MCU22/0094 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE AT 28 EENIE CREEK ROAD, NOOSAVILLE · Report

Page 2

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING                                              11 JUNE 2024


  Local Plan Area                  Noosaville Local Plan Area

  Overlays                         Land Subject to Acid Sulfate Soils
                                   Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands
                                   Bushfire Hazard

  Assessment Type                  Impact

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an assessment of an application to develop a childcare centre for up to 96
children on land fronting Hofmann Drive. The centre will include approximately 17 staff, with parking
proposed on site for 31 cars, including 14 in tandem arrangement.

The site is part of the Noosa Business Centre and was created under a development approval,
approved in 2018, to subdivide the centre’s largest parcel into 23 lots. This subdivision application
was the subject of an appeal and as part of a negotiated outcomes a condition was imposed requiring
10 metres of landscaping to be provided to the frontage of the lots within the business/commercial
lots to Hofmann Drive, including the subject lots. These landscaped garden beds were required to
achieve the parklike setting envisaged for the Noosa Business Centre, continue the existing
streetscape treatment along Hofmann Drive established with stage 1 of the centre’s development
and complement the vegetated covenant areas.

Under The Noosa Plan, the land is zoned Major Centre and is included in the Business Park Precinct
– 5A, with future commercial and employment uses to be in this precinct. The proposed childcare
is not consistent with the requirements for the business park precinct as it will not deliver the uses
sought for the precinct. It is noted that the planning scheme details that such a use is consistent in
the Village Mixed Use zone located directly to the north of the subject site.

The proposal also fails to maintain the required 10m of landscaping conditioned as part of the
negotiated settlement of the subdivision of the site. This is an important element to achieve the
parklike, vegetated setting envisaged for the centre, which is synonymous with the Noosa style. The
development also proposes a bio retention device in the front setback which combined with potential
safety issues will result in minimal landscaping to the southwestern corner of the site and further
reduction of the park like setting.

Whilst the provision of carparking spaces on site is considered appropriate the location of bicycle
parking is inappropriate and impacts on pedestrian movements.

The establishment of the required 10m landscaped garden bed would require a significant change
to the site’s layout and accordingly cannot be appropriately conditioned. It is noted that this
requirement was discussed with the applicant on a number of occasions however the plans were not
altered. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Page 3

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING                                                11 JUNE 2024


RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator, Planning to the Planning & Environment Committee
Meeting dated 11 June 2024 regarding Application No. MCU22/0094 for a Material Change of Use
for a Childcare centre, situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and:

A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:

   1. The proposed development is not consistent with condition no. 53 of Development Permit to
      Reconfigure a Lot (1 lot into 23 lots) RAL18/0023 as the proposal does not include the
      required     10m       wide       landscaped      garden        bed      to     Hofmann
      Drive.
   2. The proposal is not consistent with the Strategic Intent and Strategic Outcomes 3.3.1(o), and
      3.3.5 (s)(i) (D) of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposal fails to incorporate the 10m wide
      landscaping required to Hofmann Drive to achieve the parklike, vegetated setting envisaged
      for      the       centre     which       is      synonymous         with    the      Noosa
      style.

   3. The proposal is not consistent with acceptable and performance outcomes AO5, PO5,
      AO7.4, PO7 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code a:
         a. The development does not retain or propose to enhance the required 10m wide
         landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive which is important to contribute and create the
         character sought for the Noosa Business Centre.
   4. The proposal is not consistent with the overall outcome (3)(f) and (4) acceptable and
      performance outcomes AO32.4, AO32.5, AO32.6, PO32 and PO33 of the Major Centre Zone
      as:
        a. Reducing the width of the landscaped garden beds required to Hofmann Drive,
           particularly where this approach is continued for the remainder of the lots with frontage
           to Hofmann Drive, will compromise and impact the ability to achieve a centre which is
           overall recognisable as having a Noosa style.
        b. The proposal does not retain, incorporate, or enhance the existing vegetation within the
           required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive, which is important to
           enhance the visual amenity and natural landscape character of the Noosa Business
           Centre.
        c. The proposal disrupts the landscaped streetscape treatment required to Hofmann Drive
           intended to enhance the amenity and contribute positively to the centre’s
           character.
        d. The proposed use is an inconsistent use in the Major Centre Zone Code – Business
           Park Precinct will not deliver the commercial and employment uses intended for the
           Precinct such as health and wellbeing, education, research and technology and
           knowledge-based industries.
        e. The bio retention basin at the front of the site is located within the required setback area
            and in front of the proposed carparking area which results in the development being
            more     visible    to  the     road     and       not    located     in   a    park    like
            setting.
   5. The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome 2(a), (d) and performance outcome PO8
      of the Sustainable Building Design Code as the development does not provide a minimum
      floor                   to                   ceiling                    height                  of
      2.7m.

Page 4

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING                                          11 JUNE 2024


   6. The proposed bicycle parking is not consistent with acceptable outcomes AO6.1 of the
      Driveways and Parking Code as they are located in an area that impedes access around the
      site.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
C. Request staff to undertake action to ensure the landscaping across the frontage of the site is
consistent with development approvals RAL18/0023 and OPW20/0145.