2014-02-25 Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                             25 FEBRUARY 2014


C.   Staff Identified Issues

There are a number of issues that Council officers have identified as needing review. These
range from editorial fixes and innocuous improvements to more significant amendments that may
raise community interest.

Temporary Local Planning Instrument (Protected Vegetation Overlay)

A Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) to protect vegetation across the Noosa Shire was
put in place in 2012. It provides a legal mechanism to regulate vegetation clearing and replaced
Council’s previous Vegetation Management Local Law. It is intended that the TLPI continue until
the planning scheme can be amended to include the provisions from the TLPI into the planning
scheme. This includes the code for assessing the clearing of protected vegetation, relevant
definitions and a description of the range of exempt activities.

Shire Business Centre Revisions

A comprehensive review of the Shire Business Centre Master Plan brought forth a number of
recommendations to facilitate economic development within the centre that remain relevant. The
recommendations were adopted by Council in 2008 and are yet to be written into the planning
scheme due to amalgamation.

Farming Practices

Extensive consultation with primary producers over the last 6 years has revealed a number of
areas where planning regulation could be made clearer and simpler to protect existing farming
rights and to make it easier for new farming enterprises to occur. This is particularly relevant to
small scale and free range animal operations, boutique or niche crops and forestry uses, all of
which should be expected in rural areas.

Likewise the scheme could be clearer around more intensive forms of agriculture and animal
husbandry uses qualifying the expectations for such development.

Enterprises in Rural areas

For various reasons there is increasing demand for new uses within rural areas which are not
generally considered to be rural uses eg cabins, farm stays, cooking schools, yoga classes and
art studios. These uses are relatively low impact and might offer a supplementary income to
farming and draw visitors into the hinterland. In general terms the scheme could take a more
enabling approach to these where they are not going to compromise the productivity or amenity
of the rural lands.

Other uses are larger but proponents are specifically drawn to the physical and locational
characteristics of the land such as an eco-tourism lodge, health spa, meditation retreat or a
wedding reception venue with a particularly scenic backdrop. The scheme could be clearer
around these types of uses to clarify where and how they may be appropriate and what
conditions need to be met. Again, the need to protect the productive capacity and amenity of
rural lands remains paramount.

Other non-rural uses which are increasingly drawn to larger lots outside the urban areas include
schools and churches. These are land intensive uses and for that reason are costly to establish
within the urban boundary, however this is not on its own sufficient grounds to support them in
rural areas.




                                                                                    Page 36 of 92