Original source · versioned page text
2019-04-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 9 April 2019
commencing at 9.30am
Committee Room, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson, Tony Wellington
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 89 sections
Section 2
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 3
1 MCU19/0016 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF
USE, DETACHED HOUSE SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL BUILDING LINE,
LOCATED AT 54 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH 3
2 MCU19/0007 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF
USE (ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING BUSINESS TYPE 2 RECREATION,
AMUSEMENT AND FITNESS (FITNESS CENTRE), SITUATED AT 26 PROJECT
AVENUE, NOOSAVILLE 21
3 MCU16/0079.03 - REQUEST TO CHANGE A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR 5
MEMORIAL DRIVE, TEWANTIN 35
4 OPW19/0046 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS
(ADVERTISING DEVICE) SITUATED AT 1/100 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE 45
5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2019 (M DESIGN &
FOURTEEN ENTERPRISES) - REFUSAL OF A MINOR CHANGE TO A
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR ADDITION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND
DECK AT 42 SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH 55
CLOSED SESSION 58
6 ENVIRONMENT LEVY
POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITION - LOT 3 RP186809 58
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 90
Section 3
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 MCU19/0016 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE,
DETACHED HOUSE SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL BUILDING LINE, LOCATED AT 54
SEAVIEW TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Lisa Pienaar
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU19/0016
Attachments 1. Architectural Plans
2. Landscaping Plan
(Note: Both attachments provided separately to this report)
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Brett McKenzie Mason
Proposal Material Change of Use - Detached House in Coastal Protection Area
(Seaward of Coastal Building Line)
Properly Made Date 11 February 2019
Information Request Date Not applicable
Information Response Date Not applicable
Decision Due Date 18 April 2019
Number of Submissions Not applicable
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 54 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach Qld 4567
RP Description Lot 63 RP 81810
Land Area 589 m²
Existing Use of Land Dwelling
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Eastern Beaches
Zone Detached Housing
Overlays Natural Resource Overlay – Coastal Protection Area
Natural Hazard Overlay – Slide Hazard
Assessment Type Code
Page 3 of 90
Section 4
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 9 April 2019 regarding Application No. MCU19/0016 for a
Development Application for Material Change of Use for a Detached House seaward of the
coastal building line, situated at 54 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach and:
A. Refuse Application No. MCU19/0016 for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the assessment benchmarks of the State Planning
Policy as it proposes development in an Erosion Prone Area and Natural Hazard
Area.
2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Planning Scheme in that it proposes
development:
a. in the Landslide Hazard Area thereby placing people and property at risk and
does not maintain the natural processes and protection function of land forms
and vegetation contrary to the provisions of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code.
b. in the Coastal Protection Area extending seaward of the Coastal Building Line
and is likely to adversely impact upon natural coastal processes contrary to the
requirements of the Natural Resources Code.
c. which does not protect the dunal area and natural environmental nor maintain
the safety of people and works contrary to the Overall Outcomes for the
Eastern Beaches Locality.
3. Recent modelling carried out by the Council indicates significant erosion is likely to
occur in the future which may threaten life and property should the proposed
development proceed.
4. Given the site is affected by the Coastal Building Line and is located in a highly
vulnerable erosion prone area, the proposed 6m setback is not sufficient to minimise
the risk of erosion.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new 2 storey dwelling
within the Coastal Protection Area identified under the Natural Resources Overlay. The dwelling
is proposed to be located seaward of the Coastal Building Line. The Coastal Building Line is
generally 15m from the seaward boundary. The background of the Coastal Building Line is
provided in section 2.1 of this report. Refer Figure 1– Proposed Site plan for new dwelling &
Figure 2 – Elevations for proposed dwelling.
Page 4 of 90
Section 5
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 1 – Proposed Site plan for new dwelling (Coastal Building Line in yellow)
Page 5 of 90
Section 6
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 2 – Elevations for proposed dwelling
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
The existing dwelling situated on the subject site was constructed in 1973, when building
approval was granted. An addition to the dwelling received building approval in 1995. There is
no planning approval documented for this property. The dwelling straddles the Coastal Building
Line which was officially declared on 22 December 1984 under the Coastal Management Control
District Regulations 1984. Refer Figure 3 – Subject site and Coastal Building Line.
