132006.1395.04 - Extension To Relevant Period For Development Permit For Material Change Of Use - Multiple Dwelling (10 Units) At 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

132006.1395.04 – EXTENSION TO RELEVANT PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – MULTIPLE DWELLING (10 UNITS) AT 142 NOOSA DRIVE, NOOSA HEADS

Document information

Author	Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment & Sustainable Development Department

Index	ECM/ Application/ 132006.1395.04

Attachments	1.	Approved Plan

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	RACV
Proposal	Extension to Relevant Period
Properly Made Date	22 December 2015
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads
RP Description	Lot 3 SP 126203
Land Area	5453m²
Existing Use of Land	Undeveloped land
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Noosa Heads
Zone	Semi-Attached Housing Open Space Conservation
Overlays	Biodiversity Overlay: Riparian Buffer and Environment Protection Area Natural Hazard Overlay: Flood Hazard Overlay, Bushfire and Acid Sulphate Soils

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 July 2018 and refuse Application No. 132006.1395.04 for an Extension to the Relevant Period for Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Multiple Dwellings (10 units), situated at 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads for the following reasons:
The development is not consistent with the Noosa Plan 2006 as the proposal exceeds the maximum gross floor area permitted for the site and the proposal does not adequately respond to the site’s environmental values.
Significant time has lapsed since the ecological assessment reports were originally submitted and the information in these reports is now outdated. Updated ecological reports have not been submitted.  Review of the original ecological report also finds the report is deficient as it does not satisfactorily address known koala movement through the site.
Significant time has lapsed since the water quality assessment reports were originally submitted and the proposed stormwater drainage solutions are not compliant with the current Sate Planning Policy for Stormwater.
Different bushfire hazard mapping to that used for the initial approval applies as the State Planning Provisions came into effect after the original approval and result in a higher hazard rating. The higher hazard rating may require changes to setback/buffer areas and an amended layout. An updated bushfire management plan has not been submitted to enable an assessment of the current bushfire hazard.
The approval is contrary to the Planning Regulation 2017’s assessment benchmarks for development in koala habitat area as the development has not satisfactorily considered safe koala movement measures and habitat connectivity values.
The community is unlikely to be aware of the proposal given the significant time that has lapsed and no works have commenced on site.
If this request was refused and a further development application was lodged it is likely that submissions would be received raising valid grounds of objection to the proposed development’s non-compliance with The Noosa Plan given the site’s significant location and environmental values.

REPORT
PROPOSAL
The application seeks to extend the relevant period of a Development Permit for Multiple Dwellings (10 units) by 2 years.
site details
Background
The original application was received by Council on 7 July 2006 requesting that Council assess the application against the Superseded Planning Scheme. Council agreed to this request as it was considered to be largely consistent with The Noosa Plan 2006 at the time. The application was publicly advertised in August & September 2007 and no submissions were received during the advertising period.
A Preliminary Approval for a Material Change of Use Multiple Dwellings (10 Units) was approved on 24 January 2008. The preliminary approval was issued for the subject site as the applicant had not submitted a Bushfire Risk Assessment or a Bushfire Management Plan for the development. A Development Permit was not issued as a Bushfire Management Plan may have required changes to the proposed development layout due to fire buffers.
A Negotiated Decision Notice was issued on 15 May 2008 which maintained the Preliminary Approval.
A minor change application was approved on 14 July 2008 which:
Changed conditions relating to land identified as Open Space
Deleted the requirement for a further Development Permit for Material Change of Use as a Bushfire Management Plan was provided; and
In December 2011 an application was received to extend the relevant period of the application by a further 4 years until 16 May 2016. On 5 April 2012 Council refused the application as it considered that the community would not be appropriately aware of the development. It was also thought that submissions may arise from the adjoining development to the north in the event that a further development application was. Council staff considered a 2 year extension would be reasonable however, the applicant would not accept this timeframe.
The applicant appealed Council’s decision in the Planning and Environment Court. On 5 July 2013 the Sunshine Coast Council settled the appeal and agreed to extend the relevant period until 15 May 2016.
The following image details the approved layout:

