Extension to Currency Period Report 132003.221158.5

Author	Development Planner, Will Koschade
Development Assessment

APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No.	132003.221158.5
Development Approval	Material Change of Use for a Non-conforming Dwelling
Applicant	Melda Investments Pty Ltd
Request Received On	17 August 2021
Report Completed Date	26/08/2021

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	33 Douglas St Sunshine Beach Qld 4567
RP Description	Lot 324 RP 48111
Land Area	242m2
Existing Use of Land	Detached Dwelling

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Coastal Communities
Zone	Medium Density
Overlays	Nil
Assessment Type	Extension to Currency Period
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks a four (4) year extension to the currency period to an existing approval for a Material Change of Use for a non-conforming Dwelling and also requests to amend the Decision Notice to correct an error in Condition 1 (incorrect address).
background
On 30 June 2005, Council approved 3 x Material Change of Use applications for a non-conforming dwelling situated at the above address (132003.221158). The approval was issued under a Transitional Planning Scheme prior to the Noosa Plan 2006 takin affect.

On 17 of August 2009 Council decided to extend the relevant period of the approval by a further 4 years, ending on 30 June 2013 (132003.221158.2). The approved was issued under The Noosa Plan 2006. At the time of the assessment, the officer concluded that the approved development demonstrated compliance with the planning scheme at the time.

On 23 August 2013, Council decided to extend the relevant period of the approvals by a further 4 years, ending on 30 June 2017 (132003.221158.3). The approved was issued under The Noosa Plan 2006. This extension was approved on the proviso that the development complies with The Noosa Plan 2006 which follows suit from the previous approval.

On 26 June 2017, Council decided to extend the relevant period of the approvals by a further 4 years, ending on 30 June 2021 (132003.221158.4). The approved was issued under The Noosa Plan 2006. This extension again followed suit from the previous approvals whereby the development was considered to comply with the provisions of The Noosa Plan 2006.

The original application was code assessable and there were no referral agencies involved in the assessment.

Although the application expired on 30 June 2021, the Applicable Event Notice issued by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning which allows an automatic extension of this approval to 30 December 2021. The approval is therefore current and a request to extend the permit can be accepted.

assessment
Extension Request
The applicant has requested an extension to the currency period to the development approval under section 86 of the Planning Act 2016. The original development was approved under a Transitional Planning Scheme prior to The Noosa Plan 2006. The previous approved extensions to the relevant period were all assessed and approved under the superseded Noosa Plan 2006. The 2006 Planning Scheme is now superseded by the new Noosa Plan 2020

Although approved under a superseded planning scheme, the current Noosa Plan 2020 does not introduce new provisions which affect the development or create further non-compliance. An assessment of the two Planning Schemes is provided below:

Criteria	2006 Scheme	2020 Scheme	Proposal
Site cover	40% overall	40% overall	48% (20m2 over)
Landscaped Area	20%	20%	30% (16.5% soft)
Building height storeys metres	2 storeys max 8 metres	2 storeys 8 metres	2 storeys >8 metres
Boundary setbacks Frontage Side (east) Side (west) Rear	6 metres min 1.5/2 metres min 1.5/2 metres min 6 metres min	6 metres min 1.5/2 metres min 1.5/2 metres min 6 metres min	6.2 metres 0.0 metres .2 metres (awning) 1 metre
Carparking	1 covered space	2 covered 1 uncovered	2 covered 1 uncovered
Roof Form	Min 5 degree pitch Eaves to 75%	No requirements	Flat roof

The current Noosa Plan 2020 does not introduce new provisions that impact the development and create additional non-compliance. Nevertheless, the proposed development does not achieve compliance with various provisions of both the superseded and current Planning Schemes and a Performance Based Outcome was required. The areas of non-compliance were previously assessed and discussed under application 132003.221158.2 which found that the proposal is still generally consistent with the requirements of The Noosa Plan 2006 and therefore the applicant’s request for an extension of currency was supported. As discussed above, The Noosa Plan 2020 does not introduce new provisions that create non-compliance.