Page 6 of 90
Section 7
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 3 – Subject site and Coastal Building Line
As shown in Figure 3 – Subject site, the majority of development on the eastern side of
Seaview Terrace has some form of building work seaward of the Coastal Building Line. As
reference for Section 3 of this report, it is important to provide background to other development
affected by the Coastal Building Line on the seaward side of Seaview Terrace. This is provided in
Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Background of development on lots affected by the Coastal Building Line on the
seaward side of Seaview Terrace (NB – Table as referenced in report for application no.
51987.2951.01- extra content added for this report)
Address in Development Date of Decision Comments
Seaview Approval
Terrace
The blue rows represent development assessed under the State Coastal Management Plan* provisions.
38 2005132004.240114 11 July 2005 No development seaward of the Coastal
Building Line.
40 51993.271 1993 DA File misplaced. Building plans indicate
development approximately 3m to 4m
seaward of the Coastal Building Line.
42 TPC 1918 7 July 1987 Dwelling originally approved – part of
building cantilevered into Coastal building
line setback.
Change to TPC to add 19 September 2018 Change to add deck and pool refused by
pool and deck Council. Currently in appeal stage.
Page 7 of 90
Section 8
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Address in Development Date of Decision Comments
Seaview Approval
Terrace
44 No DA records for Original dwelling appeared (from aerials)
original dwelling to comply with the Coastal Building Line
setback.
MCU12/0159 9 January 2013 A portion of the building, a deck and pool
(pool setback 4m – 5.7m from rear
boundary) approved seaward of the
Coastal Building Line. Third party referral
to DEHP. Alignment of neighbouring
property was considered in the
assessment.
MCU15/0023 5 June 2015 A greater setback to the pool (4.9m to
6.5m from rear boundary) and a reduction
of building forward of the Coastal Building
Line when compared to the previous
approval.
46 - 48 132005.2200 27 February 2007 The application was subject to the State
Coastal Management Plan*. For context
an extract from the planners report is
provided below—
The State Coastal Management Plan
contains specific provisions relating to
erosion prone areas when undertaking
development assessment. The State
Coastal Management Plan, Policy 2.2.2
applies to Erosion Prone Areas. For
existing developed areas in the erosion
prone area, the limit for new buildings is
the building alignment of neighbouring
properties. Further development is only to
occur landward of this alignment.
The proposed dwelling house is primarily
located landward behind the 15 metre
building setback line from the rear
boundary. Although small sections of the
house and the proposed pool extend
within this setback, the development does
not occur seaward of the neighbouring
dwelling to the north or the existing deck
on the site which is to be retained.
50 132004.4743 2005 The proposal is seaward of the Coastal
Building Line and was subject to the State
Coastal Management Plan, Policy 2.2.2.
The assessment is similar to the
neighbouring 46-48 Seaview Terrace.
50 MCU15/0096 13 May 2016 New dwelling (demolishing previous
dwelling). A portion of the building,
setback 5-8.25m back from rear
boundary. Approved seaward of the
Coastal Building Line. Alignment of
neighbouring property was considered in
MCU15/0096.03 20 March 2017 the assessment.
Approval for roof form – no further
encroachment to rear boundary.
Page 8 of 90
Section 9
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Address in Development Date of Decision Comments
Seaview Approval
Terrace
52 131998.982104 14 December 1998 Extension to existing dwelling seaward of
15246 DA the Coastal Building Line. Referral to the
Beach Protection Authority. Consideration
of neighbouring properties alignment.
131998.982104.1 6 January 2016
Roof over second storey deck seaward of
the Coastal Building Line. Not protruding
further seaward than existing deck.
54 No DA on file Building approval Dwelling is constructed eastward of the
1973 Coastal building line. Dwelling approved
and constructed prior to the introduction
of the Coastal Building Line. Subject site
– background provided above.
56 132005.901 29 November 2005 The proposal is seaward of the Coastal
Building Line and was subject to the State
Coastal Management Plan*, Policy 2.2.2.
The assessment was similar numbers 46-
48 & 50 Seaview Terrace.
MCU13/0247 20 January 2014 New dwelling (demolishing previous
dwelling). A portion of the building,
setback 6.7-8.4m back from rear
boundary. Approved seaward of the
Coastal Building Line. Alignment of
neighbouring property was considered in
the assessment.
56 MCU13/0247.02 14 February 2017 Changes include relocation of pool to
upper level, extension of deck seaward
and roof terrace. Alignment of
neighbouring property was considered in
the assessment in terms of average
setback.
