MCU180015 - Submission - Narelle Kearney · MCU18/0015

Page 2

                                     Unit 3/34 Edg_ar Bennett Ave                    NOOSA HEADS
              Narelle Kearney, of                             rnakerthis submission regarding a Development
 Application MCUl 8/0015 lodged by Mr DV)I Neate C/- Innovative Planning Solutions Pty Ltd, (Applicant) under
 the Planning Act 2016 (the Act) on land at 27 Attunga Heights, Noose Heads (Lot 27 on RP89506) (the site').

 The development application seeks approval for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for 2
 Dwelling houses and 12 Multiple Dwelling Units and Reconfiguring of a lot (1 into 3 lots).
 This document constitutes a properly made submission opposing development application MCU18/0015 in
 accordance with Schedule 2 of the Act. This document outlines several objections to the proposed development
 at the site. They demonstrate how the proposed development does not comply with the assessment
 benchmarks in the Nousa Plan 2006 (the planning scheme'), and does not demonstrate grounds to justify
 significant conflicts with the planning scheme.

 We wish to state at the outset that the planning scheme anticipates some level of residential development on
 the site. However, this is limited specific areas along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. We
 therefore strongly object to the multiple dwelling component for the reasons expressed throughout this
 submission. The objections and areas of non compliance with the planning scheme are outlined below.

             1. The proposed development causes irreconcilable conflicts with the zoning pattern for the
                 locality

 The site is a mixed zoning comprising of the Detached Housing zone, Attached Housing zone and the Open
 Space Conservation zone. The Open Space Conservation zone accommodates over three quarters of the site
 area with the remaining zones making up the balance.

Mixed zones on individual land parcels are uncommon in planning schemes and only adopted in unique
circumstances to ensure appropriate development and land use outcomes. The planning scheme has been
specific in applying this mixed zoning approach by clearly and accurately delineating certain portions of the site
that are appropriate residential uses. Conversely, it has also been firm in identifying the parts of the site that are
intended for open space and conservation purposes. In doing this, the planning scheme has carefully
considered several factors including:
              •     minimising impacts (from development or otherwise) on biodiversity values including native fauna and
                    flora;
              •     prevailing topography to reduce the risk of landslide hazard and ensure stormwater flows are
                    managed properly; and
              a     limiting the scale of development so that overall density is compatible with the intended character of
                    the locality and cognisant of the prevailing circumstances (biodiversity and landslide risk) of the site.
This resulting mixed zoning over the site was established in the 2006 Noose Plan (and possibly in superseded
planning schemes) and has remained, without any scheme amendments, up to now. What this demonstrates,
and a simple inspection of the site proves, is that the:
         •        site has never been developed and is covered by mature native coastal vegetation that is inhabited by
                  local wildlife. The biodiversity values across the site have not changed and, if anything, have been
                  enhanced through the maturation of the forest ecology over the years; and
         •        the prevailing topography and geomorphology of the site is relatively unchanged meaning the steepest
                  parts of the site are located along the entire western section (Council's own topographic mapping
                  confirms this).

The proposed development seeks approval for 12 multiple dwelling units along the western edge of the site
which, as mentioned above, contains important biodiversity values and a prevailing steep topography that
creates an unreasonable risk of landslide on what is essentially a sand dune. The proposed development also
seeks to subdivide for new lots within this area which will further fragment this important habitat and bushland
and create a lot susceptible to landslide. This is in complete conflict with the intended zoning pattern in the area
which has carefully considered these important factors. Equally so, this zoning pattern also reflects community
expectations for how development is to be regulated in the locality given the presence of:
     •            extensive biodiversity corridors (including the Noose National Park);


Page 1

Page 3

     •     undulating and some very steep and that forms part of the greater coastal headland and constrains
           built form possibilities; and
     •     the importance of gullies in managing stormwater flow.
The points above ultimately demonstrate, several irreconcilable conflicts with the planning scheme. This is
confirmed in the following sections of the planning scheme and referenced throughout this submission.

