2014-04-28 General Committee Meeting Agenda Pages 1-64

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                     28 APRIL 2014


RECOMMENDATION
That Council refuse the request to extend the relevant period for applications 132003.221199.3 &
142007.2555.04, situated at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads for the following reasons:

1.    The development is contrary to The Noosa Plan’s Overall and Specific Outcomes for the
      Noosa Heads Locality;

2.    The application was publicly notified in 2004 and given the time lapsed, the community is
      unlikely to be aware of the development approval; and

3.    The proposed development were it to be publicly notified today, is likely to receive
      submissions objecting to the development, given the significant non-compliance with The
      Noosa Plan.


REPORT
1. Proposal
The application seeks approval to extend the relevant period for a Development Permit for a
Material Change of Use (26 Multiple Dwelling units and an Accommodation Building for 12 units)
and associated Operational Works at 27 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads for a further 2 years until
15 October 2015. The report is before Council, as the application is recommended for refusal.
2. Background
The application was first reported to Noosa Council on 9 March 2005, wherein officers
recommended refusal of the Material Change of Use application due to the scale of the
development, as well as the impacts on the site’s environmental and physical constraints.
Amended plans were lodged and reported to Council on 22 June 2005 with a recommendation
again for refusal. The amendments were relatively minor, including some increased setbacks to
the creek and amendments to the Accommodation Building to retain 3 mature hoop pines. On 18
July 2005, Noosa Council approved in part the Material Change of Use application for 30 multiple
dwelling units and an accommodation building of 12 units, as well as refusing the request to
reconfigure the lot into 2 lots. Council found the following grounds submitted by the applicant
sufficient to justify the decision despite the conflict with the planning scheme:-
1. The limited scale of the buildings, the proposed landscape/vegetation buffering will ensure
     that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive.
2.   The development integrates with minimal modification of the landform by buildings following
     existing contours, changing in level, suspended above ground surface, accesses following
     existing driveways, and minimisation of cut and fill platforms.
3.   The development integrates with the landscape by using predominantly native species,
     minimising clearing, using sympathetic building colours, locating access ways in cleared
     areas.
4.   The geotechnical report concludes that there will be a low to moderate risk of slope instability
     and that this risk is manageable by use of special construction techniques.
5.   The areas of the site for development support vegetation communities of only low to high
     levels of significance, with both communities highly disturbed, low in diversity, small in size
     with low connective values. Approximately 73 to 79% of the site is to remain as
     undeveloped open space.
6.   The level of development is consistent with the limitations of access in the area. With the
     applicant’s traffic consultant concluding that the impact of the proposal would be insignificant
     (below a 5% increase), except on Viewland Drive. The increase in traffic on Viewland Drive
     would be such that peak traffic flow would be less than 300 vehicles per day.


                                                                                    Page 50 of 200