2014-03-25 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda Pages 81-167

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