Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.
Item 5.2.2023-09-12 · Planning & Environment CommitteeOfficial item record

RAL22/0027 - Application For Reconfiguring A Lot (1 Into 2 Lots) At 28 Satinay Drive, Tewantin

← Meeting agenda & transcript

See the votes on this matter →

What was decided?

The minuted decision sequence

No separately labelled carried Council Resolution has been identified here. Read each formal event and the complete item minutes; a lost motion is not necessarily the final outcome.

1Committee RecommendationCarried

Moved: Karen Finzel · Seconded: Tom Wegener

That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. RAL22/0027 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 2 lots, situated at 28 Satinay Dr Tewantin Qld 4565 and:

A.    Refuse the application for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1)(a), (b) and (c), (2)(a), (b) and (e)(i), Acceptable Outcome AO7.3 and Performance Outcomes PO4 and PO7, of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as:

a.    The development application is for subdivision in an area identified as being not suitable for subdivision. 

b.    The lot size and subdivision layout in not consistent with the established character and amenity of Noosa Parklands Estate. 

c.    The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate to accommodate a dwelling house and associated structures and services, and therefore is not fit its intended use. 

2.    The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1) and (2)(a), (b) and (e), Acceptable Outcomes AO1, AO7, AO8.3 and Performance Outcomes PO1 and PO7 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as:  

a.    The methodology for determining the building envelopes assumes that Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Council will maintain the firebreak between the existing lot and adjoining National Park and Council Reserve. Preservation of the separation from hazardous vegetation should not be dependent on third parties. 

b.    The proposed reconfiguration does not minimise the risk to people and property from bushfire hazard. 

c.    The proposed layout will unduly burden disaster management services.

d.    The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate.

B.    Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

Carried unanimously.

Official minutes · section 1

Read complete item-specific minutes
Committee Recommendation

Moved:Cr Karen Finzel
Seconded:Cr Tom Wegener

That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 September 2023 regarding Application No. RAL22/0027 for a Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot – 1 into 2 lots, situated at 28 Satinay Dr Tewantin Qld 4565 and:

A.    Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1.    The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1)(a), (b) and (c), (2)(a), (b) and (e)(i), Acceptable Outcome AO7.3 and Performance Outcomes PO4 and PO7, of the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as:
a.    The development application is for subdivision in an area identified as being not suitable for subdivision. 
b.    The lot size and subdivision layout in not consistent with the established character and amenity of Noosa Parklands Estate. 
c.    The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate to accommodate a dwelling house and associated structures and services, and therefore is not fit its intended use. 

2.    The proposal does not comply with Purpose and Overall Outcomes (1) and (2)(a), (b) and (e), Acceptable Outcomes AO1, AO7, AO8.3 and Performance Outcomes PO1 and PO7 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as:  
a.    The methodology for determining the building envelopes assumes that Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and Council will maintain the firebreak between the existing lot and adjoining National Park and Council Reserve. Preservation of the separation from hazardous vegetation should not be dependent on third parties. 
b.    The proposed reconfiguration does not minimise the risk to people and property from bushfire hazard. 
c.    The proposed layout will unduly burden disaster management services.
d.    The required building envelope for proposed Lot 2 is not adequate.

B.    Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Carried unanimously.

This summary follows this item’s minutes. The established voting totals use their existing method while differences are checked against the full records.

What was said?

Named discussion on NoosaWatch TV

These actual transcript passages match the item’s wording. The start and end of the item’s discussion are not yet confirmed; these excerpts are not measured item airtime or exact decision moments.

Tom Wegener35:51
Okay. All in favour? Thank you very much. Thank you. It is a very very difficult situation. By functions and obviously we all congratulate you, but I congratulate you especially on the strategy here and the management stages. It's very easy to understand for people that it's really difficult. Thank you very much and pass it on to Camille and Ben as well. They've been quite involved in the process. Thank you. The okay. Thanks. Have a good day. You too. Bye. Okay. We're on to 5.2 applications where we could be doing a lot. One of the two lots at 28 Satinay Drive, Tewantin. We have Patrick Georgina sitting at the table with us today. He said Georgina, are you going to walk us through these today?

The supporting record

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”.