Original source · versioned page text
Planning & Environment Court Appeal No 2611 Of 2024 - MCU23/0105 Application For A Material Change Of Use For Multiple Dwelling (6 Small Dwellings), Food And Drink Outlet And Office At 2 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads · Attachment 1 – MCU23-0105 – Case 2611 Of 2024 – Managers Report
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 12 NOVEMBER 2024 ATTACHMENT 1 – MCU23/0105 – CASE 2611 OF 2024 – MANAGERS REPORT REPORT On 15 August 2024 Council’s Planning Coordinator refused a development application for Material Change of Use for Multiple dwellings, (6 small dwellings), Food and Drink Outlet and Office at 2 Bottlebrush Avenue, Noosa Heads for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is not consistent with overall outcome (2) (j), (l), & (p) and performance and acceptable outcomes PO16, AO16.2, PO17, PO19, AO19(a), PO20, PO21, PO23, AO23.1, AO23.2, AO23.3, AO23.4, PO24. PO25, PO26, AO26, PO27, AO27, PO28, AO28 and PO32, AO32.2 of the Major Centre Zone Code as: a. The proposed development is 4 storeys and has an exposed external façade exceeding 12m in height and is of a visual bulk and architectural scale not consistent with structures on adjoining or nearby land and is likely to dominate the street and the surrounding area. b. The proposed development is of a scale that is not compatible with surrounding development, will present an appearance of bulk and will result in the removal of existing significant trees. c. The proposed development intrudes into the front setbacks to Noosa Drive and Bottlebrush Avenue at all levels and does not maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings within the street or preserve existing significant trees that may assist to visually soften the building. d. The proposed development does not satisfactorily incorporate design elements and materials reflective of the local streetscape character of the area, with the building not designed in the Noosa sub-tropical style. e. The proposed design fails to provide a sufficiently active building frontage and address Noosa Drive to activate this street frontage. f. The proposal does not retain the site’s significant trees and provide sufficient landscaping to Noosa Drive and Bottlebrush Avenue to enhance these streetscapes and reduce the visual impact of the building given its setting. 2. The proposed development is not consistent with overall outcome (2)(f), (h), PO3, AO3.1, PO7, AO7.1, AO7.2, AO7.4, AO7.5, and PO11, AO11 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code as: a. The site is identified as a key corner site by the Noosa Junction Framework and Character Plan and the proposal fails to satisfactorily incorporate suitable architectural and landscape treatments to emphasise this corner location. b. The proposed development fails to satisfactorily step down the slope, retain the site’s significant vegetation and is of scale and height that is inconsistent with surrounding development and will visually dominate the street and its surroundings. c. The proposal does not include an articulated roof form visible to the street or satisfactorily incorporate a mix of light weight and textured external building materials consistent with the character of its setting and Noosa’s sub-tropical style. d. The proposal is not sympathetic to the existing character, streetscape and built form and its design will not assist in creating a vibrant and active street. 3. The proposal is not consistent with performance and acceptable outcomes PO16 and AO16 of the Business Activities Code as sufficient car parking is not available on site to accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated by the proposed uses. Page 1 of 4
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
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 12 NOVEMBER 2024
4. The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome (2)(a) and performance and acceptable
outcomes PO6 and AO6.1 of the Driveways & Parking Code as the proposal does not provide
sufficient on site car parking to meet the likely demand for car parking on site.
5. The proposal is not considered suitable for a contribution in lieu of onsite car parking as:
a. the proposed development falls substantially short of the required car parking for users
of the site; and
b. the proposal is an over development of a small site, exceeding the height requirements
and intruding into the front setbacks at all levels.
As a result of the decision to refuse the application, the applicant has now lodged an appeal to the
Planning & Environment Court. The applicant seeks that the development be approved subject to
reasonable and relevant conditions.
The application sought to redevelop the site at the corner of Bottlebrush Avenue and Noosa Drive,
Noosa Heads, and specifically sought approval for a Multiple Dwelling of 6 small dwelling units, a
Food and drink outlet of 183m2 with outdoor dining, and an Office of 93m2.
The proposed small dwelling units each include 2 bedrooms and are located over 3 levels with the
food and drink outlet and office located on the ground floor. A driveway is proposed off Bottlebrush
Avenue, with parking for 6 cars. The applicant advised by email that offices were no longer
proposed with amended plans detailing front of house areas for the food and drink outlets, however
the relevant application forms were not amended to reflect this.
The applicant proposed a financial contribution in lieu of onsite car parking for 8 parking spaces
and provided a signed Infrastructure Agreement to this effect.
Figure 1 – Locality Plan
Page 2 of 4
Page 3
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 12 NOVEMBER 2024
Figure 2 – Site Plan
The subject site forms part of the Noosa Junction business centre and is zoned Major Centre. The
proposed uses are identified as consistent uses within the zone and are required to follow a code
assessable application process.
The following codes from the Noosa Plan 2020 were applicable to the assessment of the
development:
• Major Centre Zone Code;
• Noosa Heads Local Plan Code;
• Dual Occupancy & Multiple Dwelling Code;
• Business Activities Code
• Works Codes;
• Landslide Hazard Overlay Code
The proposal was assessed against the relevant codes, the following table provides an
assessment of the proposal against the quantitative outcomes within those codes.
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Building height
3 storeys max 4 storeys X
• storeys
12m from ground level 12 metres
• metres 12m to external façade 9.9 metres
where excavated
Plot ratio 1.9:1 max. 1.87:1
(1025m2)
Applicant –907m2
Boundary setbacks 3m for ground floor and 2nd Noosa Drive
Storey Ground 2.69m X
5m for 3rd storey 1st 0.6 - 3m X Balcony and
screen
2nd 0m – 3m
Page 3 of 4
Page 4
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 12 NOVEMBER 2024
Setbacks can contain open 3rd 2.5m X building and
awnings & unenclosed balcony
outdoor dining areas Bottlebrush Ave X building and
Basement 0 – 3m balcony
Ground 3m
2nd 1.5m X
3rd 1.5m X building and
balcony
X building and
balcony
Length of wall 15 metres max Noosa Drive -22m X
Bottlebrush Ave –
22m X
Active Shop Fronts 50% transparent glazing Lower level hidden X
by battered up earth
Landscaped open 10% of site area (54.6 68m²
space 2m min average width Less than 2m X
Landscape setbacks average width
Private Open Space 9m² min with min width of complies
2.5m
Carparking 6 covered min for small 6 covered
dwellings
11 spaces for food & drink 1 uncovered X
outlet (220m2 excluding
52m2 back of house) 4 motorcycles = 1
Motorcycle carpark
Bicycle Spaces 7 bicycle spaces Nil bicycle spaces X
End of Trip 1 locker per 2 bicycle spaces Nil locker/s X
Facilities* and;
*(required only 1 shower cubicle with Nil shower cubicles X
where 5 + spaces ancillary change room per
are required) 10 bicycle spaces
The proposed development while incorporating appropriate uses for the site, fails to meet
numerous design requirements and does not meet the desired intent for Noosa Junction. The
development proposed a four-storey building that substantially intrudes into setback areas and is
not consistent with the bulk and scale of the area. The proposal also has a significant shortfall in
on site car parking.
The matter is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded
accordingly.
Page 4 of 4