Skip to the record
The gold standard in government transparency.

Original source · versioned page text

2017-10-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

of 128

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Very large file: it may take a few minutes

The original of this document is very large (21.6 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                 10 OCTOBER 2017


6                        APPEAL NO. 3188 OF 2017 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE
                         RELEVANT PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO RECONFIGURE A LOT (52
                         LOTS & PARK) AT 191 HOLLETT ROAD, NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION




Author                              Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
                                    Environment & Sustainable Development Department

Index                               ECM/ Application/ 152006.1999.1/ Case/ Hofmann

Attachments                         Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager, Development to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 10 October 2017 regarding Planning & Environment Court Appeal No.
3188 of 2017 and agree to defend the appeal.

REPORT
A report on this application to extend the relevant period of a Development Permit to Reconfigure
a Lot for 52 rural residential type lots and park by 2 years to 5 July 2019 was considered at
Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 20 July 2017. The report to Council concluded that the
development approval which had stemmed from a rezoning approval given in 1997 found that the
approval was not consistent with the current laws and policies applying to the development, the
community was unlikely to be aware of the proposal, significant time had lapsed and bushfire and
ecological reports were outdated.
Accordingly, the Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:
1.                       The approval is not consistent with the South East Queensland Regional Plan as the
                         development would result in the creation of an urban settlement within an area where the
                         intent is to protect the landscape and the capacity for rural production.
2.                       The approval is not consistent with the Noosa Plan 2006 as the proposed urban
                         development is not located within an established village and would result in fragmentation
                         of land holdings outside of areas already allocated for such purpose by the Noosa Plan.
                         The development is also partly located within the Riparian Buffer area identified for
                         protection by the Biodiversity Overlay.
3.                       The approval is contrary to the South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning
                         Regulatory Planning Provisions as the development will result in the removal of non-
                         juvenile koala habitat trees.
4.                       Different bushfire hazard mapping to that used for the initial approval applies as the State
                         Planning Provisions came into effect after the original approval and results in a higher
                         hazard rating. The higher hazard rating may require changes to setback/buffer areas and
                         an amended subdivision layout. An updated bushfire management plan has not been
                         submitted to enable an assessment of the current bushfire hazard.
5.                       Significant time has lapsed since the ecological assessment reports were originally
                         submitted and the information in these reports is now outdated. Updated ecological reports
                         have not been submitted.
6.                       The community is unlikely to be aware of the proposal given the significant time that has
                         lapsed, the Noosa Plan’s current zoning and no works have commenced on site.
An appeal was lodged with the Planning & Environment Court on 24 August 2017 submitting that
the Council’s decision was wrong and that the request should have been approved.

                                                                                                   Page 127 of 128
Log in to download the original file

2017-10-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda(PDF, 21MB).pdf · 21.6 MB (very large file)

Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.