NOOSA PLAN 2020 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 2 - POST PUBLIC NOTIFICATION FOR FINAL STATE GOVERNMENT MINISTERIAL APPROVAL · Attachment 1 Table of submissions

 Your Say    ECM         Submitter comments                                                                                                Response                                                                                                        Recommendation
 Reference   reference
                         essential workers from those designated sites, to enable fast and comfortable travel into the Noosa town
                         centre.

             23104865    My property at 51 Poinciana Ave is a unique and valuable asset, not only to my family but to the Tewantin         51 Poinciana Av is the single largest MDR zoned property in the Shire with 7578m2 of lakefront land in
             and         community as well. The property, which spans 7578 m2s, is characterized by its unobstructed lake views            the heart of Tewantin. While its zoning has changed with subsequent planning schemes the site has had
                         and significant environmental and aesthetic value. This unique setting has attracted a high market value,         the capacity for development as units since at least the 1985 planning scheme. It is not proposed to
             23108587    with an unimproved capital value of $1.8 million. The proposed amendments to rezone my property to                change the zone of the land with the proposed amendments but change the uses which are consistent in
                         accommodate smaller and low-cost dwellings raise several concerns:                                                that zone.
                         Loss of Property Value: The introduction of smaller, low-cost dwellings on this property could significantly      The southern portion of the property falls reasonably steeply to where it shares over 82 metres of
                         decrease its value. The premium associated with the lake views and the spaciousness of the land would             boundary with Lake Doonella. This portion of the site is generally undevelopable due to elements of flood
                         be undermined by high-density, lower-cost housing.                                                                hazard, landslide hazard and environmental values associated with the riparian zone of the lake edge.
                         Aesthetic and Character Concerns: The amendments threaten the aesthetic and character of the                      There is also some Matters of State Environmental Significance mapped on the southern-most parts of
                         neighbourhood. The charm and appeal of Tewantin are partly due to its larger properties and open                  the block, associated with regulated vegetation and essential wildlife habitat.
                         spaces. High-density housing would alter this character, potentially making the area less desirable.              The existing house sits above the 9 metre contour line. It would be possible to excise the existing house
                         Infrastructure and Environmental Impact: Increased density could exacerbate existing infrastructure               and all steeper waterfront land from the site (estimated to be approximately 3.8ha) leaving approximately
                         issues, particularly with stormwater management. The area already experiences significant overflow and            3.7ha of land available for the development of multiple dwellings, close to the school and town centre.
                         erosion during heavy rains, and additional housing would likely worsen these problems. Moreover, the              The owner may then wish to consider a change in zone to their home and the southern portion to better
                         environmental impact on Lake Doonella, a critical part of the local ecosystem, cannot be overlooked.              reflect the ongoing low density nature of the site.
                         Given the unique characteristics and existing value of my property at 51 Poinciana Ave, I strongly urge           However, the reconfiguration of this site to accommodate just a small number of large, low density houses
                         the Council to consider an exception to the proposed changes for this site. The property's significant size,      would be very inefficient and is not supported.
                         its premium lake views, and the current infrastructure limitations make it unsuitable for the proposed high-      It is not imagined small multiple dwellings bult on this site will be “low-cost housing” however they would
                         density, low-cost housing. The proposed amendments, as they pertain to my property, raise significant             improve housing choice in central Tewantin.
                         concerns regarding property value, aesthetic and character preservation, traffic congestion, and
                         infrastructure strain. I strongly recommend that the Council reconsiders the proposed changes for my
                         property and explores alternative solutions that can achieve the housing objectives without compromising
                         the unique characteristics and liveability of Tewantin. By maintaining key properties like mine, exploring
                         other suitable areas for high-density housing, and implementing comprehensive infrastructure plans, the
                         Council can ensure a balanced and sustainable approach to development.
             23101845    Among the blocks of land in Tewantin that will be impacted by the changes to medium density, is a