Part 3- Desired Environmental Outcomes

(i) Residential uses

   Urban and rural settlement for residential use is contained within the defined urban growth boundaries shown
   on zoning maps ZM1- ZM9 by-

         iv development considering the landform, natural environmental and climatic conditions of the locality;

         ix considering the impact new development has on resident perceptions of Noose Shire's natural
         resources, open space, clean environment, integration of the landform and landscape, character, natural
         environment and resident lifestyle;

Comments: the proposed development seeks to establish residential uses (of a significant density) within the
Open Space Conservation zone which does not support this form of development and is therefore inconsistent
with the zoning map ZM6. The application also seeks to subdivide within this zone to create lots for this
inconsistent urban development which is not supported in the planning scheme as it will result in fragmentation
of conservation and space land and create new parcels exposed to landslide hazard. Furthermore, the proposed
development does not appropriately consider the prevailing land form and natural environmental conditions of
the locality which is compnsed of very steep and constrained topography and native coastal forest habitat.

Part 9 Noosa Heads locality

   9.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noosa Heads Locality are the following—


         (c) Urban development within the locality is limited to lands within the Urban Footprint as shown on Map
             ZM6;
Comments: the proposed multiple dwelling component is to be located on land with the Open Space
Conservation zone This zone does not support urban development and all residential uses are considered
inconsistent uses. Reconfiguring a lot is also not supported in this zone where on freehold land as is confirmed
in the Reconfiguring a lot code.

         (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 sustainabiliry 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.

Comments: the proposed development fails to meet any of the policy tests for the Open Space Conservation
zone. This zone recognises land that has 'natural values of high order and warranting conservation status' and
clearly the proposal for 12 multiple dwelling units is contrary to achieving these outcomes. Furthermore, there
is no evidence suggesting the existing remnant vegetation does not exhibit the biodiversity values that warrant
conservation. Council's own Biodiversity overlay and Koala Habitat mapping confirm this. In addition to this, the
site functions as a habitat and open space linkage with the contiguous Lot 114 SP188650 (along Alma Way)
which is also zoned Open Space Conservation. Critically, the proposed development fails to comply with section
9.7.2(w)(ii) which excludes development and subdivision in this zone. The proposed 12 multiple dwelling units


Page 2

Page 4

and subdivision of 3 lots will irreversibly prevent this intended planning outcome for the zone and Noosa Heads
locality.

Division 15—Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions for the Noosa Heads Locality

   Table 9.11

   9,10 Environmental and cultural heritage values

         020 There are no significant adverse effects on biodiversity, native vegetation, habitats, landscape quality,
         water quality or cultural heritage values, including those related to—
           a) changes to natural drainage;
           c) management of landslide and fire risk;
           f) changes to fauna habitat and behaviour;

Comments: the proposed development will clearly have significant adverse effects on biodiversity, native
vegetation, fauna habitats (especially for birdlife) and landscape quality through the extensive removal of mature
coastal rainforest habitat. The resulting earthworks to accommodate development footprints will exacerbate
landslide risk and permanently alter the natural drainage patterns across the local dune system.

Division 22 Reconfiguring a lot code

Table 14-66—All reconfiguring a lot

14.183 Lot Size and Dimensions
  01 Lots have the appropriate area and dimensions to provide for—
     d) siting and construction of buildings to minimise risk of soil erosion, landslide, flooding and bush fire;
     f) retention of natural environmental values, including native vegetation;
     h) minimisation of earthworks or retaining walls associated with building construction on sloping sites;

Comments:the proposed development includes a subdivision component seeking to create 3 lots. Proposed lot
1 seeks to create a standalone parcel for 12 multiple dwellings. This parcel is in the Open Space Conservation
zone part of the site and 'Table 14-68—Minimum Allotment Areas in the Reconfiguring a lot code clearly states that
in this zone, where on freehold land, no further subdivision is supported. This aligns with 01(d), (f) and (h) of the
Reconfiguring a lot code which seeks to avoid landslide hazards, native vegetation clearing and substantial
earthworks. The proposed subdivision component conflicts with all these outcomes.


