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

             23108586    Rural Residential Zone Code:                                                                                      The submitters feedback is appreciated, however some of their comments are not directly related to               That no change be made to the
                         It is clear from the drafting of this table that it is intended to be an alternative provision to the QDC as      proposed amendments. For example, both AO5.4 and AO5.5 have been in the scheme since 2020 and                    proposed amendments as a
                         provided by section 33 of the Building Act 1975 (Qld). In respect of PO5(e) and (f), the limitation of            are not proposed to be altered. AO5.4 addresses the roofed footprint of an individual building (not GFA)         result of this submission.
                         storeys, and visual aspect of storeys, is a quantifiable standard, and therefore ought not be a                   and AO5.5 addresses total GFA on a site (so excludes things such as vehicle parking, verandahs, voids,
                         Performance Outcome, but rather an Acceptable Outcome. Ideally, a provision limiting the number of                staircases)
                         storeys ought not be included at all. Further, we submit that the Planning Scheme should not:                     Noosa Shire has a history of ensuring the built form fits in with the landscape rather than dominate it and it
                               a) limit the number of storeys allowable for a building or other structure. In the circumstances,           is not unreasonable that exceptionally large houses are referred to planning.
                                     AO5.1 has made provision for maximum building height and provided buildings and structures            The planning scheme specifies a maximum building height in storeys and metres for each zone. In relation
                                     comply with maximum building height the number of storeys ought not be limited;                       to dwelling houses it is allowed by Building legislation to do this as an alternative provision to the
                               b) the proposed PO5(f) is obsolete because of the drafting of PO5(e):                                       Queensland Development Code.
                                   i.     where PO5(e) provides that buildings and other structures are no more than two storeys           There are many instances within Noosa Plan where quantifiable standards are included within Performance
                                          in height, the maximum allowable storeys to be built is 2 storeys. In such circumstances         Outcomes and to date the scheme has been accepted by the State as drafted appropriately.
                                          the building/structure will be a 2 storey building/structure and a 2 storey building/structure   In relation to secondary dwellings there may be a state-wide code in the near future that addresses size
                                          will look like such;                                                                             and siting of these.
                                  ii.     irrespective of whether a three or more storey building/structure may externally appear as       Removal or demolition of a building is assessed against the Waste Management Code and the water Quality
                                          a two storey building, PO5 would not be met because PO5(e) remains as limiting all               and Drainage Code.
                                          buildings/structures to 2 storeys.                                                               The submitter’s suggestions will be considered as part of future planning scheme reviews, however would
                         AO5.4 provides individual buildings or roofed structures do not cover more than 500m2 of the site. This           not prompt changes to the current package of proposed amendments.
                         provision is extremely unclear. It is not discernible whether the 500m2 is measured as:
                               a) “gross floor area”, which is defined to exclude certain aspects of a building including areas
                                     used for parking; or
                               b) the entire area of the building/structure or entire area of the roof of the building/structure, which
                                     would be inconsistent with the terminology used in AO5.5.
                         AO5.5 provides that the total gross floor area of all buildings on site does not exceed 500m2. We submit
                         this is unreasonable because:
                               a) 500m2 site cover on a 1,500m2 site (30%, as consistent with AO5.3) is significantly more likely
                                     to adversely impact upon the desired Performance Outcomes than say a 500m2 house and
                                     300m2 shed on a 20,000m2 site;
                               b) the community expectation is to be able to build large houses rural residential property;
                               c) in many circumstances, the construction of a large 1 storey house is preferred, and provides
                                     better housing options;
                               d) it is unreasonable to put such a small limit on large lots, for example it is unreasonable to
                                     expect a 10,000m2 lot to reduce its allowable dwelling size to 400m2 with a 100m2 granny flat,
                                     particularly in circumstances where Performance Outcomes (a) to (f) are met due to site
                                     aesthetics and vegetation
                         As a solution for this submission, we propose that the approach adopted by Moreton Bay Regional
                         Council be adopted. Being that a “sliding scale” be adopted as the alternative provision for site coverage.
                         Table 5.7 of the proposed Planning Scheme categorises building work for removal or demolition not
                         associated with material change of use as code assessable development for all zones. We submit that
                         demolition for all buildings should not be categorized as code assessable. We submit the categorization
                         of demolition should be limited to circumstances where there is something unique or remarkable about
                         the building/structure proposed to be demolished, e.g. heritage, character, etc. Ordinary, non-
                         remarkable buildings and structures ought to be accepted development with requirement. Further to
                         the above, we submit that it appears the purpose of categorizing the demolition of all buildings/structures
                         is so that Council may charge a bond for the proposal. If that is not the purpose or intention of such
                         categorization, it appears to be the effect of it.
                         The Planning Scheme ought to be amended in this regard because:
                               a) making demolition of ordinary buildings/structures is better planning policy and better meets
                                     the objectives of the proposed amendment to the Planning Scheme (i.e. to support housing
                                     supply and housing affordability);
                               b) Council has other avenues of ensuring demolition works are completed appropriately and/or
                                     community infrastructure and amenities is appropriately protected and/or repaired.
                         Support the amendment to Table 5.9.3 Bushfire Hazard Overly and Table 5.9.8 Landslide Hazard
                         Overlay because those aspects of development are regulated by the building assessment provisions.
                         Our only submission in this respect is for the Planning Scheme to properly reflect those amendments in
                         Part 9.3 of the Planning Scheme.


13. Rezoning For Environment Management and Conservation
 Your Say    ECM         Submitter comments                                                                                                Response                                                                                                         Recommendation
 Reference   reference
             23076589    NPA supports the proposed allowance for rural property owners with Voluntary Conservation                         The intent behind the proposed rezoning of land to Environmental Management and Conservation was a               It is recommended that a change
                         Agreements to choose to have their land rezoned to Environmental Management Conservation in a split               genuine desire to protect the landscape and environment. Numerous landowners with existing Voluntary             be made to the proposed
                         zone arrangement to ensure ongoing environmental protection.                                                      Conservation Agreements took up the option to rezone part of their property in this fashion.                     amendments to:

                                                                                                                                               86
Table of Submissions made regarding Noosa Plan 2020 Proposed Amendment No. 2, 2024