2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                    13 OCTOBER 2015


Decision rules for Standard/Code Applications             There is no clear preference for the decision
                                                          rules for standard/code applications and it is
Feedback is sought on the decision rules for              considered that both options require reworking
Standard/Code Assessable Applications.                    to be satisfactory. Notably, option 2 as
                                                          proposed most closely aligns with the current
Option 1                                                  SPA provisions.
‘(2)    To the extent [standard/code?] assessment
        is required for the development, after            For standard/code assessment applications
        carrying out the assessment, the                  assessment of development proposals should
        assessment manager—                               be ‘bounded’ and only undertaken against
        (a)      must decide to approve the               applicable planning requirements rather than
                 application to the extent the            the whole of the planning scheme. It is also
                 development complies with the            appropriate that there is a presumption for
                 assessment benchmarks for the            code assessable development to be in favour
                 development; and                         of approval. This is consistent with the
        (b)      may impose development conditions        drafting of The Noosa Plan, with only
                 on any approval; and                     particular codes identified as relevant for code
        (c)      may, to the extent the development       assessable applications. Development which
                 does not comply with the                 is identified as consistent with the zoning
                 assessment benchmarks, decide to         intent is also only code assessable. However,
                 refuse the application only if           for any development that is not consistent with
                 compliance can not be achieved by        the planning scheme, clear grounds should be
                 imposing development conditions.         required to be articulated.
‘(3)    Nothing stops the assessment manager
        approving a development application that
        does not comply with some or all of the
        assessment benchmarks for the
        development.

Option 2
‘(2)    To the extent [standard/code?] assessment
        is required for the development, after
        carrying out the assessment, the
        assessment manager must decide—
        (a)      to approve all or part of the
        application; or
        (b)      to approve all or part of the
                 application, but impose development
                 conditions on the approval; or
        (c)      refuse the application.


Infrastructure                                            The latest time proposed is simply not
                                                          workable & also may not be equitable to either
Feedback is sought on whether the following               Development or Local Government depending
provision should be included.                             on the specific scenario that arises. Also
                                                          LGIP provision dates may be stated over a
(4)     If the LGIP identifies the infrastructure, the    period (i.e. 2011–2016).rather than a specific
        local government must pay the refund under        date so then which date should it be?? (i.e.
        subsection (3)(b) no later than the               2011 or 2016??)
        construction date for the infrastructure stated
        in the LGIP.                                      Possible Scenario 1:
                                                          The LGIP infrastructure proposed date is say
                                                          2016 and the construction start date &
                                                          completion by the developer is later say 2025.
                                                          Then under this proposal, the refund would
                                                          need to be given immediately before the
                                                          infrastructure is even provided. This is totally
                                                          unacceptable & unequitable for Local Gov’t.
                                                          Possible Scenario 2 (reverse of 1):



                                                                                         Page 19 of 110