Council archive · source document
Representations (10/0871) - 132010.871
21 December 2010
Our Ref: 090961 / Office: Sunshine Coast
Council Ref: 2010/871
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Locked Bag 72
SUNSHINE COAST MAIL CENTRE QLD 4560
nt Con
22 DEC 2010
ATTENTION: Jack Lewis
I ave
chydore
Dear Jack
REPRESENTATIONS ON DECISION NOTICE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPE 2
— DUPLEX
2 KAREELA AVENUE, NOOSA HEADS
LOT 1 ON N 21830
Further to Council’s Decision Notice issued for the above and the applicants subsequent suspension of
the appeal period, we make the following representations in regards to Council's approval:
Conditions 11.4 and 27
Condition 11.4 requires the provision of a garden bed with a minimum width of 500mm along the
southern boundary. This condition will impact site manoeuvring and result in a conflict with condition
27 which requires vehicles to enter the carspaces in a forward gear, reverse out and leave the site in
a forward gear in a maximum of three movements. As it is not possible to comply with both of these
conditions without substantial impacts on the approved design, the combined result is considered an
unreasonable imposition and it is necessary for the conflict to be removed. There are two options for
resolution of the conflict:
1. The southern boundary can be provided with a minimum 500mm wide garden bed with the
exception of driveway area shown to the boundary on the approved plan. This section of
driveway will however be screened by a 1.8m high boundary fence. The bin storage can be
adjusted so that a 500mm garden width is achieved. No detrimental impact will result from this
outcome nor will any conflict with the planning scheme arise, particularly as there is no
requirement of the planning scheme for a minimum 500mm wide garden bed along the full length
of the side boundary; or
2. Should a 500mm garden bed be provided along the full length of the southern boundary then
onsite manoeuvring cannot be achieved within 3 movements and condition 27 would need to be
deleted. Deletion of this condition will not conflict with the planning scheme, particularly as there
is no requirement in this situation for cars to enter and leave the site in a forward movement.
Under the Noosa Heads Locality Code probable solution $37.5 requires. Where located on the
major road network or a collector street, vehicles are able to enter and exit the site in a forward
PLANNING | SURVEYING | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | COURT APPEALS
Moreen Boy Sunshine Coast North aa siond
18/42 King Street, Caboolture Qid 4510 Suite 1, Corner Surf Road & Gardak Street 1C/41 Sturt Street, Townsville Qld 4810
PO Box 1712, Caboolture Qld 4510 Alexandra Headland Qld 4572 PO Box 5027, Townsville Qid 4810
pl 075495 5318 F | 075495 5317 PO Box 6380, Maroochydore BC Qld 4558: et 07 47213066 F | 0747213088
p! 07 5443 2844 F | 07 5443 7146
Ken Hicks & Associates Pty | td ACN 010 978 22 ABN 74 208 405 411 trading as KHA Nevelnnmant Mananars
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 1 page
Page 2
gear through a 3-point turn maximum. The site is not located on the major road network or a
collector street.
The Locality Code is a higher order code than the use or works codes (eg. Driveways and
Carparking Code) and which takes precedence in accordance with section 2.4.1 of the Noosa Plan
which states: Where a provision in a Locality code is inconsistent with a provision in a Use code,
Works code or Other code, other than an Overlay code, the provision in the Locality code prevails
to the extent of the inconsistency.
The preference from an operational viewpoint is for the design to remain essentially as is facilitating
on site vehicular turnaround. If however Council considers the additional landscape outcome
preferable then onsite manoeuvring in 3 movements to allow vehicles to enter and leave in a forward
movement is not required.
Accordingly, we request that either Condition 11.4 or 27 be deleted.
Item 5 Referral Agency Conditions
This section is somewhat confusing as the Department of Environment and Resource Management is
an ‘advice’ agency which cannot impose conditions. While they can make recommendations to Council
and the Council can include the recommendations as conditions, an approval cannot include ‘advice’
agency conditions.
Of concern is the second dot point recommendation that requires the applicant to provide a report
prepared by a certified and appropriately qualified professional demonstrating to the satisfaction of
the assessment manager that there will be no adverse impacts on the ecological values and functions
of the conservation estate. Given that a Development Permit has now been issued, this requirement
is no longer relevant to or reasonably required in respect of the development. The requirement is
now an unreasonable imposition and will add further unnecessary expense to the project, serving no
purpose. If considered a relevant matter it should have been dealt with prior to the issue of a
Development Permit.
Accordingly, we request that the ‘advice’ agency conditions be deleted.
We look forward to Councils Assessment of this representation and to the issue of a Negotiated
Decision Notice.
Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.
Yours faithfully
KHA DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS
Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Used in these records
Representations (10/0871) - 132010.871Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 907 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.