2019-07-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                        9 JULY 2019


                       impacts on environmentally sensitive areas, lots that fail to avoid significant
                       adverse effects on a natural environment and landscape and lots that do
                       not minimise the risk of hazards for people and property. Further, the
                       proposed development is a rural residential development that does not
                       have good levels of convenience and accessibility to towns and villages
                 b.    The proposed development includes lots that are not of an appropriate area
                       or dimension
                 c.    The proposed development would not provide for a neighbourhood with a
                       strong and positive identity
                 d.    The proposed development would not retain, protect, maintain or
                       supplement native vegetation and individual mature trees
                 e.    The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the
                       visual amenity of surrounding areas.
     2.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the South East Queensland Regional
           Plan as it is located in the Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area, i.e. outside
           the Urban Footprint and is therefore unacceptable.
     3.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the South East Queensland Koala
           Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions because it is located in a koala
           assessable area and would result in the removal of koala habitat.
     4.    The proposed development is inconsistent with reasonable community expectations
           given the conflict that the proposed development is in with the Noosa Plan 2006 and
           the lack of community awareness of the proposal.
     5.    A significant period of time has passed since the development application was lodged
           and considered by the Council. As such, there is little if any informed and therefore
           relevant community awareness of the proposed development.
     6.    The proposed development is inconsistent with the planned character for the land and
           its surrounds.
     7.    The ecological assessment reports originally undertaken when the proposed
           development was approved are over a decade old; have not been updated for the
           purposes of this matter and are therefore unreliable.
     8.    There is no need for the proposed development.
     9.    The applicable planning instruments have changed since the development approval
           was originally granted. The changes to the planning instruments:
           a.    are unfavourable to the proposed development; and therefore
           b.    mean that it would be appropriate for the proposal to be assessed against
                 contemporary planning standards and policies.
B.     Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.


REPORT
1.   PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks a minor change to the existing development approval by amending the sunset
clause outlined within Condition 5, which specifies 6 years for the completion of the development
i.e. by 5 July 2019. The condition currently reads as follows:
     5.    The uncompleted aspects of this development approval lapses if the subdivision plan
           for the last stage of the development has not been registered by the relevant titles
           authority within 6 years of the date this approval takes effect.

                                                                                     Page 66 of 128