Figure 1: Approved development layout
The application has been with Council for a considerable period of time. The reason for the extended assessment period is that the applicant was requested to respond to the relevant State matters regarding stormwater, koala habitat and the site being within a Coastal Management District. No response was received from the applicant and an officer assessment has not been able to be undertaken until recently.
site details
Site Description
The site is generally triangular in shape, comprises 5453m2 and has frontage to Noosa Drive. The western boundary of the site is adjacent to Weyba Creek. The land located to the north of the subject site is developed with 149 multiple dwelling units and resort facilities.
The site has a north-westerly aspect, with a gradual slope towards the west, adjacent to Weyba Creek. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries identifies Weyba Creek as a ‘Fish Habitat Area’.
At the time of the application for the previous extension to the relevant period, the site was vegetated and the vegetation mapped as remnant vegetation “not of concern” under the State’s Regional Ecosystem mapping.  This is reflected in the current mapping which maps the vegetation as Category B and designates the vegetation as “Least Concern” remnant vegetation which has an equivalent status.
At the time the application was made the site was identified as including “essential habitat” by the State Regional Ecosystem mapping as it contains species that are endangered, vulnerable, threatened or rare (the Nature Conservation Act 1992) known to utilise this habitat. The site is still mapped similarly, with the site containing suitable habitat for acid frogs.
The following image provides a locality plan:

Figure 2: Locality Plan
The site contains split zoning. The Semi-Attached Housing Zone applies to approximately 3817m2 of the site, which represents 70% of the total site area. The remaining 30% of site is zoned Open Space Conservation. This area is primarily situated directly adjacent to the Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
The following image details the split zoning applicable to the site.

Figure 3: Zoning Plan
Surrounding Land Uses
North: RACV Resort which is accessed via an easement through the subject site and Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve.
South: Road reserve and Noosa Drive
East: Road reserve and Noosa Drive with developed Detached Housing Zone land beyond.
West: Weyba Creek Bushland Reserve
assessment
In accordance with Section 388 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, in deciding a request to extend the relevant period, the assessment manager must only have regard to:
(a)	the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with current laws and policies applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure contributions, or infrastructure charges payable under an infrastructure charges schedule;
(b)	the community’s current awareness of the development approval; and
(c)	whether, if the request were refused:
(i)	further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development application; and
(ii)	the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised; and
(d)	the views of any concurrence agency for the approval
The following is an assessment of the proposal against each of the above criteria:
(a)	the consistency of the approval, including its conditions, with current laws and policies applying to the development, including, for example, the amount and type of infrastructure contributions, or infrastructure charges payable under an infrastructure charges schedule;
The applicant’s response to this criterion includes:
“The current development approval was assessed and granted under the superseded planning scheme prior to the current Noosa Plan. The proposal was reviewed against the 2006 Noosa Plan provisions under the previous application for extension of the relevant period, wherein it was determined that the core values of the site including environmental and density provisions were met. A comparison of the proposal against the current planning scheme is detailed below:

