Original source · versioned page text
Town Planning Report
Town Planning Report Other Change to a Development Approval for Material Change of Use - Extensions to Existing Dual Occupancy (Council’s Ref: 04/4029) & Reconfigure of a Lot (Boundary Realignment). 6 Martin Street, Peregian Beach Lot 1 on SP215946, Lot 2 on SP215946 & Lot 0 on GTP345 Prepared for Richard Ford May 2022 Our Ref: 220311 ASTP 220311 Page 1 of 19
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 18 pages
Page 2
Applicant Details The applicant for the proposed ‘Other Change’ to Development Permit 04/4029 and Reconfiguring a Lot (Boundary Realignment) is Richard Ford. It is requested that all project correspondence is provided to Richard Ford, care of ADAMS + SPARKES. Contact Details and Project Team Specialty Field Company Contact Person/s Town Planning ADAMS + SPARKES Michael Lyell (Project Manager) [email protected] Building Designer DCM Building Design Duncan Cox Surveyor Skyline Surveyors Corey James Document Control and Verification This Town Planning Report has been prepared and reviewed by the identified key personnel, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016. ADAMS + SPARKES is led by Directors Cameron Adams and Pete Sparkes, who have a combined experience of over 30 years in both public and private sectors. ADAMS + SPARKES have extensive experience in the management of development applications including residential, commercial, retail and mixed use developments, industrial projects and mining and infrastructure projects. Project Principal Project Manager Peter Sparkes Michael Lyell Senior Town Planner Senior Town Planner Confidentiality All information contained within this document is provided in strict commercial confidence and is the property of ADAMS + SPARKES. This document and the information are solely for the use of the authorised recipient and this document may not be used, copied or reproduced in whole or part for any purpose other than that for which it was supplied by ADAMS + SPARKES. ADAMS + SPARKES makes no representation, undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or the information. This document is not to be disclosed or reproduced in part or in full, without express written authority from ADAMS + SPARKES. © ADAMS + SPARKES TOWN PLANNING ASTP 220311 Page 2 of 19
Page 3
1 Introduction
1. This Town Planning Report has been prepared in support of an application for an ‘Other Change’ to
Development Permit 04/4029 (Extension to Existing Duplex Dwelling), as well as Reconfiguring a Lot
(Boundary Realignment) on land located at 6 Martin Street, Peregian Beach, legally on land identified as
Lot 1 on SP215946, Lot 2 on SP215946 & Lot 0 on GTP345 (the ‘subject site’). This Development Application
seeks to amend the Development Permit to allow for a modified built form of the unit located on Lot 2 on
SP215946. In extending built form outside of the prescribed lots this application further proposes the
realignment of lot boundaries to reflect the modified building area. This documentation has been prepared
by ADAMS + SPARKES Town Planning (hereafter; ‘ADAMS + SPARKES’) for and on behalf of the applicant
‘Richard Ford’.
2. The local government, which applies to the subject site is Noosa Shire Council (hereafter ‘Council’). In
accordance with section 78A of the Planning Act 2016 (hereafter ‘the Act’), Council is the responsible entity
for the application. In accordance with Section 82 of the Act, the assessment of this application is to be
administered as if the responsible entity were the assessment manager, and the change application were
the original development application, with the changes included.
3. The subject site is located within the Medium Density Residential Zone. In accordance with Table 5.5.2,
Table of Development Assessment for Material Change of Use in the Medium Density Residential Zone, Dual
Occupancy is subject to Code Assessment. As such, the request for an ‘Other Change’ to the existing
approval is also subject to Code Assessment.
4. Additionally, this application proposes a Reconfiguration of Lot for the subject site, in accordance with
Section 5.6.1 ‘Categories of development and categories of assessment – reconfiguring a lot’, Reconfiguring
a Lot within the Medium-Density Residential Zone, where not resulting in the creation of new lots is subject
to Code Assessment.
5. This Town Planning Report will describe the approval history for the site, the proposed changes and address
the relevant statutory considerations, and reasons why it warrants Council approval. This report should be
read in conjunction with the following supporting documentation:
Appendix 1 Council’s Development Permit ref MCU04/0429
Appendix 2 Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Building Design
Appendix 3 Survey Boundary Realignment by Skyline Surveyors
Appendix 4 Code Assessment – Boundary Realignment
ASTP 220311 Page 3 of 19
Page 4
2 Background
6. As indicated above, this application is for an ‘Other Change’ to Development Permit 04/029, which
approved Extensions to Existing Duplex Dwelling over the site. The Development Permit for Extensions to
the Dual Occupancy approved the delivery of a significant renovation to Unit 1, which included the increase
of the unit’s Ground Floor Area, as well as the addition of an upper floor (Figure 1 & Figure 2). The upper
floor delivered four (4) bedrooms, along with a bathroom and ensuite.
