Council archive · source document
11396_Council_Representation_260912 · MCU11/0254
Attached to the e-mail Representations MCU11/0255.
26 September 2012 Our Ref: 11396 / Office: Sunshine Coast Council Ref: MCU11/0254 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL LOCKED BAG 72 SUNSHINE COAST MAIL CENTRE QLD 4560 ATTENTION: Mr Marcus Brennan Dear Marcus REPRESENTATIONS ON DECISION NOTICE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE 60 HOFMANN DRIVE, NOOSAVILLE LOT 4 ON SP222982 Further to Council’s Decision Notice issued for the above development application, we make the following representations in regards to Council’s approval: Condition 10 Condition 10 requires a performance bond of $20,000. This bond is considered an unreasonable and irrelevant imposition of the development and is contrary to Noosa Planning Scheme Policy 7. This policy indicates that Council m ay impose conditions on a development approval requiring the lodgement of bonds… and that bonds m ay be required for- ensuring compliance with conditions. The policy further indicates purpose of performance bonds is used as an incentive to a developer to construct properly or develop in accordance with the conditions of approval. Some common examples may include compliance with a load limit on certain roads, retention of trees or vegetation or construction of the development in accordance with the approved plans. Very often, in the view of the community, these circumstances are critical to satisfactory development being achieved. It has become common practice that all MCU approvals issued under The Noosa Plan are imposed with a performance bond which is contrary to the intent of PSP 7. Having regard to the policy and the excerpts above there is no need in this instance to impose a general performance bond. The bond is simply not required and places additional financial pressure on the developer for no real purpose. The bond is seen as a disincentive for the applicant to proceed with the development. Accordingly, we request that Condition 10 be deleted. Condition 24 Condition 24 requires that all waters, including stormwater runoff, groundwater seepage and leechate from acid sulphate soils must comply with specified quality criterion. While this may be reasonable for the construction phase of the development it is an unreasonable imposition and cannot be controlled by the developer post construction and sale of the units. It is noted the condition is under the P A L N IN G |S U R V E YIN G |P R O JE C T M AN G A M EE N T |C O U R T AP E A S L Brisbane Sunshine Coast North Queensland Suite 1, 14 Lever Street, Albion Qld 4010 Suite 1, Corner Surf Road & Gardak Street 1C/41 Sturt Street, Townsville Qld 4810 PO Box 266, Albion DC Qld 4010 Alexandra Headland Qld 4572 PO Box 5027, Townsville Qld 4810 p | 07 3262 1200 f | 07 3262 1499 PO Box 6380, Maroochydore BC Qld 4558 p | 07 4721 3066 f | 07 4721 3088 p | 07 5443 2844 f | 07 5443 7146 Ken Hicks & Associates Pty Ltd ACN 010 278 823 ABN 74 308 405 611 trading as KHA Development Managers
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
heading of Acid Sulfate Soils, which suggests the real intent of the condition relates to acid sulphate soils impact during the construction stage. Accordingly, we request that Condition 24 be deleted or amended to only refer to the construction stage of the development. Condition 38 Condition 38 requires that all landscape works must be established and maintained in accordance with horticultural best practice and that all plant material must be allowed to grow to full form and be refurbished when its life expectancy is reached. This condition appears to largely be an unnecessary duplication of condition 39. The second sentence of condition 38 is of particular concern to the applicant which suggests that plant material cannot be appropriately and aesthetically pruned and maintained. Accordingly, we request that Condition 39 be deleted in its entirety or at minimum the second sentence of the condition deleted. Conditions 41 – 43 Conditions 41 – 43 require an easement to be created over the pathway along the south eastern boundary in favour of Council for maintenance access purposes. White not stated it is obvious the maintenance access is for the adjoining park reserve. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required with respect to the development and places an unreasonable imposition on the development. Discussions were held with Council during the assessment of the application in relation to bushfire management and the potential to clear some of the park reserve boundary line for bushfire management and maintenance access purposes. It was made clear to the applicant that Council had sufficient area within the existing park reserve for access and maintenance of the park area without the need for further clearing. It is further relevant that both the subject site and the park reserve were created under the same reconfiguring a lot application/approval. Comprehensive reporting and assessment was undertaken at the time of both environmental and bushfire management issues. As a result Lot 4 is encumbered with both environmental covenants and bushfire setback requirements. Rehabilitation and maintenance plans were also required for the park reserve. Should access to the park reserve have been deemed necessary, the original reconfiguration would have been the appropriate time to address the matter. It is unreasonable to now further encumber an already substantially encumbered property with this easement requirement, particularly as it was made clear during the application process that sufficient maintenance access to the park exists. Accordingly, we request that Conditions 41 – 43 be deleted. Condition 44 Condition 44 requires an Environmental Awareness and Education Brochure to inform purchasers of the significance of the adjacent bushland reserve. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required with respect to the development and places an unreasonable imposition on the development. This condition adds further unnecessary cost impediment upon the developer and serves no real purpose. There are no provisions of the planning scheme to suggest this is warranted or necessary. Should Council deem this necessary then it would be more effective for such brochure to be prepared and supplied by Council.
Page 3
Accordingly, we request that Condition 44 be deleted or amended to require the brochure to be prepared and supplied by Council. Condition 45 Condition 45 requires any domestic cats to be permanently confined within buildings or cat enclosures. This condition is neither relevant to nor reasonably required with respect to the development. There are no provisions of the planning scheme to support or warrant such a condition. Accordingly, we request that Condition 45 be deleted. Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct. Yours faithfully KHA DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS Scott Sobey DIRECTOR
Used in these records
11396_Council_Representation_260912.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 68 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.