58 51996.2025 (04632 23 August 1996 A cantilevered deck seaward of the
TP) Coastal Building Line resulting in a 6m
setback to the seaward boundary.
Referral to the Beach protection
Authority.
60 131999.982760 12 July 1999 Dwelling seaward of the Coastal Building
Line. Extensions to an existing house
built prior to the 1980’s.
62 132004.4920 26 November 2004 Dwelling seaward of the Coastal Building
Line. The proposal was subject to the
State Coastal Management Plan*, Policy
2.2.2. The assessment was similar to
numbers 46-48, 50, & 56 Seaview
Terrace.
64 No DA except for an The existing dwelling appears to extend
extension to the approximately between 2m to 3m
carport seaward of the Coastal Building Line.
*The State Coastal Management Plan commenced in February 2002 and ended in February 2012 and
was replaced by State Planning Policy 3/11: Coastal Protection (2 Dec 2013). Since 2013 various State
Planning Policies have lapsed or been repealed.
Page 9 of 90
Section 10
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
State Mapping
The site is also within an Erosion Prone Area and Coastal Management District as shown in
SARA’s mapping below in Figure 4 - Coastal Management District and Erosion Prone Area.
Figure 4 – Coastal Management District and Erosion Prone Area
As background for this report, the QLD Government Guideline: State Development Assessment
Provisions State Code 8: Coastal development and tidal works provides information on the intent
of the Coastal Building Line and the concept of coastal processes and this is provided below for
Council’s reference.
Coastal Building Line
Coastal building lines are declared in those areas that are already developed for urban purposes
and are highly vulnerable to coastal erosion. The intent of the coastal building line is to:
provide a common alignment for building work;
set back development from the coastline which reduces the erosion risk to people and
property;
provide space on the lot seaward of the development for construction of future erosion control
structures wholly on the lot and not on State land.
Generally, no building work, including houses, sheds or swimming pools, would be permitted
seaward of a coastal building line. Only works for the protection of existing buildings from sea
erosion, such as seawalls, would be permitted seaward of a coastal building line.
Coastal Processes
Coastal processes are the natural processes occurring on the coast and in tidal water including:
wind, waves, tides and currents which transfer energy to the coast and drive other
processes;
sediment transport to and along the coast;
sediment accumulation or erosion onshore and offshore which builds or destroys landforms
including foreshores, beaches, dunes, delta plains;
the growth and spread of plants and succession of plant communities, especially where
plants have a specific role in trapping sediment and building landforms (mangrove and
dune colonizing grasses) and stabilizing sediments against erosion;
changes in sea-level both temporary and permanent from weather events and climate
change.
Page 10 of 90
Section 11
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Localised Modelling – Noosa Council
The lot is also affected by Council’s new Coastal Hazards – Erosion Prone Area mapping. The
modelling was undertaken in accordance with the Queensland Government Coastal Hazard
Technical Guide. Modelling for Erosion Prone Area 1% AEP storm event consists of three future
planning horizons– the years 2040, 2070 and 2100, as well as present day conditions, for a
comparison. The modelling outputs were completed and signed off in February 2018 by the
relevant representative of the QLD State Government ensuring the modelling was in accordance
with the State guidelines. Figure 5 below shows the subject site and the newly modelled erosion
prone areas.
Figure 5 – Erosion Prone Area and subject site
The modelling suggests that by 2040 and 2070, within the life of this development, approximately
between 50% up to 80% of the site is affected by coastal erosion in a 1% AEP storm event.
Discussion with Applicant
The applicant was consulted at the Information request stage of the application process as to
whether they would consider changing their proposal to have all proposed built form to be located
landward of the Coastal Building Line. The applicant declined this option.
Around the same time Council officers met with the applicant, whereby the applicant conveyed
their wish to build within 6 metres from the eastward boundary as per other residents in Seaview
Terrace had. They expressed their disappointment with regard to timing, whereby policy
positions had been strengthened since purchasing their property and submitting the application
for the proposed dwelling.
Page 11 of 90
Section 12
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2.2. Site Description
The site has a 15 metre frontage to Seaview Terrace and a 15.4 metre frontage to the Sunshine
Beach coastal reserve and is rectangular in shape. The site is located on a steep escarpment
where at the rear boundary, the land falls away to the beachfront. The site itself has a 7 metre
fall from west to east.
An existing dwelling is located on the site within the Coastal Protection Area identified under the
Natural Resources Overlay. The Coastal Building line traverses the site north to south as shown
in Figure 1.
