Original source · versioned page text
2020-10-06 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 6 October 2020
commencing at 9.30am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Clare Stewart, Tom Wegener
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
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.
Full text of the other 46 sections
Section 2
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
DEPUTATIONS -
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 3
1 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION 3
2 MCU20/0027 & RAL20/0004 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS TYPE 2 MEDICAL INVOLVING BUILDING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
RELOCATION OF A BUILDING IN A HERITAGE CHARACTER AREA &
RECONFIGURING A LOT (4 LOTS INTO 2) AT 45 & 47A MAPLE ST & 9 MYALL
ST COOROY 11
3 OPW19/0217.01 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO D63 OF
2020 REFUSAL OF A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A
JETTY AT 60 THE PENINSULA, NOOSAVILLE 44
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 47
Section 3
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator, Oddbjorn Ludvigsen
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ 66.02 - Infrastructure Charges Instruments & Policy
(Council/State)
Attachments 1. Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.5.1) 2020 (30 page
attachment provided separately to this agenda)
2. Table of Comparison of Rate Increases
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 October 2020 and adopt the “Noosa Shire Council
Charges Resolution (No.5.1) 2020” provided at Attachment 1 to the report, to replace the “Noosa
Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.5) 2020” and take effect on 16 October 2020.
REPORT
Council issues infrastructure charges on development under its “Charges Resolution” to help
fund provision of “trunk” infrastructure identified in its Local Government Infrastructure Plan
(LGIP).
Council’s current adopted “Charges Resolution (No.5)” recently took effect on 31 July 2020 to
cater for commencement of the new planning scheme. However this maintained a base date of 1
July 2019 for the 2019-2020 Financial Year to correlate directly with the “Planning Regulation
2017, Schedule 16 Prescribed amount” current at that time and reliance on Council Resolution
section “9.5 Automatic increase provision of levied charge” and the “Planning Act 2016 section
112(2)” for indexation of charges to the current 2020-2021 financial year.
On 28 August 2020 through the “Planning Legislation (Fees and Other Amounts) Amendment
Regulation 2020”, the State Government amended the “Planning Regulation 2017, Schedule 16
Prescribed amount” that now applies for the current 2020-2021 financial year. This replaces the
alternative indexation methodology under the “Planning Act 2016, section 112(2)” that would
otherwise apply with resulting differences being negligible due to rounding.
The Queensland Legislation web-page was updated on 2 September 2020 with the amended
“Planning Regulation 2017, Current as at 28 August 2020” with updated prescribed (maximum)
amounts equating to an average 3.02+% increase from the previous financial year. A full
comparison of all rate increases is provided for Council information in Attachment 2.
To maintain direct consistency with the most current legislative/regulatory amendment, it is
recommended that Council’s current “Charges Resolution (No.5) 2020” be amended and
replaced with an updated “Charges Resolution (No.5.1) 2020” provided as Attachment 1 to this
report to take effect on 16 October 2020.
Page 3 of 47
Section 4
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
1. Summary of Amendments
The amendments are administrative only and relate to the following items:
Section 1.1 Short title
Update the charges resolution citation to: (No.5.1) 2020
Section 1.3 Effect
Update the effective date to: 16 October 2020
Section 10.4 Schedule of Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges (under breakup agreement)
Update the base date to 28 August 2020 for the 2020-2021 Financial Year with Table 10.3
Schedule of Council adopted charges updates to:
Column 2 to the current “Planning Regulation 2017 Schedule 16 Prescribed amounts”
updated by the State Government on 28 August 2020 as inserted by the “Planning
Legislation (Fees and Other Amounts) Amendment Regulation 2020”;
Column 3 “Council Charges” updated in accordance with the Charges breakup agreement
with Unitywater of the updated Prescribed amounts in Column 2; and
Column 4 “Council Included Reductions” updated amounts maintaining unchanged
previous proportioned (percentage) reductions.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 28 August 2014, Item 2, Page 6
That Council note the report by the Priority Infrastructure Planning and Infrastructure Charges
Officer to the Planning & Organisation Committee dated 28 January 2014 and:
1. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.1) 2014”
(provided at Attachment 1 to the report) to replace the “Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (No.4) 2011” applying to development governed
by The Noosa Plan;
2. Publicly notify the adoption of the “Noosa Shire Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges
Resolution (No.1) 2014” and forward a copy to the Chief Executive, Department of State
Development, Infrastructure and Planning in accordance with section 648D of the
“Sustainable Planning Act 2009”;
3. Adopt Noosa Council policy positions regarding Extensions to Relevant Periods (through
infrastructure agreements) and/or subsequent Infrastructure Charge Notices triggered by
Building Permits, to charge development for all networks, including those previously missing
where:
a) missing networks are to be charged at the current Adopted Infrastructure Charges;
and
b) the missing network charge is limited so that it does not cause the total amount
payable for the development to exceed the total maximum adopted charge
permissible under the “Statutory Planning Regulatory Provision (adopted charges)”.
4. For development requesting to transfer to an alternative infrastructure charges regime to
that previously applied under an existing development approval, Council:
a) require a new development application to be lodged; and
b) offer a 50% reduction to the application fee for these new development applications,
provided there is no change to the development previously approved and no
additional assessment is required to that previously undertaken under The Noosa
Plan; and
Page 4 of 47
Section 5
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
c) request the applicant to cancel their previous development approval under sections
379 and 380 of the “Sustainable Planning Act 2009” at no cost to the applicant, once
a dew development approval takes effect.
5. Note the State Government’s review of the current Adopted Infrastructure Charges regime
is likely to impact the level of infrastructure charges that can be levied on future development
and priority infrastructure planning requirements. A further report will be provided to Council
once the outcome is known.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 12 February 2015, Item 1, Page 6
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 3 February 2015 and adopt the “Noosa Shire Council
Charges Resolution (No.2) 2014” (provided as Attachment 1 to the report) to take effect on
Monday 16 February 2015 replacing the “Noosa Shire Council Adopted Infrastructure Charges
Resolution (No.1) 2014”.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 20 October 2016, Item 5, Page 16
That Council note the report by the Principal Strategic Planner to the General Committee dated
17 October 2016 and:
A. Proceed to adopt the Planning Scheme Amendments, as provided at Attachment 1 to the
report, in accordance with the Ministerial conditions; and
B. Authorise changes to Table 10.3 of Council’s Charges Resolution for secondary dwellings,
community residences and intensive cultivation uses, as provided at Attachment 2
(Amended) to the report.
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 20 September 2018, Item 5, Page 14
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the General
Committee Meeting dated 17 September 2018 regarding amendment to the Infrastructure
Charges Resolution and:
A. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.3) 2018” provided at Attachment
1 to the report, to take effect on Monday 24 September 2018 replacing the “Noosa Shire
Council Charges Resolution (No.2) 2014 (Amendment 1)”;
B. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to:
1. Review infrastructure charge notices issued from 8 June 2018 (the date the current
LGIP took effect) and where applicable for developments located outside the PIA,
issue “Amended Infrastructure Charges Notices” removing the stormwater component
of the charge;
2. Apply the annual indexation methodology in line with item 9.5 (3) “Automatic
increase provision of levied charge” contained in the new “Noosa Shire Council
Charges Resolution (No.3) 2018” for all infrastructure charges remaining to be
paid that were issued from 1 July 2011 under all previous adopted “Council
Charges Resolutions”; and
3. Continue to apply quarterly indexation using variations in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for:
i. all infrastructure contributions and/or infrastructure charge notices remaining
to be paid that were issued prior to 1 July 2011 under the former Planning
Scheme Policies (PSP’s) contained as a condition of a development permit
and/or under the former Coastal Major Road Network Infrastructure Charges
Plan (CMRNICP); and
ii. all infrastructure charges and/or contributions being paid under delayed
staged payment or other infrastructure agreements.
Page 5 of 47
Section 6
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 19 September 2019, Item 1, Page 10
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 10 September 2019 and adopt the “Noosa Shire Council
Charges Resolution (No.4) 2019” provided at Attachment 1 to the report (with a correction to
section 13.6(i)(c) to refer to clause 145 of the Planning Act), to take effect on Monday 23
September 2019 replacing the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.3) 2018”.
Special Meeting Minutes, 16 July 2020, Item 2, Page 7
That Council note the report by the Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator to the Special
Meeting dated 16 July 2020 and
A. Adopt the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution (No.5) 2020” provided at Attachment
1 to the report, to take effect and replace the “Noosa Shire Council Charges Resolution
(No.4) 2019” on the day the new planning scheme takes effect, and
B. Authorise the CEO to make minor changes to the Noosa Shire Charges Resolution (No. 5)
2020 prior to the date it takes effect.
Finance
Council is required to have an adopted a Charges Resolution that is compliant with current
planning legislation to issue infrastructure charges and impose conditions about trunk
infrastructure on development. The infrastructure charges revenue is estimated in the order of $2
million per annum.
