Council Report MCU18 0015 · MCU18/0015

dEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR Material change of use (2 Detached Houses and 12 Multiple Housing - Type 4 Conventional) and reconfiguration of a lot (1 into 4 Lots plus easement) at 27 Attunga heights, Noosa heads

Document information

Author	Contract Planner, Ben Thrower
Environment and Sustainable Development

Index	ECM / Application / MCU18/0015 and RAL18/0001

Attachments	1. 	Architectural Plan Series
2. 	Landscaping Plan Package
3. 	Ecological Corridors Plan
4. 	State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (SARA) Referral Agency Response.
(Note: All attachments have been provided separately to this report).

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	David William Neate
Proposal	Material Change of Use – 2 Detached Houses, 12 Multiple Housing - Type 4 Conventional Reconfiguration of a Lot – 1 into 4 lots plus easement.
Properly Made Date	13 February 2018
Information Request Date	27 February 2018
Information Response Date	26 November 2018
Decision Due Date	21 June 2019
Number of Submissions	71 Properly Made 1 Not Properly Made Submission

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	27 Attunga Heights Noosa Heads Qld 4567
RP Description	Lot 27 RP 89506
Land Area	18,050m²
Existing Use of Land	Single Dwelling

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban
Locality	Noosa Heads
Zone	Detach Housing; Attached Housing; and Open Space Conservation.
Overlays	Biodiversity (Environmental Protection and Watercourses and Drainage) Natural Hazards (Slide Hazard, Acid Sulphate Soils, Bushfire - Buffer Zone)
Assessment Type	Impact

Excutive Summary
Council is in receipt of a development application on land located at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads (the site).  The application seeks a development permit for:
Material Change of Use 14 dwellings units in the form of:
2 x Detached Houses; and
12 x Multiple Housing Units.
Reconfiguring of 1 lot into 4 lots plus an access easement as follows:
Lot 1 – 7,507m² for 12 detached Multiple Housing Units;
Lot 2 – 1,050m² for 1 Detached House;
Lot 3 – 950m² for 1 Detached House;
Lot 4 – 8,543m2 proposed to be dedicated to Council as conservation park; and
An access easement to provide access to proposed Lot 2 though Lot 1.
The site is characterised as containing significant environmental values with the site’s vegetation identified as Environmental Protection by the Noosa Plan’s Biodiversity Overlay and of concern regional ecosystem by the Vegetation Management Act.  The site includes an important wildlife corridor linking vegetation from Settlers Cover/Noosa Inlet through to Peppers Resort and the Noosa National Park.  A watercourse further traverses the site, which flows into the Noosa River.  The site contains sandy soils and has steep slopes, with slopes varying between 20o and 45o and a history of a least one known land slippage.  Edgar Bennett road reserve runs parallel to the site’s western boundary with a public pathway constructed in this road reserve.  Peppers Resort is located on the site’s eastern boundary.
A previous development application for 30 multiple dwelling units and 12 accommodation units for the site was approved by Council in 2005.  This application was subsequently ‘called in’ by the Minister due to the site’s wildlife corridor and in March 2006, the approval was amended by the Minister to preserve a 50m wildlife corridor through the site. This approval has now lapsed.
The Noosa Plan zones approximately 1.35ha of the site as Open Space Conservation, with 2 small areas zoned Detached housing and an area adjacent Peppers Resort zoned Attached Housing. The proposed development extends significantly into the areas zoned Open Space Conservation and outside the area’s zoned for development. The applicant submits that there is good reason for this and being guided by comprehensive site-specific technical reports, the development has been located on less constrained land offering significant benefits.
The applicant’s submission is agreed with to a limited extent as the proposed development is located in part in an area that contains more moderate slopes, and which is currently infested by weeds. This layout has for the most part also removed the need to construct a bridge across the site’s waterway as was proposed in the previous development approval.  The proposed multiple dwelling units have also been desirably designed as individual buildings stepping down the slope set on posts, rather than combining the units into one larger building with a basement car park and requiring significant earthworks as previously approved.
Notwithstanding this, the proposal extends approximately three quarters along the site’s western boundary into steeper slopes and more intact vegetation. The proposed extent and layout of the development in this area also impacts on the visual amenity and vegetation within Edgar Bennett road reserve (public pathway) as the proposal includes limited setbacks and opportunities for landscaping and significant earthworks are proposed for the driveway with up to 2m high retaining walls required on the boundary. A number of the proposed multiple dwelling units, including units 1, 2, 11 and 12 at either end will also be highly prominent being 3 storeys and setback 2m from this road reserve boundary in places. Notably multiple dwelling units 3 – 10 will predominantly present as 1-2 storeys with the lower levels unlikely to be visible from the pathway.
The proposed site layout does not maintain a sufficient wildlife corridor through the site, inappropriately reliant on the adjoining Peppers Resort land, which includes the main resort driveway and retaining walls, narrowing the corridor to approximately 23m in part. Construction access for proposed lot 3 may also adversely impact on this corridor as the current access easement terms do not support access for construction via Peppers Resort.  The proposed lots and lot boundaries also fragment this wildlife corridor and intrude into the riparian buffer to the site’s watercourse with insufficient building setbacks proposed.
The proposed conservation park lot, lot 4, also includes part of the bushfire protection zone for the multiple dwelling units and given the potential for further land slips and the consequential impacts on the uphill units that may arise, this lot would require ongoing regular monitoring and future management. This would inappropriately burden Council resources and therefore dedication of lot 4 to Council as conservation park is not recommended, notwithstanding its desirable environmental values.
The proposal further substantially exceeds the Noosa Plan provisions pertaining to site density, building height, gross floor area, site cover and boundary setbacks and while some increased building height may be warranted on the site due to the site’s slope, the proposed building height is excessive in places and is not all in keeping with the surrounding built form.  The proposed building height and reduced setbacks will also adversely impact on nearby resident’s visual amenity and the treed public pathway enjoyed by residents and visitors to the area.
A review of the application against the draft new Noosa Plan provisions concludes that the proposed development would conflict with the draft outcomes sought. The draft Noosa Plan does identify some medium density development area directly off Attunga Heights. However, the proposed development exceeds this potential development area identified by the draft Noosa Plan, with the draft scheme reinforcing the current planning scheme requirements to protect the site’s environmental values.
On this basis, the development as proposed is considered to not meet a substantial number of outcomes sought by the Noosa Plan, and as such the development is considered an inappropriate development impacting on the site’s environmental values and is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Contract Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 11 June 2019 regarding Application No. MCU18/0015 for a Development Permit for  Material Change of Use (2 Detached Houses and Multiple Housing – type 4 Conventional – 12 Units) and Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into 4 lots plus Access Easement) situated at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads and:
A.	Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1.	The proposed development is contrary to the Noosa Plan’s Strategic Framework and the Desired Environmental Outcomes as
(i)	The proposal does not satisfactorily protect the site’s significant environment values.
(ii)	The proposal does not maintain a satisfactory wildlife corridor through the site and intrudes into the riparian buffer to the site’s watercourse.
2.	The proposed development is contrary to the Overall and Specific Outcomes of the Noosa Heads Locality Code as
(i)	The proposed uses are inconsistent with and therefore strongly inappropriate in the Open Space Conservation Zone.
(ii)	The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the proposed development footprint is commensurate with the site’s constraints and values.
(iii)	The proposal will adversely impact on the site’s and the adjoining road reserve’s scenic and environmental values.
(iv)	The proposed built form will adversely impact on the visual amenity of nearby properties in Attunga Heights.
(v)	The proposed development does not respect the scale and character of the surrounding development.
3.	The proposed development is contrary to the Specific Outcomes of the Noosa Heads Locality Code for population density, gross floor area, site cover, building height and setbacks.
4.	The proposed development is contrary to the Biodiversity Overlay Code as the proposal does not satisfactorily manage, minimise or mitigate its impact’s on the site’s ecologically important areas, ecological linkages for the koala population and the site’s watercourse with the development resulting in excessive clearing of protected vegetation.
5.	The proposed subdivision is contrary to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code as:
(i)	The proposed lots and lot boundaries fragment the site’s wildlife corridor and the riparian buffer to the site’s watercourse.
(ii)	The proposal is to subdivide land in the Open Space Conservation zone.
(iii)	The applicant has not demonstrated appropriate access for Lot 3 for construction purposes is available or achievable.
(iv)	The proposed parkland lot, Lot 4, includes part of the bushfire protection zone for the multiple dwelling units and steep slopes, which will require ongoing monitoring and future management, inappropriately burdening Council’s resources.
6.	The proposed development has not been designed to avoid any potential instability and associated problems and seeks to clear excessive vegetation that assists in stabilising the site and the development in the long term contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code and Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
7.	The proposed development will adversely impact on the vegetated character of the adjoining pedestrian path in Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve enjoyed by residents and visitors to the area due to the scale and extent of development proposed along this boundary and limited landscape opportunities to screen the development.  The proposed works for the driveway and associated retaining walls are also likely to adversely impact on the vegetation within the road reserve and result in the removal of some existing mature vegetation.
8.	The proposed stormwater management strategies for water quality for the multiple housing development on lot 1 conflict with the Water Sensitive Design Code, which requires natural treatment strategies and systems and are contrary to the Reconfiguring a Lot Code.
9.	The proposed proprietary device has not been accepted by Stormwater Australia as a satisfactory water quality treatment system for this area.  Therefore, the proposed development may adversely impact on the downstream ecosystem due to changes in water quality.
10.	The proposed development is contrary to the draft Noosa Plan provisions, which reinforce the current Noosa Plan’s requirements to protect the site’s environmental values and appropriately respond to the site’s natural hazards.
11.	The application attracted a considerable number of public submissions raising valid grounds of objection to the development.
B.	Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