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The site adjoins detached houses to the north and south and to the west across Seaview
Terrace. The site slopes steeply to the east adjoining north Sunshine Beach.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
The application under the Planning Act 2016 must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) outlines particulars about compatible urban form that
minimises impacts on coastal processes and avoids development that present unacceptable risk
from coastal hazards. The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the SPP. The State Planning
Policy (State interest guideline – Coastal Environment) requires the coastal environment to be
protected and enhanced and urban form to be compatible with this. Particularly this policy
requires that development is avoided in areas that present an unacceptable risk from coastal
hazards; and development avoids or minimises adverse impacts on coastal processes and
coastal resources.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the Urban Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The proposal is for urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the
assessment benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
3.3. Statutory Instruments
State Provisions
The proposal seeks to construct a new dwelling seaward of the Coastal Building Line, providing a
6 metre setback to the building and a cantilevered deck 3 metres setback from the seaward
boundary. The Coastal Building Line is generally 15m from the seaward boundary as shown in
Figure 1 in Item 1 of this report.
Page 12 of 90
Section 13
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
A Development Permit for Building Works is required to be referred to the State Assessment and
Referral Agency (SARA) as a Concurrence Agency. The applicant has referred the application in
its current form prior to lodging this planning application with Council as provided for under the
Planning Act 2016. SARA has no objection to the building works and imposed 3 conditions for
the development. Refer Section 6.1 of this report.
Locality Provisions – Noosa Plan
The subject site is located in the Eastern Beaches Locality and is zoned Detached Housing. The
proposed use is identified as a consistent use within the zone and is required to follow a code
assessable application process.
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Site cover 40/40% 38/40/18%
Soft landscaping 20% 55%
Landscaping Setbacks
Building height
storeys 2 storeys max 2 storeys
metres 8 metres 7.9 metres
Boundary setbacks
Frontage 6 metres 6 metres
Side 1.5m/2m/2.5m 2.5 metres
Side 1.5m/2m/2.5m 2.5 metres
Rear 15 metres (where coastal 6 metres & X
building line) or 6 cantilevered deck at
otherwise 3 metres
Length of wall 15 metres max 12 metres
Land Use & Works Provisions
The application has been assessed against applicable codes. The pertinent issues arising out of
the assessment against the codes are discussed as follows, including:
Eastern Beaches Locality Code
Detached House Code
Natural Resource Overlay Code
Natural Hazard Overlay Code
Natural Resources Overlay Code – Coastal Protection
The relevant Specific Outcomes of the Natural Resources Overlay Code – Coastal Protection are
provided below:
O18 The siting and design of development and materials used within the Coastal Protection
Area, as identified on the Natural Resources Overlay Maps, do not cause any significant adverse
impacts on the coastal resources of the location nor interrupt the natural cycles of erosion and
accretion of foreshore areas and beaches.
Page 13 of 90
Section 14
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
O20 Buildings and other structures including swimming pools and retaining walls do not extend
seaward of the coastal building line except—
a) uncovered and unenclosed cantilevered balconies that do not extend greater than 3m
seaward of the coastal building line; and
b) are setback a minimum of 6m from the seaward boundary (refer below).
The proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome O18 as it is considered the development
seaward of the Coastal Building Line has the potential to interrupt the natural cycles of erosion
and accretion of the beach. Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with Specific Outcome 20
as the new development does not comply with the 15m setback of the coastal building line and
the cantilevered walkway/deck is only setback 3 metres from the seaward boundary.
Given the proposal does not comply with the Specific Outcomes, the following Overall Outcomes
for the Natural Resources Overlay Code are applicable:
13.42.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Natural Resources Overlay Code are—
f) for Coastal Protection Areas, development —
i does not adversely impact upon natural coastal processes; and
ii is designed and sited to protect the natural beach experience and visual amenity
enjoyed by residents and others.
It is pertinent that new climate change information and modelling has highlighted that within the
life of this development serious erosion may occur and risk life and property.
Erosion prone areas should be retained in their natural state where they can act as a buffer
between land uses and the beach to allow the natural coastal processes to occur, without the
need for intervention to protect human life and property. It is considered the proposal will
adversely impact on the coastal processes as a 6m landscaped setback is not sufficient to
minimise the risk of erosion.