                         significant site at 51 Poinciana Ave which is 7578 square metres, with an unimproved value of $1.8M and
                         which has unique uninterrupted Lake views that attract a premium in terms of amenity. The only other
                         sites that have the same level of uninterrupted Lake views, not constrained by vegetation are 1 and 5
                         Werin St. #1 Werin St is a recently developed site with two unattached dwellings, (that would not be
                         acceptable with the proposed amendments), one of which was sold recently for $2.85M. Five Werin St is
                         a single dwelling property owned by myself and my husband which is adjacent to 51 Poinciana St and the
                         land has an unimproved value of $1 M. We recently had an unsolicited offer of $5M, which gives an
                         indication of the value of the amenity of the Lake view.
                         Requirement for small dwellings could well have impacts on the potential sale value of individual dwellings
                         on the site at 51 Poinciana Ave, as there would be an expectation that the view would attract a higher
                         price point, not necessarily in tune with the expectation of affordability. The site at 51 Poinciana Ave
                         should be considered as an exception to the proposed 75sq small dwellings over 75% of the land available
                         for dwellings due to the likelihood that such an outcome will not result in affordable housing.
 5776098                 I believe that the Noosa Plan 2020 Amendment 2 is in general very positive. The higher density in and             Support for the proposed amendments is noted.
                         around the Major Centre zone of Noosa Junction makes obvious sense, and I am in full support. The
                         same goes for the changes around the Noosa Business Centre to reflect the new arrangements made
                         with the landowner to further develop the site. Key to both of these areas is public transport and I hope
                         that linkages between these 2 areas are bolstered for the benefit or residents.
                         I also applaud the changes to the Medium Density Residential Zone to enforce higher density on blocks
                         of 600m2 or larger, rather than allowing a simple duplex. As a Local Government Area, we clearly need
                         a greater number of lower cost housing in the major centre zone areas and elsewhere.
 5803241                 Not supporting townhouses on sites over 600m2 will negatively impact the character and built form of              It is suspected the submitter’s reference to “Townhouses” is a dual occupancy. The preceding section
                         some streets.                                                                                                     outlined that it is recommended a dual occupancy remain consistent on an MDR zoned lot less than
                         Rather than this being driven by the lot size, I think it should be driven by the existing uses on the adjacent   1,000m2 in area but that on lots larger than this a greater number of dwellings is expected.
                         sites. If a site is in the middle of a row of houses or townhouses, it would be better to maintain this built     Whether the site is development for 2, 3 or more dwellings, the same development provisions apply in
                         form & character than change to units.                                                                            terms of height, gross floor area and setbacks etc. which maintain the overall streetscape character.
 5827206                 To assist with achieving smaller housing sizes within residential zones, there should be a ban on building        Support for not allowing a single dwelling over multiple lots is noted. It cannot however be prevented as
                         a single dwelling occupying more than one lot, as is currently permitted.                                         Council does not have the power to prevent the amalgamation of two lots.
                         Additionally in the Medium Density Zones, the proposal to make dual occupancy inconsistent with lots              The intent of the Medium Density Residential zone is to provide for multiple dwellings as stated in Noosa
                         over 600 sq.m. is not consistent with the intent of the meaning of Medium Density, which should be aimed          Plan 2020 which is 3 or more dwellings on a lot. Whilst dual occupancy is also consistent in the zone, it
                         at Duplex accommodation, or perhaps Triplex if the lot is a suitable size. i.e. the council's choice of a         is considered an underutilisation of sites where 3 or more small dwellings could be developed. However
                         delineation point of 600 sq.m. is too small. The Medium Density zone should be reserved for Duplex                as outlined in the preceding sections if the land and construction costs are such that it is commercially
                         accommodation, or Triplex, (but not more), only if the lot size is at least 750 or 800 sq. m."                    unviable to build small multiple dwellings there is a risk no further housing eventuate at all. Therefore, it


                                                                                                                                             60
Table of Submissions made regarding Noosa Plan 2020 Proposed Amendment No. 2, 2024