2020-08-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                        11 AUGUST 2020


                                                       the relevant application under those laws.
                                                       It is submitted that the Body Corporate’s assertion
                                                       that Noosa Council is required to obtain the Body
                                                       Corporate’s consent to the proposed works is
                                                       fundamentally wrong in law. Noosa Council is not a
                                                       party to the CMS or a member of the Body
                                                       Corporate. Such obligation does not appear in any
                                                       applicable legislative provision. There appears to be
                                                       no legal basis to make such an assertion.
 Submission received raising concerns about ‘fire      Firebreak maintenance is the responsibility of the
 break maintenance and allocation’ between Lot 39      property owner.
 and Lot 500.                                          It is noted that the State has exempted clearing for
                                                       certain fire management activities from local
                                                       Council assessment.




 Figure 13: Lot 39 and Lot 500
 Submission received stating:                          The subject site is encumbered by 3.8ha Easement
 ‘Beach Road Holiday Homes Body Corporate has          A in the northern portion of the lot. The Easement
 assets and infrastructure located within Lot 500      was created for the purposes of an irrigation area to
 due to original estate planning. These will require   be established, if/when required. This 3.8ha effluent
 easements/access rights for the BC to maintain        irrigation area is based on a 2004 effluent disposal
 and utilise.’                                         design for the development of the entire Visitor
                                                       Mixed Use zone to full capacity, as envisaged
                                                       under the Portal Code. The proposed development
                                                       has no impact on the existing easement and/or
                                                       future expansion of the irrigation area.
6.    CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposed use is not considered to comply with the definition of ‘Visitor Accommodation Type
3 – Rural’, and is better defined as a Detached House, whilst the lagoon/wave pool is not
ancillary to the proposed dwelling, and is a separate land use more appropriately defined as
Entertainment and dining business - Type 2 Recreation, amusement & fitness.
The proposal relies on built infrastructure as the main attraction to the site, and therefore is not
consistent with the desired outcomes for Noosa’s tourism industry set out in The Noosa Plan,
which aims to encourage tourism based on Noosa’s natural assets to enhance the understanding
of Noosa’s environmental values. The proposal is also not consistent with the expectations of the
community, which anticipates that the area will retain its primary role as a coastal area largely
dedicated to conservation, where development is secondary to and dominated by its open space
setting.
The lagoon/wave pool component of the development would result in adverse impacts on the
environmental values of the area, with the proposal to clear at least 1.3 hectares of threatened
species habitat of high value regrowth vegetation, and potential to pollute a wetland with high
ecological values through the disposal of waste water. The proposal also requires significant
excavation of an area affected by acid sulfate soils.
The proposal to fill the lagoon/wave pool via natural rainfall is not considered viable, and would
likely result in relying on a supplementary water source, requiring water to be delivered to the site

                                                                                           Page 24 of 87