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
                          I support the proposed planning amendments that will see more land leaving the Tourism
                          Accommodation Zone than being newly incorporated into that zone. This move will consolidate housing
                          for residents and better define areas where tourist activities including STAs are acceptable.
             23109126     Whilst we support the proposed mechanisms for reducing car parking through the inclusion of car share           It is acknowledged that car parking rates in the Planning Scheme may provide a barrier to redevelopment.
                          solutions and the unbundling of car parking, we consider these amendments do not provide sufficient             The travel demand measures go some way in alleviating the car parking rate. While the review of the car
                          relief from the stringent car parking requirements under Noosa Plan. These onerous car parking                  parking rate was not within the scope of this amendment, Council is committed to reviewing this in the near
                          requirements under the Noosa Plan 2020 result in an unfeasible quantum of car parking that is required          future.
                          to be delivered. The cost of this car accommodation has to be embedded in the cost of the affordable
                          rental dwelling, which makes it cost prohibitive and ultimately financially unviable – especially on smaller
                          sites. We consider these car parking ratios, as endorsed by Noosa Council, together with the adoption
                          of green transport solutions and car park in lieu policy, will help achieve the outcome of the Noosa
                          Housing Strategy to “prioritise the delivery of housing over the delivery of car parking”.
             23109083     The current car parking requirements remain a major barrier to the effective development of Noosa. The
                          stringent standards do not account for the unique challenges faced by small sites, nor do they
                          differentiate between the parking needs of various types of commercial uses and their locations within
                          a building. They also do not allow for emerging forms of personal transport.
                          Introduce flexible car parking standards that account for the unique challenges of small sites. Options
                          should include contributions in lieu of on-site parking, shared parking arrangements, and off-site parking
                          solutions. These approaches will provide developers with the flexibility needed to make projects viable
                          while still addressing parking needs.
                          Develop council-provided car parking infrastructure in strategic locations within Noosa. Expanding
                          existing car parks or creating new external car parking facilities can support redevelopment efforts by
                          providing necessary parking solutions without burdening individual sites. This centralized approach
                          offers clarity on costs and is achievable, facilitating more effective redevelopment.
                          Provide incentives for developments that promote sustainable transportation options, such as bicycle
                          parking, car-sharing programs, and improved pedestrian access. Encouraging alternative modes of
                          transport can reduce the overall demand for car parking and support broader environmental goals.
                          There is a need for more diverse and smaller accommodation options, particularly those that can
                          function without the provision of car parking. Smaller studio dwellings under 45 m2 should not be
                          required to provide on-site car parking. These units are ideal for occupants who rely on public transport,
                          e-scooters, bicycles, or other sustainable transportation options. Eliminating the car parking requirement
                          for these smaller units will make them more viable and able to be achieved in an economic viable
                          manner. Remove the car parking requirement for studio dwellings under 45 m2. This change
                          acknowledges the transportation habits of occupants in smaller units who are more likely to use public
                          transport, e-scooters, and bicycles. This will also make these units more feasible and attractive for
                          development.


15. Fences, streetscapes and built form
 Your Say    ECM          Submitter comments                                                                                               Response                                                                                                       Recommendation
 Reference   reference
             23109586     I strongly urge the council to reconsider setbacks that are measured to the outermost projection as this         Eaves and setbacks distance                                                                                    That no change be made to the
                          actively discourages generous eaves, which are crucial for solar passive design and retaining noosa''s           The QDC sets building setbacks to outermost projections and under Noosa Plan 2006 Noosa Council did            proposed amendments as a
                          character roof forms. The former allowance of a 600mm projection of eaves into setback zones were                allow for eaves within this, however it led to larger footprints and site cover and less ability to get deep   result of this submission.
                          sensible. I believe it may still be written this was in the QDC.                                                 planting between buildings and boundaries. The Planning Scheme is bound by the Planning Regulation
                          Further consideration of the proposed front fence requirements is needed with practical examples tested.         2017 definitions and as such the setbacks definition cannot be varied by a Local Government.
                          It should be noted that there have been many fences erected around the shire that are built upon retaining       Fencing
                          walls resulting in a fence height of 2m plus the retaining wall height. This is a poor outcome, and I assume
                          that these were completed without approval. I would like to see better compliance with this, ie by               A compliant fence is two metres above the natural ground level and any fence higher than that requires
                          nominating maximum height above natural ground level.                                                            an application to Council. It is noted that a Council approval is not gained in all instances and is a
                                                                                                                                           enforcement matter which is then progressed.
                          Site cover on steeply sloping sites may not be contained under a single "birds eye view" given the slope
                          of the land and strict height controls. I suggest that special consideration needs to be given to any site       Density, Site cover and plot ratio
                          with a slope of >15 degrees, as good design suggests that you should step with the land. It seems that           The Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR) has a greater allowable density than the Low Density
                          the new scheme is removing the previous allowance for multiple changes of level and this will be                 Residential Zone (LDR) as only one dwelling and one secondary dwelling (max. 65m²) is permitted on a
                          challenging on sites such as I have suggested above.                                                             site in LDR, whereas more than two dwellings are permitted in the MDR. The purpose of less site cover
                          Whilst I am generally not supportive of increased density, may I bring to your attention that the density of     and plot ratio/gross floor area in the MDR, is to ensure the built form is not too imposing given multiple
                          the so-called "medium density" zone is equal or lower in density to the low density residential zone             dwellings can occur, outdoor areas/landscaping open space are of sufficient size to accommodate two
                          (medium density site cover is 40%, low density is permitted to be 50% from a birds eye). As a reported "         and more households and additional carparking can be accommodated.
                          bonus" this is allowed to increase to 45% and 0.5:1 plot ratio, if 75% of dwellings are provided at 75m2         As part of the Noosa Plan 2020 and current amendments, the bonus provisions were tested on a range
                          GFA ) This seems contradictory, and needs further consideration.                                                 of different size and shaped sites in both the MDR, HDR and some centre zones. The concept plans
                          The plot ratio vs site cover density controls need to be explored further as 0:5:1 does not align with a site    prepared by a local architect indicate that the bonus provisions allow for good building design including
                          cover of 45% if the dwellings are two stories. So if housing affordability is the goal then please get the       sufficient space for the required landscaping open space, car parking and outdoor areas.



                                                                                                                                              90
Table of Submissions made regarding Noosa Plan 2020 Proposed Amendment No. 2, 2024