     2. The proposed development adversely Impacts on local biodiversity and open space values
As has been described above, the development footprint for the proposed 12 multiple dwelling units will result
in extensive loss of native habitat which will significantly impact on the local biodiversity and open space values
across the site. The importance of these values is confirmed by the extent of the Open Space Conservation
zoning and the Environmental Protection area on the Noosa Head Biodiversity Overlay map 0M6.1.
Furthermore, the site is identified as 'remnant habitat in the Koala Habitat mapping under Schedule 7 of the
planning scheme.

Noose has a rich biodiversity and extensive areas of protected vegetation that are identified throughout the
planning scheme. The shire has a well known commitment to preserving environmental values which is
embodied in the UNSECO biosphere reserve declaration. Critical to ensuring nature conservation and
sustainable development is the correct application of the planning scheme and its policies which reflect
community expectations for both environmental and development outcomes throughout the shire. The proposed
development is in complete contrast to these principles by seeking urban development on land zoned for
conservation purposes through major excavation and habitat removal.




Page 3

Page 5

As mentioned above, the rationale behind the zoning pattern has been carefully considered to ensure there is
an appropriate mix and scale of development in the right locations and the preservation of important biodiversity
and open space values. We note that the Noosa Shire has the only substantial area of coastal mainland remnant
vegetation between Byron Bay and Bundaberg. The proposed development only seeks to diminish these
qualities and undermine the function of these important ecosystems.

Lot 114 SP188650 is contiguous to the south east corner of the site and traverses Alma Way. It is identified as
a, 'regional greenspace network' of the ShapingSEQ (South East Queensland Regional Plan), This lot, in
conjunction with other lots in the Open space Conservation zone and with frontage to Alma Way, create an
environmental corridor into Noosa National Park, As a result the site forms part of this greater environmental
corridor attached to the national park. The proposed development will fragment and ultimately diminish this
corridor through vegetation clearing and subdivision both of which are not supported throughout the following
provisions.

Part 3- Desired Environmental Outcomes

(g) Open Space, Environment & Conservation functions

   Networks of open space and natural habitat, vegetated lands, wetlands, watercourses and riparian zones are
   sensitivity managed and protected and avoid as far as practicable or, where avoidance is not practicable,
   minimise adverse impacts resulting from development by -

         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;

         xi maintaining the conservation of high proportions of vegetated land, as compared to developed land, to
         distinguish Noose Shire from other parts of south-east Queensland;

         xii maintaining the distinct vegetated character of Noose 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 storm water run-off:

Comments: the proposed development will remove important ecological areas of natural habitat within the Open
Space Conservation zone and Environmental Protection area. It will also introduce urban development into
sensitive bushland areas that will create adverse impacts associated with domestic animals, exotic weeds,
fertilisers and additional stormwater runoff from excessive hardstand areas.

Part 9 Noosa Heads locality

   9.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noose Heads Locality are the following—
         (a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
             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—
            ii the vegetated hills that frame Noose Heads, Laguna Bay, Noose Inlet and Hastings Street;
            viii private land with native vegetation communities;
         (h) Key vegetated landscapes are protected including-
            iv remnant rainforest stands in the conservation reserves and in the gullies associated with the headland;

Comments: the site forms part of the vegetated hills of Noosa Heads and contains native vegetation
communities on freehold land. The Open Space Conservation zone and Environmental Protection area in the

Page 4

Page 6

Biodiversity overlay over parts of the site reflects this situation. The proposed development is contrary to
achieving these intended outcomes by seeking to establish 12 multiple dwelling units that would destroy these
vegetation communities and remove the visual amenity of the vegetated hill in the locality. The proposed
development seeks to remove vegetated landscapes within the gullies associated with the headland which form
part of the site.