Risks & Opportunities
Regular reviews with appropriate updates to Council’s Charges Resolution will reduce the risk for
potential legal appeals being lodged against infrastructure charges issued on development.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Manager, Development Assessment
Director, Environment & Sustainable Development
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director x 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 6 of 47
Section 7
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 7 of 47
Table of Comparison of Rate Increases ATTACHMENT 2
The Noosa Plan 2006 Planning Regulation 2017 &
(Superseded planning scheme) The Noosa Plan 2020 Column 2
Column la Column 1b
Planning Regulation 2017 COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHARGE
Schedule 16 Prescribed amount APPORTIONMENT
Use 2019-2020 (per charges breake 2019-2020
Financial Year - Financial Year
of Prescribed amoun:
Residential - Reconfiguration of a lot Residential - Reconfiguration of a lot or each Residential lot $29,339.55 $30,226.70 60% $17,603.73 $18,136.02
i ial |
(equivalent to 3 or more bedroom dwelling)
Non-Residential - Reconfiguration of a lot ‘or each Non-residential lot $29,339.55 $30,226.70 $17,603.73 $18,136.02
+ Detached house for each dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms $29,339.55 $30,226.70 $17,603.73 $18,136.02
« Ancillary dwelling unit 1 Dwelling house ‘or each dwelling with 2 bedrooms $12,574.08) $12,954.30
. 2 Dual occupancy ‘or each dwelling with 1 or less bedrooms
“re 5 oie 3 Caretaker’s accommodation (Council reduced rate by -31.9%) $20,956.80 $21,590.50 60% $8,560.00 $8,818.84
Itiple hi . .
4 Multiple dwelling ‘or each dwelling if Secondary dwelling to Dwelling
¥pe © sonwentional lhouse (Council reduced rate by -50.3%) $ 9 $
le Ti 4C t U 6,249.00) 6,437.96]
1 Tourist park ‘or each group of 3 tent or caravan sites $14,669.75 $15,113.30 $8,801.85 $9,067.98
Visitor accommodation > Hotel p ‘or each group of 2 tent or caravan sites or less $10,478.40 $10,795.20 $6,287.04 $6,477.12
l* Type 1 Home hosted i i
ype some none 3 Short-term accommodation or each cabin or suite $14,669.75 $15,113.30 60% $8,801.85 $9,067.98
© Type 2 Caravan park ith 3 or more bedrooms
* Type 3 Rural 4 Resort complex h cabi it
yp Other Uses or each canin or sue $10,478.40 $10,795.20 60% $6,287.04 $6,477.12
* Type 4 Conventional 8 Non-resident workforce accommodation ith 2 or less bedrooms
‘or each bedroom that is not part of a suite $10,478.40 $10,795.20 $6,287.04 $6,477.12
‘or each relocatable dwelling site or suite $29,339.55 $30,226.70 60% $17,603.73 $18,136.02
‘or 3 or more bedrooms
‘or each relocatable dwelling site or suite $12,574.08 $12,954.30)
1 Relocatable home park ‘or 2 bedrooms
* Community Residence . . = ~ -
Multiple housin 2 Community residence ‘or each relocatable dwelling site or suite $20,956.80 $21,590.50 60%
“Ty . 5 hele able 4 Rooming accommodation ‘or 1 or less bedrooms $8,560.00! $8,818.84
P (Council reduced rate by -31.9%)
for each bedroom that is not part of a suite
20,956.80 21,590.50 60% 8,560.00) 8,818.84)
‘or each suite with 3 or more bedrooms
29,339.55 30,226.71 60% 13,458.00 13,864.93
or each suite with 2 bedrooms
Multiple housing Council reduced rate by -23.5%) $9,613.00! $9,903.68)
* Type 3 Retirement and special needs 3 Retirement facility eens ~ - y “<>. $20,956.80 60%
(retirement village) for each suite with 1 or less bedrooms $6,249.00 $6,437.96
(Council reduced rate by -50.3%) — oe
for each bedroom that is not part of a suite 20,956.80 21,590.50 60% 6,249.00 6,437.96
(Council reduced rate by -50.3%) $ $ $ $
Places of assemb en
1Club
Wellbeing 2 Community use
© Type 2 Social (arts and crafts, community 3 Function facility
meeting hall CWA etc) 4 Funeral parlour ‘or each square metre of gross floor area $73.35 $75.60 60% $44.01 $45.36
* Type 3 Worship 5 Place of worship
l* Type 4 Funeral Other uses
4 Crematorium
1
Page 7 of 47Section 8
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 8 of 47
Table of Comparison of Rate Increases
The Noosa Plan 2006 Planning Regulation 2017 &
(Superseded planning scheme) The Noosa Plan 2020 Column 2 Column 3
Column la Column 1b
Planning Regulation 2017 COUNC COUNCIL CHARGE
i i INCIL
Schedule 16 Prescribed amount APPORTIONMENT
Use 2019-2020 (per Charges breakup | 979.2920
. . agreement . .
Financial Year Financial Year
of Prescribed amount,
Retail business 1 Agricultural supplies store
* Type 3 Landscape and rural 2 Bulk landscape supplies
* Type 4 Showroom 3 Garden centre
‘or each square metre of gross floor area 146.70 151.15 85% 124.69 128.47
* Type 5 Vehicle uses a) Standard 4 Hardware and trade supplies r quan r gr ren $ $ $ $
° Type 6 Hardware Store 5 Outdoor sales
¢ Type 7 Garden 6 Showroom
ommercial (retail) |
Retail business 1 Adult store
* Type 1 Local 2 Food and drink outlet
* Type 2 Shop & salon 3 Service industry ‘or each square metre of gross floor area $188.60 $194.30 85% $160.31 $165.15)
* Type 5 Vehicle uses b) Service Station 4 Service station
Entertainment and dining business 5 Shop
¢ Type 1 Food & beverages 6 Shopping centre
Commercial business 1 Office
x 151.15 85% 124.69 128.47,
Education
© Type 1 Childcare 1 Childcare centre
* Type 2 School 2 Community care centre ‘or each square metre of gross floor area $146.70 $151.15 60% $88.02 $90.69
* Type 3 Adult 3 Educational establishment
¢ Type 4 Information
1 Hotel
2 Nightclub entertainment facility
Entertainment and dining business 3 Theatre ‘or each square metre of gross floor area, other than $209.55 $215.90 85% $178.11 $183.51
° Type 3 Bar 4 Resort complex areas for providing accommodation
Other uses
11 Tourist attraction
indoor sport and recreation |
Entertainment and dining business / 1 Indoor sport and recreation ‘or each square metre of gross floor area, other than $209.55 $215.90 60% $78.74 $81.13
¢ Type 2 Recreation, amusement and fitness Other uses ourt areas (Council reduced rate by -37.4%)
Open space 6 Major sport, recreation and entertainment ‘or each square metre of gross floor area that is a court $20.90 $21.55 60% $12.54 $12.93
Type 1 Sport and recreation facility area
High impact industry or special industry |
1 High impact industry
[Industrial Business 2 Special industry ‘or each square metre of gross floor area $73.35 $75.60 64% $46.94 $48.38
° Type 3 Extractive Other uses
5 Extractive industry
2
Page 8 of 47Section 9
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 9 of 47
Table of Comparison of Rate Increases
The Noosa Plan 2006 Planning Regulation 2017 &
(Superseded planning scheme) The Noosa Plan 2020 Column 2 Column 3
Column 1a Column 1b
g Neguiat sasidnie COUNCIL CHARGE
Planning Regulation 2017
Schedule 16 Prescribed amount APPORTIONMENT
Use 2019-2020 (per Charges breakup | 599.2920
. - agreement : .
Financial Year : Financial Year
of Prescribed amount,
ee
Industrial business . .
1 Low impact industry
° Type 1 Warehouse on t 5
* Type 2 Production, alteration, repackaging and 2 Medium impact industry
re , . ¥ FED one 3 Research and technology industry
° 6 4 Rural industry
Service & utility
* Type 2 Installation 5 Warehouse
6 Marine industry for each square metre of gross floor area $52.40 $54.00: 64%
° Type 4 Treatment, recycling & disposal;
Other uses
Transport A
¢ Type 1 Passenger terminal 1 Air service
» s 3 Car park
° Type 2 Carpark :
10 Port service
* Type 3 Depot 12 Utility installation
* Type 4 Aeronautical ty
1 Cultivating, in a confined area, aquatic
animals or plants for sale
Cultivation 2 Intensive animal industry
* Type 2 Intensive 3 Intensive horticulture
h tre of fl 20.90 21.55 60% 12.54) 12.93
Animal husbandry 14 Wholesale nursery ‘or each square metre of gross floor area $ $ $ $
¢ Type 1 Traditional IS Winery
Other uses
2 Animal keeping
Cultivati
uiswawon 1 Animal husbandry
¢ Type 1 Traditional 2 Cr in
Animal husbandry 3p ore 6 t plantati
‘ermanent plan' ion
* Type raditiona 4 Wind farm $0.00 60% $0.00 $0.00
eT T | . .f .!