REPORT
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks a development permit on land at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads for a ‘Material Change of Use – 2 Detached Houses, 12 Multiple Housing Units’ and ‘Reconfiguration of a Lot – 1 into 4 lots plus easement’.
The two Detached Houses are to be located on proposed Lots 2 and 3 within each of the two nominated building envelopes (refer to Figure 1).  No specific house plans have been provided, however it is proposed the houses be developed in accordance with the following parameters:
3 storey and 12m high;
50% site cover or 40% if 2 or more storeys;
Existing vegetation outside the building envelope area to be retained, enhanced and protected by a covenant; and
A setback of 10m to the centreline of the creek with balconies that may cantilever up to 3 metres into the creek setback area (applicable to Lot 3 only).

Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan
The 12 three bedroom multiple housing units are to be located on proposed Lot 1 (i.e. refer to Figure 1).  Each dwelling unit is proposed to contain three floors, 2 covered car parks, swimming pool and landscaping with gross floor areas (GFA) varying between 317m² and 336m².
The dwelling units will be located as close as 2m from the common boundary with the adjoining Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve and the public footpath that runs generally parallel to the site’s western boundary.
The dwelling units are to be accommodated partially on poles to work with the topography and minimise the need for deep excavation. It is proposed the lightweight construction methodology results in an improved visual appearance with the buildings sitting lightly on the hill rather than appearing as one large bulky structure
Roof top gardens, dense landscaping and selected building materials and finishes palette, inspired by natural materials and existing vegetation on site, are proposed to soften the visual impact of the multiple housing units from the adjacent Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve, public footpath and nearby properties (refer to Figure 2).  Trellised fencing and landscaping between 1.5m and 3m width is proposed to soften the visual impact of the multiple housing units from the adjacent road reserve, public footpath and nearby properties.

Figure 2: Perspective from Pedestrian Pathway
The multiple housing units are proposed to be accessed via a single common driveway adjacent to the boundary of the Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve and public footpath, linking to Attunga Heights. Three visitor car parks and a pedestrian link to the existing public footpath are proposed. Cut and fill up to 2m in height on the common boundary with Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve is proposed to construct the driveway.
An Asset Protection Zone from each building footprint, extending up to 12m into the surrounding vegetation is proposed to provide protection from potential bushfires. The Asset Protection Zone requires setbacks illustrated in Figure 3 to be constructed and maintained in perpetuity. The setbacks require vegetation to be removed and/or modified (i.e. removal of fire prone vegetation within the understorey) so the area is effectively free of available fuel. The Asset Protection Zone extends into proposed Lot 4, the proposed parkland area to be dedicated to Council.

Figure 3: Asset Protection Zone “Inner Protection Area” setback requirements (extract from Applicant’s Bushfire Management Plan)
The applicant submits that the proposed detached houses and multiple dwelling units are located on areas that have limited ecological significance with the balance of the site proposed to be rehabilitated. An overall approach to managing slope stability is to have a ‘non-worsening’ impact on slope stability with specialist recommendations provided in the application regarding dwelling and driveway footings, earthworks and drainage.
A combined development footprint for the 14 dwelling units and structures, including the driveway, amounts to an area of 0.57ha. The applicant considers the development footprint has been aligned to the least constrained parts of the land and the site can be safely and responsibly developed.
The application includes an Environmental Connectivity Plan (refer to Figure 4) which identifies a wildlife corridor to be maintained through the site, connecting with existing tracts of vegetation surrounding the site and the national park.

Figure 4: Environmental Connectivity Plan
The Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 into 4 lots plus Access Easement) component of the development is described as follows:
Lot 1 – 7,507m² (to contain 12 detached Multiple Housing Units and environmental covenant over the balance of the lot). 3 significant Hoop Pines within this lots are specifically proposed to be retained. ;
Lot 2 – 1,050m² (contains a nominated building envelope for 1 detached house and environmental covenant over the balance of the lot);
Lot 3 – 950m² (contains a nominated building envelope for 1 detached house and environmental covenant over the balance of the lot).
This lot is proposed to utilise the benefit of the following easements on the adjoining property to the east, being Peppers Resort:
Easement L SP207304 for access; and
Easements M and P on SP207304 for bin storage.
The easements have effect upon approval and commencement of the use.  There is currently no permitted access to Lot 3 from Peppers Resort for construction purposes under the current easement.
Lot 4 – 8,543m² (parkland area proposed to be dedicated to Council at no cost to Council); and
Access Easement – Access from Attunga Heights to Proposed Lot 2 (refer to Figure 5).

Figure 5: Lot Reconfiguration Plan
The applicant’s representative town planner considers that Council should approve the development in full based on, in part, the following statement:
"At the outset we note the efforts that have been made by the applicant to commission up to date technical information and assessments that comprehensively respond to the matters identified by Council in this information request.
We also take this opportunity to reiterate the key principles that have guided the development proposal and community benefits that will ensue as a result.
This development application seeks approval for partial re-development of the site in line with development outcomes that are recognised as being consistent with the planning scheme (residential housing and unit development).
Whilst development is proposed in a slightly different configuration to the zonings on Council’s planning scheme zoning map, the design of the development has been guided by comprehensive site specific ecological, engineering, geotechnical and bushfire assessments. Whilst the planning scheme zoning map showed unit development on some of the most environmentally and slope sensitive parts of the site (i.e. over the top of the creek), the current development proposal instead shows development on less sloping land with the lowest ecological values.
The proposed development stands to deliver the following benefits:
a) 	Dedication of 50% of the site to Council as environmental reserve which will secure the land in public ownership.
b) 	Prior to the environmental reserve being dedicated to Council, rehabilitation works will be undertaken (at the developers cost) to remove weed species and replant native species to ensure the function of the reserve is enhanced and it will function as an environmental and fauna movement corridor.
c) 	The environmental reserve proposed on the subject site will secure an important ecological link in public ownership between the site, the adjoining Peppers resort and the Noosa National Park to the south-east.
d) 	The retention of over 50% of the site for environmental reserve purposes in public ownership will ensure the predominant ‘treed’ and green visual character of the Noosa Hill will be protected in perpetuity. 3D renders have been provided to demonstrate the visual presentation of the proposed development from various important public viewpoints" (Extract from the applicant's Response to Information Request).
The applicant’s development application is supported by:
Architectural Plans (refer to Attachment 1);
Landscape Concept  Plans (refer to Attachment 2);
Environmental Connectivity Plan (i.e. Wildlife Corridor Plan) (refer to Attachment 3);
Engineering Report and a supplementary Engineering Response to Council’s Information Request
Town Planning Report and a supplementary Town Planning Response to Council’s Information Request;
Geotechnical Report and a supplementary Geotechnical Response to Councils Information Request;
Ecological Report and a supplementary Ecological Response to Councils Information Request;
Bushfire Assessment (Asset Protection Zone illustrated in Figure 3); and
Response to Public Submissions.
The proposed development originally sought an additional lot, for a third Detached House.  However this lot was amalgamated into what is now proposed as Lot 4 and the associated Detached House removed in response to Council’s information request.
Background
The site has been subject to several development approvals, as follows:
On 13 October 2005 Noosa Shire Council issued a conditional Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for 30 Multiple Dwelling Units and 12 Accommodation Units whilst refusing a request to reconfigure the subject land into 2 lots (refer to plans of development - Figure 4). The approval was subsequently called in by the minister