The officer’s assessment under application 132003.221158.2 is provided below:
“Setbacks
The detached houses do not meet the Probable Solutions of the Code for setback requirements (6 metres to front boundaries, 1.5 metres up to 4.5 metres in height, 2 metres between 4.5 and 7.5 metres and 2.5 metres above 7.5 metres to side boundaries and 6 metres to rear boundaries) as the proposal provides a zero side setback and rear setback of 1 metre.
The Specific Outcomes of the Noosa Plan with respect to setbacks seek to ensure privacy of the site and adjoining sites is preserved, existing vegetation maintained and landscape opportunities afforded between buildings and maintains visual continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape elements in the street.
In terms of meeting the Specific Outcomes of The Noosa Plan with respect to setbacks, the proposal seeks to retain the existing vegetation, which includes mature trees in the road reserve and on the subject site. Council has previously considered that the trees should be removed and replaced with native coastal trees to be planted in the setback areas across the subject sites to provide separation and screening between the buildings and assist in retaining the vegetated character of the area.
In addition, the design of the detached house is such that habitable areas of the detached houses, which encroach with the setback, have solid walls with no openings thus protecting privacy of the residences and their neighbours.  Habitable areas with openings (ie. windows, doors etc) are setback over 2 metres from site and rear boundaries, which is consistent with setback requirements for detached houses under the Queensland Development Code.
Site Cover
The Probable Solutions of the Code stipulate site cover requirements as 50% on ground floor and 30% on upper floors or 40% for all storeys and 20% of the site for soft landscaping. The proposal provides less than the 50% site cover requirement for the ground storey, although comprises approximately 35% site cover for the upper storey or 48% for all storeys.  Soft landscaping is provided at only 16.5% and whilst it is slightly under the requirement, it is recognised that 30% of the site is landscaped.  The required soft landscaping could be achieved if the swimming pool was reduced in size, as it does not count towards soft landscaping.  Notably, the planning scheme in which the development was approved did not have these requirements and further, the small size of the allotment makes it difficult to achieve such stringent requirements.  As sufficient landscape areas are provided on site, and the development almost meets soft landscaping requirements, it is considered acceptable in its current form.
Whilst the detached houses met the ground floor site cover requirements, each detached house falls short of the site cover requirements at the upper storey by 10m2 of gross floor area.  Previous assessment has considered that the additional 10m2 will not detrimentally impact on amenity of the neighbourhood and staffs are of the same opinion now.
The overall site cover of 48% is consistent with the site cover achieved by the three detached houses on three land parcels to the east of the site also on Douglas Street and three land parcels to the north of the site on Ferguson Street and thus are of compatible scale with surrounding development.  The fact that the detached houses have a lesser site cover than the maximum at ground level means that there adequate areas for landscaping, outdoor recreation, entertainment, clothes drying and other site facilities and thus meet the Specific Outcomes of the Code.
Roof Form
The Probable Solutions of the Code roof form requirements are a roof pitch of 5 degrees and 600 mm eaves and no roof terraces.  The applicant’s amended plans demonstrate the dwelling houses to have 5-degree roof pitching with 600mm eaves to the front and the southwest sides (ie. outdoor living areas), which is appropriate given the constrained width of the allotments.
In considering the roof terraces, the Specific Outcome of the Code states:-
Specific Outcomes	Probable Solutions
Roof forms O14 Roof forms – contribute positively to the local skyline; complement the low density character of the locality; do not present excessive bulk to side neighbours (eg. Avoid low pitched roofs or box profiles/parapets); use of simple traditional roof designs; offer shading to the walls and windows of the dwelling unit do not create opportunities for residents to overlook the private open space areas of neighbouring properties.	S14.1 With the exception of removal houses, the roof of the Detached house, Ancillary dwelling unit or Multiple housing Type 1 has – a roof pitch no less than – if in Kin Kin village or Boreen Point village – 12 degrees; otherwise – 5 degrees; and if not in Precinct C or D of Noosa Springs – minimum 600mm eaves to at least 75% of the perimeter of the dwelling unit. AND S14.2 Buildings and structures does not include roof top terrace areas.
The applicant argues that the roof deck is set in from the edge of the roof such that it reduces the ability to look down into neighbouring properties.  Further, the roof deck and lanai are situated towards the front of the site, such that there is likely to be minimal overlooking to the adjoining properties (31 & 39 Douglas Street) with their outdoor open space areas situated towards the rear.  Views toward the ocean such that overlooking in this direction is generally limited to driveway and entrance areas of the subject allotments.  In terms of privacy between the subject allotments, the slope of the roof form rises to the same levels as the balustrading thus providing privacy for seated users.  The lanai space is private resultant from its low profile, screening to its western elevation and pergola.
Accordingly, as the proposed roof terraces do not create opportunities for overlooking of private open space areas of neighbouring properties they may be supported.”

Condition 1
The applicant also requests to amend condition 1 to correct the property address. The following amendment is requested:
Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are labelled: Proposed Residence – Lot 323 324 Douglas Street: Site Plan, Garage Floor Plan, Ground Floor Plan, First Floor Plan, Lower Roof Plan, Upper Roof Plan, Sections A & B, Section C, Elevation 1, Elevations 2 & 4, Elevation 3, Douglas Street Elevations, Lane Elevations and Northeast Elevation; numbered: A-01B, A-02B, A-03B, A-04A, A-05A, A-06B, A-07B, A-08A, A-09A, A-10A, A-11A, A12A, A13A, dated 1/12/2003 and A16A dated Nov 2004 and as amended, prepared by Middap Ditchfield Architects Pty Ltd and as may be amended by these conditions.
The request only seeks to correct an error and therefore raises no concern.

conclusion
The proposed extension to the currency period does not raise concern. The approved development still remains consistent with the current provisions of The Noosa Plan 2020.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report regarding Application No. 132003.221158.5, for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Extension to Currency Period situated at 33 Douglas St Sunshine Beach Qld 4567 described as Lot 324 RP 48111, and approve the extension to the currency period and amend:
A.	Part 3 of the Decision Notice to read as follows:
The relevant period for this development approval will now end on 30 June 2025.
B.	Amend condition 1 to read as follows:
Land Use
1.	Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are labelled: Proposed Residence – Lot 324 Douglas Street: Site Plan, Garage Floor Plan, Ground Floor Plan, First Floor Plan, Lower Roof Plan, Upper Roof Plan, Sections A & B, Section C, Elevation 1, Elevations 2 & 4, Elevation 3, Douglas Street Elevations, Lane Elevations and Northeast Elevation; numbered: A-01B, A-02B, A-03B, A-04A, A-05A, A-06B, A-07B, A-08A, A-09A, A-10A, A-11A, A12A, A13A, dated 1/12/2003 and A16A dated Nov 2004 and as amended, prepared by Middap Ditchfield Architects Pty Ltd and as may be amended by these conditions.

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 2 of 2

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
EXTENSION TO CURRENCY PERIOD – DELEGATED REPORT