Division 4 Biodiversity Overlay Code

13.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Biodiversity Overlay Code are the following—
     a) The natural resources of Noose Shire are conserved including—
           i land which is of scenic, cultural, historical, educational, recreational, scientific, ecological,
           biodiversity, economic, social or aesthetic value;
           ii soil or landforms such as watercourses, drainage lines, foreshores, dunes and steep slopes;
           iii the ecosystem health and quality of the water, land and other natural resources; and
           iv the extent and condition of native and remnant vegetation. including ecologically important areas,
           wetlands and areas of significant regrowth of local origin;
         b) The terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity of native flora and fauna and their habitats is maintained;
         c) Ecologically important areas, wildlife corridors, ecological linkages and riparian vegetation are
         conserved, managed. enhanced and rehabilitated to ensure the long term ecological viability, integrity and
         sustainability of native flora and fauna species, and to improve biodiversity, landscape stability, and
         resilience:
         f) In the case of urban areas, urban amenity, quality of life and ecosystem health is maintained and
         enhanced;

Comments: the proposed development conflicts with the overall outcome of the Biodiversity code in that
         •   land which clearly has ecological and biodiversity value will not be conserved;
         •   dunes, steep slopes and ultimately ecosystem health will be subject to adverseimpacts;
         •   native flora and fauna habitats will not be maintained;
         •   long term ecological viability will be lost due to the significant removal and fragmentation of this
             ecologically important area as is identified in the Biodiversity Overlay mapping and reflected in the
             Open Space Conservation zoning.


Table 13.2 Biodiversity Overlay Code

   01 Vegetation of local origin on premises identified as—
     a) Environmental Protection Area or Riparian Buffer Area on the Biodiversity Overlay Maps OW .1 to
     0M9.1, is retained and conserved in its present form or improved to ensure its ongoing contribution to the
     natural resources and biological diversity of the Noose Shire;

Comments: the site is within the Environmental Protection Area on the Biodiversity Overlay Map 0M6.1. It is
clear the proposed development will not retain and conserve environmentally sensitive areas on the site in their
present form and therefore fails to achieve this outcome.

   02 For the purpose of Reconfiguring a Lot new lots are only created where they minimise the fragmentation
   and maximise the retention of existing vegetation.

Comments: the proposed development will fragment the environmental corridor that links the site along tracts
of land fronting Alma Way eventually into Noosa National Park. The loss of vegetation, in order to support
residential uses and associated new lots, conflicts with the outcome of avoiding fragmentation and ensuring
vegetation retention.

   Koala Habitat Areas
   07 Development is designed, constructed and operated to—

Page 5

Page 7

         a) avoid adverse impacts on koalas and koala habitat;
         c) provide for safe and appropriate koala movement across the landscape; and
         d) provide for a net gain in mature and actively regenerating koala habitat.

Comments: the site is identified as 'remnant habitat' in the Koala Habitat mapping under Schedule 7 of the
planning scheme and the proposed development will cause adverse impacts on koalas through the removal of
koala habitat. The fragmentation of this environmental corridor will prevent koala movement to and from the
Noosa National Park.

   08 Open space networks and ecological linkages are maintained and enhanced to provide for safe movement
   of fauna and viable connectivity between ecologically important areas by protecting and replanting vegetation
   of local origin—
      a) along and around watercourses, wetlands, drainage lines and ridgelines; and
      b) as linkages between areas of remnant vegetation, including—
         L across property boundaries;
            to areas of national park, conservation park. State forest or reserve;

Comments: the proposed development does not maintain ecological linkages, drainage lines and ridgelines
from the site via tracts of forested land on across property boundary fronting Alma Way and eventually into
Noosa National Park, This ultimately undermines the purpose of safe fauna movement through the removal of
habitat and introduction of inappropriate urban development.

   Engineering and site works
   014 Development is sited and designed fo—
     b) avoid traversing or fragmenting vegetation or habitats for significant flora or fauna species; and
     c) avoid creating barriers to faunal movement.