7. The overall built form resulted in considerable variations between built form of the existing unimproved
unit and the modified unit (refer to Figure 3 below). As a result, the site since this approval in 2004 has
presented the need for the development of Unit 2 in order to achieve a more harmonious design, as well
as deliver a consistent level of amenity provision across the units. Further the need has arisen for Unit 2 to
deliver further GFA and bedrooms in order to meet the desired level of residential amenity and density
that a medium density residential zone is expected and should provide.
8. The need for the proposed development is required in order to return to a more equitable utilisation of
GFA, allowing for a built form that presents as a balanced, as displayed in the Table 1 below. Noting that
Unit 1 currently delivers in excess of double the GFA of Unit 2.
Table 1: Developments historic and proposed GFA delivery (Source: ADAMS + SPARKES Town Planning 2022)
Total GFA Unit 1 GFA Unit 2 GFA
Original Approval 167m² 82m² (49%) 85m² (51%)
2004 Approved Extension 279m² 194m² (69.5%) 85m² (30.5)
Proposed Other Change 383m² 194m² (50.6%) 189m² (49.4%)
Figure 1 Approved Ground Floor Site Plan 04/0429 (Source: DCM Building Design 2022)
ASTP 220311 Page 4 of 19
Page 5
Additional Upper Floor Figure 2 Approved Upper Floor Site Plan 04/0429 (Source: DCM Building Design 2022) Figure 3 Existing streetscape appearanc of subject site (Source: Google Maps 2022) ASTP 220311 Page 5 of 19
Page 6
3 Proposed Changes
3.1 Proposed ‘Other Change’ to Development Permit 04/4029 (Dual Occupancy)
9. Please refer to the Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Building Design in Appendix 2. As demonstrated, the
proposal is for the significant alteration of Unit 2, additionally a minor upper floor deck to Unit 1 is proposed
(refer to Drawing DD-17). The proposed modifications to Unit 2 will result in a two (2) storey dwelling,
containing three(3) bedrooms. With the exception of the minor additional deck, no changes are proposed
to be made to Unit 1, which comprises of a four (4) bedroom, two (2) storey unit.
10. In terms of key development particulars, the development (as a whole) will not exceed a maximum building
height of 8 metres, will provide a site cover of 41% and will deliver 32.9% soft landscaping.
11. Figures 4 and 5 below demonstrate the proposed floor layout for Unit 2, with the ground level of the
development containing a double garage, two (2) bedrooms, open plan kitchen, as well as living and dining
space that directly accesses the compliant sized alfresco and pool space. The upper level of the proposed
additions to Unit 2 contains one (1) master bedroom with ensuite, a light and air void adjacent to the
stairwell, a further living space and study, as well as upper floor garage roof deck.
Unit 2
Figure 4 Upper Floor Layout (Source: DCM Building Design 2022)
ASTP 220311 Page 6 of 19
Page 7
Unit 2
Figure 5 Upper Floor Layout (Source: DCM Building Design 2022)
12. Additionally, Unit 1 proposes the delivery of a new upper floor deck, to provide additional entertainment
space and amenity to the unit alongside shading and protecting the unit’s entrance for greater resident
and visitor amenity, refer to Figure 6 below.
Figure 6 Unit 1 Proposed Modifications (Source: DCM Building Design 2022)
13. As demonstrated in Figure 7 below, the development proposes an individual access driveway to each unit,
with Unit 2 proposing driveway access from Avocet Parade, as well as a separate pedestrian entry point
ASTP 220311 Page 7 of 19
Page 8
within the Avocet Road frontage. Access to the units is proposed via formalised gatehouses resulting in
clearly defined access points to the development (refer to Figure 6 below). In terms of bin storage and
mechanical plant, separate areas are provided for each dwelling, which are screened from view form
adjacent properties, as well as the site frontage.
Figure 7 Perspective view of built form (Source: DCM Building Design 2022)
14. Table 2 below provides a comparison of the Approved Development the Proposed Changed development
by way of key development parameters.
