Extension to Currency Period Report 132005.1062.07

132005.1062.07 – Application to extend the currency period of development approval for duplex dwelling & operational works at 5 park crescent, sunshine beach

Document information

Author	Development Planner, Tara Norley
Environment and Sustainable Development Department

Index	ECM/ Application/ 132005.1062.07

Attachments	1. 	Approved Plans

APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No.	132005.1062.07
Development Approval	Extension to Currency Period for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Duplex Dwelling and Operational Works - Landscaping, Car parking, Access, Stormwater Drainage and Sediment and Erosion Control
Applicant	KM + PJ Bone
Request Received On	27 February 2020

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	5 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach
RP Description	Lot 452 on RP48112
Land Area	531m2
Existing Use of Land	Vacant

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Eastern Beaches
Zone	Attached Housing Zone
Overlays	Nil
Assessment Type	Extension to Currency Period
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the General Committee Meeting dated 18 May 2020 regarding Application No. 132005.1062.07 to extend the currency period for a  Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Duplex Dwelling and Operational Works - Landscaping, Car Parking, Access, Stormwater Drainage and Sediment and Erosion Control situated at 5 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach and:
A.	Refuse the extension for the following reasons:
The proposed development is not consistent with Overall Outcomes 7.7.2 a), g) and mm) and Specific Outcomes O1, O5, O13 of Eastern Beaches Locality Code, as the development intrudes into the required setbacks, fails to preserve the visual amenity of neighbouring properties and includes extensive cut and fill.
The proposed development is not consistent with the Overall Outcomes 14.44.2 b) & h) and Specific Outcomes O13 & O16, as the proposed development is not designed and sited to maintain the visual privacy of neighbouring properties and does not minimise the need for cut and fill.
The approval for the Operational Works is not consistent with the current standards required by the Engineering Works Codes under The Noosa Plan:
Stormwater works conditioned is not consistent with Specific Outcomes O8 and O9 of the Transport, Roads and Drainage Code;
Frontage works conditioned is not consistent with current Council Standard Drawing requirements under the Transport, Roads and Drainage Code;
Erosion and sediment control measures conditioned are not consistent with current requirements of the Transport, Roads and Drainage Code;
The access driveway is not consistent with current Council Standard Drawing requirements under the Driveways and Carparking Code; and
Earthworks conditioned is not consistent with current Council Standard Drawing requirements under the Earthworks Code.
The development approval was designed in conjunction with 7 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach, which has now lapsed and accordingly has the potential to adversely impact on the future amenity of 7 Park Crescent, Sunshine Beach.
The contributions payable towards trunk infrastructure under this approval are not consistent with the current Infrastructure Charges Resolution.
The proposed development is contrary to the outcomes sought for the site under the draft Noosa Plan, with duplex dwellings identified as inconsistent for the area in order to accommodate the projected housing needs for Shire.
B.	Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

REPORT
PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks to extend the currency period of this development approval for a duplex dwelling until 23 March 2022. The applicant states the extension is sought:
‘…as we are accumulating funds for development and awaiting the right market conditions.’
background
On 21 June 2005 an application was lodged over the subject site for a Material Change of Use of Premises - Duplex Dwelling and Operational Works for Landscaping, Car Parking, Access, Stormwater Drainage & Sediment and Erosion Control. On 30 June 2005, an application was lodged over the adjoining property at 7 Park Crescent, also for a Duplex Dwelling and Operational Works. The two lots were under the same ownership at the time, and the proposals were designed by the same designer to be developed concurrently, and were similar in design, scale and character. As such, the applications were assessed concurrently, with a joint report written for the two applications. In 2011, 7 Park Crescent was sold to a separate entity, and as such, the two properties were no longer under the one ownership.
At the time the original application was publicly notified, 2 properly made submissions were received for the application over the subject site.  The submitters were primarily concerned with setbacks.
On 23 March 2006, Council issued a preliminary approval for a combined Material Change of Use and Operational Works for a Duplex Dwelling under the superseded planning scheme. Following a negotiated decision process, a development permit was issued on 13 October 2006.
Following the issuing of the approval, the following extensions to the currency period have been approved:
An extension to the relevant period was approved for 2 years on 29 April 2010 to 13 October 2012.
An extension to the relevant period was approved for 2 years on 20 September 2012 to 13 October 2014.
In 2013, the property was purchased by the current owners. Since the change of ownership, the following extensions have been issued:
An extension to the relevant period was approved on 17 October 2014 extending the relevant period to 23 March 2016.
An extension to the relevant period was approved on 29 February 2016 extending the relevant period until 23 March 2018.
An extension to the relevant period was approved on 23 March 2018 extending the relevant period until 23 March 2020.
The original officer’s report and subsequent extension reports have raised concerns with the extent of fill and potential overlooking/privacy issues created by each individual application at both 5 and 7 Park Crescent as stand-alone developments. The proposed fill and design were accepted based on the fact the two developments were designed to work in conjunction with each other, with each design considering the other in order to achieve a suitable outcome.
The new owners of both 5 and 7 Park Crescent were made aware that should the neighbouring approval lapse or the design change, the individual developments would create overlooking / privacy concerns and issues in relation to fill, and as such, the proposals were supported only whilst the neighbouring approval remained current. The approval over 7 Park Crescent lapsed on 23 March 2020, with the property owner being informed of the lapsing on 30 March 2020. The applicant of this extension request was also informed that the approval over 7 Park Crescent had lapsed, and as such, the request to extend the currency period of the subject approval would unlikely be supported by Council Planning Officers due to the matters previously discussed with the property owners in regards to issues with the proposal as an individual development.
assessment
The applicant has requested an extension to the currency period to the development approval under section 86 of the Planning Act 2016. When assessing an extension application, Council “…may consider any matter that the assessment manager considers relevant, even if the matter was not relevant to assessing the development application.”
Material Change of Use
The Noosa Plan 2006
The application was approved on 13 October 2006 as an impact assessable application under the superseded 1990 Planning Scheme (5 December 1997 version) with regard given to the Transitional Planning Scheme at the time (later adopted as the current Noosa Plan 2006). There are a number of provisions under The Noosa Plan 2006 that the proposal does not comply with, including (but are not limited to) building height in storeys, setbacks, roof form (roof terrace) and engineering works.
Building Height
The proposed basement does not comply with the definition of a basement under The Noosa Plan, resulting in the development being 4 storeys. As such, the development does not comply with Specific Outcome O4 of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code, which allows a maximum of 3 storeys in this location. It is however noted that the development is consistent with the character of the street, with surrounding buildings being predominantly 3 and 4 storeys in height, as the area was predominantly developed prior to The Noosa Plan coming into effect – at a time when basements were only required to be in the ground by 1.2m to not count as a storey. The proposal, in terms of height, may be considered acceptable given the development complies with the maximum building height in metres, and would be consistent with development in proximity to the subject site in terms of perceived number of storeys.
Setbacks
The approved plans include a reduced setback of 2.5 metres at the third storey to the south western boundary, as opposed to the required minimum of 3 metres under the superseded planning scheme. The reduced setback was approved as the encroachment was along the common boundary with 7 Park Crescent, and it was considered that the design of the two duplexes worked in conjunction with each other in order to avoid any adverse impacts resulting from the reduced setback. Given the development at 7 Park Crescent has lapsed, the justification for approving the reduced setback is no longer relevant.
Under The Noosa Plan, at a height of 11.5 metres above natural ground level, the proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome O5 of the Eastern Beaches Locality Code, under which a duplex is required to be setback 3.5 metres from side boundaries. The approved plans, at a 2.0 metre setback from the eastern boundary to the upper level terrace, and 2.5 metres to the building façade, would not be supported under the current planning scheme. The reduced setback would adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining property in terms of privacy, given the potential for overlooking impacts of future developments. The terrace is of particular concern, as the viewlines towards the coast would result in residents looking towards the property at 7 Park Crescent. As such, the reduced setback is not supported.
Operational Works
The design and conditions of the original Operational Works approval have not been amended since the approval was issued. Standards for operational works have changed significantly in the time since the approval was issued, therefore a number of the approved plans and conditions are now superseded by new requirements and standards.
Council’s Coordinator Engineering has reviewed the approved plans and conditions and notes that a substantial number of plans and conditions are now no longer in accordance with current standards, and therefore would not be supported if the application was made today, specifically in relation to access, frontage works, stormwater and earthworks.
Fill
The original Planning Officer’s report raised concerns with the extent of fill on the site, stating that the proposal includes filling at approximately 1 -2 metres above natural ground level toward the rear of the dwelling. Works within the 6 metre rear setback include an above ground swimming pool and retained garden (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1: Works within the rear setback
The fill was accepted on the basis that an application was also lodged on the neighbouring property (7 Park Crescent), which was assessed concurrently with the subject application. As such, each proposal considered the neighbouring sites proposal, reducing the impact of the fill on both sites. As discussed, since the original approvals were issued, both lots have been sold to separate entities.
The 2016 and 2018 extensions were approved on the basis that the neighbouring approval also remained current. The extension report from March 2018 stated:
‘…should this neighbouring approval lapse or the design change, the subject development would create overlooking and privacy concerns.’
‘Both land owners are aware of the approved design for the neighbouring lot and are aware of the repercussions for the relevant period to lapse for either lot.’
The Noosa Plan requires that buildings and structures are sited to ensure visual privacy for residents on neighbouring properties, which as stand alone design, the subject development raises concerns.
The neighbouring property’s development approval (132005.1137) on 7 Park Crescent lapsed on 23 March 2020.
The Noosa Plan encourages development to be responsive to the natural topography of the site and to minimise cut and fill (eg. by stepping down the slope). The topography of the subject site slopes from the north western corner of the lot towards the south eastern corner of 7 Park Crescent, with a difference in elevation of approximately 4.5 metres. As a result, 7 Park Crescent sits at a lower elevation than 5 Park Crescent. Any fill on the subject site would need to be reassessed in terms of the potential for causing ponding on the site or nearby land, impacts on overland flow paths, and any potential impacts of the overall design of the fill on 7 Park Crescent. As such, the extent of fill approved on the site can no longer be supported.
Retaining Structures
The proposal includes a retaining wall along the common boundary between 5 and 7 Park Crescent. The retaining structure was incorporated into the design of both duplex developments at 5 and 7 Park Crescent, and totals a maximum of 4.2 metres in height, with a maximum of 2 metres being visible above natural ground level when viewed from 7 Park Crescent (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2: Retaining Structure – eastern elevation of 5 Park Crescent
(as viewed from 7 Park Crescent)
The proposal utilises the retaining wall as a staircase running along the eastern boundary of 5 Park Crescent. The design would create a safety issue due to the staircase being elevated up to 2 metre above the natural ground level without any safety fencing/railing. Due to the elevation above ground level, the staircase would require additional safety fencing a minimum of 1 metre in height to be provided along sections of the retaining wall, resulting in a boundary fence up to 3 metres in height above natural ground level along some sections of the boundary.
As previously stated, the topography of the subject site and 7 Park Crescent results in 7 Park Crescent sitting at a lower elevation than 5 Park Crescent, and as such, any excessively high boundary fencing when viewed from 7 Park Crescent would result in significant adverse impacts on visual amenity for residents of 7 Park Crescent, due to the visual dominance of the structure. Therefore, a combined retaining wall and fence totalling up to 3 metres in height along the common boundary would not be supported.
Community’s Current Awareness of the Development
The original application was impact assessable and received two properly made submissions.
The proposal would only be required to follow a code assessment process under the current Noosa Plan, however would be impact assessable under the draft New Noosa Plan further explained below
Infrastructure Charges
The development requires contributions towards infrastructure be paid, with contributions across all infrastructure networks being covered through a combination of Conditions on the Decision Notice, an Infrastructure Charges Plan and an Infrastructure Agreement, consistent with the planning legislative requirements at the time of the approval and extensions to the currency period. The total contribution payable for the development is $8,714.00 under the existing approval. Given the lapse of time and the current and updated infrastructure requirements under the current requirements and infrastructure charging regime, the development would be required to pay $17,603.00.
draft planning scheme
The subject site is located within the High Density Residential Zone under The New Noosa Plan. A Dual Occupancy in this zone is impact and inconsistent under the draft scheme. Lower density developments, such as a Dual Occupancy, have been proposed to be inconsistent within the High Density Residential Zone in order to protect the land for higher density multiple dwelling development, in order to meet the projected demand for dwellings within the Shire. Development within the High Density Residential Zone is proposed to cater for both the current and projected demographic, economic and social profile of the area, including diversity of housing, one and two-person households, households on low to moderate incomes and residents with reduced mobility. The zone aims to foster development of multiple dwellings of various sizes, including some communal housing models, to meet the needs of different households, and encourages small multiple dwelling developments to increase housing choice. As such, a Dual Occupancy in this location is unlikely to be supported under the New Noosa Plan.
cONSULTATION
Referral Agencies
Not applicable.
Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
Coordinator Engineering, Development Assessment
Infrastructure Assessment Coordinator
conclusion & reasons for decision
The application to extend the currency period for a Material Change of Use - Duplex Dwelling and Operational Works - Landscaping, Car parking, Access, Stormwater Drainage and Sediment and Erosion Control is recommended for refusal. Significant time has lapsed since the original development was approved, and as such, the existing approved plans and conditions are no longer consistent with the planning and engineering requirements for the site and the works.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
	Chief Executive Officer		Community Services		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer		Community Development		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Facilities		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Services	x	Environment & Sustainable Development		Infrastructure Services
	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
					

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 7 of 7

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
general COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	18 may 2020

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
2m HEIGHT LIMIT AT
REAR SETBACK (6m)

 

 

 

 

APPROVED GLAZING
BALCONIES ULN.O.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AWNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

ED HORIZONTAL
R SLATS

 

 

 

 

UNIT
ENTRY

 

 

 

 

 

F.C,
AWNING

ENTRY
AWNING

UNIT 'A‘
ENTRY

 

 

 

TOOL_DECK RL. $6.34

 

= E.Gi. AT POOL

GARDEN

E.G.L. AT REAR SETBACK


[Attachment: image2.png (image text)]
 

   
   

 

mera geree
|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T AbpRove0 GAZING
Leones BA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENTRY 'B’
SECURITY.
--GATE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E opasement
FFL 32.3