2021-02-09 Planning and Environment Committee Meeting Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                       9 FEBRUARY 2021


As a result of Council’s decision to refuse the application, the applicant lodged an appeal to the
Planning & Environment Court. The applicant seeks that the development should be approved.
A number of submitters elected to join the appeal as co-respondents (15 co-respondents) and have
actively been involved in the appeal, including mediation with the Court registrar, though did not
choose to be legally represented or to engage their own experts for the appeal.
During the course of the appeal, mediation was attended with the Court registrar and 2 joint expert
reports for visual amenity were prepared by the appellant’s expert and Council’s expert. Extensive
photomontages were also prepared by the appellant from key vantage points to demonstrate the
likely visual impacts of the tower on the surroundings. These photomontages are included as
Attachment 1.
From the visual amenity joint experts report it is clear the visual experts agree that:
1.    The photomontages demonstrate that the proposed tower will achieve reduced prominence in,
      and reasonable integration with, the surrounding landform and landscape due to (various
      combinations of) the distance to the proposal, vegetation forming part of the backdrop and/or
      intervening landscape, and the proposal remaining below the local tree line and distant skyline.
As a consequence of the above levels of integration, the proposal will achieve a reasonable level of
compatibility with the rural setting.
2.    The scenic values, and significant views, of the local area will be generally maintained and not
      materially impacted because the proposal will not obstruct views to important landscape
      features, will not protrude above prominent tree lines or the skyline, and will present as a small
      object in wide views of the landscape, wherein it will not fundamentally change the qualities
      which define the character and scenic amenity of the local area.
3.    In order to ensure the degree of integration depicted in the photomontages, vegetation on the
      subject land that has a critical role in assisting with the integration of the tower (particularly for
      views from VP05,VP05A and VP07) should be surveyed and its retention conditioned.
4.    In order to further reduce the potential for visual prominence, particularly for views from VP07,
      the antenna should also be coloured Pale Eucalypt.
With regard to a hypothetical 5m extension, the photomontages assist to understand how such an
arrangement may appear and they indicate that the extra height would either not result in materially
greater impacts or, at worst (from VP07), would result in impacts of marginally greater significance
but where such an increase would not, in and of itself, elevate the impacts to be of high significance
and would not warrant refusal of the proposal on visual amenity grounds.
The visual experts also reviewed the relevant planning scheme provisions pursuant to the Noosa
Plan 2006 and Noosa Plan 2020 and in that regard it is noted that:
1.    Mr Powell (for the appellant) considers that the proposal is appropriate in visual amenity terms
      when reviewed against both the above planning schemes, subject to detailed design and
      imposition of relevant and reasonable conditions, including such related to the survey and
      retention of existing vegetation and the adjusting the colour of the proposed antennas; and
2.    Dr McGowan (for Council) undertook an assessment of each individual planning scheme
      provision and noted that the proposed development can be seen to achieve compliance with
      the majority of assessment benchmarks; however, observes that the proposed tower will have
      some impacts on the rural character and amenity of the area and that this results in a degree
      of non-compliance, but also recognises that this non-compliance needs to be considered in
      the context of those benchmarks which specifically contemplate towers to a height of 25 metres
      in the Rural Zone (albeit when they are co-located with an existing tower), and those which
      infer that a tower is visually integrated if it can be seen to be, among other things, camouflaged
      through the use of colours and materials which blend into the surrounding landscape; and
      unobtrusive when viewed from any part of the major road network.




                                                                                            Page 72 of 98