Table 2 Comparison of Approved Development VS Proposed Changed Development
Parameter Approved Proposed Compliance
Building Height 2 storey (not exceeding 8m) 2 storey (not exceeding 8m) Yes
Gross Floor Area 299m2 383m2 N/A
Site Cover ≈37% ≈41% No
Setbacks Front (south & west) – 4.31 metres Front – 4.5 metres Yes
Side (east) – 2 metres Side (east) – 1.5 metres No
side (north) – 2.89 metres Side (north) – BTB No
15. It is noted that majority of the above-mentioned built form outcomes generally complies with the
development parameters prescribed by the planning scheme. The non-compliances as a result of the
proposed development are discussed in section 5.3.1 below.
3.2 Proposed Reconfigure a Lot (Boundary Realignment)
16. Please refer to the Proposed Survey Plans prepared by Skyline Surveyors in Appendix 3. As demonstrated,
the proposal seeks to realign the existing boundaries, such that existing Lot 1 on SP215946 & Lot 2 on
SP215946 comprise of the majority of the site, with only the ‘actual’ common property being designated
as this purpose (group title lot)
17. In doing so the realignment of boundaries ensures a more definitive ownership of land. The proposal
maintains common property to a minimized extent to ensure both lot 1 & Lot 2 have equitable use rights
to the permanent waste storage area and entrance.
18. As demonstrated in Table 3 & Figure 7 below the proposed boundary realignment will produce the
following lot sizes:
ASTP 220311 Page 8 of 19
Page 9
Table 3 Development’s historic and proposed Lot layout (Source: ADAMS + SPARKES Town Planning 2022)
Lot 1 (SP215946) Lot 2 (SP215946) Group Titles Plan (0 on
GTP345)
Existing Lot Area 290m² 238m² 354m²
Proposed Lot Area 405m² 473m² 5m²
Lot 1
Lot 1
Lot 2
GTP
Lot 1
GTP
Existing Lot Layout Approved Lot Layout
Figure 8 Depiction of Existing and Proposed Lot Layout (Source QLD Globe 2022 and Skyline Surveyors 2022)
ASTP 220311 Page 9 of 19
Page 10
4 Statutory Considerations
19. Table 3 below outlines the applicable State matters, which require consideration as part of this Town
Planning Report. As such, Table 3 identifies whether the application requires referral to any Referral, or,
Advice Agencies as part of the application.
Table 4 Statutory Framework Mapping Layers
State Planning Policy Natural Hazards Risk and Resilience
Benchmark Mapping o Flood hazard area - Local Government flood mapping area
o Bushfire prone area
Strategic Airports and Aviation Facilities
Regional Plan South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 – Urban Footprint
SARA DA Mapping Water Resources
o Water Resource Planning Area Boundaries
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
o Water Resource Planning Area Boundaries
Non-SARA DA Mapping Nil
Referrals State Assessment and Referral Agency
4.1 South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017
20. The South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 (hereafter; SEQRP) is the principal planning document for
managing growth and development within the South East Queensland region. The subject site is located
within the Urban Footprint of the SEQRP.
4.2 State Interests (State Assessment Referral Agency)
21. In accordance with Schedule 10 of the Planning Regulation 2017, the application requires referral to SARA
as a result of ‘Areas with substantial potential for UXO’.
ASTP 220311 Page 10 of 19
Page 11
5 Assessment Under the Noosa Plan 2020
22. As identified above, this application contains two (2) elements to the proposal, which are as follows:
• Other Change to Development Permit 04/4029 – Extension to Existing Duplex Dwelling
• Reconfiguring a Lot (Boundary Realignment)
23. These matters will be separately addressed within Sections 8.1 and 8.2 below.
5.1 Other Change to Development Permit 04/4029 – Extension to Existing Duplex Dwelling
24. Section 82(2) of the Planning Act 2016 sets the parameters for Council when assessing and deciding change
applications. It is noted that Council are to assess the change as if:
‘the change application were the original development application, with the changes included,
but was made when the change application was made;’
23. The Act proceeds to state under that:
`To remove any doubt it is declared that the following matters apply, only to the extent the
matters are relevant to assessing and deciding the change application in the context of the
development approval’
25. In accordance with the Planning Bill 2015 Explanatory Notes, the phrase ‘in the context of the development
approval’ is to be interpreted that the proposed change should not be considered in isolation. Neither
however is the entirety of the development including the change re-assessed. Instead, it is intended the
change be assessed with reference to the context of the development approval already existing for the
development.
