Negotiated Report (Representations made) MCU18 0122 · MCU18/0122

REQUEST FOR NEGOTIATED DECISION REPORT
Author	Development Planner, Glen Conforti
Development Assessment

APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No.	MCU18/0122
Development Approval	Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises (Detached House)
Applicant	Ecclecentricity P/L
Representations Received On	17 October 2018

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	86 Lorikeet Dr Peregian Beach Qld 4573
RP Description	Lot 532 P 93121
Land Area	508m²
Existing Use of Land	Dwelling

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Eastern Beaches
Zone	Detached Housing
Overlays	Natural Resources Overlay – Coastal Protection Area
Assessment Type	Representations made to original approval

background
A development approval for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises (Detached House) was issued on 19 September 2018.
The applicant suspended the appeal period and made representations on 17 October 2018 to the development approval conditions. The representations are detailed below but primarily relate to a 1.5m wide garden required by Condition 9 along the seaward boundary.
assessment
An assessment in relation to each of the submitted representations is provided below:
Condition 9 – 1.5m wide garden
A 1.5m wide garden must be provided along the full length of the seaward boundary.  The planted vegetation consist of native, endemic species and planted in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy PSP3 Landscaping Plants and Guidelines for coastal areas.
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant’s representation is provided below:
According to S19.1 the planting is proposed to ‘provide adequate landscape buffering to protect the character of the beachfront’. As the house is not visible from the beach, this requirement does not seem to be relevant.
According to S18.1 the planting is proposed to ‘provide adequate landscape buffering to protect the coastal dune system’. There has never been a landscaped strip in this location at 86 Lorikeet Drive and neighbouring properties, which have been established for some years do not have landscaping at the boundary between the property and the existing adjacent grassed reserve...
The proposed development is intended as a holiday residence to be used periodically. If the 1.5m metre landscaped boundary is not maintained regularly, the amenity of the adjacent public reserve will be impacted adversely.
Existing conditions on site show a change in level which clearly demarcates the boundary between the site and the adjacent reserve…
In summary, we do not believe that a 1.5m wide landscaped buffer would have a positive effect on the amenity of this area. In fact, the inclusion of the barrier would have a negative impact on the amenity of the owner of the site who has purchased the property in the current condition. We would like to request that this condition is removed from the Development Approval.
Assessment of Representation
The intent of the Condition is to provide natural landscape protection from erosion which minimises risk to the coastal hazard.
Probable Solutions S18.1 and 19.1 require a 5m landscaped setback from the seaward boundary. The corresponding Specific Outcome O18 requires that development does not cause adverse impacts on the coastal resources nor interrupt the erosion and accretion of the foreshore and beaches.
In this instance a 5m wide garden was not required as the building has a reduced setback which is retained from the original dwelling and a 1.5m wide garden was located between the boundary and the development to ensure no adverse impacts on natural processes.
It is agreed that the development is not seen from the beach.
However, Councils Coastal Hazards mapping indicates that by year 2100 the lot is within an Erosion Prone Area (1% AEP Storm event) as shown in Figure 1 below. Council has a long standing position to provide a resilient natural buffer to coastal hazards and armouring as a last resort. The proposed 1.5m wide garden will minimise risk to the hazard by using the natural landscape.

Figure 1 - Coastal Hazard mapping current, 2040, 2070 & 2100
Should the dwelling be used as a holiday residence, hardy low maintenance native endemic species can be used to ensure their health in the coastal environment.
The garden also provides a physical barrier to ensure the dunes are not used for private purposes.
conclusion & reasons for decision
The applicant’s representations to delete Condition 9 is not agreed with as the garden minimises the risk to coastal erosion and provides a barrier to the dune.
RECOMMENDATION
With regard to Application No. MCU18/0122 and the representations made, Council on 19 September 2018 decided to:
A.	Refuse to delete the representations made for the following reasons:
1.	The 1.5m wide garden minimises the risk to coastal erosion by using the natural landscape for protection.

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 2 of 3

[word/header1.xml]
3

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
 

 

LEGEND x

® labels

‘Az Property Label
Az RoadNames labels
Coastal Hazards

& Erosion Prone Area 1% AEP storm
Current
2040 (1)
2070 (1)
2100(1)

@& Base
A Local Government Areas
A Noosa

 

Land Parcels: