Original source · versioned page text
2021-10-18 General Committee Meeting Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 OCTOBER 2021
• Site cover, plot ratio and building height are now fully compliant with the Noosa Plan 2006
• The garages have been pushed back further under the building with a pergola structure added
to this area, which assists in better integrating the garages into the overall building design and
reducing their dominance on the street.
• Fill on the northern side boundary has been reduced from 2m to a maximum of 1.4m tapering
to 0m to the rear boundary, with the fill stepped back from this northern side boundary in part.
• The number of bedrooms or rooms capable of being used as a bedroom still remain the same
and so the proposal is non-compliant with the population density for the site under The Noosa
Plan 2006. This is considered acceptable given the maximum population density requirements
were not continued with the Noosa Plan 2020.
• The proposed side setbacks have not changed and still remain non complaint but these
intrusions are relatively minor for planters at the lower level and will not result in any amenity
impacts.
Overall, the amended proposal plans are considered to be a reasonable outcome for the site and
while the extent of fill on the northern side boundary is not considered the best outcome, site
inspection shows it will not significantly impact on the neighbouring property given the current
neighbouring setbacks and building design. It is also noted that both the Noosa Plan 2006 and
Noosa Plan 2020 suggests some fill on sites up to 1.5m is acceptable.
It is therefore recommended that the appeal be settled.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 17 June 2021, Item 3, Page 5
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 8 June 2021 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. BD1074 of 2021 and agree to defend the appeal
Finance & Risks
Should Council not wish to settle the appeal, there will be further costs in defending the appeal and
while advice on prospects has not been received from Council’s barrister, based on the amendments
made to the plans, a favourable outcome by trial may be unlikely.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Thynne Macartney – Tim Quirk
Internal Consultation
Nil
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Support Director Director
Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities Fleet
Libraries & Galleries ICT
Local Laws Procurement
Waste & Environmental Health Property
Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
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
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 19 of 67
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.