26. With recognition to the above, the proposed Change to Development Permit 04/4029 is to be assessed
against the following Assessment Benchmarks of the Noosa Plan 2020:
• Applicable Local Plan Code
• Medium Density Residential Zone Code
• Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code
• Works codes
27. Due to this application seeking a Change to an existing Development Approval, only the Assessment
Benchmarks made relevant by the proposed Changes have been assessed below. As such, where the below
sections are silent in relation to an assessable element, the Changed development is either seen to comply
with that relevant assessment criteria, or that component has been given approval by Council under of the
original Development Approval, and no further justification is required.
5.1.1 Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code
28. The proposed changes to Development Permit 04/4029 as demonstrated in the Proposal Plans (Appendix
2) complies with all the relevant Assessment Benchmarks of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling
Code on the basis that the development:
• Is located on urban land that is well serviced by sufficient urban facilities and therefore is suitable
for residential development – PO1 & PO2;
• Does not impact existing nor future infrastructure – PO3;
• Does not occur on battle-axe, rear lot on a site within excess of 10.5 metres – AO4;
ASTP 220311 Page 11 of 19
Page 12
• Contains bedroom windows that are positioned away from communal and mechanical space –
AO5;
• Is not a mixed-use development – AO6;
• Provides the opportunity for natural casual surveillance to occur without impacting the privacy
of surrounding residents – AO7;
• Utilises entrances that maintain sight lines and resident safety as well as safe accessibility for
visitors – AO8;
• Delivers a landscape to in excess of 40% of the site with a sufficient degree of soft landscaping –
AO10;
• Contains greater than 25m² of Private Open Space that is directly accessible from living spaces
and does not exceed a gradient of 10% - AO11;
• Does not gain access from a road with a speed of 80kph or more – AO12; and,
• Contains a compliant access and car parking outcome – AO13.
5.1.2 Medium Density Residential Zone Code
29. As stated above, Council approved the extension of the Unit 1 of the development on the subject site, with
the extensions being consistent with the applicable assessment benchmarks. It is noted that the proposed
Change does not seek to alter the approved land use or introduce any new uses onsite.
30. It is noted that the revised development layout has resulted in non-compliances with AO11, AO12.1(a),
AO12.1(b), AO12.2, AO17.1 & AO17.2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code. These assessment
benchmarks have been discussed in the following sections.
5.1.2.1 Acceptable Outcome AO11 – Plot Ratio
31. Acceptable Outcome AO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code delineates that a development
does not exceed a plot ratio of 0.4:1, the development marginally exceeds this benchmark in proposing a
plot ratio of 0.43:1. Under the 2004 approval the development was assessed against the superseded Noosa
Plan, this plan prescribed a maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1 and thus provided the approved Unit 1 extensions
a greater degree of built form. It is deemed that weight be given to this approval in order to allow the
development of Unit 2 to deliver a consistent quantity of built form and scale to that allowed to Unit 1.
With the contextual understanding that these changes are marginally non-compliant against the current
Planning Scheme and thus would not be generally identifiable as an unacceptable scale nor bulk. Thus the
proposal aligns with the expectations of community it should be deemed that the proposed Plot ratio is
compliant with the previous approval and the overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential Zone
Code.
5.1.2.2 Acceptable Outcome AO12.1(a) – Front Setback
32. The development proposes a front setback to Avocet Parade and Martin Street of between 4.5 metres and
5 metres (demonstrated in Figure 10), which does not satisfy Council’s preferred outcome of 6 metres of
setback from front boundary as prescribed by AO12.1(a).
33. It is important to note the proposed change results in increased front boundary setbacks to that of the
existing dwelling (refer to Figure 9), thus providing a more compliant outcome to what is currently
presented by the site. Although not compliant against AO12.1(a) the proposal complies with Performance
Outcome PO12, as the dwelling:
a) Provides a sufficient setback such that the unit generally appears as ‘positioned off the site
boundary’ and as such effectively minimizes any appearance of bulk in what is an articulated
and highly finished façade, providing both a visual aesthetic benefit to the locality. While in
ASTP 220311 Page 12 of 19
Page 13
doing so the ‘non-compliant’ setback is positioned facing the road reserve and thus does not
adversely affect the privacy amenity of neighboring residents.
b) Facing the Avocet Road reserve the minor non-compliance in no way obstructs views or cause
overlooking of private premises.
c) The setback is such that the dwelling provides an adequate clearance from the public road
reserve such that amenity is in no way impacted adversely.
