Controversial development on hold

If this Development Application is approved, it will be the first to be approved by this council contrary to the land use zoning, under any of the planning schemes applying to this new region.

The issue is NOT whether the application is assessed under the previous planning scheme. The fact is that it was CONTRARY to the land use designation adopted in the superseded Noosa planning scheme, as well as the current one.

Both schemes zone the land for Open Space Recreation. The land was to be kept for green space, publicly-accessible golf course and a 600m buffer to the sewage treatment plant.

The plan allows for a maximum dwelling unit yield within those designated areas. It also allows for the yield to be 'swapped’ between the residential precincts (but between residential precincts ONLY).

The report refers to a previous court case (StarCo Developments) on the issue of ‘portability’ of density between precincts. However, that case dealt with portability between residential precincts only. It does NOT apply here where the proposal involves creation of a whole new residential precinct.

The report to Council states: "This application involves a transfer of yield from a residential precinct to an open space precinct, Precinct H, which is not provided for by the Plan of Development. The Plan does not list a dwelling yield for this precinct and there are no transfer provisions to this precinct."

The report also states: "The proposal seeks to extend the residential footprint of the Noosa Springs development beyond what would reasonably be anticipated under the approved Plan of Development."

During past years, the Noosa council of the day and the developer did the planning, agreed on the outcome, and this was flagged to the public, adopted in the (now superseded) Planning Scheme, and finally, carried through to the new planning scheme.

I can find no reason to NOT to keep faith with the outcomes of that process and the Planning Schemes which the people of Noosa advocated so passionately to the new Council to protect.

The key issue is whether development applications will lead the planning process, or the planning process will lead development. Council has discussed this issue on several occasions and, to date, stood firm in its resolve to uphold the planning schemes.

Council has already set the example for this in the last Committee round where it dealt with stages 6, 7 and 8 of the Bellflower estate and said “No – not until the planning is done and the land designated for the purpose”. Council must deal with the zoning of the land and then assess the DA for compliance.

If this DA is approved, it could have significant implications for the entire Sunshine Coast region including in my own division (Division 8) which also has a pending DA for residential development on the Twin Waters Golf Course.

I hope this helps. Thank you.

Cheers
Cr Debbie Blumel

As SpareUs points out, it's very interesting that two of the 3 Noosa representatives (Brennan and Abbot) "strongly" support the proposal, and it takes councillors from other divisions such as Cr Blumel to stand up for Noosa's zoning laws and town plan. We get what we voted for - and that's just more of the same that we had under the old Noosa Council. That's why Cr Griffin spat the dummy and left, remember? Anyone who thought Abbot and Brennan would help "keep Noosa special" better have a big re-think.