Consistent with the Noosa Plan, no new buildings, structures, swimming pools and retaining
walls can occur seaward of the coastal building line, except for uncovered and unenclosed
cantilevered balconies that do not extend greater than 3 metres seaward of the Coastal Building
Line and are setback a minimum of 6 metres from the seaward boundary. The proposed
deck/walkway is 3 metres setback from the seaward boundary, with a large portion of the
dwelling seaward of the Coastal Building Line.
Page 14 of 90
Section 15
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
While some of the dwellings on the seaward side of Seaview Terrace are constructed seaward of
the Coastal Building Line, they complied with the statutory instruments in force at the time or
were found to be consistent with surrounding development. Since that time new information of
climate change effects on coastal processes have been modelled and more accurately depict the
risk of erosion to the subject property as shown in Figure 5 in section 2.1.
Furthermore, it should be noted that State Government planning for coastal areas has changed
over time. For example, between 2002 and 2012 State Planning Policy allowed for development
seaward of the coastal building line providing it did not protrude seaward of the neighbouring
properties building alignment. Whereas, the current State Development Assessment Provisions
are much more restrictive, not permitting development seaward of the coastal building line except
for coastal protection works. This highlights the Queensland State Government statutory planning
instruments that recognise the importance of the risks of climate change and updated information
available.
The application is considered to comply with Probable solution 18.1 which requires a mix of
native landscaping to be provided for a width of 5m from the seaward boundary to provide
buffering to the coastal dunal system.
The applicant submitted a detailed landscape plan that includes landscaping to 55% of the site
and extensive mature and shrub native plantings within the 6 metre rear setback to the proposed
dwelling. Pathways of sand with stone steppers are also proposed in this setback.
Generally
The site is subject to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code - Landslide Hazard area. The applicant
has not provided a geotechnical report relating to proposed development which is required by the
Overlay Code and the Detached House Code. It should be noted that the applicant was not
requested to provide a geotechnical report as it was indicated at that time that the development
would not be supported by officers.
Notwithstanding the above, the proposal largely complies with the Detached House Code. It
appears that the roof form meets the minimum of 5 degrees requirement. The proposed vaulted
roof form does soften the box profile of the dwelling, particularly from the east and west
elevations. Refer Figure 6 – West elevation.
Figure 6 – West elevation
Page 15 of 90
Section 16
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
4. RISK & LIABILITY
There will be increasing pressure for property owners to seek protection for their built assets to
combat erosion impacts. Who is responsible and who should cover this cost has some case law,
but is still not clear yet.
Climate change presents considerable uncertainty in terms of severity and frequency of hazard.
Council as assessment manager has a duty of care to give full consideration to coastal erosion
and sea level rise risks. While a planning scheme might provide for a particular type of
development to occur, the assessment manager must consider whether the design and siting of
that development is compatible with the risk and that any coastal risks have been appropriately
mitigated.
Advice from LGAQ and King and Co advise that Council has a duty of care to consider best
available information at the time of assessing the development application.
5. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The draft zoning under the new Planning Scheme is Low Density Residential. The parameters
under the draft scheme with regard to site cover, height, built form and setbacks has remained
unchanged. The draft Coastal Protection overlay code is further strengthened under the draft
Planning Scheme based on new and current information with regard to coastal hazards. In
summary, the draft Code includes provisions that recognises that development is sensitive to the
foreshores and avoids the need for coastal protection works. Further where buildings on the site
are already located within the coastal hazard area for year 2100 at the commencement of the
scheme, new buildings, structures or retaining walls do not extend seaward of the coastal hazard
area for year 2070. The Code refers to the Coastal Hazard areas mapping as recently released
by Council. Refer Figure 5 – Erosion Prone Area and subject site. The existing dwelling and
the proposed dwelling is located within the predicted erosion prone area for years 2100, 2070 &
2040.
6. CONSULTATION
6.1. Concurrence Agency for Building Work
The applicant’s building certifier referred the proposal to the State Assessment and Referral
Agency (SARA), under Schedule 9 of the Planning Regulation 2017 for premises located
seaward of the coastal building line, prior to submitting the planning application to Council for
assessment.
On the 6 February 2018, the Department (DSDMIP) issued a Statement of Reasons and
conditions for the development under Version 2.4 of the State Development Assessment
Provisions (SDAP) which commenced 16 November 2018 – State Code 8 Coastal development
and tidal works. The reasons for this decision provided by SARA for the proposal are as follows.