34. In providing a greater degree of setback compliance to that currently on the site along with delivering no
adverse impacts the proposal is compliant against Performance Outcome PO12.
Figure 9 Approved extent of front setback non-compliances (DCM Building Design 2022)
Non-compliant setbacks
Figure 10 Proposed extent of front setback non-compliances (DCM Building Design 2022)
ASTP 220311 Page 13 of 19
Page 14
5.1.2.3 Acceptable Outcome AO12.1(b) – Side Setback
35. The proposal delivers a built to boundary garage on the site’s northern side boundary, Acceptable Outcome
AO12.1(b) dictates this to be a non-compliant outcome in not delivering a 1.5 metre side setback, see
Figure 11. Notably this outcome is an alternate provision to the QDC MP1.3 that allows the utilisation of
built to boundary where the structure is a garage, understanding that the provided outcome is compliant
against the QDC the changes deliver compliance against the Medium Density Residential Zone Code and
Performance Outcome PO12.
36. The garage is provided as a key part of the proposed additions to the development in allowing for Unit 2 to
deliver two car covered parking spaces that are accessed via a dedicated driveway, along with buffering
the site’s POS and in doing so significantly increasing the level of amenity for users. The garage itself is
delivered without windows so as not deliver opportunities for privacy impacts, particularly with the upper
floor balcony delivering a 1.5m vegetation buffer, thus not allowing for an impactful degree of overlook. Is
of an increased bulk and scale, as consistent with the medium density residential zone and the large
dwellings and buildings that surround the property, noting that the development is articulated for visual
amenity such that setback non-compliance does not deliver an inconsistent visual aesthetic (Figure 12).
37. With providing a greater degree of on site amenity for Unit 2 along with delivering no inconsistent amenity
impacts upon adjoining properties the proposal is compliant against Performance Outcome PO12.
Figure 11 Proposed side setback non-compliance (DCM Building Design 2022)
Figure 12 Streetscape façade with BTB Garages (DCM Building Design 2022)
ASTP 220311 Page 14 of 19
Page 15
5.1.2.4 Acceptable Outcome AO12.2– Pool located within 2 metres of front Boundary
38. In proposing an in-ground pool within 1 metre of the front boundary the development changes are non-
compliant against Acceptable Outcome AO12.2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, this specifies
that pools should be setback a minimum of 2 metres from front boundaries, extent of non-compliance is
demonstrated in Figure 13.
Non-compliant part
Figure 13 Proposed pool within 2m of frontage (DCM Building Design 2022)
39. The pool has been delivered within the most suitable position on the site, within Unit 2’s extensive front
private open space where the greatest degree of recreational amenity can be provided to residents. With
the understanding that the space could be delivered solely covered by grass, which would be compliant
and offers a lesser degree of amenity and with no identifiable benefit in regard to the privacy of adjoining
users, attractiveness nor consistency of façade, protection of landscape elements nor would reduce impact
of road reserve users. It is for the fact that on merit the pool delivers a consistent outcome with that of a
compliant grassed outcome that the development should be deemed compliant against Performance
Outcome PO12.
5.1.2.5 Acceptable Outcome AO17.1 & AO17.2 – Front Fence
40. The proposal is to deliver a 1.8m (batten and solid) front fence that is to be built to boundary, in being 1.8m
and solid a large section of Unit 2’s proposed front wall is non-compliant against AO17.2, further the
entirety of Unit 2’s frontage is non-compliant in being positioned on the boundary. It is important to note
that the fence is required to ensure a suitable level of privacy for users of the pool space, which is deemed
a privacy sensitive space. The 1.8 metre high fence comprises of a 1.2 metres solid wall with semi-
transparent ornate brickwork to a 1.8 metre height (See Figure 13).
ASTP 220311 Page 15 of 19
Page 16
Figure 14 Extent of solid front fence (DCM Building Design 2022)
41. The frontage wall does however gain compliance with the Code in providing the desired Performance
Outcome PO17, as a result of the following:
• The front wall is delivered in two distinct forms, as a battened timber fence and block work
wall, delivering a significant level of visually interest as well as further articulating the wall
with of ornate feature blocks as depicted in Figure 14. In doing so the proposal contributes to
the visual attractiveness of the Martin and Avocet streetscape.