sone. Nativ Other uses
ype auve 2 Animal keeping
* Type 2 Plantation
‘Commercial business
° Type 2 Medical 1 Correctional facility
le Type 3 Veterinary 2 Emergency services
E 3 Health i
weet eaton. la ieee service or each square metre of gross floor area $88.02 $90.69
° Type 2 Shed 6 Veterinary service $146.70 $151.15 60%
Wellbeing
° Type 1 Health (hospital, hospice etc)
Multiple housing or each square metre of gross floor area
* Type 3 Retirement and special needs (aged care |5 Residential care facility oon adnew rate by ls $65.44 $67.43
facility)
3
Page 9 of 47Section 10
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 10 of 47
Table of Comparison of Rate Increases
The Noosa Plan 2006 Planning Regulation 2017 &
(Superseded planning scheme) The Noosa Plan 2020 Column 2 Column 3
Column 1a Column 1b
Planning Regulation 2017 COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHARGE
Schedule 16 Prescribed amount APPORTIONMENT
Use 2019-2020 (per Charges breakup | 919.2920
Financial Year opreement Financial Year
of Prescribed amount
1 Advertising device
2 Cemetery
Home-based business 3 Home-based business
© Type 1 Limited visibility 4 Landing
¢ Type 2 Evident 5 Market
Type 3 Significant scale 6 Outdoor lighting $0.00 $0.00 com $0.00 $0.00
Service & utility 7 Park
* Type 3 Tower 8 Roadside stall
9 Telecommunications facility
10 Temporary use
STORMWATER (for Non-Residential Develop only) |
LL Non-Residential Uses ALL Non-Residential Uses
(Except for Rural & Minor Uses) (Except for Rural & Minor Uses) 51050 p10-80 51050 p0.80
4
Page 10 of 47Section 11
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
2 MCU20/0027 & RAL20/0004 MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS
TYPE 2 MEDICAL INVOLVING BUILDING WORK ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATION
OF A BUILDING IN A HERITAGE CHARACTER AREA & RECONFIGURING A LOT (4
LOTS INTO 2) AT 45 & 47A MAPLE ST & 9 MYALL ST COOROY
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU20/0027 and RAL20/0004
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Medicentre Property No 2 Pty Ltd
Proposal Material Change of Use - Commercial Business - Type 2 Medical
involving Building Work associated with the relocation of a building
within a Heritage Character Area and Reconfiguring a Lot (4 lots into
2)
Properly Made Date 21 April 2020
Information Request Date 13 May 2020
Information Response Date 24 June 20209
Decision Due Date 29 September 2020
Number of Submissions 6 properly made and 1 not properly made
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 45 Maple St Cooroy (2 titles)
9 Myall St Cooroy
47a Maple St Cooroy
RP Description Lot 18 C 5605
Lot 2 RP 99323
Lot 1 RP 99323
Lot 15 C 5605
Land Area 1156m²
377m²
243m²
1335m²
Existing Use of Land Residential dwelling at 45 Maple Street
Vacant land at 47A Maple Street
Commercial premise at 9 Myall Street
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Cooroy and Lake Macdonald
Zone Community Services Zone
Overlays Heritage Overlay – Character Area (excluding 9 Myall Street)
Assessment Type Impact
Page 11 of 47
Section 12
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 6 October 2020 regarding Application No, MCU20/0027 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Commercial Business - Type 2 (Medical)
involving Building Work associated with the relocation of a building within a Heritage Character
Area and Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (4 lots into 2) situated at 45 and 47a Maple
Street and 9 Myall Street Cooroy and:
A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is not consistent with the Desired Environmental
Outcomes 3.1.3(d)(i) and (ii) of the Noosa Plan 2006 as it does not protect the
heritage character building and provide for adaptive re-use of the existing building.
2. The proposed development is not consistent with the Overall Outcomes 6.7.2(n) and
(r) of the Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Locality Code of the Noosa Plan 2006 as the
proposed development does not maintain or compliment the traditional country
streetscape and building forms of Cooroy.
3. The proposed development is not consistent with Specific Outcome O16 of the
Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Locality Code of the Noosa Plan 2006 as it does not
provide a traditional roof form which contributes positively to the local skyline or
complement the character of the locality.
4. The proposed development is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 13.16.2(f)(i), (ii),
(iv), (v) and (viii), Specific Outcomes O5, O6 and O7 of the Heritage Overlay and
Specific Outcome O63 of the Community Services Zone of the Noosa Plan 2006 as
it:
i. does not retain the existing heritage character building;
ii. will adversely impact on the streetscape character;
iii. proposes a built form which is not reflective of the historic architectural
features in Cooroy; and
iv. does not maintain a domestic character and form consistent with the
Queensland vernacular specifically sought in Maple Street.
5. The proposed development is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 14.110.2 c) and
d) and Specific Outcomes O7 and O8 of the Driveways and Carparking Code of the
Noosa Plan 2006 as:
i. the proposed car parking arrangements will not meet the reasonable
requirements of the proposed use with the number of tandem spaces
excessive; and
ii. suitable manoeuvring areas for waste collection and service vehicles has not
been demonstrated.
6. The proposed development is contrary to the Noosa Plan 2020 provisions which
similarly seek to protect the heritage qualities of the site and the streetscape
character.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Page 12 of 47
Section 13
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application proposes to remove a character building within a Heritage Character Area and
develop a new building for use as a medical facility.
In place of the character building a new building is proposed, which is a split level building with a
lower level car parking area with an entrance lobby, lift and toilets and three separate tenancies
located above. The total gross floor area of the proposed building is 968m2, with total use area of
880m2 and site cover of 1020m2.
32 car spaces and 7 motorbike parking spaces are to be provided in the basement car park and
an additional 11 car spaces, 1 motorbike space and an ambulance park are provided external to
the building.
Due to the slope of the site part of the proposed new building will present to the street as low set
and part as high set. The building will have a maximum height of 8m above ground level.
The applicant advises that the building has been architecturally designed to respect and integrate
with the surrounding historical streetscape character….Building elements, materials and finishes
include pitched roofs with custom orb profile, flat sheet cladding with cover battens, linea board
wall cladding, off form concrete to columns and low height entry walls and sandstone cladding to
some external screening. Soft muted colours are proposed.
It is also proposed to reconfigure the 4 lots subject to the application into 2 lots, comprising a
2,252m2 lot fronting Maple Street for the proposed medical centre and an 867m 2 lot fronting Myall
Street containing an existing dwelling.
The applicant has not advised where the character building is proposed to be relocated to.
The applicant has provided the following documentation in support of the application:
Development Assessment report
Architectural proposal plans
Reconfiguration Proposal Plan
Heritage Impact Assessment
Landscape Concept Plan
Noise Report
Stormwater Management Plan
Structural Report
Traffic Engineering report
Additional information regarding re-use of existing building for medical facility
The following images detail a Locality Plan and plans of the proposed development.
Page 13 of 47
Section 14
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 1: Locality Plan detailing the 4 lots subject to the application
Figure 2: Basement Plan
Page 14 of 47
Section 15
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 3: Ground Floor/Lobby Plan
Figure 4: Upper Floor Plan
Page 15 of 47
Section 16
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 5: Streetscape Render (artist impression)
Figure 6: Elevation perspectives
Page 16 of 47
Section 17
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 7: Elevation perspectives
Figure 8: Reconfiguration Plan
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
A pre-lodgement was conducted on 26 November 2019. The meeting raised a number of issues
for the application to address relating to:
Page 17 of 47
Section 18
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Heritage character requirements
Car parking
Traffic
External frontage works
Stormwater Management
Existing sewer main and connection
Waste Management
Fire safety and protection
With regards to the site being located within the Heritage Character Area the following advice
was provided:
The site is also included in the Heritage Overlay (Character Area) for Cooroy under the
Noosa Plan. For this area, the Noosa Plan seeks to protect the streetscape character area
by retaining the existing buildings that contribute positively to the character. Review of the
site and existing house following the meeting shows that the existing building is of a
Queensland vernacular style timber and iron house on stumps with many features typical of
this era and which contribute to the character of Maple Street.
It is therefore unlikely Council would support relocation or demolition of the existing house.
It is therefore recommended that the existing house be retained for the proposed medical
use.
2.2. Site Description
45 MAPLE ST COOROY (2 TITLES) Single storey residential dwelling located to the front of the
site. Site is located within a heritage character area
47A MAPLE ST COOROY: Vacant land of approximately 245m 2 in area which has a
battle-axe shape
9 MYALL ST COOROY: Dwelling house which has previously been used for
commercial uses
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The area within proximity of the site on the same side of Myall Street is generally characterised
by residential development. There has been little new development since the commencement of
the Noosa Plan 2006 and dwellings within the Heritage Character Area have all been retained.
The opposite side of Myall Street is similarly zoned Community Services with the Eden Private
Hospital being situated directly opposite the subject site. The land to the north of the hospital is
zoned Business Centre.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. 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 2006.
Page 18 of 47
Section 19
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan 2006 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 Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
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.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application was lodged under The Noosa Plan 2006 prior to the commencement of the
Noosa Plan 2020 and so must be assessed against the whole of the Noosa Plan 2006 to the
extent the provisions are relevant to the development, but regard may be had to the Noosa Plan
2020.
The subject site is located in the Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Locality and is zoned Community
Services. The proposed use is identified as a consistent use with the zone and is required to
follow an impact assessable application process.