As indicated above the proposal generally complies with the current provisions of the Noosa Plan apart from gross floor area. It is noted that the existing approval is for 10 units which is actually less than the 12 units that could be developed on site. The slight increase in gross floor area is considered to meet the Specific Outcome which indicates development:
a)	results in a building scale that is compatible with surrounding development;
b)	does not present an appearance of excessive bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site;
c)	maximises the retention of existing vegetation and allows for soft landscaping between buildings;
d)	allows for adequate area at ground level for outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes drying and other site facilities; and
e)	facilitates onsite stormwater management and vehicular access.
The overall design of the development is consistent with the desired built form for the area with small buildings scattered across the site. The approval also provides for dedication of land at the rear of the site which is to the community’s benefit.
With regard to infrastructure charges it is noted that as part of Appeal 96/2012 in relation to the extension of the relevant period, that infrastructure contributions for the ‘missing’ networks of stormwater were imposed.”
Assessment
South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 – 2031 (SEQRP)
In accordance with the South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP) the subject site is identified as being within the Urban Footprint.
The SEQRP recognises that….
The Urban Footprint identifies land that can meet the region’s urban development needs to 2031 in a more compact form….
The Urban Footprint does not imply that all included land can be developed for urban purposes. For example, national parks and state forests will continue to be protected and managed under state legislation such as the Nature Conservation Act 1994 and the Forestry Act 1959, and remnant vegetation will continue to be protected under the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
Land in the Urban Footprint may be unsuitable for urban development for other reasons, including constraints such as flooding, land slope, scenic amenity, and the need to protect significant biodiversity values.
The proposed development provides for urban development which is consistent with the intent of SEQRP. However, the site contains significant environmental values. The site is currently vegetated and the development will result in significant vegetation removal. Up to date reports assessing flora and fauna have not been submitted with the current application. There is justified concern that the application will impact on significant vegetation and fauna habitat which form important parts of the Noosa biodiversity network. The ecological issues are discussed in more detail later in this report.
The impact of the development on koala habitat was assessed as part of the initial application in accordance with the requirements of the Nature Conservation: Koala Conservation and Management Plan 2006-2016 (the Management Plan). Accordingly, conditions were included relating to koala friendly fencing, rehabilitation of areas with koala habitat trees, the presence of a spotter and sequential clearing.  These conditions were included to ensure that the development complied with the requirements of the Management Plan.
The South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Planning Provisions (Koala SPRP) (November 2015) applied to the site at the time the extension to the relevant period was lodged with Council. Accordingly, Division 7 applies which requires assessment of an application in a Koala Assessable Development Area in which a total cleared area or development footprint will exceed 500m2.
The main two assessment criteria under Koala SPRP relate to the provision of offsets where clearing mapped koala bushland habitat. To the extent the premises is inside the Urban Footprint, site design must avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of bushland habitat, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and significant residual impacts counterbalanced under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. Site design must also avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of high value rehabilitation habitat, and medium value rehabilitation habitat, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and significant residual impacts counterbalanced under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. The regulated mapping obtained in February 2016 shows the site within an urban area and within the Koala Assessable Development Area, however the site is not mapped as bushland or rehabilitation habitat and, as such, no offsets were applicable under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Other assessment criteria under the Koala SPRP include that the site design provide safe koala movement opportunities as appropriate to the development type and habitat connectivity values of the site. The SPRP also requires native vegetation clearing undertaken in a sequential manner and under the guidance of a koala spotter where the native vegetation is a non-juvenile koala habitat tree and landscaping activities provide food, shelter and movement opportunities for koalas consistent with the site design.
As the originating application material did not consider the koala habitat values of the site as important, it is unlikely the requirements for site design and connectivity for koalas have been considered in the design and would not be able to meet the criteria.
The site is currently mapped as a Koala Assessable Development Area and whilst offsets are not applicable, the application requires assessment under the current requirements of the Planning Regulation 2017. The applicant has not provided an assessment against the current requirements.
Furthermore, due to the amount of time which has lapsed since the original application was made, the ecological reports which formed the basis of the original assessment are now out of date.
Council’s Environment Officer advises that new ecological reports are likely to require amendment to the layout of the development to address significant vegetation, koala habitat, acid frog habitat and revisions in the assessment of skink habitat importance.
The Noosa Plan (2006)
Under the Noosa Plan the land is zoned Semi-Attached Housing and Open Space Conservation.
A new application for Multiple Housing Type 4 would be an Impact Assessable application and would involve assessment against the whole of the planning scheme.
A condition of the development approval requires that part of the site, being land designated at the time in the Strategic Plan as Open Space – Waterway and Conservation Protection, be dedicated to the Crown. The effect of this condition is that the development is limited to that part of the site which is now identified as Semi-Attached Housing. The Noosa Plan’s zoning is generally reflective of the 1997 Strategic Plan’s designations for the site.
Development of multiple dwelling units is consistent with how the Noosa Plan envisages the Semi-Attached Zoned land will be developed. The land use is identified as a consistent use within the Semi-Attached Housing Zone for the site.
The proposed development also remains generally consistent with the design parameters for the Semi-Attached Housing Zone apart from the maximum gross floor area (GFA). The Noosa Plan allows a GFA based on the maximum population density x 40m2, which would allow 1621.6m2. The approved maximum GFA of 1896m2 therefore does not comply.
The development is also not consistent with the overall and specific outcomes of the Noosa Plan for the natural environment.
Whilst there was similarity in the environmental provisions of the superseded planning scheme and the Noosa Plan the assessment of the environmental issues is considered outdated and deficient. This is due to the applicant’s environmental report which Council’s Environment Officer advises lacks suitable detail and currency to enable a properly informed assessment. The original ecological report advises the site utilisation by koalas is very low or nil, which is contrary to contemporary knowledge of the site and locality.
Council’s Environment Officer advises that the site contains significant vegetation and that koalas use the site as part of a corridor between the Noosa National Park and vegetation stands around Lake Weyba.