• The proposed boundary fence/wall is to be delivered as a high-quality design piece to reflect
the dwelling’s location within a highly desired locality surrounded by architecturally
significant homes. Further the use of a non-landscaped boundary fence has been established
as a consistent streetscape outcome as shown in Figure 15, as such it is deemed that this part
contributes to the existing character of Peregian Beach.
• Will not result in an adverse stormwater outcome and is deemed to neither significantly alter
nor interfere with the established overland flow of stormwater.
• The front boundary fence allows casual surveillance, designed with transparent upper section
of brickwork wall to maintain an acceptable level of casual surveillance to both the Avocet
and Martin streetscape.
• Delivers a consistent built to boundary and landscaping front fence outcome that is in
maintaining with an established streetscape character style of both Martin Street and Avocet
Parade.
• Does in no way effect the usability or accessibility of either road reserve the subject site fronts.
ASTP 220311 Page 16 of 19
Page 17
84 Avocet Parade 5 Martin Street
40 Avocet Parade 29 Avocet Parade
Figure 14 Examples of established frontage character within proximity of site (DCM Building Design 2022)
5.1.3 Overlay Codes
42. The Noosa Plan 2020 includes a number of Overlays, which recognize features and constraints within the
Sunshine Coast Region. The Overlays which impact upon this development are detailed below:
• Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay
• Bushfire Hazard Overlay
• Landslide Hazard Overlay
43. The proposed changes to not result in any further conflict with the above-mentioned Overlay Codes, due
to the revised layout remaining predominately within the approved development footprint.
5.2 Reconfigure a Lot
44. The proposed boundary realignment with all the relevant Assessment Benchmarks of the Reconfiguring a
Lot Code on the following basis, noting that the directly applicable ‘Rearrangement of Lot Boundaries’
sections have been assessed individually within a code assessment format (Appendix 4).
• Provides urban residential lots that can accommodate development that aids the variety of
housing choice, contributes to efficient land use and infrastructure, maintains the residential
density of the site – PO1;
• Is not within the Rural Residential Zone – PO2;
• Is not within an activity centre nor industrial zone – PO3;
• Does not create a new lot nor an irregular shaped lot – PO5 & PO6;
• The development provides a consistent design that maintains an acceptable level of site
responsiveness to natural environment/land impacts and valued assets – PO7 & PO8;
ASTP 220311 Page 17 of 19
Page 18
• Provides amenity to the development (associated MCU Change) that will positively benefit the
design and amenity of the neighborhood design – PO9;
• The proposed realignment maintains the acceptable level of infrastructure delivery for a dual
occupancy use – PO10;
• Does not create new lots – PO11-PO19;
• Delivers dual occupancy lots that are more consistent with the desired minimum lot sizes of small
lots, maintain compliance in being a greater lot size outcome – PO20; and,
• Not an applicable application for assessment against – PO21-PO25.
45. Assessment against the ‘Rearrangement of Lot Boundaries’ Criteria for assessable development has been
provided within Appendix 4, demonstrating the proposal’s compliance with the Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
ASTP 220311 Page 18 of 19
Page 19
6 Conclusion and Recommendations
46. This Town Planning Report demonstrates that the request for an ‘Other Change’ to the existing
Development Permit for Extensions to Existing Duplex Dwelling (04/0429) and supporting Reconfiguring a
Lot (Boundary Realignment) is a positive outcome and is warranted.
The proposed development achieves compliance with the Assessment Benchmarks of the
Noosa Plan 2020;
The proposed Change maintains the approximate siting and position that the approved
development is appropriately located within the Medium Density Residential Zone and
will not impact upon the amenity and function of surrounding residential premises;
The revised Reconfigure of Lot proposed provides a significantly improved outcome, when
compared to the approved development, in terms of GFA equability, amenity provision,
streetscape outcome and the overall functionality of the premises; and,
The development continues to provide a positive outcome overall for Noosa Region and
Peregian Beach Locality.
47. On the basis of the assessment contained within this report, it is requested that Council favorably consider
this request for an ‘Other Change’ to 04/0429 and associated ‘Reconfigure a Lot’ (3 into 3).
ADAMS + SPARKES
TOWN PLANNING
Michael Lyell Pete Sparkes
SENIOR TOWN PLANNER DIRECTOR
ASTP 220311 Page 19 of 19