Land use
In terms of the proposed land use the following outcomes are the relevant Overall Outcomes of
the Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Locality Code:
6.7.2
v) Cooroy services much of the hinterland of Noosa providing low to medium order goods
and some higher order goods and services such as vehicle sales, rural supplies,
community, medical, and educational facilities as well as specialty items such as
handmade furniture;
x) The town of Cooroy provides a range of community services, schools, medical facilities,
sporting and recreational facilities, which service the hinterland and beyond;
oo) For the Community Services Zone—land committed or planned for community
purposes—
i is protected and managed to enable the efficient and timely delivery of community
services; and
ii is consistent with the indoor recreation, education, health, social and safety needs
of the local community, including people with special needs
The proposed use is consistent with the relevant overall outcomes as it provides for a medical
facility which will service the health needs of the local community and nearby hinterland areas.
The use is appropriately located within the Community Services Zone and notably situated
opposite Eden Hospital which provides convenience and accessibility for patients and
practitioners.
Heritage
The proposed relocation of the existing dwelling situated at 45 Maple Street Cooroy is the critical
issue in the assessment of the application. The site is subject to the Heritage Overlay which
designates the site and surrounding area as a Heritage Character Area.
The following image details the site within the context of the Heritage Character Area in which it
is located:
Page 19 of 47
Section 20
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 9: Subject site’s location within Character Area
The following provisions within the planning scheme are relevant to the assessment of the
heritage aspect of the application:
Desired Environmental Outcomes
3.1.3 d) HERITAGE
The indigenous and non-indigenous history, culture and traditions are reflected in the built
and natural heritage of Noosa Shire and are preserved for future generations by –
i. protecting heritage sites and places that have significance and value and contribute
to our understanding of who we are and how Noosa Shire has evolved; and
ii. providing opportunities for economically viable adaptive re-use of buildings where it
is compatible and sensitive
Page 20 of 47
Section 21
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
The relevant Overall and Specific Outcomes of the Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Locality Code
are:
6.7.2
n) Key streetscape characteristic of Cooroy township are maintained by new development
including –
i. the country town character including the rural, almost rustic quality to some of the
original buildings in town;
r) The traditional built form of Cooroy is retained and new development complements
traditional streetscape and building forms;
Specific Outcome O16
Roof form O16 Roof forms—
a) contribute positively to the local skyline;
b) complement the low rise character of the locality;
c) use simple traditional roof designs, such as hipped, gabled or skillion; and
d) do not create opportunities for residents to overlook the private open space areas of
neighbouring properties
The Overall Outcomes of the Heritage Overlay include:
13.16.2 f) For Cooroy-Maple Street Character Area:-
i. The historic business centre of Cooroy extending from Marara St in the north to
Crystal Street in the south, including 9-73 Maple Street and 19 Crystal Street, as
shown on Heritage Overlay Map OM3.2 is retained and protected;
ii. business, community and residential buildings from the early to mid-twentieth
century, which influence the character of the area are retained;
iv. Development reflects country town character elements reminiscent of Cooroy’s
heritage characteristics;
v. Development maintains and reflects the historic architectural features in Cooroy
including the traditional building designs of a predominately low rise and low
impact scale, typified by lightweight construction, with a timber frame, generally
raised above ground on stumps, many featuring verandah elements, sunhoods
and awnings to window and wall openings and simple roof designs, either gabled
or hipped. Typical materials used include timber for cladding and corrugated iron
for roofs;
viii. Development along Maple Street, south of the business centre maintains a
domestic scale and form consistent with the Queensland vernacular with
landscaped setbacks and front yards without front fences, and low impact
domestic scale buildings that contribute to the open character of this part of the
character area;
Specific Outcomes O5, O6 and O7 of the Heritage Overlay state:
Specific Outcome O5 Retention, relocation & demolition
O5 The valued streetscape character within character areas are protected through the
retention of buildings that contribute positively to that character.
Specific Outcome O6 Adaptive reuse
O6 Character buildings are conserved and protected by adaptively reusing such sites, provided
any new use—
Page 21 of 47
Section 22
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
a) does not impact on the cultural heritage significance of the site;
b) respects the valued streetscape character;
c) is compatible with the amenity of adjacent uses; and
d) provides for adequate buffer areas and buffer elements between nearby uses.
Specific Outcome O7 Building Works within character areas
O7 Building works to premises within character areas, are designed to be sympathetic to the
valued streetscape character through—
a) respecting the form, bulk, scale and height of heritage sites or character buildings within
the streetscape;
b) complementing original roof forms and pitch within the streetscape;
c) conforming with the original fencing, veranda and façade design and detailing within the
streetscape;
d) using materials that reflect the valued character; and
e) retaining existing mature vegetation around the site
Specific Outcome and Probable Solution O63 of Community Services Zone:
O63 Uses are located, designed and operated to—
a) provide focal points for the community;
b) relate to the setting and heritage of the locality; and
c) be accessible and functional for a wide range of users and uses
The Noosa Plan (2006) explicitly seeks to protect the streetscape character within heritage
character areas through the retention of buildings that contribute positively to that character.
The zoning of the site and surrounding area recognises that the buildings may no longer be used
for residential purposes however the application of the heritage overlay seeks for the community
uses to occur within these existing character buildings.
While the exact date of the construction of the dwelling is unknown, the dwelling type, being an
Asymmetrical Bungalow with L-Shaped veranda, was a popular style of residential construction in
South East Queensland from the Federation era until the 1930’s. The Structural Assessment
report submitted with the application notes the timber house is a low set timber building that is
understood to be pre-war and constructed at least 100 years ago. Aerial photography confirms
that some modifications were carried out to the dwelling pre 1956, with the modifications being at
least 64 years old. The following images detail part of the front elevation, rear elevation and
separate garage.
Figure 10: Front, rear and separate garage
Page 22 of 47
Section 23
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 11: View of the building from the road reserve
A Heritage Impact Assessment (Vault March 2020) was provided in support of the application,
with further supporting letter dated 1 June 2020. These documents include assertions that:
The house has no heritage significance as it has not been placed on the Noosa Council
LHR.
The character area has been already substantially eroded by prior contemporary
redevelopment.
Streetscape analysis supports removal.
This is no longer a residential precinct and the removal of the house won’t impact on the
character values.
The statement that the dwelling is of no heritage significance because it is not on the Local
Heritage Register (LHR) is erroneous. The LHR and Character Precincts are two separate
protections of heritage values within the planning scheme and need to be assessed under their
respective requirements. A place may be on the LHR and not within a Character
Precinct. However, a building within a Character Precinct is considered a character building and
protected under the planning scheme which seeks the retention of these buildings.
The Vault reports make continued reference to a ‘character house’ (and how that could be better
preserved through relocation) and fail to acknowledge that this house is part of, and contributes
to the aesthetic of, a heritage character area. Its requirement for protection under the overlay
currently stems from it being an important element of the character area. This does not mean it
does not have individual significance, only that it has not yet been assessed for its individual
significance and potential listing as a heritage site on the Local Heritage Register.
The Vault reports have not demonstrated any evidence of undertaking an assessment of the
significance of the building.
Specific Outcome 05 of the Heritage Overlay Code states:
Retention, relocation & demolition
O5 The valued streetscape character within character areas are protected through the
retention of buildings that contribute positively to that character
The three Probable Solutions to this Specific Outcome are:
S5.1 Character buildings and heritage sites within character areas are retained (see Figure
13.1 for some examples of character buildings);
Page 23 of 47
Section 24
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
OR
S5.2 Where a character building or heritage site cannot be practicably retained on its
existing premises, the building or structure is relocated to an alternative location within the
Noosa Shire and reinstated to a standard that is suitable for reuse, provided relocation of
the character building or heritage site will not result in the loss of valued streetscape
character; OR
S5.3 Demolition only occurs where the— a) building or structure cannot be practicably
retained on the existing premises; and b) the premises are physically constrained such that
the building or structure cannot be relocated to an alternative location; or c) the building or
structure is structurally unsound and not capable of economic repair
The applicant maintains that there are three probable solutions and that the proposed
development complies with Probable Solution S5.2.
Whilst the applicant is correct insofar as there are three probable solutions related to Specific
Outcome O5 it is not merely about meeting one of the probable solutions in order to meet the
Specific Outcome. Whilst the probable solutions are separated by an ‘or’ there is a sequence of
assessment required before transitioning through the probable solutions. In the first instance the
probable solutions S5.1 seeks character buildings within character areas to be retained. Where
character buildings cannot be practicably retained on existing premises S5.2 permits the
relocation of the building to be relocated to an alternative location within the Shire.
In this regard, the question as to whether the building can be practicably retained needs to be
resolved.
The applicant provided a Structural Engineering Report (Bligh Tanner 24 February 2020)
assessing the ability to relocate the house. The report was based on a visual inspection of areas
that were easily accessible at ground level only. The report notes the following:
… the visible original structure appears to have been constructed using quality timber and
workmanship resulting in a dwelling that has weathered well.
... There were no visible structural concerns that would preclude a continued use of the
building. The seemingly sound condition of the hardwood framing of the house would mean
that the house can be relocated to a new site provided the correct preparation was
undertaken by a qualified and experienced house removal contractor.
