2020-01-13 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                   13 JANUARY 2020


Council’s consultant architect advises ‘The building elevations are reasonably bland and
inactive.’ However, the small building 2 (food and drink outlet) and building 4 (office) go some
way in providing a mix of materials and achieving the design intent of the Noosaville character
but the balance of the proposal is a standard large retail format commercial/retail based design.
In particular building 1’s design is generally not conducive for low impact industrial uses.
The applicant indicates 8 tenancies within building 1 for low impact industry. However, only
tenancy 3 has a built form considered suitable for an industrial use (roller doors, truck access,
vehicle access etc.). The other tenancies have a walkway to the front of the tenancy, lift up
service windows and pedestrian access to the rear; not conducive for bone-fide industrial uses.
Refer Figure 12 below.




              Figure 12 – Building 1; T3 the most likely built form for an industrial use.


The design proposes shade/planting arbours between carparking and the buildings. The
infrequency of gardens and sparseness does not provide sufficient cover or visual amenity.
These are a poor substitute for mature trees or other approach which might integrate vegetation
and shading. The proposal provides some shaded walkways but proposes a hard transition
between buildings and car parking with limited gardens and plantings.
While the layout provides for some landscaped public meeting places, generally the
development’s pedestrian connectivity is of standard design with no well-designed landscaped
pedestrian connectivity throughout the site.
Council’s consultant architect states:
… the resultant character of the development is consistent with a usual approach of retail uses in
an open car park. It’s fair to say this is consistent with rest of Noosa Civic and a planning strategy
that attempts to hide buildings behind an external buffer. However, the proposal does not reflect
an exemplary or finely tuned local design approach.
Although the scale of the parking is consistent with the adjacent Noosa Civic development, the
design does not create an attractive or landscaped internal space as intended by the Planning
Scheme. The development is dominated by car-parking and is deficient in vegetation/shade trees
throughout the parking area.
Land Use & Works Provisions
The application has been assessed against applicable codes. The pertinent issues arising out of
the assessment against the codes are discussed below:
Landscaping / Biodiversity
Landscaping
The proposal meets the overall quantity of landscaped open space required which is mostly due
to the perimeter vegetation being protected by covenants. However, landscaping internal to the
development is not sufficient in the carparking area nor has the applicant demonstrated that
existing vegetation will sufficiently screen the development from Eenie Creek Road. The

                                                                                       Page 83 of 172