Figure 4: 2006 Approved Site Plan (Extract from ‘Notice of Decision of Development Application’ Granted by the Queensland Government dated 20 March 2006)
On 6 March 2006, the Minister issued a Decision Notice for a Material Change of Use for 26 multiple dwelling units (21 x 3 bedrooms & 5 x 2 bedrooms) and an accommodation building comprising 12 x 1 bedroom units.
On 17 October 2008, the Department of Natural Resources and Water issued a conditional permit for the clearing of native remnant vegetation on the site.  A condition required a vegetation offset being secured on the adjoining Peppers Resort site. The conditioned vegetation offset was completed on this adjoining site.
On 21 April 2009, Council issued a conditional Preliminary Approval for Operational Works – Drainage, Stormwater, Vegetation Clearing, Water & Sewerage, Earthworks and Access and Parking.  A conditional Preliminary Approval was issued on the basis that payment of contributions and bonds was outstanding.
On 13 July 2009, Council extended the relevant period of the Ministerial approval and the associated Operational Works preliminary approval until the 15 October 2013.
On 11 October 2013, a request to extend the relevant period of both the Ministerial Approval and associated Operational Works preliminary approval was lodged with Council.
This request was refused by Council on 1 May 2014 for the following reasons:
The development is contrary to The Noosa Plan’s Overall and Specific Outcomes for the Noosa Heads Locality;
The application was publicly notified in 2004 and given the time lapsed, the community is unlikely to be aware of the development approval; and
The proposed development were it to be publicly notified today, is likely to receive submissions objecting to the development, given the significant non-compliance with The Noosa Plan.
An appeal was subsequently lodged in the Planning and Environment Court by the applicant.  The appeal was subsequently withdrawn with the appellant agreeing to pay some of Council’s preliminary appeal costs. On this basis this development approval has now lapsed.
On 31 October 2013, the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning extended the relevant period of the State Permit for clearing of vegetation for two (2) years. This approval has now lapsed.
Several pre-lodgement meetings were held with the applicant to discuss potential development outcomes on the site.  At the meeting it was discussed that the existing Detached and Attached Housing zones may not represent the most developable area for the site on the basis they are steep, likely require access across the creek and removal of some of the better quality vegetation on the site.
It was considered that the site’s south west corner may provide a better development outcome based on more moderated slopes and environmental values.  However, any development in this area should be of a scale and density consistent with existing and permitted development in the street, which are predominantly duplexes.
Further any proposed development should be setback at least 10m from the creeks top of bank, a wildlife corridor of at least 50m should be retained through the site and the development sensitively designed to respect the vegetated public walkway.
Site Description
The site is described in Table 1.
Table 1: Site Description
#	Site Description	Image
	Generally rectangular in shape and contains an area of 1.8054ha. (Image extracted from Smartmap).	
	Contains a single dwelling near the road frontage to Attunga Heights. (Photo taken 11.04.2019)	
	Accessed from Attunga Heights Road, which is unformed gravel near the point of entry.  The existing garage is located on the road frontage boundary. (Photo taken 11.04.2019)	
	Fronts Edgar Bennett Avenue along its western boundary. This road is unformed and currently supports significant vegetation immediately adjacent to the common boundary and a concrete lit pedestrian pathway. The pathway provides a link between Attunga Heights, Edgar Bennett Avenue and Noosa Parade. (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Adjacent to State Heritage Listed Halse Lodge (northern boundary), Peppers Report (eastern boundary) and Detached and Attached Dwellings on the south western corners of the boundary. (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Conditional access rights secured by an easement agreement from Viewland Drive, through Peppers Resort to two locations on the adjoining eastern boundary. (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Benefited by: Easement L with an access way through the Viridan Land to Viewland Drive and Morwong Drive (under restricted vehicle types and hours); and Easement M and P which benefits the site by providing rights for storage and use of garbage bins. In each case the easements contain a provision which, in effect, delays the rights granted under the easement until such time as a development approval is granted for the development of the dominant tenement.  Once the development is completed and in use, the access and bin areas are available to the benefit of the site (i.e. Lot 27). The easement rights do not extend to construction access. (Image extracted from site survey plan)	
	A common boundary to part of Yunaman Bushland Reserve located on the south eastern corner of the site. (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Known as a very high koala hotspot (identified as red in the image). (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Known as Koala Habitat Area, categorised as support Remnant Habitat. Koalas are known to inhabit the area and the site provides the opportunity for movement for the species through the site. (Image extracted from Noosa Plan – Schedule 7).	
	Densely vegetated with native species mainly consisting of Cypress Pine-Callitris sp, Tuckaroo-Cupaniopsis anacranoides and Hoop Pine-Araucaria cunninghamii. The south western corner is recognised as of least significance due to invasion of weeds within the understory. (Photo taken 11.04.2019)	
	Contains areas of ecological significance. (Plan extracted from Noosa Plan Planning Scheme Strategy Map)	
	Is mapped as providing Essential Habitat for the: Glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), Wallum rocket frog (Litoria freycineti), Wallum sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis); and Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula). It is noted that site conditions are not suitable as habitat for the Wallum frog species, which require a wallum environment.	
	Contains a large mapped area of remnant regrowth vegetation. The same vegetation is identified by the Queensland Government mapping as Regulated Vegetation Management Category B, being of concern regional ecosystem. (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Traversed by a watercourse / drainage line (Image extracted from Noosa Shire Council Intramaps)	
	Comprises a sloping sand dune which is potentially unstable. Ground slopes varying between 20° to 27°, with steeper slopes of 40° to 45° adjacent to the creek banks. The existing vegetation is contributing to natural stability of the slope through surface protection and the stabilising effect of root systems. There is evidence of previous land slips occurring on the site, adjacent to the northern boundary on the western side of the creek. The most south western corner and north eastern corner of the site contains notably more moderate slopes (i.e. marked with red outline). (Contour Survey Extracted from Applicant’s Engineering Report)	
	Visually prominent from the adjacent footpath, currently providing a high amenity value and dense vegetated amenity from the footpath. The dense vegetation also provides a link to other nearby green spaces and ultimately Noosa National Park. (Photo taken 11.04.2019)	
Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding land uses include short term accommodation, attached and detached dwelling houses.  The wider locality consists of mixed multi-units, duplexes and single dwellings.   The site is located in close proximity to Noosa Junction and Hasting Street precincts.
Aerial photography illustrates the site as an important green link between Noosa National Park and the foreshore (Refer to Figure 5).

Figure 5 – Aerial Image of the locality
assessment
Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) and the SPP raises no further issues relevant to the proposed development.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the urban area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is considered consistent with regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmark from the Planning Regulation 2017 applies to the application:
SEQ Development Area
The proposal is for urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the assessment benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against the whole of the Noosa Plan to the extent the provisions are relevant to the development.
The application is before Council in accordance with the current decision making delegations because:
The proposed uses are identified as inconsistent due to being located largely in the Open Space Conservation Zone;
No further subdivision is provided for in the Open Space Conservation Zone; and
71 properly made submissions were received of which all objected to the proposed development.
Council officer's assessment is supported by external Geological, Ecological and Stormwater specialist reports and traffic engineering advice, commissioned by Council officers, to assist in the assessment of the proposed development. Two reports and advice were provided by each specialist to:
Review the original application and inform input into the information request; and
Assess the application, including the information response, and provide a summary of the assessment outcomes.
Each report concludes as follows:
Geotechnical Peer Review:
“The responses generally address most of the issues raised.
The sand dune in its existing condition is potentially unstable. In this regard the site is similar to other areas which have been developed within the Noosa Sand Dune Stability Problem area.
The proposed development on the western side of the creek does not attempt to avoid areas of potential instability and the proposed structures will be constructed on the potentially unstable slopes. There are no proposals to stabilise the land.
It appears that the overall approach adopted by the geotechnical reports is to accept that a landslide will occur but design the structures to be secure in the event of a landslide. That is, the land may slide down the hill but the structures will be left suspended above the landslide on piers founded at depth below the potential zone of instability.
Council needs to be aware that if the proposed development is approved it will be on this basis.”
Ecological Peer Review:
“While responses have been provided to each of the information request items, most of Council’s requests have not been met. Of greatest concern are that:
Koalas are known to inhabit the area and the site is likely to provide an important avenue for movement for the species. This is not reflected within the ecology report.
Neither the riparian buffer of 10 m from top of creek bank or wildlife corridor of a minimum of 50 m vegetated width are possible with the current design.
The proposal should therefore not be approved for development according to these plans.”
Stormwater Peer Review:
Quantity
“The legal point of discharge is the existing flow path within the site.
The Rational Method has been used to show that the development will have a minor (+0.3%) impact to peak flows, resulting in a minor increase (1mm) in flow depth within the existing flow path. This will not cause any actionable nuisance to downstream properties.
The site is located at the lower end of a larger forested catchment and development has been limited to the up-slope areas of the site to leave the drainage line within the site undeveloped. It is our opinion that providing detention measures on site would not provide any benefit.”
Quality
“Proprietary stormwater treatment devices (SPEL StormFilter and Stormsack or approved equivalent) and rainwater harvesting tanks are included in the model. It is noted that a detailed Operational Phase Maintenance Plan is to be included in future Operational Works applications as these assets will be privately owned and maintained.
Based on the information available, the water quality objectives will be met by the proposed treatment train.”
Conditions of approval are recommended as part of this report.
Traffic Engineering Advice:
“I understand the issue pertains to concern about the additional volumes of traffic in Attunga Heights as a result of the 13 dwellings associated with the proposal.
Attunga Heights is a residential street with a pavement width of 6.0-6.5m.  The normal traffic related threshold for the residential catchment of such a street would be 75 dwellings.
There appear to be about 25 existing lots along the street, a few of which contain small scale multiple dwellings, so the existing catchment of the street might be up to 40 dwellings.
With the 13 dwellings of the proposal added, the total number of dwellings served by Attunga Heights would be up to say 55 dwellings, which is less than the normal 75 dwelling threshold.
So while there will be additional traffic as a result of the proposal, it would be acceptable according to normal limits for such a street.”
The report and advice received is incorporated into the assessment of this application.
The following provides a more detailed assessment against the specific provisions within the:
Strategic Framework
Desired Environmental Outcomes
Noosa Head Locality Code
Biodiversity and Natural Hazards Overlay Codes; and
Reconfiguring a Lot Code.

Strategic Framework
Section 1.7.12 Natural Environment Protection identifies the vision for the natural environment to be protected:
“a) 	Through the use of zones and overlays the scheme identifies and seeks to protect areas of remnant vegetation and encourages the rehabilitation of riparian corridors and wildlife corridors. It also seeks to protect land of ecological, biophysical, scenic or cultural value, including the mountains that dominate the landform and landscape.
b) 	Activities that have potential to impact on water quality, bank or slope stability, fauna habitats and linkages, or significant scenic vistas are inconsistent within the scheme.”
Section 1.7.14 Natural Hazard Management identifies the vision for the natural hazards to be managed:
“a) 	The planning scheme identifies areas at risk from natural hazards including landslide, bushfire, flooding and acid sulfate soils.
b) 	Development in areas at risk from natural hazards is to be compatible with the nature of the hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk.
c) 	Development is avoided in areas subject to natural hazards or where natural hazards cannot be avoided, mitigation or adaptation measures are adopted taking into account predicted frequency and severity of the natural hazard.
Development does not materially increase the impact or severity of natural hazards.”
Desired Environmental Outcomes
The following Desired environmental outcomes are also considered relevant to the assessment of the proposed development:
“3.1.3 g) Open Space, Environment and Conservation Functions
Networks of open space and natural habitat, vegetated lands, wetlands, watercourses and riparian zones are sensitivity managed and protected and avoided as far as practicable or, where avoidance is not practicable, minimise adverse impacts resulting from development by -
i. 	protecting and managing the natural environment in a way that—
b. 	maintains and improves landscape character and visual amenity;
c. 	builds ecological resilience and capacity to adapt to a changing climate;
ii	ecologically important areas being protected, rehabilitated and enhanced including their condition, extent, diversity and connectivity to maintain and improve biodiversity, landscape stability, resilience and ecological integrity of the natural environment;
iii 	koala habitat, connectivity and safety being maintained and improved, contributing to a net gain in koala habitat assisting with the long term stabilisation and recovery of viable populations across Noosa Shire, Sunshine Coast and South East Queensland;
iv 	koala habitat offsets being applied only as a last resort and achieving an equivalent or better environmental outcome and additional protection to environmental values at risk or additional management actions to improve environmental values2;
vi 	natural waterways and wetlands being maintained in their natural state with development providing for rehabilitation and enhancement to improve ecological functioning and water quality;
xi 	maintaining the conservation of high proportions of vegetated land, as compared to developed land, to distinguish Noosa Shire from other parts of south-east Queensland;
xii 	maintaining the distinct vegetated character of Noosa Shire and the retention of natural vegetation and landscaping with native species;
xiii 	protecting sensitive areas of native bushland from the impacts of urban activities such as domestic animals, escaped garden weeds, fertilisers and stormwater run-off;
xiv increasing the amount of land protected for conservation purposes under public ownership that ideally represent the full range of habitats and species found across Noosa Shire, forming corridors for the safe movement and successful breeding of wildlife within the Shire and beyond;
xv the integrity of conservation reserves being supported by wider networks of open space across Noosa Shire and beyond, comprising both natural habitat and areas capable of regeneration or rehabilitation;
xvii development not impacting on views and vistas that characterise particular localities in Noosa Shire including views to or from watercourses, beaches or riparian corridors avoiding visual scarring of the hill slopes.”
“3.1.3 j) Residential Uses
Urban and rural settlement for residential use is contained within the defined urban growth boundaries shown on zoning maps ZM1- ZM9 by -
iii 	development being consistent with the character and amenity of the particular locality;
iv 	development considering the landform, natural environmental and climatic conditions of the locality;
ix 	considering the impact new development has on resident perceptions of Noosa Shire’s natural resources, open space, clean environment, integration of the landform and landscape, character, natural environment and resident lifestyle.”
Noosa Heads Locality Provisions
The subject site is located in the Noosa Heads Locality and is zoned predominately Open Space Conservation (i.e. approx. 1.35ha of the 1.8ha site).
Two small areas of the site are zoned Detached Housing.  These area located at the end of Attunga Heights (i.e. approx. 850m²) and on the northern portion of the site (i.e. approx. 1,631m²).  The area near Attunga Heights includes the existing house and ancillary structures.
Approximately 2,068m² of the site is zoned Attached Housing.  This area adjoins the existing Peppers Resort (refer to Table 2).
Table 2: Site Zone Map and proposed development layout

Site Zone Map	Proposed Layout
	
The following overall outcomes are considered relevant to assessment of the proposed development:
“The overall outcomes sought for the Noosa Heads Locality are the following—
a) 	New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
iii. 	avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises, including acoustic and visual qualities; and
iv. 	avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment;
e) 	Land having environmental and cultural heritage values is protected and maintained for future generations, including—
viii. 	private land with native vegetation communities;
h) 	Key vegetated landscapes are protected including-
i. 	significant stands of vegetation in the conservation reserves and in areas that are poorly drained or on very steep or inaccessible land;
ll) 	Areas of native remnant and regrowth vegetation, including their biodiversity and habitat values are protected;
nn) 	For the Detached Housing Zone—Detached housing prevails which maintains—
i. 	a low impact, low density development form of domestic scale;
iii. 	allotment sizes and densities which are consistent with the character of the particular neighbourhood;
v. 	landscaping amongst buildings, retaining trees and vegetation wherever practical;
pp) 	For the Attached Housing Zone—residents and visitors are accommodated in predominantly Multiple housing forms that—
iv. 	respect the scale and character of the streetscape and surrounding development.
ww) 	For the Open Space Conservation Zone—natural environmental values of high order and warranting conservation status are—
i 	protected for their importance in contributing to ecological sustainability including maintenance of water quality and provision of habitat and open space linkages; and
ii 	appropriately managed to the general exclusion of development or any further subdivision of freehold lots.”

Biodiversity Overlay Code
The site is mapped as containing a large area of Environmental Protection Area.  Schedule 7 of the Noosa Plan also maps the majority of the site as Koala Habitat Area – Remnant Habitat (Refer to Table 4).
Table 4: Extracts from the Biodiversity Mapping and the proposed development layout

Environmental Protection Area	Koala Habitat Area (Remnant Habitat)	Proposed Layout
		
The following overall outcomes are considered relevant to the assessment of the proposed development:
“The overall outcomes sought for the Biodiversity Overlay Code are the following—
d) 	Development is managed so as to avoid, or where avoidance is not practicable, minimises or mitigates the impacts upon the Shire’s biodiversity values and natural resources, including—
i 	ecologically important areas;
ii 	the ecological values of water catchment areas;
iv 	that part of the natural environment that may be environmentally harmed by vermin, pests, noxious plants or threats such as fire, development and inappropriate land management;
v 	vistas and scenic amenity of the landscape;
vii 	koala habitat areas and ecological linkages that provide for connectivity and safety for the long term viability of koala populations.”

Natural Hazards Overlay Code
The site is mapped a containing some areas of:
Landslide; and
Bushfire Hazard Area (potential impact area) (Refer to Table 5).
Table 5: Landslide and bushfire Hazard Map and proposed development layout
Landslide Hazard Map – Moderate and High Hazard Area (extract from Noosa Plan)	Bushfire Hazard Map- Potential Impact Buffer (extract from Noosa Plan)	Proposed Layout
		
The following overall outcomes are considered relevant to the assessment of the proposed development:
“The overall outcomes sought from the Natural Hazards Overlays Code are—
a) 	development in areas at risk from natural hazards is compatible with the nature of the natural hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk;
b) 	development is resilient to natural hazard events by ensuring siting and design accounts for and minimises potential risks of natural hazards to people and property;
f) 	natural processes and the protective function of landforms and vegetation are maintained in natural hazard areas;
h) 	for bushfire hazard areas—bushfire risk mitigation treatments are accommodated in a manner that avoids or minimises impacts on the natural environment and ecological processes.”
Reconfiguring a Lot Code
The following overall outcomes are considered relevant to the assessment of the proposed development:
“The overall outcomes sought by the Reconfiguring a Lot Code are to ensure that any reconfiguring of lots results in—
d) 	acceptable impacts on watercourses, drainage lines, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas;
g) 	lots that avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment and landscape and minimise the risk of hazards for people and property;
l) 	residential development which is consistent with the developed character of its particular neighbourhood”
Assessment against the Noosa Plan Provisions
In consideration of the relevant Noosa Plan provisions and the applicant's grounds for support, including assessment of the common material provided, the proposed development is considered inconsistent with the abovementioned Noosa Plan provisions due to the following pertinent matters.
Environment Conservation
The proposed development footprint and lot boundary lines extend into areas zoned Open Space Conservation, identified for Environmental Protection Area and as Koala Habitat Area – Remnant Habitat. The proposed development footprint is considered to substantially exceed the developable area within the south west corner of the site, extending much further along the common boundary with Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve and the public footpath and into areas that are steeply sloping and have significant environmental value.
The proposed development footprint will result in the removal of approximately 0.57ha of remnant vegetation and another 0.52ha of remnant vegetation modified (i.e. removal of fire prone vegetation within the understorey) as a result of the required bushfire Asset Protection Zone. This includes approximately 0.53ha of identified Environmental Protection Area being cleared and approximately another 0.46 ha of land identified as an Environmental Protection Area being modified.  As a result approximately only 0.7ha of the existing remnant vegetation will remain in its current form.  On this basis the area of impact is considered to be excessive given the site’s known environmental values and physical attributes and the existing 4,549m² area zoned for development.
In addition to this impacted area, it is considered there is risk to the health of several nearby significant trees within Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve and adjacent to the public footpath, where up to 2m cut and fill is proposed to be undertaken at or in close proximity to the common boundary of the road reserve.
On this basis the natural environmental values of the site are not considered adequately protected for their importance in contributing to ecological sustainability including provision of habitat and open space linkages.
Wildlife Corridor
The applicant suggests the proposed wildlife corridor width achieved by the proposed development will be 41.5m at its narrowest widening to 84m.
Review of the proposed wildlife corridor shows that it includes land within Peppers Resort and the Edgar Bennett Road reserve and while it is reasonable to include the road reserve, some of the land in Peppers Resort is not suitable as a wildlife corridor. It is not appropriate to include the internal roads and retaining walls on Peppers Resort within the corridor as this infrastructure significantly fragments and disrupts the function of the corridor.
On this basis the actual corridor width is as little as approximately 23m (i.e. between Lot 2 building envelope and Peppers internal road and retaining walls) and 34m (i.e. between dwelling unit 5 and Peppers internal road and retaining wall).
A minimum vegetated width of 50m was requested by Council at the pre-lodgement meeting with the applicant and again as part of the information request.
Further the location of proposed Lot 2 building envelope constrains the ability for the wildlife corridor to seamlessly link to the site’s common boundary with the Yunaman Bushland Reserve.
Therefore the proposed wildlife corridor does not conserve the long term ecological viability, integrity and sustainability of native fauna species.
Dedication of Lot 4 - Parkland
While Lot 4 is proposed to be dedicated to Council as parkland it is noted that the bushfire Asset Protection Zone substantially extends into Lot 4 and therefore the ongoing responsibility would be Council's to maintain in perpetuity. Similarly Council will be burdened with the responsibility to respond to any future landslips within Lot 4 noting any landslips are likely to start near the creek bed and, if not stabilised, migrate upwards to ultimately impact on the proposed multiple housing units. This arrangement is not appropriate for Council as any responsibly of the management and monitoring of bushfire management measures and stability of the slope should be for the developer.
Construction Access to Lot 3
Currently construction of proposed Lot 3 and the Detached House requires direct access from Attunga Heights as the existing easement terms through Peppers Resort do not take effect until the development is approved and the use of the Detached House commences. As a result, construction access from Attunga Heights to Lot 3 will likely have a significant impact on the proposed wildlife corridor, steep slopes, watercourse and protected vegetation. Lot 3 is considered inappropriate due to these impacts from access during construction.
Setback to Creek
A 10m setback is proposed from the centreline of the watercourse to the edge of the nominated building envelope lines with the potential for balconies to cantilever up to 3 metres further into the creek setback area. The lot boundary itself is only setback 6m from the centreline of the creek.
At least 10m from the creeks top of bank was requested as part of pre-lodgement discussions with the applicant as this distance is considered necessary to avoid impacts on the creek and to maintain a buffer to the watercourse.
Public Amenity
The site is considered to contribute to a high degree of amenity for users of the public footpath within Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve.  The proposed uses and works are not located and designed to avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of this footpath. The associated access driveway and visitor car parks require significant earthworks and associated cut and fill immediately adjacent to and/or abutting the public footpath.  This will result in the likely loss of trees and understorey vegetation in the road reserve and onsite and restrict the ability for effective soft landscaping that would otherwise screen the driveway and dwelling units from the public footpath.
In addition, Units 1, 2, and 12 will have the appearance of being 3 storeys and up to 12m height as close as 2m to the public footpath which is considered likely to significantly dominate the vegetated visual amenity currently enjoyed by users of this footpath. Further the minimal setback provides limited opportunity for any existing vegetation to be retained that would otherwise buffer the proposed buildings.
It is noted the Noosa Plan prescribes a 10m setback from the Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve, within which the public footpath is situated.
Built Form
The proposed development does not comply with the key Noosa Plan development parameters for density, height, gross floor area and site cover as described in Table 3.  Any development in this location should also be of a scale and density consistent with existing and permitted development in Attunga Heights, which are predominantly two storey single dwellings and duplexes. Further any development should not dominate or detract from the scenic and environmental qualities of the site and its setting.
A three storey and 12m height has also been proposed for both the detached houses and multiple dwellings with at least one dwelling unit (i.e. Unit 3) exceeding 12m height.  While it is acknowledged the steep slopes of the site necessitate some increased building height in parts, the proposed height over and above 12m is considered excessive and unwarranted.
The proposed Detached House on Lot 2 and Units 1 and 2, being 3 storeys and 12m high, are also not considered to be respective of the scale and character of the neighbouring development in Attunga Heights. The immediately neighbouring development is of a scale more consistent with a two storey detached houses and duplexes.
The applicant has applied a site area of 1.8054ha to the population density and GFA formulas, suggesting:
288 allowable person population density limit (39.6 person population density proposed); and
11,520m² GFA limit (3,304m² GFA proposed).
It is not agreed that this is how the population density and GFA are calculated and that the resulting proposed densities are excessive given the other provisions related to the site. On this basis the proposed built form is not considered to respect the scale and character of the streetscape and surrounding development.
The proposed roof forms do not meet the Noosa Plan requirement for soft and articulated, pitched, skillion or curved roof forms with 600mm eaves.  The proposed dwelling unit roof forms are low pitched or box profiles/parapet styles (refer to Figure 2) which are not respecting the scale and character sought within the Noosa Heads locality.
Overall the proposed built form is not considered to be compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
Table 3: Summary of specific code provisions
Criteria	Planning Scheme	Proposed	Complies
Population density	Attached Housing Zone (2,068m2) Area – 160 persons/ha (33) Total 33 persons	12 dwellings x 3.3 persons (39.6) Total 39.6 persons	X
Gross floor area	Attached Housing Zone Area – 33 persons x 40m² Total 1,320m² GFA	3,894m² GFA	X
Site cover	Attached Housing Zone Area (2,068m2) – 40% (i.e. 827.2m²)	Approx. 2,244m²	X
	50% Single Storey 40% Two or more storeys	50% Single Storey 40% Two or more storeys	
Building height storeys metres	Attached Housing Zone Area (2,068m2) – 3 storeys/12m	3 Storeys – above 12m (in part)	X
	Detached Housing Area (2,481m2) – 2 storeys/8m	3 Storeys –12m	X
Boundary setbacks	Open Space Conservation Zone Area		
Frontage	10 metres min (frontage)	2 metres from Edgar Bennett Avenue	X
Other boundaries	3 metres min (other Boundaries)	2 metres	X
Exception	10m from boundaries that adjoin land in a residential zone.	2 metres and 6 metres	X
Stormwater Quality Management
The applicant’s proposed stormwater management system has been reviewed by an external consultant on behalf of Council officers who concluded that the system is acceptable.  However, the proposed treatment system is for a proprietary device for lot 1, which is contrary to the Noosa Plan’s Water Sensitive Design Code, which requires the use of natural water quality treatments and systems. Stormwater Australia and the wider industry has not yet accepted this type of system as an effective stormwater quality management system for this area.  Therefore, it is considered the proposed stormwater quality management system does not meet Noosa Plan requirements and the development may adversely impact on the downstream ecosystem due to changes in water quality.
draft planning scheme
The draft Noosa Plan includes changes to the site’s Zone and Overlay Maps as illustrated in Table 6.
Table 6: Existing Noosa Plan Mapping and Draft Noosa Plan Mapping Existing Noosa Plan	draft Noosa Plan
Existing Zone Plan (Open Space Conservation, Attached Housing and Detached Housing)	Draft Zone Plan (Environmental Management and Conservation, Medium Desnity Residential)
Existing Acid Sulfate Soils Plan	Draft Acid Sulfate Soils Plan
Exisgting Biodiversity Overlay (Environmental Protection) Plan	Draft Biodiversity Overlay
Existing Bushfire Overaly (Potential Impact Buffer)	Draft Bushfire Overlay (Medium Potential)
Slide Hazard	Draft Landslide Overlay (High and Moderate Hazard Area)
Existing Koala Habitate Area	Draft Koala Habitate Area
No existing corresponding plan.	Draft Short Stay Area
Most significantly, the proposed changes modify the area of the site zoned for development consolidating development to the south west corner of the site only given the site’s significant environmental values and hazards and with any development limited to a maximum building height of 8m and 2 storeys (i.e. consistent with Attunga Heights). Any development within this area is also still subject to assessment against the corresponding biodiversity and natural hazard overlay provisions.
Otherwise, the site’s existing zoned Detached Housing and Attached Housing areas on the eastern boundary are proposed to be re-zoned to an Environmental Management and Conservation Zone. Doing so reduces fragmentation of the site by development under the current zoning and ensures that future development is consoldiated and appropriately responds to the site’s environmental values and natural hazards.
Other than the area proposed to be zoned as Medium Density Housing within the south west corner of the site, the corresponding provisions in the draft Noosa Plan are considered to more so reflect the significant natural hazards, constraints and environmental significance of some of this site.
In relation to the overlays in the draft New Noosa Plan:
The acid sulphate soils mapping illustrating minimal change to area. This mapping has been updated based on more recent studies carried out;
Biodiversity mapping has been updated to reflect the vegetation on the site;
Bushfire mapping has been updated based on new mapping provided by the Queensland Government;
Landslide Hazard mapping has been updated based on studies undertaken; and
Koala habitat mapping illustrated no significant changes.
The following draft overall outcomes sought for the Environmental management and conservation zone would apply to the assessment of the proposed development:
“Land identified as ecologically important areas, water catchments, beach protection or coastal management areas or natural areas with historical or cultural values are protected from development;
Development avoids and mitigates against adverse impacts on the values and processes within ecologically important areas;
Where a demonstrated community need exists, low scale, low impact structures with a small building footprint such as viewing decks, shelters and Environment Facilities that provide for the appreciation, conservation and interpretation of ecologically important areas or areas of cultural or heritage value may develop where consistent with the management intent or plan for the area;
Development responds to land constraints including topography, bushfire and flooding”.
The following draft overall outcomes sought for the Medium density residential zone would apply to the assessment of the proposed development:
“Development makes a positive contribution to the look and feel of residential neighbourhoods by maintaining a low scale character with well designed buildings and landscaping that enhance the streetscape.
New uses are located, designed and managed to be compatible with surrounding uses.
Development maintains a high level of residential amenity having regard to traffic, noise, dust, odour, lighting and other locally specific impacts.
Development responds to land constraints including topography, bushfire and flood.
Natural features such as creeks, gullies, waterways, wetlands, vegetation and bushland are retained and protected from the impacts of development. Any unavoidable impacts are minimised through location, design, operation and management requirements.
Native vegetation between buildings and in the public realm enhances the amenity and supports local wildlife”.
The following draft overall outcomes sought for the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands overlay code would apply to the assessment of the proposed development:
“The natural resources and ecosystem values of Noosa Shire are protected and enhanced including ecologically important areas and land and environmental values of scenic, aesthetic, cultural, educational, recreational, scientific, economic and social value.
Development is designed, sited, constructed and operated in a way that avoids adverse impacts on ecologically important areas, ecological systems and processes.
Development design and layout provides for ecological connectivity across the landscape through the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of native vegetation and ecological linkages.
Ecological linkages and riparian vegetation are conserved, managed, enhanced and rehabilitated to protect and improve biodiversity, ecosystem health, landscape stability and resilience.
Development design and layout provides for the protection and establishment of appropriate buffers to waterways, wetlands, native vegetation and significant fauna habitat.
The terrestrial and aquatic native flora and fauna and their habitats are protected and enhanced.
Development and its associated landscaping provides for the rehabilitation of ecologically important areas, degraded ecosystems and habitats to achieve a functional and healthy ecosystem state that requires minimal human intervention.
Development is designed, sited, constructed and operated to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on koalas and their habitat and to provide for connectivity and safety for the long term viability of the koala population.
In urban areas, biodiversity values are protected and enhanced to assist with ecosystem health, flora and fauna, urban amenity and quality of life.”
The draft mapping and corresponding draft Noosa Plan provisions reinforce the assessment undertaken against the current Noosa Plan.
cONSULTATION
Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (SARA).
The Department is a referral agency due to the site adjoining a Queensland Heritage Place (i.e. the Halse Lodge Guesthouse).
The Department has responded with conditions of development that must be attached to the Decision Notice issued by Council (refer to Attachment 4).
Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Engineering; and
Ecology.
The application was forwarded to the following external specialist consultants:
Ecologist;
Stormwater
Geotechnical Engineer; and
Traffic Engineer.
Advice received has been incorporated into the above assessment.
Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for a minimum of 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act 2016. 71 properly made submissions and 1 not properly made submission were received. Table 7 provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Table 7: Matters raised during public notification.
Matters Raised	Comments
Application not correctly lodged
The proposed development does not contain the required property owner details associated with proposed access through the Viridian Development site.	Council has sought legal advice confirming the required land owner consent has been included as part of the application and on this basis the application is properly made.
Public Notification
Question why the application was notified over the Christmas and New Year Period.	The applicant has undertaken public notification in accordance with statutory requirements of the Planning Act 2016.
Non-compliance with the Noosa Plan
The proposed development is generally inconsistent with the Noosa Plan provisions, including provisions within the: Noosa Heads Locality Code: Biodiversity Overlay Code; Residential Uses Code; Detached House Code; Building Works Code; Natural Hazards Overlays; and Driveways and Carparking Code.	It is agreed the proposed development largely does not comply with the Noosa Plan provisions. The application as proposed is recommended for refusal due to direct conflict with a substantial number of outcomes sought by the Noosa Plan, including the proposed development: Substantially exceeding provisions pertaining to: Site Density; Building Height; Gross Floor Area; Site Cover; and Boundary Setbacks. Substantially extends outside the developable areas identified by The Noosa Plan and substantially into areas designated Open Space Conservation; Substantially extends into environmentally protected areas and areas identified as containing significant environmental values and natural hazards; Failing to demonstrate the environmental values, natural hazards and functions of the site and immediately adjoining areas will be protected.
Housing Density
The proposed density is: Not compatible with the intended outcomes sought Proposed Lot 1 and the 12 Multiple Dwelling units depart entirely from the Noosa Plan provisions Lots 2 and 3 are oversized and not in keeping with the current zone.	It is agreed the housing density as proposed is in inappropriate due to: The development footprint occupying a substantial area of land zoned Open Space Conservation, within which the corresponding provisions require all development to be outside of the existing conservation zoned area; The height of the buildings is considered to create excessive bulk when viewed from the public walkway and properties in Attunga Heights; The three dimensional building envelope of Lot 2 is not in keeping with the neighbouring development; A three storey height limit being adopted; The development does not meet the Noosa Plan’s maximum density and GFA sought for the site.
Amenity Impact
The development will impact on visual amenity by: Resulting in oppressive and inappropriate visual impact on the locality; Compromising the natural beauty of Noosa Hill; Proposing Dwellings that are out of character with standard Noosa dwellings; Creating overlooking into existing dwellings; Requiring deep and substantial engineering works will sacrifice current natural characteristics of the site; A large scale development not in keeping with the planning fabric; Proposing fencing does not engender a community ownership of the proposed conservation land; The community enjoys the site’s existing environmental values when using the public footpath; and The proposed development will result in an altered natural bushland setting along a unique footpath access linking Attunga Heights to Hasting Street.	It is agreed the bulk of the proposed Multiple Housing development is not appropriate. In particular, the buildings, access driveway and carparks intrude into the boundary setbacks requiring substantial earthworks and clearing to construct the development. It is agreed the proposed development will impact on the current environmental and aesthetic values attributed to the footpath. The development requires the removal of protected vegetation and/or will result in adverse impacts on nearby trees on the site, within Edgar Bennett Avenue and the public access walkway, particularly where significant cut and fill is undertake at or in close proximity to this common boundary. The associated access driveways require significant retaining walls and associated cut and fill earthworks on steep land and immediately adjacent to and/or abutting the Edgar Bennett Avenue frontage and the public access walkway.
Environmental Values
The site’s environmental values within the proposed development footprint are in good condition which would not be offset by proposed rehabilitation to other parts of the site. The site should be protected. The proposed development will result in: Further decline of koalas in the Noosa Region; Loss of and disturbance to native bush and fauna; Fragmentation of the site’s environmental values Introduction of weeds, fertilisers, domestic animals; and Additional stormwater runoff. Natural processes and landforms associated with the ecosystems and watercourses with be permanently altered. Large scale clearing is required to allow the development to proceed. Native animals are not included in the assessment despite local sightings There is no evidence to suggest the existing environmental values do not warrant conservation. The proposed development directly conflict the outcomes sought in the UNSECO Biodiversity reserve.	It is agreed the development compromises the environmental values of the site. The development requires the removal of protected vegetation and/or impact the health of nearby trees on the site, within Edgar Bennett Avenue and the public footpath, particularly where significant cut and fill is undertake at or in close proximity to this common boundary. The proposed nominated building envelopes and the lot boundary lines ‘all’ and/or ‘in part’: Intersect across the site’s three zones, including the Open Space Conservation Zone, and the Biodiversity and Natural Hazards mapped areas; Are located on known moderate to steep sloping sandy dune, with slopes generally varying between 20° and 45°; Do not secure required width for a wildlife corridor that provide for connectivity and safety for the long term viability of wildlife currently using the site. Do not provide a 10m setback from the top of the watercourses bank as requested by Council officers.
Wildlife Corridor
The proposed wildlife corridor should be at least 100m wide. The development will fragment an existing corridor that links Alma Way to Noosa National Park	Council officers are generally satisfied that a 50m wide corridor is appropriate rather than 100m, which has been confirmed by Council’s consultant ecologist. The proposed wildlife corridor design provides for a varying wildlife corridor width as little as 28m.  A minimum vegetated width of 50m was requested by Council officers.  Further it is not considered reasonable to propose other private and unsecured land to act as part of the wildlife corridor sought. For confirmation, Council officers are generally satisfied where the proposed corridor width includes the vegetated Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve. The location of proposed building envelope of Lot 2 is considered to also constrain the ability for an effective and ‘best outcome’ wildlife corridor linking to the full site’s common boundary to Yunaman Bushland Reserve.
Natural Hazards
The proposed development does not respond to the steep slopes. Instability will be created by construction on loose sandy soils. The soil depends on tree cover for protection against erosion. The development will erode the sloping site during construction. Proposed cut into dunes does not integrate with the natural characteristics of the site and presents a serious risk to people and safety. The proposed development will increase the risk of wildfire due to the steep slopes. Full risk assessment has not been undertaken in accordance with specialist recommendations.	It is agreed  associated access driveways require significant retaining walls and associated cut and fill earthworks on steep land and immediately adjacent to and/or abutting the Edgar Bennett Avenue frontage. It is agreed the works on steep slopes has the potential to cause erosion during construction, however these concerns can generally be managed via conditions of development or during assessment of the subsequent Operational and/or Building Works application/s. Appropriate bushfire conditions could be included to address the potential threat if the proposed development was recommended for approval.
Impacts on adjoining properties
The proposed development will impact adjoining properties by: Creating overlooking into existing dwellings; Creating noise and light spill Creating a driveway on the western property boundary	This concern would normally be addressed by the inclusion of a reasonable and relevant condition of approval should the application be recommended for approval and/or assessed at the time of subsequent Operational and Building Works assessment.
Impacts during construction
There is no consideration given to construction access to lot 3.	Agreed, no details are provided about how access will be obtained build the detached house on Lot 3.  It is noted the access easement on Peppers resort only takes effect once approval has been granted and the use of the detached house has commenced.
Impact during construction will extend to: The walkway will be closed during construction; Hardship for existing residents and nearby businesses due to traffic disruption, noise and dust; and Risk to safety of pedestrians.	This concern would normally be addressed by the inclusion of a reasonable and relevant conditions of approval should the application be recommended for approval and/or assessed at the time of subsequent Operational Works application.
Refuse
The proposed refuse locations with result in: Odour impacts Dumping into the wildlife corridor	This concern would normally be addressed by the inclusion of a reasonable and relevant condition of approval should the application be recommended for approval and/or assessed at the time of subsequent Operational Works application.
Rainwater
No proposed collection of rainwater.	Rainwater water tanks are proposed for the two dwelling houses otherwise there is no planning requirement currently for water tanks.
Infrastructure Services
The infrastructure services required for the development are not available	The existing infrastructure is available for the proposed development without creating any undue load on the existing services in the locality
Traffic
Attunga Heights and nearby intersection cannot accommodate the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. Attunga Heights is already narrow and unsafe for pedestrians. The existing problem is heightened during holiday periods.	Advice received from a specialist traffic engineering consultant engaged by Council concluded that while there will be additional traffic as a result of the proposed development, it would be acceptable according to normal limits for such a street.
Carparking
The proposed development provides insufficient onsite visitor car parking. There is already car parking issues in Attunga heights. Emergency and service vehicles are already unable to access the street.	The proposed development does comply with the Noosa Plan car parking provisions.
Need and Community Benefit
There is no demonstrated need for the development to override the provisions of the Open Space Conservation area. There is no existing shortage of housing.	It is agreed there is no overriding need for the proposed development.
draft Noosa Plan
The draft Noosa Plan was publically notified in February 2019, i.e. post public notification of this application.  Several addendums to previously made submissions were subsequently received in response to how the development responds to the draft Noosa Plan. The addendums generally pertained to the site’s proposed broader Environmental Management and Conservation zoned area and its corresponding environmental conservation based provisions under the draft plan. The submissions generally concluded the draft plan even more so supported the reasons for objection given within previous submissions submitted	Other than the area proposed to be zoned as Medium Density Housing within the south west corner of the site, the corresponding provisions in the draft Noosa Plan are considered to more so reinforce protection of the site’s environmental areas. On this basis it is agreed that the proposed development would also conflict with the draft Noosa Plan mapping and associated provisions.

Other Matters
Reduced property values Rental income loss compensation during construction Council should purchase the site for conservation purposes Council should consider creating a botanic gardens at the site.	These matters are not considered as part of the assessment of development applications.
conclusion & REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant seeks a development permit on land at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads for:
Material Change of Use (2 Detached Dwellings and 12 Multiple Housing Units); and
Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 into 4 lots plus Access Easement).
The applicant has provided extensive grounds and numerous supporting specialist reports recommending the favourable assessment of the proposed development, which largely pertain to the location of the proposed development footprint being a far better outcome than otherwise developing the existing Detached Housing and Attached Housing zoned land.
The proposed development is however assessed as largely not complying with key Noosa Plan provisions relating to density, height, gross floor area and setbacks. Furthermore, the proposal extends substantially outside the developable areas identified by The Noosa Plan zone map, and into large parts of the site designated Open Space Conservation.
It is recognised that the most developable area of the site extends off Attunga Heights, which includes the existing dwelling, more moderate slopes and vegetation of lessor value being weed infested. The proposed development however significantly extends outside the potential development area and is not of a scale and density consistent with existing and permitted development in the Attunga Heights.
The proposed development also fails to adequately protect the environmental values and respond to the natural hazards of the site and adjoining land, given the substantial clearing and or modification of mapped protected areas and earthworks likely to be required, both for construction purposes and the finished product.
The bulky appearance of the proposed Multiple Housing development is not appropriate and likely to significantly impact on the visual amenity of the site currently enjoyed by users of Edgar Bennett Avenue road reserve and the public footpath. In particular, the buildings, access driveway and carparks intrude into the boundary setbacks requiring substantial earthworks and clearing to construct the development. Additionally, the proposed Detached House on Lot 2 and Multiple Housings Units 1 and 2, being 3 storeys and 12m high, are not considered to be respective the scale and character of the neighbouring development in Attunga Heights.
The application has attracted a considerable number of public submissions, all opposed to the development, which have raised generally valid grounds, supported by the Noosa Plan provisions, as reflected in the assessment of this application.
A review of the application against the draft Noosa Plan provisions concludes that the proposed development would conflict with the draft outcomes sought. Most significantly, the proposed changes consolidate development to the south west corner of the site only reflective of the significant natural constraints on the site and with any development limited to a maximum building height of 8m and 2 storeys (i.e. consistent with Attunga Heights).
In conclusion, the development as proposed does not meet a substantial number of outcomes sought by The Noosa Plan, and as such the development is considered not appropriate, impacting significantly on the site’s environmental values. On this basis the proposed development is recommend for refusal as a result of direct conflict with a substantial number of Noosa Plan provisions.
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	X	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		Environmental Services		Disaster Management
		X	Strategic Land Use Planning	X	Infrastructure Planning, Design and Delivery
					

