2020-03-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                    10 MARCH 2020


     4                   RAL19/0011 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D7/2020 - REFUSAL
                         OF APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE 120, 126 AND 138 HAPPY JACK CREEK ROAD,
                         RIDGEWOOD
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION




Author                              Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
                                    Environment & Sustainable Development

Index                               ECM/ Application/ RAL19/0011/ Case/ Kaymond Pty Ltd

Attachments                         Nil



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 March 2020 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No D7/2020 and agree to defend the appeal.


REPORT
A development application to reconfigure 3 lots into 3 lots at Happy Jack Creek Rd, Ridgewood
was refused by delegation on 6 December 2019 for the following reasons:
1.                       The proposal would result in an existing lot that is wholly located outside the Riparian
                         Buffer Area to be relocated within the buffer area, contrary to the specific and overall
                         outcomes of the Noosa Plan’s Biodiversity Overlay Code.
2.                       The proposal is contrary to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code and Natural Hazards Overlay
                         Code as:
                         2.1. Proposed lot 2 is likely to be located in an area subject to local flooding, with Happy
                              Jack Creek road reserve also likely to be subject to inundation during flood events;
                         2.2. The applicant has not demonstrated that a suitable, flood free house site area and
                              effluent disposal area is available for proposed lot 2; and
                         2.3. The applicant has not demonstrated that lot 2 has flood free access and residents of
                              proposed lot 2 may become isolated during flood times, potentially burdening
                              emergency services.
3.                       The proposal is contrary to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as proposed lot 2 does not have
                         suitable, safe and appropriate access, as access is proposed via an existing bridge, likely
                         to have been privately constructed and inspection shows that the bridge is likely to require
                         some significant maintenance work.
4.                       The proposed boundary realignment will increase the amount of traffic utilising the bridge
                         and this will result in additional maintenance of the bridge, further burdening Council’s
                         resources.




                                                                                                      Page 49 of 53