Comments: the proposed development does not avoid traversing or fragmenting vegetation and habitats which
are identified within the Environmental Protection Area and the Open Space Conservation zone. The inclusion
of multiple dwellings in this area creates barriers for fauna movement acknowledging the site is part of a greater
environmental corridor that links into the Noose National Park.

   Filling and excavation
   015 Vegetation is not adversely impacted upon by earthworks and changes to the hydrological regime,
   including changes to ground water levels, flooding levels, run-off and tidal hydraulics.

Comments: the extensive excavation proposed to accommodate large development footprints for multiple
dwellings within the Environmental protection area will remove extensive areas of mature remnant vegetation
and will permanently alter natural drainage lines and hydrological systems.

Division 9 Natural Hazards Overlay Code

   13.30.2 The overall outcomes sought from the Natural Hazards Overlays Code are—
     f) natural processes and the protective function of landforms and vegetation are maintained in natural
     hazard areas;

Comments: the proposed development will permanently alter natural processes and landforms associated with
ecosystems and natural drainage through vegetation removal and earthworks that will impact on natural
resources and values.

Division 22 Reconfiguring a lot code

14.181.2 The overall outcomes sought by the Reconfiguring a Lot Code are to ensure that any reconfiguring of
lots results in—


Page 3

Page 8

         (b) compatible relationships between land uses;
         (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;
Comments: the proposed development includes urban residential land uses within the Open Space
Conservation zone which is clearly not a compatible land use outcome as a result of irreversible impacts on this
environmentally sensitive area. All residential uses are inconsistent in this zone. This impacts not only on the
natural environment but also increases the risk of landslide hazard on to people and property,


     3. The proposed development creates unreasonable risks to people and property
The Noosa Plan Natural Hazards overlay mapping shows most of the site within the landslide hazard area. The
extent of this overlay mapping is also consistent with the application of the Open Space Conservation zone over
the site acknowledging this zone reflects the inability to reasonably develop development due conservation and
natural hazard constraints. Council's online topographic mapping shows that parts of the site within the landslide
hazard area includes slopes upwards of 46% with very steep falls from west to east. Best practice confirms that
development should only be located on slopes no greater than 25% as is confirmed in S17,1 of the Noosa
Heads Locality code.

The proposed development seeks to construct and establish 12 multiple dwelling units on this highly constrained
part of the site. This represents a serious risk to people and property given the site is part of a large
conglomeration of sand dunes where slope stability is threatened through inappropriate development and
associated works. The removal of large tracts of mature vegetation and the permanent alteration of the site's
geomorphology through excessive earthworks to support development footprints, will ultimately create a major
geotechnical and slope stability risk to surrounding buildings particularly to the high side of the ridgeline to the
west.

The extent of earthworks (excavation) that is proposed to support the multiple dwelling component on this
extremely steep land represents a engineering solution that only seeks to manufacture a poor man made
outcome to attempt to overcome the physical constraints associated with the site. This will only create adverse
environmental impacts through land clearing, permanent geomorphological disturbance and ultimately and
increase in landslide hazard risk. This is essentially a poor planning outcome. The extent of landslide hazard
on the western portion of the site is potentially severe and the proposed development has the ability to cause
serious impacts to people and property on neighbouring land parcels to the west.

Part 9 Noose Heads locality

   9.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noose Heads Locality are the following—
         (h) New uses and works are located, designed and managed ro—
             il maintain the safety of people and works;
Comments: the proposed development represents a significant risk to people and property given the multiple
dwellings proposed on land with slopes of upwards of 46%. This is significantly greater than the maximum
sloping development sites of 25% which is reflected in 817.1 of the Noosa Heads Locality code. In order to
accommodate some form of development on this highly constrained part of the site, an engineering solution
based on extensive excavation is proposed. Given the site is part of a coastal sand dune system, the proposed
excessive earthworks will undermine slope stability and ultimately the safety of people and structural integrity
of buildings within and adjoining the site.




