Skip to the record
The gold standard in government transparency.

Original source · versioned page text

2023-02-07 Planning & Environment Meeting Agenda

of 71

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

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

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                  7 FEBRUARY 2023


The new awning is considered to comply with the above outcomes and will maintain the continuity
and style of the adjacent awnings noting that most awnings in the village are flat (illustrated in
figure 5).
The proposed development otherwise meets the Local Centre Zone Code requirements, including
provision for street awnings, building entries visible and easily identifiable, a design that creates a
safe environment, and opportunities for appropriate lighting.
Business Activities Code
The proposal meets the requirements of the Business Activities Code apart from the ground floor
space does not have a minimum ceiling height of 3.5m to allow flexibility of use and adaption of
this space for a range of uses. The ground floor has a minimum ceiling height of 3.2m which is
dictated by the existing built form which is being retained in part. The Business Activities Code
also seeks that uses do not operate outside the hours of 6am to 10pm seven days a week, apart
from a food and drink outlet which may operate until 12 midnight on a Friday and Saturday. These
hours are generally consistent with existing businesses in the village.
Works Codes
•     Driveways and Parking Code
The Driveways and Parking Code requires that parking is provided at a minimum rate of 1 space
per 20m2 of gross floor area, excluding the kitchen and food storage areas of the food and drink
outlet. Excluding kitchen and food storage areas the development has an assessable area of
363m2 which equates to a requirement of 18 spaces. Notwithstanding, it is reasonable that car
parking requirements are based on the increased likely demand for car parking for the proposed
development. Given the existing building has a floor area of 276m2 which is equivalent to 13.8
spaces, the increase in parking demand is 4 spaces.
No on-site car parking is proposed by the applicant due to the nature of the site, and the applicant
instead proposes to make a monetary contribution in lieu of on-site car parking through an
Infrastructure Agreement. In this regard the applicant has signed an Infrastructure Agreement,
committing to pay a total contribution of $53,512.00 for the 4 spaces.
Council’s Policy for Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car Parking outlines the
circumstances under which a monetary contribution might be made, defines how contributions are
to be obtained and expended and the contribution amount per space for each locality. The
application of the policy is at the full discretion of the Council since it must be through an
Infrastructure Agreement.
The policy states that Council may accept monetary contributions in lieu of on-site parking, despite
the requirements of the Noosa Plan, having regard to the following:
1.    The premises are significantly constrained in terms of having restricted access, a small site
      area with limited onsite manoeuvrability, located near a road intersection or otherwise
      encumbered and unable to be readily amalgamated with adjoining land;
2.    It is not practical or desirable from a town planning perspective to provide the required
      amount of car parking onsite due to the nature and type of development adjoining the land;
3.    It is in the community’s interest to provide for alternative car parking arrangements because
      of traffic and or pedestrian safety concerns that might be caused by the development;
4.    The provision of onsite car parking and access is not practical or desirable from a character
      perspective, being within a central area and where additional footpath crossovers would
      adversely impact upon the streetscape or result in the loss of significant road side vegetation;
5.    The locality would benefit more from improved public transport, pedestrian or cycle facilities
      compared to the provision of additional car parking onsite; and



                                                                                       Page 40 of 71
Log in to download the original file

2023-02-07 Planning & Environment Meeting Agenda(PDF, 7MB).pdf · 7.6 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

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”.