• To ensure the development is carried out generally in accordance with the plans of
development submitted with the application.
• To ensure the development avoids or minimises adverse impacts on coastal resources and
their values.
• To ensure any disturbance to acid sulfate soils is managed to prevent impacts to coastal
environments.
Page 16 of 90
Section 17
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The Department has responded with 3 conditions pertaining to the proposal as follows:
It is interesting to note, that Conditions 2 & 3 relate to construction management and not to the
presence of structures seaward of the Coastal Building Line. Condition 1 acknowledges the
development positioning seaward of the Coastal Building Line.
The State assessed the application against the relevant outcomes of the State Code 8 for
development in an erosion prone area as shown below.
Page 17 of 90
Section 18
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The State Code 8 seeks that there is no development seaward of the Coastal Building Line
except for coastal protection work.
For guidance as to how to comply with the State Code 8 the guideline indicates the following:
Applications… should demonstrate that the proposed development is located landward of the
coastal building line; or
1. justify why the proposed development cannot be located landward of the coastal building
line; and
2. demonstrate how development seaward of the coastal building line is protected from
coastal erosion both now and in the future.
The State’s coastal building lines have been in place since 1984, and the line is set 15 metres
back from the seaward boundary in this location. This affects around a third of the property at the
rear.
The proposal is not coastal protection work. The applicant’s proposed 6m setback has relied
upon the alignment of neighbouring properties being built/approved under repealed legislation
and policy.
The lot is highly vulnerable to coastal erosion and it is imperative to provide the maximum buffer
to the sea to minimise the risk of coastal erosion. The 15m Coastal Building Line setback
provides this buffer and ensures the development is more resilient to coastal erosion and sea
level rise as climate change occurs.
Page 18 of 90
Section 19
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Notably, State support for building works does not provide the ‘green light’ for development of the
site as the proposal requires assessment against The Noosa Plan and approval required from
Council to proceed. The proposal does not comply with the Noosa Plan and it cannot be
conditioned to comply with the Planning scheme, as a substantial part of the dwelling is located
within the 15 metre setback and significant alterations would be required to comply.
6.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded for comment to:
Project Co-ordinator, Climate Change Adaptation, Strategic Planning
Principal Strategic Planner, Strategic Planning
Advice from Strategic Planning is as follows:
Climate change presents considerable increased risk in terms of the severity and frequency of
coastal erosion. Council has a duty of care and statutory obligation to give full consideration to
current and future projected coastal erosion and sea level rise. The coastal building line is an
important regulatory tool for limiting development within coastal hazard areas. While application
of this has not always been consistent over the last few decades, new knowledge about coastal
erosion risks along the Eastern Beaches highlights the need to take a strong position on ensuring
that new development does not encroach seaward of the coastal building line. This is irrespective
of what development is already existing on properties or their neighbouring properties.
Ensuring development does not encroach seaward of the coastal building line preserves
important dune buffer areas that will be increasingly important into the future for stabilising and
slowing dune erosion. It is critical that council has a consistent approach to the way it applies
coastal building lines to help mitigate future risks.
Council’s new coastal hazard mapping for years 2040, 2070 and 2100 show the increased risk to
coastal erosion overtime. At 2040 around half of the subject property is potentially at risk, by
2070 around three-quarters is at risk.
The State’s coastal building lines have been in place since the mid 1980s, and the line is set 15
metres back from the seaward boundary in this location. This affects around a third of the
property at the rear.
Consistent with the Noosa Plan, no new buildings, structures, swimming pools and retaining
walls can occur seaward of the coastal building line, except for uncovered and unenclosed
cantilevered balconies that do not extend greater than 3 metres seaward of the Coastal Building
Line.
6.3. Public Notification
Not applicable. The application is code assessable.
7. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The 15m Coastal Building Line setback allows for the natural landscape to be the first line of
storm protection and buffering. Providing the maximum buffer from the sea will ensure that future
development is more resilient to coastal erosion and sea level rise as climate change effects
arise. Furthermore, the 15m setback preserves the integrity and structure of the frontal dune for
longer in the face of increased storm frequency, intensity and erosion without the need for
coastal protection works.
The proposed 6m setback does not provide sufficient natural landscape buffering in this highly
vulnerable erosion prone area. The 6m setback does not minimise the risk to erosion and allows
for potential impacts on and interference with coastal processes.
Page 19 of 90
Section 20
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The subject property and surrounding properties are within a Coastal Management District, an
Erosion Prone Area and affected by the Coastal Building Line. Repealed policy and past
assessment has resulted in development forward of the Coastal Building Line. However, new
knowledge about coastal erosion including new erosion prone area modelling in accordance with
State guidelines, highlights the need to take a strong position in ensuring that development does
not encroach seaward of the Coastal Building Line to minimise risk to hazards.
The development is not in accordance with the relevant statutory planning instruments including
The Noosa Plan’s Natural Resources Overlay Code for Coastal Protection. The proposal raises
significant planning concerns and is recommended for refusal for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the assessment benchmarks of the State Planning Policy as
it proposes development in an Erosion Prone Area and Natural Hazard Area.
2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Planning Scheme in that it proposes
development:
a. in the Landslide Hazard Area thereby placing people and property at risk and does
not maintain the natural processes and protection function of land forms and
vegetation contrary to the provisions of the Natural Hazards Overlay Code.
b. in the Coastal Protection Area extending seaward of the Coastal Building Line and is
likely to adversely impact upon natural coastal processes contrary to the
requirements of the Natural Resources Code.
c. which does not protect the dunal area and natural environmental nor maintain the
safety of people and works contrary to the Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches
Locality.
3. Recent modelling carried out by the Council indicates significant erosion is likely to occur in
the future which may threaten life and property should the proposed development proceed.
4. Given the site is affected by the Coastal Building Line and is located in a highly vulnerable
erosion prone area, the proposed 6m setback is not sufficient to minimise the risk of
erosion.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
x
Design and Delivery
Page 20 of 90
Section 21
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2 MCU19/0007 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE
(ENTERTAINMENT AND DINING BUSINESS TYPE 2 RECREATION, AMUSEMENT
AND FITNESS (FITNESS CENTRE), SITUATED AT 26 PROJECT AVENUE,
NOOSAVILLE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Development Planner, Lisa Pienaar
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application / MCU19/0007
Attachment 1. Proposal Plans
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant The Mcfarlan Group Pty Ltd
Proposal Material Change of Use - Entertainment & Dining Type 2 Recreation
amusement fitness (Fitness Centre)
Properly Made Date 16 January 2019
Information Request Date 5 February 2019
Information Response Date 11 February 2019
Decision Due Date 2 May 2019
Number of Submissions Nil
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 26 Project Avenue, Noosaville
RP Description Lot 200 RP 913612
Land Area 1013m²
Existing Use of Land Industrial shed
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Noosaville
Zone Industry
Overlays Natural Hazard Overlay – Acid Sulfate Soils
Assessment Type Impact
Page 21 of 90
Section 22
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 9 April 2019 regarding Application No. MCU19/0007 for a
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Entertainment & Dining Type 2 Recreation
amusement fitness (Fitness Centre) situated at 26 Project Avenue, Noosaville and:
A. Approve the application in accordance with the following conditions:
PLANNING
When Conditions must be Complied With
1. Unless otherwise stated, all conditions of this Decision Notice must be complied with
prior to the use commencing, and then compliance maintained at all times while the
use continues.
Approved Plans
2. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in
accordance with the Approved Plans listed within this Decision Notice.
Plan No. Plan Name Date
D-11801-01A Proposal Plan (site plan), drawn by Lynda McDougall 10/12/2018
D-11801-02A Ground Floor Plan, drawn by Lynda McDougall 10/12/2018
D-11801-03A East and West Elevations and mezzanine plan, drawn 10/12/2018
by Lynda McDougall
D-11801-03A South and North Elevations, drawn by Lynda 10/12/2018
McDougall
Nature and Extent of Approved Use
3. Approval is for a Fitness Centre totalling a maximum floor area of 377m2 including the
amenity building.
Operating Hours and Class Times
4. The hours of operation and staff and patron numbers for the development must
comply with the following requirements:
a. The hours of operation for the approved use is limited to the hours between
5.00am and 9.00pm daily;
b. The number of people (patrons and staff) must not exceed 15 people at any
one time.
c. Group classes must have a minimum 15 minute break between the conclusion
of a class and the beginning of the next.
Noise
5. Noise nuisance beyond the boundary of the site shall not exceed the levels specified
in Table 1.