The separate garage structure is in poor condition and if it is to be relocated, it would need
significant strengthening/replacement of the floor framing and rectification of the
chamferboard cladding and flooring.
In response to Council officer’s Information Request the applicant further advised that the
reasons the building cannot be practicably be retained include:
The inability to retrofit the building to provide for universal access to comply with AS1428
Design for access and mobility and the Disability Discrimination Act
Access to the building does not meet AS1428 Design for access and mobility requirements
with substantial building modification required to achieve this and which would impact on
the existing external appearance
Internals of the house do not meet compliance with AS1428 and would require substantial
modification
The building does not meet the current structural code requirements for a Class 5 building
The building will not conform with Class 5 Type C construction fire rating
The building has timber stump foundations which would require compete removal and new
footings and foundations installed to accommodate the proposed use
Page 24 of 47
Section 25
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
The building does not meet the energy efficiency requirements for the National
Construction Code Internal room sizes do not suit the equipment or functional requirement
of an imaging and medical centre
Inability to add lead lining to existing walls required for x-ray equipment due to additional
weight impact on existing inadequate structure
Inability to install, service or replace imaging equipment due to existing roof framing
Electrical system is inadequate for proposed use
Plumbing and drainage system is inadequate and unsuitable
A range of WHS issues that would require modification to the existing building
Suspicion of existing lead paint beneath external (an internal) finishes which would be
required to be completely removed or encapsulated which would substantially change the
appearance of the building
None of the interior or exterior walls would achieve the required acoustic ratings for
imaging and medical centre
Commercial grade specialist solution mechanical system is required for medical and
imaging fit outs which could not be accommodated within the existing building fabric
The applicant provided a further report from Bligh Tanner dated 21 July 2020 which provided a
structural assessment of the existing house for adaptive re-use as a medical centre. This report
identified the following upgrade works as being required:
The complete dwelling should be raised and temporarily supported while the existing
stumps and block walls are removed, after which new footings, stumps and perimeter block
walls should be installed. The floor will require re-levelling.
All floor framing members would need to be strengthened for the increased live loading
allowance (e.g. allow for splicing existing timber bearers and joists with members to match
existing size to increase the capacity). - All floorboards would need to be removed and
replaced to allow for the increased live load allowance.
Majority of internal walls would need to be demolished and temporary propping of existing
roof structure and external walls required. Transfer beams, roof support framing and
internal walls would all need to be designed to suit proposed medical centre floor layout.
External wall cladding would require removal and replacement for installation of acoustic
treatment and thermal insulation and installation of bracing wall elements.
Remove and replace external walls with walls achieving required FRL where walls are
within 3m of fire source feature (e.g property boundary).
Upgrade roof framing to strengthen where required and upgrade to current codes and
building practices. Allow for strengthening of roof framing to specialist equipment areas
where support from roof structure is required (CT scanner, X-ray gantry).
Remove and replace external cladding due to widespread visible damage, paint flaking,
discolouration and rust stains around nail heads.
Modifications to front entry to comply with provisions for universal access (e.g. installation
of ramps or lift access).
These documents were referred to Council’s Building Certifier and to Council’s Heritage
Coordinator for review and comment. The comments note that it is commonplace for existing
buildings to be altered, particularly where involving changes of classification, whereby the
existing building is modified to achieve compliance with relevant legislation. In this regard the
comments noted the following:
Page 25 of 47
Section 26
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Unclear as to why it would not be possible to alter the existing building to achieve compliant
access for persons with disabilities. The current proposal identifies an access ramp at the
front of the building. It appears the proposed building is intended to have a floor level at or
above the floor level of the existing building. This seems to identify that the provision of
compliant access is achievable, and it would appear then to be a design exercise to
incorporate the new construction into the character of the existing building.
Restumping of existing buildings is undertaken regularly and would not usually be
considered a difficult task.
It stands to reason that the existing building may not be suitable for additional loading
brought about by the change in classification. However, this again would simply be a
design/engineering exercise to upgrade the existing building to suit.
If it were not possible for the building to be modified to suit the additional loading
associated with the imaging/x-ray equipment it is noted that the imaging/x-ray component is
a small part of the overall development footprint. In this regard, the existing building could
be repurposed for a suitable use such as reception/office/storage/consulting rooms.
It would be standard practice to install mechanical ventilation system components within
the roof space. Traditionally, older buildings have a reasonable roof pitch which can easily
cater for ductwork. In the instance the existing building has a raked ceiling, and there may
be options to install false ceilings to conceal services.
Structural upgrading can be undertaken to suit the intended use.
It is not unusual for internal modifications to be undertaken.
The existing building envelope would need to be considered for the purposes of energy
efficiency. Given the extent of the proposed development, upgrading of the existing
building is unlikely to be cost prohibitive.
For this type of development, the replacement of existing electrical systems and
plumbing/drainage would be commonplace. It could be assumed that the same
installations would be applicable to the new build. There may be minor cost increase due
to working with the existing building.
Whilst some works would be required to address the risk attributed to lead paint the
presence of lead paint would not preclude the use of the building for alternate purposes.
It is not uncommon for Queenslanders to be adaptively re-used for alternate purposes and
WHS requirements complied with.
Whilst a person’s financial circumstances cannot form part of the assessment of an application, it
is noted that it is difficult to provide comment on building cost comparison due to the limited
information available. It would be usual to expect additional costs when modifying an existing
building, however, given the relatively small nature of the existing building in comparison to the
overall development, it is anticipated that there would not be a significant variation.
It is also noted that the applicant’s list of required works appear to apply a worst case scenario
and there also appears to be recommendations within the 21 July 2020 report which conflict with
the findings of the Structural Engineering Report dated 24 February 2020. For example with
regards to the cladding the 24 February 2020 report states:
The chamferboard appeared to be in relatively sound condition given its age. There was
typically no evidence of insect damage or rot at key locations where such damage would
normally be evident (e.g. at window edges and building corners likely exposed to pooling
water). There was widespread minor defects to the chamferboards including visible
damage, paint flaking, discolouration and rust stains around nail heads.
This is in conflict with the 21 July 2020 Report which states:
Page 26 of 47
Section 27
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Remove and replace external cladding due to widespread visible damage, paint flaking,
discolouration and rust stains around nail heads.
With regards to the Bligh Tanner comments that the required upgrade works would significantly
alter the external appearance and impact the “Character house” appeal of the dwelling. The
report does not provide any evidence of how these proposed structural changes would impact
the external appearance. External chamferboards are routinely replaced on buildings of this
nature on a ‘like for like’ basis (although complete replacement would be less common but
repairs to small areas are invariably required on buildings of this age). Likewise, addition of
access ramps is generally considered to be an acceptable modification of a heritage building if
undertaken sympathetically and under the advice of a qualified professional heritage architect.
Accordingly, the applicant has not demonstrated that the character building cannot be practicably
retained and therefore the proposed re-location of the existing character building is not consistent
with the objectives and requirements of the superseded planning scheme and will erode the built
heritage of the character area. Furthermore, the applicant has not adequately explored the
adaptive re-use of the existing building and its proposed relocation will impact on the valued
streetscape.
It is noted that the site and surrounding area are similarly zoned and are identified as a Heritage
Character Area and, consequently a precedent for future development within the zone will be
created based on how this application is determined.
Proposed built form
The table below summarises the key built form aspects of the proposal.
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Site Area N/A 3,119m² N/A
Population density N/A N/A N/A
Gross floor area or N/A N/A N/A
Plot ratio
Site cover 50% max Total site cover:
45.28%
Building height
storeys 2 storeys max 2 storeys
metres 8 metres 8 metres
Boundary setbacks
Frontage 6 metres min 6 metres
Side 2 metres and 3 metres min 3 metres to outside
from residential uses face of wall
Rear 2 metres and 3 metres min 3 metres to outside
from residential uses face of wall
Roof form 12 degree roof pitch Majority less than 12 X
degrees
600mm eaves to 75% of 30% X
perimeter of building
Soft landscaping min 15% of site area 442m² = 19.6%
Landscaping Setbacks Average 2m width along approx.
frontage & 3m on side Average 3m to
boundaries adjoining land frontage and 3m to
in a residential zone side and rear
boundaries.
Page 27 of 47
Section 28
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Carparking
Type 2 Medical: 1 space per Use area = 880m2 44 spaces provided X
20m of use area or 3 spaces per 44 spaces required with 12 in tandem
medical practitioner whichever is
the greater
Motorcycle spaces 5 motorcycle spaces 8 motorcycle spaces
Bicycle Spaces 20 bicycle spaces 11 bicycle spaces X
End of Trip Facilities* 1 locker per 2 bicycle 9 lockers provided X
*(required only where 5 + spaces spaces and;
are required) 1 shower cubicle with 1 shower provided X
ancillary change room per
10 bicycle spaces
Lot size None specified 2,252m² and 867m²
Whilst the proposed development generally complies with the prescriptive built form parameters,
the proposed design does not meet the general provisions of the Heritage Overlay code for ‘look
and feel’ requirements of the character precinct as it has a very contemporary appearance.
