve’ fi = ad
hh ae 7 —~ Aye
a
“hn JG 7 A
ae thee eb’ %
ee et
A abd ——
.
a
rs =o = hy 4 = a a .
A ,
| hs
pO i baat
e179. 14. Re 5 M2 “ff
ree Lie oe =
x 6
se ae “et a ee 23
a ot Tt he
o 2? CTT
pal ||
oe
eee et Tr LTE ai TS
om CTT,
Mehr ih a Pet
»* v7 Etit| Ry
te] iH
za Sy oS — yi oe
Cm an! H se
x
NS [tt
: ras A a",
=e: i]
oe iH
= aS i
rvs!
ok: — SSS i
ae =) H}
H
ll eT Pi
Pi
ne > am || ity Py
— se be ng . i TT 7 es i ad
-~— _ ~— —— So:
ene
—— ~
IE} gtr
BS ie
aH Fy = sche = =, Ny het
hie Bau a ey <—
ie
SST ea
SI id yi TE LN
pe yt
jj, eels me i st
bi i ITT " LUT
be
|
| Haat: -—- asd 4 —_—
- | a
."
ae | & y a a 86 ee a
ee
a
NOOSA ON WEYBA | DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY NORTHBROOK CORP PTY LTD feDesign
et man ty 8
elie te ree 1: Kee tate Veen inne Sutmerd) Ene deme bemmene te Heme Ib Se X eee ee OQ =a » an = S008 - haa wal ore ae Bd ee oe er
Page 162 of 231Section 83
Attachment 3 – Cut and Fill Plan
Page 163 of 231
Attachment 3 — Cut and Fill Plan
ud ee oe ee ee oe
oN voLuN4 —————— |! |
iit JOR — OVER I iO
14 DATE wED aT * 130133 D4TE TUE SEF i4 30312 0G LEGEND
PEPORT FILE: BOdMG 02 VOLRFT FEFORT ALE Boxing 02
JOLPPT
FEL cur
L i H- (WITH NO PLAN POL aos 5 - WITHPLS* Pot yaem
| ud on VOLUMES FRom Ths Exist: Ta Thy Basta VOLUNES Fram Th Exist? Ta Thy Biedng J- 15m O-- -0.5mn
3
15- n -5—-'n
OIT voLllvEs sPE Positive CUT yoLUNES APE Poste Sn ~- Sn
ii fi +. ALL VOLUMES aPE MEG4TIVE FILL VOLUMES APE EGS TIVE \5- “5 =n
oe ee be ii TOTAL GUT Vadedy 3d TOTAL CUT Bau de -)-» -150
Zé , _——— ——_ fi Le TeTsL ALL ~\dend. we TOTAL FLL W350. 25m -1En
TOTAL BALANCE 34, TOTALEALANCE 2794003
cf an E EXCESS OF OUT OVER ALL B91) IE EXCESS OF ALL OVER CUT 12 7/99.603
i ee oe eeenmasanmaaamame “— So oe oe oe oe oe oe yi
4 if Ce | _ ______ I 0 em A
>it ESP THA ORK cyte AREA 1 I EARTHWORKS veh, PT EARTHWORK eS
a all = i) 4 p+ PEROT FILE: Eo sthg 02 "OLEFT qt e = AA 3 OLUMES - ARES
—~Y Ci Th I REFCET ALE Bonn 92 REPORT FILE Eu: hit VOLPFT
i |
B’ iin VOLUVES FRan Thy “ExtsT Te Ths “Baxtng OLUNES From Tis ExT To Th Bost COLLMES FRam Thy Exist To Thy Boxtyd
LOT 53 aaa | ot C2 = (WITH PLAN Polya ~ WITHPL&® Polydor 3 OY = WITH PLAs PaLyaon “4
a
SP 1635 eons I. fy GIT VOLUMES SRE POSITIVE CUT VOLUMES ARE POSITIVE CUT VOLUKE SRE POSITIVE
h ALL voles ARE sEGATIVeE FILL voLUMEs ARE NEGATIVE FLL voLUNEs RE sBaeTlvE
— TOTAL OUT ws I TOTAL CUT VL TOTAL GIT s710.et3
ig Sr TOTAL ALL ~ We ese I TOTAL PLL -BAD LOM) TOTSL ALL - (643)
a ee Hi TOTAL ESLance wan !9 THTALESLance 3) 0fnr2! TOTAL BALANCE 33
E Excess oF QUT Ov ER ALL 1 hte excess
il 329 OF CUT OVER FILL 372 oRa7) E Excess oF CUT OVER FLL 133.)
—ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe —ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe =e ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee oe
V iT if \
=. ru
’
\ . ° ‘ é
= ty Th Ht = a — se? 2? } hi
1--t—}-F er = y= ‘hoa * *% f
ae
in iu T= Se ee LET. 2AD_ wld
co
; = ~ i ~\ Sete = =o %e A
+ at = . S= ee =
=
1} | M [=
a. I a Vey LoT "1 ~
ge ta iN rer CHT
Mh ha T f | / re (a) il =
— we ~
a rl i Se ed pea ¢/ "6 A\
wr ee time, eee fe ee
w oh ee Ae ee ee ee “ — y rT _ \)
a
Ie
| _—* aw ol et |
BULK EARTHWORKS i Is nd 1 jot
LAYOUT PLAN tke |
Ll!
i Scale 12500 aa = L, EL Dad a if
=
=<, —
ee ieee =< rt i TK +t
+ ud ee ee < em se Se SF +—_| -—*
HOLLET ROA heal ee ee et ed ee ee p
Th
we Ci Se ae ae ._.— ae
pH
ee oe —
ae ee ne ae
ee ee aes = — $8 ooo 2 ee a oe —-_ -—— a
-—
* “
BULA EARTHWORKS
LAYOUT PLAN
Scale 1:2500
BULK EARTHWORKS
oosa LAYOUT PLAN © Care Larned
Al Might Meeerec,
Scale 12500 Me ers mes NOOSA ON WEYEA
re Shaging ho Fam NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
es ow re ee tee MASTER PLANNING Pino. | Stnoaos [ae enown | as_|
ed
ed ems ey ee le SRO De
on weyba a 8? 19 i= eres een eee Neonat Tome Lenn 8 Src: Sona
ee ey err
= x : = eer te eee he oem ae
AE USE ee tee ee et Sette AS ee BULK EARTHWORKS
feet et es ona ee ee ee
Page 163 of 231Section 84
Attachment 4 – Proposed Koala Habitat Offset Planting Areas
Page 164 of 231
Attachment 4 — Proposed Koala Habitat Offset Planting Areas
» RE12 9-10.1/0.33ha Nooza National
J Park - North
Weyba Section
© Cs
4
J RE12.9-10.1/0.27ha
!
140.23
LLP
12.3.11/0.08ha,
=~ . y {]\ RE12.3.11/0:12he
Lt
z=
Fo a= il
{—F > /” EI263/0.11 c 2.3.11/0.42ha
Se Tt | —
Ct eel TT Nooga National
wriscrr?
if eee te Ee ey bs 93 Lr Park - Eenie Creek
wt TT
ee A ae {7 ZF au ie 2.3.11/0.31ha
—
Dinan il a Section
/ oo eS ee S Wo ai yi
OO
re eeeceeeal Hee x oo 0 = ne Ly
= he 8-7
Ee ee DSU
bh tht i et
On ll lanl
= | i Ge penta la CLE — —e_
3 l et atit l LEE LE" Ee
aul Fh ee pe atl iE i‘ Ts Fe het yf
Phos De he
th ease fish ty fomen gee Seed
OFF “IF I a RE12.6.3/2 44ha
Sooo VU TL — Hi RE12.5.3/0.85ha Yi Y,
fi _ BETZ SBT
—~ i it Ys
Sh
PT OL “7
i
i 7 = Cd
= Bess Hf
—— ia if
SSS
7 et ETT TTT Us onl RE12.3.4/1 82ha
al ty LEGEND
Pt
——) A So Uf 4 [] send site
RE12.3.6/0.25ha RE12.6.3/0.20ha SS REI2 6.5/1 Y/,
=
i Ban Td henssas UE,
i}
il 4} i 2.6.30 f | Receive Site
| 5 iE
Boi }} jE
i} i {} =I Tt \ Sreress 1/1.16ha
iy FI w) aX ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSET AREAS
THH
iy fii
Weyba Nature i al TTT, f i ( TT AE Koala Habitat and Vegetation Ottset Area
iy Sth hi ii i -
iy .
Ht eH) My,
Refuge | Lily ew Ty
=a gene
j = iu CT
Ul =i y Li
CY a a “I — - Receive Sites
c
pam
i] TT =| | Koala Habitat Enrichment Pianting Area
i >
/ f/ ne E,
Hy REI2.3.4/2.69ha
/ {/ RE12.6.3/0.18ha =——
it —— iD
iH Restoration Regional Ecosystem Type /Extent of area.
HI
Hy
100 0 100 200 300 400 50)m
£10,000
oh My Lad A Pgh Micecrecd 91S Scale 1:10,000 (A3)
~ 7 hang te Cees Fas Pay St as .
teal, hate ad - FIGURE 9
a Hey es ite tie hay SR tid me Crate (all Fy Lael.
rete bey Clete (ty Lint tently ae ee
Crates (dy Py et a met KOALA HABITAT OFFSET AREAS
oy - eee te ge
.
Page 164 of 231Section 85
Attachment 5 – Rural Holiday Accommodation Approved Plan
Page 165 of 231
Attachment 5 — Rural Holiday Accommodation Approved Plan
fw
Qn Op
is
Ww
4 a Cfo Caan - fo of J% Se
.
-£ =| “Sy hg e
ck by eS oO 2g mE ms nO, ‘a a
Slow,? en} { Jeg: D =. Tt as Lv
Y ie Ka i “) St ie PRS
O69 LZ Sf Pa \ nS 9 =O) lee
~~ SS CAD QO
+ Ct Se V3 mh >
Cm SY Wf oy Cg Cy
ota = OS es
ASS DS Colas ha ole es ee SN
Cru
fi. t Sa A) sj ey
225 wy — —~s SH ss Mf
SS . al
- bn KC {OS Lt ie he 4 Ny}
he i)
oP , i : 5 ; Kay 6 (CE) CN
G X " £3 Yo rr} \'
i
wy | i yy Lake Weyba
pitas how A melt |
i) Cay me nL
I é. Se Ye 9
| ho FOO X CL
ch (8 4 J Saks > oes »\ an cf et
fe ta /¥ 7 a i ret
ant CAT)
Op Cd US RE a Loo [ots (Pare) , i STAD
= al e YS Ca A x DiS (or
Wa i Is (Yo RA Ose as is ay 4
Mu ie ZA 7 i) eS Nd a) we
Ce
yt TS bs at Ont a Oe @ Ly
eS
SS , be im ye 1k) IG,.\I iS ‘i Ci : us A
oe .
( ‘ Wii i) LAr red S —
Ore aN AS > LP se Te JSD mt Ses v2
pa eak Sr Sr
Spel Meieeeneeeel Sea ssn!
J
a ee ae eh ‘
= —— =e we ely a bees nh he pe Ls
oe es eee es he | sj — mo jolla a at ned
ell Ear Sh ee te ek a ete S
~
et
\\ \ \ ‘ \\
Is 19
mm
100
20nd
C) Indicates existing tree
SITE PLAN PY 2 Bedroom Poot Villa
1:2500
8 OCTOBER 2003
BToaIns = OO
Page 165 of 231Section 86
Attachment 6 – Hofmann Rural Residential Approved Plan
Page 166 of 231
Attachment 6 — Hofmann Rural Residential Approved Plan
JE HOAA io NS COUNTY OF MARCH
eel HIGH DENSITY ii Se: OF TEV ANITINATE VELA,
MOTES and for approve a Becmrfigure cha |STATISTICS | STNG 1 STAGE 2 [STAGE 4 | Don §3.0N SP163571
Une oa cha Laan
fp pee ee Be ag bee ad Pe ey he ee PUBAL PLARSLIT TOTAL AREA 110.0 ha
pal ce ieee oT rem br way em
pohahnyeeriphertaprsntlamenclntena PH cle a LENGTH CHF MEW Kf
Py PEE Ec he
hae 2 oe dere CARDO" ple THO AREA OF PARK 325m | 470m ~ | 140m Y We
| Tha thn plar aera 34. 2he 52.75 ?ha
ta rn eka lef ev rewrites wen mca TOTAL AREA ec rg TE uma
Mead Di nace
shrines bye here bo Pt pare of Bh TOTAL NETT AREA OF LOTS (TS 18) Vy A
i Ties chro orga, ee eed lseecien of ipo, Fea) AVERAGE LOT
i inl pr orien lal fe Ts <A ie fi Ye poe MN
MT. par rary et be reereadvced union Pens notes ee rch. ~ Ad of = — | Jaf" YW,
7
th;
Wi eit ifs
iF.
Y SS ee | ae
ood
Y ow
a
imc: Wer AMADOU. OG SE TRACE. ae d YZ
toseraeen FRE TAAL fr MaDe)
RE ACCESS CORON Ve fs of
Sr B(0E DenRA On oy) Y, auf 30) amass of
aoc ce DEM? ME (PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT]
——- BM ~~! a id |=, ie / ra
Ce | ESSEMTHL HaaltaT Ue f te
EMMA EMOARIGEAED AEGON, if i L ay AY
‘ECIS= SEM - DONAHT
FEMAMT OF DMI AEA, re 4 y
EGGS Tee: (MPLA T
_ FSMRAMT OF COMGERM FEBGIOMAL Vy ce £6. “Ss Ve
#
() Sorcoxersres Y Gaaay AM i
7 Y
0) sues encore +, Uy fe MAD if: GY
EMENGENCT ACCESS Filet PME GTi ws Y LA if
TO WIRDERE A ABSSCATES ETAL a E Li Ui Ae
PURPCESES: FRG WALTER: HAY DATWE a bi 45 e3, fo AN Oe et Mj,
as =| | ‘a6 | (a7?) 48 L ee *}*, !
him? | poo i a
a ee
ws rr EE ee
| -_— , °°» #
HOLLETT OAD
wa
TBBAHE HE HE DAT mm cL SCALE: AI 12500 gag 15000 i r PROPOSAL PLAN MI775 06 iz CE
er nn al Bae
207 J ada ee, TH LATE OPA A J& K HOFMANN
BELEC OMS ULTANT ‘= Tavs i THM ‘ee a | HOLLETT ROAD, NOOSAVILLE Se wer
ra a BATA! A SHET EST
tt Jaren] ot tA ene ccmireemenenccomcn [en omen nan |
SO
Page 166 of 231The text continues on section 87.