Page 7

Page 9

Table 9.11

9.9 Built form

Sloping sites and ridgelines

   017 Development on sloping sites—
     a) is responsive to the natural topography of the site and minimises cut and fill;
     C) is integrated with the natural site characteristics including vegetation;

Comments: the section plans for the proposed development clearly show an excessive amount of cut into sand
dunes is proposed to terrace the multiple dwelling units. This approach does not integrate with the natural site
characteristics which includes coastal rainforest vegetation. The area allocated in the Attached housing zone is
less constrained topographical and more suitable for multiplied dwelling development through minimising
earthworks.

Division 9 Natural Hazards Overlay Code

   13.30.2 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;
     d) development directly, indirectly and cumulatively avoids a material increase in extent and severity of
     natural hazards and does not significantly increase the potential damage on the site or to other properties:
     f) natural processes and the protective function of landforms and vegetation are maintained in natural
     hazard areas;

Comments: the proposed development is within an area of high landslide risk given some of the slopes from
the western ridgeline amount to 46% in parts. As a result, this part of the site is included in the Open Space
Conservation zone to ensure no sensitive uses occur that pose a threat to people and property. The multiple
dwelling component is proposed within this landslide area thereby creating a risk to people and property that is
completely inconsistent with the extent of the hazard. The proposed development also creates significant risks
to properties across the ridgeline along the western boundary as slope stability will be compromised through
excessive earthworks and vegetation removal. These impacts will adversely alter natural processes such as
existing drainage patterns and habitat loss.

Table 13.8 Landslide hazard areas

13.32 Effects of use

         01 Development is located to ensure it does not compromise the safety of people, property or hazardous
         materials manufactured or stored in bulk by increasing risk of landslide;

           S1.1 The proposed development is not located in a landslide hazard area as indicated on Overlay Maps
           0M1.3-0M9.335; OR
           S1.2 The development site is not subject to landslide, either internal6, or from sloping land above the
           site eq. slopes are less than 1 in 10 (10%)

         02 Development, including access ways is designed and constructed to—
           e) minimise impacts on the natural landform;
           b) minimise risk to people and property from landslide;
           C) avoid any potential instability and associated problems, including long term stability of the site and
           long term stability of the development

Comments: the multiple dwelling component is wholly located within the landslide hazard area on overlay map
0M6.3 and, is by definition from this mapping, exposed to landslide risk. The proposed engineering solution to

Page 8

Page 10

address landslide hazard involves excessive excavation which will result in major impacts on the landform and
critically has the potential to undermine the slope stability both within the site and on the neighbouring building
to the west which are on the high side of the ridgeline and in close proximity to the multiple dwellings proposed
along the western boundary.

Table 13.2 Biodiversity Overlay Code

   Steep slopes
   013 Vegetation on steep slopes is retained and managed to avoid erosion and landslide and to protect natural
   resources and values.

Comments: the proposed development includes the removal of vegetation to accommodate a large
development footprint for multiple dwelling along the western portion of the site. This is also clearly the steepest
part of the site which results in high landslide hazard risk.

Division 22 Reconfiguring a lot code

   14.181.2 The overall outcomes sought by the Reconfiguring a Lot Code are to ensure that any reconfiguring
   of lots results in—
         (g) lots that avoid significant adverse effects_ n the natural environment and landscape and minimise the
              risk of hazards for people and property;
Comments: the proposed development includes extensive built form to be located on the steepest part of the
site along the western boundary. Accommodating this built form through excessive excavation will increase the
risk of landslide hazard for both people and property,


     4. The proposed development is significantly in excess of the development density intended for
        the locality
This submission reiterates that the multiple dwelling component should be not be allowed in its proposed
location due to fundamental and irreconcilable conflicts with the Biodiversity Overlay, Open Space Conservation
zone and ultimately the intent for the Noose Heads locality. This conflict is only magnified by the scale and
density of the multiple dwellings and, notwithstanding these uses are to be situated in an inappropriate location,
they are proposed at a density and development footprint far greater than what is intended for the Attached
Housing zone part of the site.