The Overall Outcomes of the Heritage Overlay seeks developments which:
The valued streetscape character of character areas is protected
Reflects the country town character elements reminiscent of Cooroy’s heritage
characteristics.
Maintains and reflects the historic architectural features in Cooroy including traditional
building designs of a predominantly low rise and low impact scale, typified by lightweight
construction, with a timber frame, generally raised above ground on stumps, many
featuring verandah elements, sunhoods and awnings to window and wall openings and
simple roof designs, either gabled or hipped. Typical materials used include timber for
cladding and corrugated iron for roofs;
Development along Maple Street, south of the business centre maintains a domestic scale
and form consistent with the Queensland vernacular with landscaped setbacks and front
yards without front fences, and low impact, domestic scale buildings that contribute to the
open character of this part of the character area.
The following images are perspectives provided by the applicant of the proposed building:
Figure 12: Perspective of Maple Street frontage
Page 28 of 47
Section 29
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Figure 13: Perspective of Maple Street frontage
Figure 14: Perspective from 49 Maple Street frontage
The concerns with the built form specifically relate to:
Roof pitch is too low/flat
The skillion roofed section is too contemporary/coastal
The veranda element is not representative of the character values of the precinct –
including the solid weatherboard upright sections, the railing and espalier vines
Large aluminium frame windows do not reflect character values
The concrete block work in the lower level parking area is unsympathetic to the character
of the area
The horizontal battening for window screens is not characteristic of the precinct
The profile of the window hoods does not reflect heritage characteristics
Lack of retention of mature trees. There appears to be at least two quite large mango trees
on the property. These are very much characteristic of a Queensland home/domestic
property.
Accordingly, the proposed development does not provide for a development which is consistent
with the streetscape or have a design, form and scale which is reflective of the historic
architectural features of Cooroy or consistent with the Queensland vernacular.
The built form concerns are exacerbated by insufficient landscaping to the front of the site as a
consequence of the 2 driveways and extensive hardstand between the building and the front
boundary.
The applicant has indicated that they are generally willing to work with Council officers to resolve
an acceptable design outcome. This was not pursued with the applicant due to the fundamental
conflict associated with the proposed relocation of the existing character building.
Page 29 of 47
Section 30
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Car parking and vehicle access
The application proposes 6 pairs of tandem (12 spaces) car parks stating that these are to be
used by staff. The planning scheme permits the minor use of tandems for some uses however
Commercial Business Type 2 Medical is not included in this list. Notwithstanding, in some
circumstances it may be reasonable to allow for limited tandem parking where they are for staff
and are functional and can operate as intended. In this instance the provision of 12 car parking
spaces in a tandem arrangement is considered to be excessive and likely to result in practical
issues. The applicant has also not been able to determine the exact number of staff expected on
site.
The applicant has proved vehicle manoeuvring (swept path) diagrams for a rear lift waste
collection vehicle, the proposed rear lift vehicle is not currently supported by Council’s waste
collection contractor. Accordingly a redesign of the waste collection service is required to
accommodate a front lift vehicle which is likely to result in redesign of car park area and access
arrangements. Any redesign would need to consider potential conflict with ambulance bays, car
parking and pedestrian movement.
The applicant was requested to provide swept path diagrams for a small rigid vehicle as
manoeuvring for the proposed small rigid vehicle parking appears to be inadequate. The
applicant’s Information Response did not include swept path diagrams for small rigid vehicles.
Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that manoeuvring for the proposed small rigid vehicle
is satisfactory.
Proposed reconfiguration
The proposed reconfiguration of the existing 4 lots into 2 lots is a suitable response to the
proposed layout of the development in light of the existing lot arrangement and raises no issues
which could not be adequately resolved by conditions.
A plan of the proposed reconfiguration is detailed below:
Figure 15: Proposed reconfiguration plan
Page 30 of 47
Section 31
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
4. NEW PLANNING SCHEME
The Noosa Plan (2020) maintains the site’s inclusion with the Heritage Overlay and designation
within a Character Area. The new planning scheme heritage provisions are consistent with the
superseded planning scheme. As such the proposed development is inconsistent with the
Purpose and Overall Outcomes and the Performance Outcomes of the Cooroy Local Plan Code
and the Heritage Overlay Code. It is noted also that the Cooroy Local Plan Code specifically calls
for development within a character area to retain or reuse buildings that have cultural heritage or
townscape significance. The Heritage Overlay also maintains the same hierarchy of retain, re-
locate or demolish as the superseded planning scheme.
The new planning scheme maintains the site within a community type zoning (Community
Facilities) however the level of assessment for the medical use has been amended from Impact
to Code.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following Referral Agencies:
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (SARA)
The Department is a referral agency for development application for a material change of use
within 25 metres of a State transport corridor.
The Department has responded providing conditions relating to stormwater management.
5.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Development Engineering Heritage Coordinator
Building and Plumbing Services Environment Officer
5.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 21 business days in accordance with the Planning Act
2016. 6 properly made and 1 not properly made submissions were received. The following table
provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Matters Raised Comments
Support
Benefit the community by increasing the scope It is acknowledged that the proposed use may provide
of medical services. some community benefit by providing convenient and
Will provide complementary services to those accessible medical services. It is noted that an existing
offered at the Eden Private Hospital. x-ray and imaging service and additional medical
Will provide convenience and accessibility for services currently operate from the Eden hospital.
practitioners and patients.
Existing tenant at Eden Hospital needs to re-
locate within 3 years. If required to re-locate
into the town will cause car parking issues.
Radiology and x-ray service – will no longer
need to go to Noosa.
Object
Will create more of a traffic burden on an The application has demonstrated that the required 44
already overloaded small town. equivalent car parking spaces can be located on site.
Will increase traffic congestion – Eden hospital However, there are concerns with the number of
expanding, new supermarket and playground. tandem spaces provided and for the capacity for both a
Existing traffic problems. front loading waste collection vehicle and a semi rigid
Unsafe for pedestrians as Maple Street has vehicle to access and manoeuvre through the site
become more hazardous past 2 years. without resulting in conflict.
Should be located on the other side of the Traffic associated with the proposed development will
railway tracks. not significantly exacerbate any existing traffic issues.
Page 31 of 47
Section 32
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The application seeks to re-locate an existing character building from a site located within the
Heritage Overlay and develop a new building for the purpose of a medical centre. The proposed
use of the site of a medical centre is a consistent use within the zone and would allow for
improved medical facilities within Cooroy and would service the population of surrounding areas.
The proposed reconfiguration of the existing 4 lots into 2 lots is a suitable response to the
proposed layout of the development in light of the existing lot arrangement and raises no issues
which could not be adequately resolved by conditions.
However, the proposed re-location of the existing character building is not supported as it has not
been demonstrated that the character building cannot be practicably retained and the applicant
has not satisfactorily explored the adaptive re-use of the existing building. The removal of the
building from the site will have a detrimental effect on the character of the streetscape and be
contrary to the objectives of the superseded and new Noosa Plan. Furthermore, the design of the
proposed new building does not respect the valued streetscape character nor have a form and
scale which reflects the historic architectural features in Cooroy or demonstrate consistency with
the Queensland vernacular.
A number of issues associated with the manoeuvring of waste collection and semi-rigid vehicles
has not been adequately resolved whilst the proposed inclusion of 12 tandem car parking spaces
is not supported.
Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
x Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
x Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement x 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 32 of 47
Section 33
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 33 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
; PROJECT SUMMARY
LOTS 15 & 18 ON C5605 & LOT 1 & 2 0N RP99323
LOCALITY OF COOROY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT : NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL
SITE AREA 3119m?
MAPLE STREET - SUBJECT SITE AREA = 2276m?
MYALL STREET - BALANCE SITE AREA = 843m?
fio PERMITTED SITE COVER = 1138m? (50% OF 2276m?)
— PROPOSED SITE COVER = 1020m? OR 44.8%
GROSS FLOOR AREA = 968m?
USE AREA = 880m?
CARPARKING REQUIRED = 880m2/20 = 44
CARPARKING PROVIDED
GROUND (CLASS 3 CAR SPACES) = 9
BASEMENT (CLASS 3 CAR SPACES) = 29
BASEMENT (TANDEM CAR SPACES [STAFF]) = 6
CARPARKING PROVIDED TOTAL = 44
BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED = 11
MOTORCYCLE PARKING REQUIRED = 88
MOTORCYCLE PARKING PROVIDED = 8
SERVICE VAN SPACES REQUIRED = 4
SERVICE VAN SPACES PROVIDED = 1
AYE) SH ECT AI Is BALANCE Ke} | AMBULANCE LAYBY SPACE PROVIDED = 1
NOTES:
- ALL CARPARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS2890.1
- ALL BICYCLE PARKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS 2890.3
- BICYCLE STORAGE AS SHOWN
- MINIMUM TYPICAL DIMENSIONS: ALLAISLES : 6.0m WIDE
vi SINGLECAR : 5.4mx2.6m
VIEW POINT
VIEW POINT
1 SITE LOCATION
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE MEDICENTRE No 2 Pty Ltd Information Request 7 BUCKBURNEJ/CKSON
45 MAPLE STREET, COOROY PROJECT SUMMARY 1598-DA02 cop wpa pee
Page 33 of 47Section 34
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 34 of 47
oS: :
a ms:
a Se.