The vegetation protected as part of the original application was primarily at the rear of the site. The retention of a koala corridor may require additional vegetation within the site to be retained following a detailed investigation of the koala usage. The retention of this vegetation would have an impact on where development could occur and would impact on the layout of the development.
Furthermore, existing conditions of the approval requiring the retention of vegetation within the development are unlikely to result in the retention of koala habitat as construction works would impact on the capacity for trees to be retained. If these trees were to be retained it is likely that they would result in safety concerns due to their proximity to the dwellings and their removal would be inevitable.
Accordingly, it is considered that the application does not satisfactorily address the range of contemporary environmental issues which are relevant to the site.
Bushfire
The current State Planning Provisions came into effect after the original approval. The current bushfire hazard mapping assesses bushfire hazard differently to the previous bushfire mapping used in the original assessment. When assessing the original application, the hazard assessment concluded that the site had a low hazard status and that there was no need for any bushfire actions to make the site safe. The current mapping system identifies that part of the footprint of the approved development is mapped as having high potential bushfire intensity.
As a result of the changes to the bushfire mapping an updated bushfire management plan should be provided. An amended bushfire management plan has not been submitted with this application. The changed mapping may result in amended setback/buffer areas and impact on the approved layout.
Stormwater
The original approval included conditions relating to Stormwater.
Council’s Environment Officer (Water) advises that the stormwater conditions are not suitable as they do not ensure compliance with the current State Planning Policy for Stormwater Quality.
The conditions require storm water drainage to be constructed in accordance with a Stormwater Quality Management and Assessment Report which was prepared in June 2007.
Council’s Environment Officer (Water) advises that the report is based on older policies requiring mean annual pollutant concentrations to be met – and does not demonstrate that the current State Planning Policy water quality objectives of 80% reduction in TSS, 60% reduction in TP and 45% reduction in TN are met.
The report relies heavily on treatment achieved through rainwater tanks and Gross Pollutant Traps and does not demonstrate that any footprint is provided for water quality treatment infrastructure.
….. it has been found that Gross Pollutant Traps actually generate nutrients if not maintained so are no longer supported and also Rain Water Tanks are also no longer required under the QDC.
For this reason, the applicant would need to supply an Updated Stormwater Management Plan demonstrating that the objectives of the current State Planning Policy (SPP) can be met and also that there is sufficient footprint as well as elevation available on site to include any necessary stormwater quality treatment devices to achieve compliance with the SPP.
Council’s Environment Officer also notes that a number of conditions relating to stormwater drainage and sediment control are outdated. In order to meet the current requirement for all runoff to flow over natural filtration prior to exiting the site, amendment to the layout will be required.
Infrastructure Charges
The current development approval contributions and Infrastructure Charges were issued under the repealed Planning Scheme Policy’s (PSP) and Coastal Major Road Network Infrastructure Charges Plan (CMRNICP) that have since been superseded and replaced by the current adopted charges. The first extension included an additional condition under the Court order for the then missing stormwater network.
An extension to the relevant period would trigger any additional Infrastructure Charge Notice (ICN) for the remaining missing Public Transport Network.
(b) 	the community’s current awareness of the development approval;
The applicant’s response to this criterion includes:
The Sustainable Planning Act details that the community’s awareness of the proposal is to be considered in determining a request to extend the relevant period. The subject site was advertised for sale in May 2015 with real estate sign boards clearly detailing the existing approval relevant for the site. The approval over the site was also detailed in the media advertising campaign associated with the site including advertisements in the local newspaper the Noosa News.
The current owner purchased the site on 27th June 2015 after which the real estate sign board was removed. The provision of this sign board on the site, as well as the existing access driveway to the site from the RACV lot highlighted to the community that a development was approved for the subject site.
Assessment
Considerable time has lapsed since the original notification in 2007, which has provided the property owner with substantial opportunity to act. Council originally refused the previous application to extend the relevant period based on this criterion.
Since the development was approved, there have been no related approvals lodged or any works carried out onsite that would draw public attention to the development. It is likely that many current members of the community would not be aware of the development approval.
Since the development approval was issued in 2008 the property owner could have undertaken a range of activities to progress the development approval. These activities include:
Lodgement of an Operational works application for Operational Works for Frontage Works, Stormwater and Drainage, Sewer Reticulation, Water Reticulation etc;
Lodgement of amended plans with Council to satisfy the requirements of the Decision Notice; and
Dedication of required land to the Crown;
The property owner has not undertaken any of these steps to progress the development.
(c)	whether, if the request were refused:
(i)	further rights to make a submission may be available for a further development application; and
(ii)	the likely extent to which those rights may be exercised;
Assessment
A new application for multiple dwellings would require impact assessment and include notification providing further rights for submissions to be made. The community maintains considerable interest in ecological values and the potential for development to impact those values. In this instance the site is situated along an important gateway to Noosa Heads and is likely to attract community interest. As development would impact on the sites ecological values it is highly likely that submissions would be received raising valid grounds of objection.
(d)	the views of any concurrence agency for the approval
Assessment
The original application was not required to be referred to any Concurrence agency. The changes in the planning instruments do not trigger the requirement for Concurrence agency referral.
conclusion
The application for an extension to the relevant period for 132006.1395.04 relating to Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Multiple Dwelling (10 units) at 142 Noosa Drive Noosa Heads is recommended for refusal. The site contains significant ecological values and the application has not demonstrated consistency with the environmental objectives within the Planning Regulation 2017 and the Noosa Plan 2006. The original ecological, bushfire and stormwater reports are all outdated and considered deficient. Compliance today with these matters would likely result in significant changes to the approved development layout. Furthermore, the community is unlikely to be aware of the proposal given the significant time that has lapsed and no works have commenced on site.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
	Chief Executive Officer		Community Services		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer		Community Development		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Facilities		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Services	x	Environment & Sustainable Development		Infrastructure Services
	Community Engagement		Building & Plumbing Services		Asset Management
	Customer Service	x	Development Assessment		Buildings and Facilities
	Governance		Economic Development		Civil Operations
	People and Culture	x	Environmental Services		Disaster Management
			Strategic Land Use Planning		Infrastructure Planning, Design and Delivery
					