Zone map ZM6 identifies an area along the mid eastern boundary of the site (contiguous to the Peppers
development) as being in the Attached housing zone. A 'generous' calculation of the area of this zone amounts
to approximately 2,100m2. The intent of the planning scheme in this situation is to ensure attached housing
development (ie multiple dwellings) which includes building footprints and associated hardstand areas are
contained entirely with this zone boundary.

Critically, this designated Attached housing zone area (of approximately 2,100m 2), when interpreted correctly,
should be the threshold in which to calculate appropriate site cover and gross floor area based on provisions in
the planning scheme. It is incorrect to apply the 'total site area because over 75% of this site area has been
identified in the Open Space Conservation zone which does not support residential development.

Proposed lot 1 accommodates 12 multiple dwelling and is 7,507m2 which is essentially 3.5 times greater than
the area of the Attached housing zone portion of the site. This demonstrates clear overdevelopment of the site
which is alarming given the high landslide hazard risk and the environmentally sensitive values that exist on
land where the multiple dwellings are proposed. It is also a blatant disregard of the planning scheme and the
community expectations attached to this.

This is also represented through site cover which is another factor contributing to the loss of important habitat
and exposure to landslide risk through excessive development footprints. Site cover is limited to 40% (010 of


Page 9

Page 11

the Noose Heads Locality Code) where applied correctly to the part of the site in the Attached housing zone. As
this amounts to approximately 2,100m2, the equivalent allowable site cover would be 840m2. The development
application proposes a site cover of 1,675m2 This is the equivalent of 80% of the area anticipated for multiple
dwellings and therefore twice the amount of site cover permitted under 010 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code.

Excessive density is also reflected in plot ratio which is proposed at 1,85 times the allowable area for multiple
dwellings in the Attached housing zone. 011 of the Noose Heads Locality Code allows a maximum plot ratio of
0.45 times the allowable site area in the Attached Housing zone, This is another example of excessive
development density that is proposed at the expense of loss of habitat.

The combination of significant non-compliance with site cover and plot ratio results in overdevelopment of the
site which results in unreasonable noise and traffic amenity impacts that are not consistent with what is
anticipated in the planning scheme and is not line with community expectations.

Part 9 Noose Heads locality Code

   9.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noose Heads Locality are the following—
      a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
         i.     compatible with other uses and works;
         iii. avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises. including
         acoustic and visual qualities;

Comments: the proposed development is beyond community expectations in terms of density as reflected in
site cover, and plot ratio which will create adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises,
including acoustic and visual qualities.

   Table 9.11

   9.8 Effects of Use

   Amenity
   01 Uses are located, designed and operated to avoid significant adverse changes to the light, air quality,
   noise accessibility, or other conditions enjoyed by users of associated, adjoining or nearby uses.

Comments: the scale of development in regard to the proposed location of multiple dwellings along the western
boundary of the site is clearly in conflict with the intended zoning pattern and therefore the expectations of
residents in the surrounding area. This will result in adverse changes to the level of amenity experienced by
nearby residents that is not consistent to what can be reasonably expected from the planning scheme as is
reflected in zone map 0M6.

   9.9 Built Form

   Density
   06 The density of development within the site area—
    c) has a low site impact to enhance the opportunity to maintain natural site characteristics, including
    native vegetation and natural landforms.

Comments: the density of the proposed development creates a major site impacts through large areas of
environmentally sensitive vegetation being removed and impacts to the coastal dune landform through
extensive excavation.