=
uw eG
oO Q i
zw 5:
awe : a —
IW sa, s
< - iS
y a
Q
‘a 0 Zoek
a pe 72 ge#
— = S82 M9
an~ 3 oO
a “ 53 8
° SDE |e.
Ss : se eg: 2 +
a - So
ao p ae rt
wi (<[s) o
3 g
e 5 oo
oO o||2 2
3 : o
© : € &
se ‘x 2
a s a
lu
a a a Zz
a Z 2
oN es
S a 36
< Be >
9 eo oe |
uw eK ; Fi
oO asf
<q iY a |
Oo . x a i
z
-
lu
TT}
Wu ES
E ao
= OSS O oO
= OES oO
° ao
oO at.
Ok
E & BW
z QO ww
Li s Lu a
: = 5
~ Q
© ~ uy WwW
ns 8 (<p) wn
=> Ate om
Ww 8 Of)
0S 9 Y in |}
O - Os:
z ‘ti
a
za
<q
_i
aoSection 35
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 35 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
ADJOINING op SA x
20.5 “ oa % m
Lah \A
/ 3 van \\? <—\
ag nn shy - \ c \ %
Ph i
Sf
A ey / . .
/; 7 7 x p
y \ 2 / ' . ye '
TNR SY . mazanee |
[ a) % SS re / ‘s ‘
( / 8h 7S : .
Mes] \ RL 122.135 .
¢ eS | oo | eel \
[of pson Seren’ |___ _ _|eallir —P .
SA 1000 CLEAR FROM DRIVEWAY TO POWER POLE ‘ . 7
N -
| ~
__ i 5
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE, MEDICENTRE No 2 Pty Ltd wae a BLICKBUINEJ/C|(SON
49 MAPLE STREET, COOROY FLOOR PLAN - GROUND / LEVEL 1 1598-DA04 TO
Page 35 of 47Section 36
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 36 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
atl \
\ \
WW
/ A q\\ .
/ / : rN ° %% |
= ) 4
fj AB \ BY 3 \ \\
f 4 = - “ek ;
K\\ [ 7 (i % \% N
BEN
(SFL 4, 2M
S/n % x,
4 Sa".
\ v3, aX 2 “> ne ee
; re
| rj > Co
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE, MEDICENTRENSZP¥yL— emseess 7 BUCK BURNEJ/CKSON
45 MAPLE STREET, COOROY TENANCY PLAN 1598-DA12 eee
Page 36 of 47Section 37
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 37 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
B
Red
fo *
Py \ %
a J \\ *
f jK Ay oes \
J / ) \\ y
s/ [ AX , ye
a f k : b a
g / ff \ \. 1
/ fi | \ \
jf / | \ \\ 3
[ Sg f'||\|)h \ \\ Y
/ “S / \ ; \ Ne
/ / + \ \ N
f i i \ x
{ / | \ \
/ | | \ : \
/ / l \
/ / \
/ ji | \ \
Q j SIAR \ 2
~ / #2) \ \
Sy VF i \ x.
| \ oye! \ \
\ — > :
\ A j NA So AX GQ a
\\ | > . sot
A ff wr
\ | we PBY
Yesarest Ke?
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE, MEDICENTRE No 2 Pty Ltd mores AP BLACKBURNEJ/CIKSON
45 MAPLE STREET, COOROY ROOF PLAN 1598-DA05 ciate
Page 37 of 47Section 38
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 38 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
ry Sf. | =.
a reoggeccc | |AOe a
1 nl ul Thom] | ST =
01 MAPLE ST ELEVATION
eee a) ama
oo ees | Banc aa
J : | OE oon i —"
02 NORTH sven
pi ll = i ee
OTTOMAN Ucn yi nn
03 EAST ELEVATION
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE, MEDIGENTRE No 2 Pty Ltd van alae BLACK SUINEJ/CI(SON
| 4S MAPLE STREET, COOROY ELEVATIONS 1 1598-DA06 oo oo — _ .
Page 38 of 47Section 39
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 39 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
|e | on ce oo a 7 7 -
ne AT
ll CRETE |, ™™, ES = i =o Ss
! >... ee ane
LAR s a |
~ Ts ai iro
SOUT ELEVATION
___-SMHEIGHT UM AT FACE QF BUILOING _____-——=——————————— ~~~ f= — von eee a
em = — ae
2 WEST ELEVATION
PROPOSED MEDICALCENTRE, =———_—=CNPDICENTRENo2Pyue se BLK BURNEJ/CKSON
45 MAPLE STREET, COOROY ELEVATIONS 2 1598-DA07 ae
Page 39 of 47Section 40
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 40 of 47
ww 2
Bi
— —
=- |
4 47. Lid:
4 STM AMLNG LHOIIH MOT tm = i
a sNWn'109 > zi
sane A 31349N09 WHOS 440 fas ’ 2 5
HVONVa3A NOUS . 4 . ew 5
onions 3Nous 4 i . ad Cc:
AQYOOD LA3Y1S FTLLVM Fy _———— =
7 _ pee mal =
a= ————PH PAS
ee —-
, cranes Li
ae? | ——— ¢
;; scat? A ASIN4YNS, LvOIIOMOd KING (i (
, i a | L z09d <<<}
cP m/f 3
4133HS 4004 3T140¥d 8YO WOISND | = -
ONIGQY19 GUVOBHSHIVSM 4] as = = =
SONINMAY MOGNIM | a \ = SLT here g 3
$13)9Id HLIM GANIBWOD ONIONS 3NOLS § Hy SOO
= Sa a a)
AONOOD LASNLS FI1dVW - ¥ ASIndUNS, LvooUIaNOd KAING s3°> <
Pie : 109d aio
, ERs
o : ~
N aS 4 ; o
ac 133HS 4004 31140Yd S40 WO1SND ri ee _ 4 oO
Ww ONIGAVT9 GYVORUSHIVaM Ps ey. ; at
oO SONINAY MONA i a o
é A
oO 9NION34 13MIId r i 5)
5 re 2 a.
AONOOD 1331S IIdVW . ; ©
Nl od , 4
Oo | \ ae oniso08 > Ss
o a -
M J Lr. Yi eas 3V304d BYO WOLSND ISINIYNS GNOBYO10D , N Ww
y r ‘ , oO =
\an zogo |} Soc
133HS 400Y 37140Yd BYO WOLSND | \ | f Mia A er
ONITOVTD GYVOSHSHIVIM, id 7 er <=
SONINMY MOONIM, \ 4 . ee ke a
. ao
\ | ES _ w
‘SaAv3 ON \ » NV lw a
= \ \ul Po oO x=
AOHOOD LA3RNLS FIdVN yn) | NSNGYONYHXNTNG”HSINIS LNI¥d i wn
a fe SNALIVG Y3N00 HLIM ONIQGV19 1334S 1V14 je 8 =
q Ta Ze z004 = iL
a LT TT es ——
Lak!
= bi iy i
lu 5 vy \ SWWW38 9 S1SOd
© A 4 ¢ SL14405 'SONIGAVTO TIM tu
<q 4 i ( NUNBHONWH XIN” HSIN INKY e
aN hd auvoe V3NI) 7
So He n 1094 =z
za b a) *. 2 a
e | é = uw
— § a | A wn
Lu ry i s SONINMY MOQNIM 0307104 wn
Ww J ‘ = Ww ONIAOOY 8 SONIHSV14 “SHILIND Zz
= . ty is cy i= a
ee / em a 1siwauns, aNOsYOTOD oO Lu
Ww 133HS 4004 JT140ud BYO WOISND iy 7 w logo zi >
Lu ONIDIV19 GUVOSYSHIVIM, 4 g oe <=
Fs J ow A ee Par wn oO
SONNY aN a aw he) CEA 41z ©
E ncn i ZA AB AeA am <)io
= S3Ava ON - 7 rad tus! ONINAIYIS ANNOWGYd ONY aSN43Y : a “ a Ae Icy y x © O
Ss = ‘- BS oO SL. tal te Ee oO
AOYOOI L33YLS FTV Ss Cot ok oe =<}
Oo 4 i 9NIGGI9 SNOLSGNYS ee os ce AS : ae = =z oO
Oo a hI = A a lO
q |TV > Loos a TN el a ! ~
ar se Ta
° AST g : me =| Sw
z eam Pa > — G}/O Ww
Wu “aa wl < we OU oe
= 43N09 341193443 r S ANY : \ za => -e
za WHOd ONINMAY JTdWIS i a 25 o WwW
A < 9}QO
Oo SNINMV MOGNIM a = . MN Ww Lu
ac ff A US oO 2 é = eA _I
> oa
2 ocx
ul Oo =i)
r in e3
Oo O. tie
=z u
=z
z
_l
aSection 41
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 41 of 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
ty Weis co B EE a Ae ge NR ue | yee a Ihr < pote
kee a ode s Pil a | E ie | rr . a ‘ ery bbebeeeeret ie car al , tas ay vs pe.
