MCU180015 - Submission - Narelle Kearney · MCU18/0015

     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