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 41 of 41

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	11 JUNE 2019

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
 

 

 

 

 

zor icl-application

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

schedule of building areas 18.11.18

dweling type intemal extemal garage-—no. of gross floor area a

ro. floor area floor area floorarea bedrooms | 24bns = oO sch
tyeE 312m Sm? 65 me 3 317 me seensy
‘type B 325 mi 82m? 46 m? 3 330 m* we
typeC 323m BI mt 46 me 3 336 me?
typeA 319m? SM mt 46 me 3 325 mt
typeA 319m? mt 46 me 3 325 me
typeA 319m? Smt 46 me 3 325 mt wav
typeA 319m? mt 46 me 3 325 me? , seg
typeA 319m? Smt 46 me 3 325 me 2
typeA 319m? 4 me 46 me 3 325 m* a Pedestnan
typeA 319m? mt 46 me 3 325 me xecees |
typeD = -314m@ = 102m* = 45 me 3 319 me Ben
typeE 312m 65m? 65 me 3 317 mt

= or fa total 3,894 m? >

 

v
‘Refuse Golection plan showing MRV J

eutne >) /
al 2a fo 4

fing maneouvre 1:250

wo las 50

[proposed lot 21

   

 

    
  

 

2ecess/
Bang
Seeley

 

 

 

 

 

    
 
  

 

 

     

 

BE ti
+e g 2 ag
wcese leeston of eqiconror —| “| 3 =
Soren pe wate Sk Bie pce § 8
2 go> a Ind retomed 8) 22) fg tree
new eetoming walls 2) ) 8)
sow pesesnen Li rasan econ o

 

fuljest 10 aetaied denign
bie sosees ensting pubic wallnzy

Drawing

MMP isl + Mc ea eecreograr SL

Ecc ee a are

 

Novo Group Ce


[Attachment: image2.png (image text)]
Ti — Oy

H H i Pe Cd “0 =

im Ditchfield ss2-""°" Scos deco om
Pl Clot near Fe pan eons

 

in Ty

 


[Attachment: image22.png (image text)]
 

LEGEND
Hy Category 8 area containing of concern regional ecosystems

Essential habitat on the essental habitat map
= Watercourses and drainage features on the vegetation management
watercourse and drainage feature map
Roads
son [| Property boundaries
‘Sublect Ste


[Attachment: image28.png (image text)]
ed re ree a}

 


[Attachment: image4.png (image text)]
       

 

£/241.68m (min),
ee ich)
14.71m

 

52.47


[Attachment: image6.png (image text)]
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
  
 

Proposed South

Proposed North
Cabin Pod

Cabin Pod

Proposed Lodge

 

 

‘10M zane rom conte ie of intermiton rook

 

[77] -oevetopmant acer indicat

19 malor consineton sctvty
Zoro as mredioby Condon of HSC Deen ecg
LJ Gates ret 2008,

F771 Development res inscating minor constuction setvty
Zone fer services fast as rleod toby Condon
(Al BeinSc Bocisan Noten sted 2151 2003

 

toate tinber docking and srctre,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads, parking constncad on soi ground
(Sacegeahen Sregg genase ats
‘ste winding patsy from

Rage Ponosed Retahing Wot


[Attachment: image7.png (image text)]
$P
Bul
FH
27
20514
RU
RP89506
CRES
220514
151418,
00009
FH
pad
00000
BUP,
190823
FH
oq
b3
i}
poo?
bo
00001
UP
20
1.8054ha,
a
21
Oy
M
\
901
AN