ae id oe gt ina me ic nen i cola Neti ill (Ml on
PROPOSED MEDICAL CENTRE, MEDICENTRE No 2 Pty Ltd Sanaa BLICKBURNEJ/CKSON
45 MAPLE STREET, COOROY COVER SHEET 1598-DA01 On
Page 41 of 47Section 42
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 42 of 47
i mu © \y ay | E . : ; he i p é- =: ;
ie . yi Es ee i Bee y = a 8
a | = eS:
mh far 4 Lia 3 ¥ — => :
‘ A Bl BE = =
Te Ti = oot: i
i / ae =
aif i — eA:
mi: in a:
P/M = a i
it : te j ri] i A
hy oe i oceeoall
oS A . | \ Ses ed
A ‘ eet hl. Eaibhane Bie +
oO —_
N bs Sie Sere s °o
oc ha a pe oa? 3 Q
ON * . ag 3 a a P i yr
oO = a ae Fa o
O oe ee e
oe oe Hi eer p
Oo & > ee 3 a
Oo a | Ss ee >
© ak SO &
7 “Ns Fs Ahan Bs s
é iL Coxe a «of
ae Ss a #
< bb ‘i => a
i eee
Oo ihe Fe |
< = Loe
© 7, < im ae
z | es = fe
- —, ie ig
WW = 5 ET
Ww 3 |e)
= J eax | Lu
E = Ze
| Ema
Ss | ee... -,-: , } 5 Oo
= =—s = ate
a eet é
° hea a x Su
Ps) oe aS Pi — Lu
5 a | re 5h
i sls ee ie. ’ Ei Lu
s eRe i. sf
> Saori | ’ ” 5
Oo Tee. Wee ; S
ra mee Shim | Ly LH
S mul a
S LN oo
a uw on aL,
rs) SS | i = '
O - — oO = i
z li
=a
Zz
<q
—_l
aSection 43
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Page 43 of 47
=:
— A:
7 az:
if C5: :
; me i
> a Lu.
Ree a =—
m.
a re 3 oe
i 1° |
i : oe
1) r , < LU k S si a
o 1) i TH Es jee alc S
: 4 os oe ee &
8 | . Il > aa s 3S
oc a : ; ee a
Ww | a : or ele: to +
ca ; 2 oe Pu : : i ©
Oo i E = me, ce aD
Oo : ; ‘ hee aes y 314
5 ns a 4 Gite. z|>
| fe ame s|3 ¢
o § aa 7 eae : Sja
' : | eS, Flo 5
r : r : hie s|G &
= il ao
: ' 3 de a
< . | Sa i 4 = &
a one g Ts
O r- ce | ;
<x | E | i. 2
WwW Hi!) &
9 = ie é
z oa oe o- f E
= oT = 1 Ne 5
uu = . Z
Ss 3 ne ; 5 .
Ww e age cr
be Gi ! : =e
F > ‘i : = or
= e WS
= 2 : e
oO . 5 Or
EB “aus tu Bo WH
& + y
q : o LU
Ss Mn W =
z a. & aw”
O ooo a = Ly LW
cc i 5 n
> = om
2 om 2 a<
| 2 aw os |
© > Os:
z i
za
za
<q
_i
ouSection 44
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
3 OPW19/0217.01 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO D63 OF 2020
REFUSAL OF A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A JETTY AT
60 THE PENINSULA, NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ OPW19/0217.01/ Case/ Gmelli Design
Attachments Nil
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 October 2020 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. D63 of 2020 and agree to settle the appeal generally in accordance with the
following:
A. Amend condition 1
1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply
with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
7550F-S001 C1 Cover Sheet, Drawing Schedule and Locality 2 August 2019
Plan prepared by Black and More
7550F-S002 C1 General Notes Sheet 1 of 2 prepared by Black 2 August 2019
and More
7550F-S003 C1 General Notes Sheet 2 of 2 prepared by Black 2 August 2019
and More
7550F-S004 C3 Site Plan, Framing Plan and Jetty Elevations 2 October 2019
prepared by Black and More
7550F-S005 C1 Typical Jetty Details Sheet 1 of 4 prepared by 2 August 2019
Black and More
7550F-S006 C1 Typical Jetty Details Sheet 2 of 4 prepared by 2 August 2019
Black and More
7550F-S007 C1 Typical Jetty Details Sheet 3 of 4 prepared by 2 August 2019
Black and More
B. Delete condition 4.
REPORT
On 19 March 2020, an application to change a development approval for Operational Works for a
Jetty at 60 The Peninsula, Noosaville was refused under delegation for the following reasons:
1. The proposed changes are contrary to Specific Outcome O11 and Overall Outcome a) of
the Watercourses Works Code as:
Page 44 of 47
Section 45
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
a. The white finish, thickness of material and overall design of the structure is obtrusive
on the open watercourse and landscaped surroundings and does not blend with the
surroundings;
b. The structure presents unnecessary and avoidable cluttering of the watercourse;
c. The structure is inconsistent with the open character and amenity of the watercourse
and other structures on the waterway; and
d. The proposed handrail is inconsistent with handrails for jetties in Noosa Waters,
which are of an open style handrail consisting of evenly spaced vertical posts and a
single horizontal rail, with no decorative infills.
The original development approval for the jetty included the following condition:
4. The proposed ‘hamptons style’ handrail is not approved. The handrail for the jetty must be
an open style handrail consisting of evenly spaced vertical posts and a single horizontal
rail.
The approved plans for the jetty were also annotated to specify that the handrail must be in
accordance with the conditions of approval.
Despite the development approval, the owner constructed the jetty handrail in accordance with
their original plans, with a ‘hamptons style’ handrail provided to the jetty.
On inspection of the jetty by officers, the owner was advised of the non-compliance who elected
to lodge an application to change the development approval for the jetty.
Figure 1 is a copy of the applicant’s plan which shows the Hampton’s style handrail on the jetty.
Figure 1 – Hamptons style handrail
Since the lodgement of the appeal Council received the following advice from Council’s planning
solicitor for the matter:
Our view is that Council does not have good prospects of success in this matter. If the matter
proceeded to a hearing, it is likely the Court will allow the Appeal, due to the absence of clear
restrictions on the use of infill in handrails in the provisions of either the Noosa Plan 2006, or the
Noosa Plan 2020.
Council’s Decision Notice consists of a single reason for refusal. The Reason for Refusal is a
restatement of the Council Officer’s recommendation in the assessment report dated 17 March
2020.
Page 45 of 47
Section 46
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
The two provisions of the scheme said to found the basis for non-compliance are Overall
Outcome (a) and Specific Outcome O11 of the Watercourses Works Code. Neither provision
requires handrails ‘consist of vertical posts and a horizontal rail with no decorative infills…’.
Rather, both provisions in our opinion are high-level provisions containing very broad statements
relating to character and amenity.
The statement in the Assessment Report that ‘Any infill of the hand rails is inconsistent with the
Watercourse Works Code’ does not find support from the words used in the Watercourses Works
Code, which relevantly states at Specific Outcome O11:
‘Works are designed and sited to ensure—
a) they are contained within the prolongation of boundaries of the lot;
b) that when a vessel is berthed it does not encroach over the prolongation of boundaries of
the lot;
c) a high level of visual amenity is maintained when viewed from the watercourse and
adjoining lands;
d) the works avoid conflicts with uses in the water and on the foreshore and adjoining lands;
e) materials blend with the natural surrounds;
f) cluttering of watercourses is avoided;
g) excessive traffic volumes within foreshore areas, on adjoining lands and in the water are
avoided; and
h) they reflect the character and setting of the work’s immediate surrounds or the locality’
To apply the above provisions to find non-compliance in the circumstances of this case, where
the Minor Change Application concerns one white timber jetty’s handrail with ‘cross’ infill design
would be difficult in our view. The design reflects the design of the residential property which
adjoins it. This is especially so where the residential property in the same style has been
approved, and has a ‘Hamptons style’ façade which is exposed to the canal.
We have reviewed the Watercourses Works Code and are unable to find any more specific
provision that Council could rely on to assist in maintain a refusal position.
No further specificity has been added to the provisions of the Waterways Works Code in the new
Noosa Plan 2020, to which regard might be had by the Court under the Minor Change
assessment regime. The new Noosa Plan 2020 is therefore not of any assistance to Council in
this matter.
A discretionary argument under section 81 of the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) about there being a
clear planning strategy that cumulative impacts be avoided does not appear to be available.
Following this advice, officers subsequently agreed to recommend settlement of the appeal to
Council.
Given Council officers long standing practice of requiring a consistent open style of handrail in
Noosa Waters, and Noosa Waters Residence Association previous comments on this appeal, the
matter has been raised with Council’s strategic planning team for consideration in future
amendments to the Noosa Plan 2020.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting 18 June 2020, Item 3, Page 24
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. D63 of 2020 and agree to defend the appeal.
Page 46 of 47
Section 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 6 OCTOBER 2020
Finance & Risks
Council’s planning solicitor for the appeal has advised that prospects are not good given that
there are no specific provisions around handrails in the Noosa Plan 2006 and Noosa Plan 2020.
Therefore it recommended that Council settle the appeal.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
McCullough Robertson, Troy Webb
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health 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 47 of 47