2020-03-16 GC Agenda - Item 4 - Attachment 1 - MCU18 0015 Officers Report and attachments from 2019-06-11 P&E Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                    11 JUNE 2019


The proposed site layout does not maintain a sufficient wildlife corridor through the site,
inappropriately reliant on the adjoining Peppers Resort land, which includes the main resort
driveway and retaining walls, narrowing the corridor to approximately 23m in part. Construction
access for proposed lot 3 may also adversely impact on this corridor as the current access
easement terms do not support access for construction via Peppers Resort. The proposed lots
and lot boundaries also fragment this wildlife corridor and intrude into the riparian buffer to the
site’s watercourse with insufficient building setbacks proposed.
The proposed conservation park lot, lot 4, also includes part of the bushfire protection zone for
the multiple dwelling units and given the potential for further land slips and the consequential
impacts on the uphill units that may arise, this lot would require ongoing regular monitoring and
future management. This would inappropriately burden Council resources and therefore
dedication of lot 4 to Council as conservation park is not recommended, notwithstanding its
desirable environmental values.
The proposal further substantially exceeds the Noosa Plan provisions pertaining to site density,
building height, gross floor area, site cover and boundary setbacks and while some increased
building height may be warranted on the site due to the site’s slope, the proposed building height
is excessive in places and is not all in keeping with the surrounding built form. The proposed
building height and reduced setbacks will also adversely impact on nearby resident’s visual
amenity and the treed public pathway enjoyed by residents and visitors to the area.
A review of the application against the draft new Noosa Plan provisions concludes that the
proposed development would conflict with the draft outcomes sought. The draft Noosa Plan does
identify some medium density development area directly off Attunga Heights. However, the
proposed development exceeds this potential development area identified by the draft Noosa
Plan, with the draft scheme reinforcing the current planning scheme requirements to protect the
site’s environmental values.
On this basis, the development as proposed is considered to not meet a substantial number of
outcomes sought by the Noosa Plan, and as such the development is considered an
inappropriate development impacting on the site’s environmental values and is recommended for
refusal.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Contract Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee
Meeting dated 11 June 2019 regarding Application No. MCU18/0015 for a Development Permit
for Material Change of Use (2 Detached Houses and Multiple Housing – type 4 Conventional –
12 Units) and Reconfiguring a Lot (1 into 4 lots plus Access Easement) situated at 27 Attunga
Heights, Noosa Heads and:
A.   Refuse the application for the following reasons:
     1.    The proposed development is contrary to the Noosa Plan’s Strategic Framework and
           the Desired Environmental Outcomes as
           (i)  The proposal does not satisfactorily protect the site’s significant environment
                values.
           (ii) The proposal does not maintain a satisfactory wildlife corridor through the site
                and intrudes into the riparian buffer to the site’s watercourse.
     2.    The proposed development is contrary to the Overall and Specific Outcomes of the
           Noosa Heads Locality Code as
           (i)     The proposed uses are inconsistent with and therefore strongly inappropriate in
                   the Open Space Conservation Zone.
           (ii)    The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated the proposed development
                   footprint is commensurate with the site’s constraints and values.
           (iii)   The proposal will adversely impact on the site’s and the adjoining road
                   reserve’s scenic and environmental values.

                                                                                   Page 62 of 133