Meeting minutes

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES                                                  16 NOVEMBER 2023


            (d) The stormwater treatment proposed is not of a sufficient size to achieve the
            water quality objectives and protection of biodiversity areas required under the
            Water Quality and Drainage Code.
            (e) The built form of the proposed development is unacceptable, being slightly
            over height in metres in the Tourist Accommodation zone and substantially over
            height in metres and storeys in the Environmental Management and Conservation
            zone.
            In respect of the above, the proposed development is inconsistent with the
            following provisions of Noosa Plan 2020:
            (i) Strategic Framework – 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.4(b)(p);
            (ii) Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code – 8.2.2.2(2)(a), (b), (c),
            (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) Table 8.2.23 PO1, PO3, PO6 and PO11;
            (iii) Water Quality and Drainage Code – 9.4.82(2)(a) and (b) and Table 9.4.8.3
            PO6;
            (iv) Noosa Heads Local Plan Code – Overall Outcomes (2)(b)(d)(e) and (ad)
            and Table 7.2.5.3 PO4, PO5, PO6 and PO26;
            (v)     Environmental Management and Conservation Zone Code – Overall
            Outcomes (2)(a) and (b), Table 6.7.1.3 PO1, PO5, PO7, PO8, PO9, PO11 and
            PO13;
            (vi) Tourist Accommodation Zone Code - Table 6.3.4.3 PO9 and PO10.
            4. When read as a whole, the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017
            (SEQRP) does not lend support to the proposed use of the land, as:
            4.1. the SEQRP sets a long term, 50-year vision, establishing aspirations for the
            region up to 2067. Given this, the timing and sequencing of urban development
            occurring within the Urban Footprint is a finer grained detail, the planning for which
            is implemented through local government planning schemes;
            4.2. the designation of land as being within the Urban Footprint does not imply
            that all that land with that designation can be developed for urban purposes; and
            4.3. when assessed against Noosa Plan 2020, the proposed development is not
            suitable for urban development.
            5. The following relevant matters support refusal:
            5.1. The proposed development will involve an unacceptable loss of vegetation
            in a locality which is an ecologically important and environmentally sensitive and
            serves as an important ecological linkage,
            5.2.     There is no planning, economic or community need for the proposed
            development on the subject land.
            5.3. Approval of the proposed development would not be in the public interest
            as reflected in the provisions of Noosa Plan 2020 referred to in these reasons for
            refusal.
            B. That the CEO be requested to review the zone and urban boundaries as part
            of a future review of the Planning Scheme; and
            C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning
            Act 2016.
            Carried unanimously.

            Cr Wilkie returned to the meeting.




            5.2. MCU21/0194.01 – APPLICATION FOR AN OTHER CHANGE TO A
            DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A ROADSIDE STALL TO INCLUDE A
            FOOD AND DRINK OUTLET AT 201 MARY RIVER RD, COOROY (Referred
            from Planning & Environment Committee dated 7 November 2023 - Item 5.2)