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 11 of 11

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	10 JULY 2018

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
    
      
 

NOOSA SANCTUARY

SK. PARK
30 Metre ———"».

» DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS
4 4 ‘ Max Population 33 persons
a . Max Gross Floor Area 1896 sqm
NT PROPOSAL NF
) Metre 4

: on
Buffer .

~ mamwimas

Min Landscape Open Space 1320 sqm
Max Building Height 2 storeys/8m


[Attachment: image3.png (image text)]
Subject site

 


[Attachment: image4.png (image text)]
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006 Noosa Plan Proposal Complies
Population density - 100persons/ha = 40.54persons 33 persons v
Semi Attached Housing zone area of 3818.5m2 plus road area of
236m2 (based on original deed between Council to include area of
road transferred to Council in calculations)Total 4054.5m2 = 40.54
persons
Gross Floor Area — 40.54 persons x 40m2 = 1621.6m2 1896m' x
Site cover - 40% complies v
Landscaping - 1m’ 1320m v
60% soft landscaping complies v
Roof form - 5 degree minimum pitch Complies v
and 600 mm eaves
Conditions included in approval
Eaves provided for 75% perimeter of building Complies v
Conditions on approval
Boundary setbacks
+ Frontage -6.0m + Frontage - 6.0m v
+ Side - half building height * complies v
+ Side — half building height * complies v
+ Rear—6.0m + Rear— complies v
Conditions included in approval
Building Height
+ in storeys - 2 storeys max + in storeys - 2 storeys v
+ in metres - 8 metres max + in metres - 8.0 metres max v
Length of wall
+ 15 metres with one design element + complies v
+ variation in roof forms + variation in roof forms v
+ segmented balconies + segmented balconies v
+ no more than 4 attached dwelling units * complies v
v

 

 

Carparking - 1 covered space per dwelling unit and 1 space for
visitor parking

 

20 covered spaces
4 uncovered