   Site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio
   09 The site cover, gross floor area and plot ratio of buildings and other roofed structures—
      c) maximises the retention of existing vegetation and allows for soft landscaping between buildings;


Page 10

Page 12

     010 Site cover—
       d) for the Attached Housind Zone does not exceed 40%;

     011 For Multiple housing Type 2. buildings have a maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1.

Comments: the excessive density for the proposed development does not maximise the retention of existing
vegetation It seeks to remove large areas of habitat in the Environmental Protection area and Open Space
Conservation zone. The proposed site cover is 80% which is double the allowable site cover for development
in the Attached Housing zone. The proposed plot ratio is 1.85 which is 4 times the allowable plot ratio for land
in the Attached Housing zone.


      5. Conflicts and absence of sufficient grounds
The points above demonstrate how the proposed development fails to comply with several assessment
benchmarks in the planning scheme and is therefore in significant conflict with this local planning instrument.
Section 45(5)(b) of the Act allows for additional assessment to have regard for, "any other relevant matter, other
than a person's personal circumstances, financial or otherwise".
This section of the Act also provides the following examples of what may be considered another relevant matter
which includes:
      •       a planning need
      •       the current relevance of the assessment benchmarks in the light of changed circumstances
      •       whether assessment benchmarks or other prescribed matters were based on material errors
Firstly, there is clearly no planning need that has been demonstrated to overcome the conflict with the planning
scheme. This proposed development seeks approval for several up market multiple dwelling units and detached
houses without any demonstration of planning need noting there are other far more suitable locations for housing
along the eastern part of the site. The proposed development is not in response to any housing shortage being
experienced in the shire.
The proposed development talks about delivering community benefits through transferring part of the site into
public ownership for environmental purposes. Furthermore, it is proposed to rehabilitate parts of this bushland.
These points cannot be realistically considered as community benefits for the following reasons:
          •   the majority of the site is currently zoned in the Open Space Conservation zone and is already providing
              community benefits through environmental protection, open space functions, visual amenity and
              landscape values through current arrangements enshrined in existing planning provisions;
          •   the community currently enjoys these attributes through using the public pathway that runs down to the
              bottom of Noosa Drive. This will be lost with multiple dwelling development along the western portion
              of the site;
          •   the natural habitat within the Open Space Conservation zone / Environmental Protection area is in
              good condition and further rehabilitation will not make material improvements that would offset the
              extensive clearing of the site to incorporate the large development footprint for the multiple dwellings.
Secondly, the relevant assessment benchmarks have not been overtaken by events. In particular, the
application of mixed zoning is still relevant given the prevailing topographical and environmental conditions
throughout the site have not changed throughout the life of the planning scheme.
Thirdly, this submission has demonstrated the assessment benchmarks in this planning scheme (in particular
the zone pattern) were based on a robust planning rationale that correctly took into account natural hazard risk
associated with landslide and prevailing biodiversity values supporting native fauna and flora.
The Applicant has failed to demonstrate as required under Section 45(5)(b) of the Act that there are other
relevant matters that exist to warrant approval of the application in the face of the previously mentioned conflicts.
As such, under section 60(3)(c) of the Act the Assessment Manager must refuse the application.


Pa    Ii

Page 13

Conclusion
It is accepted that the planning scheme anticipates some level of residential development in discrete parts of
the site as is reflected in the zone plan. This intended land use pattern considers landslide risk, biodiversity
values and also the scale and character of existing development adjoining the eastern boundary of the site.
Based on the points described above, we strongly object to this development application and, in particular, the
multiple dwelling component along the western section of the site as:
    •    it completely disregards the intent of land uses as expressed in the zone pattern that reflects community
         expectations and amenity standards for the locality,
    •     this is clearly in the steepest past of the site (as confirmed by Council's own topographic mapping) and
          represents a significant risk from landslide hazard to people and property including building adjoining
          the western boundary of the site;
    •     the proposed development density greatly exceeds site cover and plot ratio thresholds for land in the
          Attached Housing zone; and
    •     ultimately the large development footprint results in the loss of remnant coastal habitat that is intended
          to be conserved and protected in the planning scheme.


        • NareIle Kearney



    .3 /34-                                        (\pc\                  9Q?).
                                  \-\‘‘o.cLo              14-S (6-1