Skip to the record
The gold standard in government transparency.

Original source · versioned page text

Planning & Environment Court Appeal No 2611 Of 2024 - MCU23/0105 Application For A Material Change Of Use For Multiple Dwelling (6 Small Dwellings), Food And Drink Outlet And Office At 2 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads · Attachment 3 - Planning Coordinators Delegate Report - MCU23-0105

of 19

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

Very large file (13.3 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.

 Real property description:    Lot 157 RP 88772

 Planning Scheme:             Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020)

2.   DECISION DETAILS

Council decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:
1.   The proposed development is not consistent with overall outcome (2) (j), (l), & (p) and
     performance and acceptable outcomes PO16, AO16.2, PO17, PO19, AO19(a), PO20, PO21,
     PO23, AO23.1, AO23.2, AO23.3, AO23.4, PO24. PO25, PO26, AO26, PO27, AO27, PO28,
     AO28 and PO32, AO32.2 of the Major Centre Zone Code as:
     (a)    The proposed development is 4 storeys and has an exposed external façade
            exceeding 12m in height and is of a visual bulk and architectural scale not consistent
            with structures on adjoining or nearby land and is likely to dominate the street and the
            surrounding area.
     (b)    The proposed development is of a scale that is not compatible with surrounding
            development, will present an appearance of bulk and will result in the removal of
            existing significant trees.
     (c)    The proposed development intrudes into the front setbacks to Noosa Drive and
            Bottlebrush Avenue at all levels and does not maintain the visual continuity and pattern
            of buildings within the street or preserve existing significant trees that may assist to
            visually soften the building.
     (d)    The proposed development does not satisfactorily incorporate design elements and
            materials reflective of the local streetscape character of the area, with the building not
            designed in the Noosa sub-tropical style.
     (e)    The proposed design fails to provide a sufficiently active building frontage and address
            the Noosa Drive to activate this street frontage.
     (f)    The proposal does not retain the site’s significant trees and provide sufficient
            landscaping to Noosa Drive and Bottlebrush Avenue to enhance these streetscapes
            and reduce the visual impact of the building given its setting.
2.   The proposed development is not consistent with overall outcome (2)(f), (h), PO3, AO3.1,
     PO7, AO7.1, AO7.2, AO7.4, AO7.5, and PO11, AO11 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code as
     (a)    The site is identified as a key corner site by the Noosa Junction Framework and
            Character Plan and the proposal fails to satisfactorily incorporate suitable architectural
            and landscape treatments to emphasise this corner location.
     (b)    The proposed development fails to satisfactorily step down the slope, retain the site’s
            significant vegetation and is of scale and height that is inconsistent with surrounding
            development and will visually dominate the street and its surroundings.
     (c)    The proposal does not include an articulated roof form visible to the street or
            satisfactorily incorporate a mix of light weight and textured external building materials
            consistent with the character of its setting and Noosa’s sub-tropical style.
      (d)   The proposal is not sympathetic to the existing character, streetscape and built form
            and its design will not assist in creating a vibrant and active street.
3.   The proposal is not consistent with performance and acceptable outcomes PO16, AO16 of
     the Business Activities Code as sufficient car parking is not available on site to accommodate
     the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed uses.
4.   The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome (2)(a) and performance and acceptable
     outcomes PO6, AO6.1 of the Driveways & Parking Code as the proposal does not provide
     sufficient on site car parking to meet the likely demand for car parking on site.


                                                                                      Page 18 of 19
Log in to download the original file

ATTACHMENT 3 - PLANNING COORDINATORS DELEGATE REPORT - MCU23-0105.pdf · 13.3 MB (very large file)

The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.

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”.