2021-09-07 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   7 SEPTEMBER 2021


While the Noosa Plan 2006 definition suggests a maximum of 150m2 is permitted for an ancillary
dwelling unit and the Noosa Plan 2020 identifies that a caretaker’s residence in excess of 65m 2 is
an impact inconsistent use for the zone, both scheme’s similarly require that the caretaker’s
residence must be subordinate to the wellbeing type 2/office use on the site and have a genuine role
in caretaking the use. The plans indicate the caretaker’s residence is a similar size to the office area
below and it would need to be demonstrated under both schemes that the predominant and primary
use of the site is the proposed wellbeing type 2/office.
Notably there may also be some grounds for a larger caretaker’s residence on the site than the 65m2
contemplated by the Noosa Plan 2020, reflective of the residential opposite but this would need to
be determined as part of a future application.
In terms of the applicant’s submission that the Noosa Plan 2020 requirements for car parking location
have reduced the overall potential site cover and building footprint area as the Noosa Plan 2020
specifically states that car parking must be mostly at the rear of or under buildings, The Noosa Plan
2006 includes numerous provisions that would require a similar outcome including that:
     The scale and form of buildings is in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and landscape
      qualities.
     Buildings and other structures are appropriately designed and sited to maintain the visual
      continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape elements.
     Parking areas are located where they will not unduly conflict with pedestrians and will not
      dominate the streetscape.
There is a clear pattern of buildings and landscaped setbacks along this section of Woodland Drive
which the applicant’s proposed layout is not consistent with and compliant with the Noosa Plan 2006.
3.3    Potential for Compensation
Under the Planning Act 2016 a person who was the owner of the premise when The Noosa Plan
2020 commenced (referred to in the Act as an affected owner), may make a claim for compensation
where:
     the planning scheme change reduces the value of an interest in premises (referred to in the
      Act as an adverse planning change);
     The request to apply the superseded planning scheme is refused;
     Where the development is assessable under the Superseded Planning Scheme, the
      application is made and refused, approved with conditions or approved in part or
     Where the adverse change is a public purpose change.
However, pursuant to s30(4) of the Act an adverse planning change does not include a planning
change that:
(a)   has the same effect as another statutory instrument, other than a TLPI, for which compensation
      is not payable; or
(b)   is made to comply with the regulated requirements; or
(c)   includes infrastructure in a planning scheme, or removes or changes the infrastructure shown
      in a planning scheme, including under a designation; or
(d)   is about matters included in a LGIP; or
(e)   is made—
      (i) to reduce a material risk of serious harm to persons or property on the premises from natural
          events or processes (bush fires, coastal erosion, flooding or landslides, for example); and
      (ii) under a provision of the Minister’s rules that applies specifically to the making of a planning
           change to reduce the risk; or


                                                                                       Page 131 of 143