Table 1
NOISE LEVELS AT COMMERCIAL PLACE
PERIOD Noise level at a commercial place measured as the
adjusted maximum sound pressure level (Lamax, adj,T)
5am – 6pm Background noise level plus 10 dB(A)
6pm – 10pm Background noise level plus10 dB(A)
10pm – 7am Background noise level plus 8 dB(A)
Page 22 of 90
Section 23
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Amenity
6. The development must be undertaken and operated in a manner that causes no
detrimental effect upon the amenity of the area by reason of the creation of excessive
noise, lighting nuisance or other emissions.
Advertising Signage
7. Any advertising sign or device must comply with Council's policies on advertising
devices.
Bicycle spaces and amenities
8. Facilities for 4 bicycle spaces must be provided for the approved use and be made
available at all times to patrons and staff at the commencement of the use. Indicate
their locations with an Operational Works application.
9. Shower and toilet facilities must be in accordance with the approved plans and
available at the commencement of the use.
Landscaping Works
10. The development site must be landscaped. The works must be undertaken in
accordance with an Operational Works approval and the Noosa Plan for that specific
area and must include in particular:
a. The extent of works shown on the approved Site Plan (D-11801-01A);
b. An average of a 2 metre wide landscaping strip is to be provided along the
Project Avenue road frontage of the subject site, exclusive of the access
driveway and generally uncompromised by infrastructure items;
c. All landscape works must be established and maintained in accordance with
the approved design for the life of the development, and in a manner that
ensures healthy, sustained and vigorous plant growth. All plant material must
be allowed to grow to full form and be refurbished when its life expectancy is
reached;
d. All landscape works must be maintained generally in accordance with the
approved design for the life of the development.
Site Access and Driveways
11. A sealed access driveway must be provided from Project Avenue to all parking and
manoeuvring areas of the development. The works must be undertaken in
accordance with an Operational Works approval and must include in particular a
driveway crossover in accordance with Council’s Standard Drawing RS-051 and any
associated addendums.
Car Parking
12. A minimum of 13 car parking spaces must be provided and marked on the site and
made available and accessible at all times while the use is open for business. The
works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval and
must include in particular:
a. 11 visitor parking spaces (including scooter) within the total, which are clearly
marked for that purpose and accessible at all times for visitor use;
b. Car spaces 10 & 11 dedicated as staff parking spaces, which are clearly
marked for that purpose;
c. Dimensions, crossfalls and gradients in accordance with Australian Standard
AS/NZS2890.1:2004 for the relevant user class.
Page 23 of 90
Section 24
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
13. All car parking areas and access driveways must be maintained exclusively for
vehicle parking and manoeuvring and kept in a tidy and safe condition at all times.
14. Directional signage must be provided to direct visitors and customers to the car
parking spaces provided on site.
Stormwater Drainage
15. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful
point of discharge. The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational
Works approval and must include in particular:
a. Collection of runoff from the building and hardstand areas;
b. Discharge to Council’s drainage system in Project Avenue and/or to a suitable
easement.
Electricity and Telecommunication Services
16. Unless otherwise stipulated by telecommunications legislation at the time of
construction, the development must be provided with all necessary conduits, pits and
pipes to accommodate the future connection of optic fibre technology
telecommunications.
17. Certification must be submitted to Council from all relevant service providers which
certifies that the development has met the requirements of this Decision Notice and
all applicable legislation at the time of construction.
Easements
18. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the relevant service provider, any public or third
party infrastructure located on the subject site must be placed within an easement
registered against the title of the property.
19. All easements must be designed in accordance with the planning scheme and
granted at no cost to the Grantee. Where the Grantee is Council or a service
authority, the easement documentation must be in accordance with the Grantee’s
standard easement terms. Draft easement documentation must be submitted to
Council for endorsement.
20. All works must be kept clear of any existing or proposed easements on the subject
land, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Grantee.
Earthworks and Retaining Walls
21. All fill and associated retaining walls/batters must be contained entirely within the
subject site unless written permission from the respective landowner(s) is provided to
Council. All earthworks must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of
Australian Standard AS3798: Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and
Residential Developments.
Damage to Services and Assets
22. Any damage caused to existing services and assets as a result of the development
works must be repaired at no cost to the asset owner at the following times:
a. where the damage would cause a hazard to pedestrian or vehicle safety,
immediately; or
b. where otherwise, upon completion of the works associated with the
development.
Any repair work which proposes to alter the alignment or level of existing services
and assets must first be referred to the relevant service authority for approval.
Page 24 of 90
Section 25
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Performance Bond
23. Security in the form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $5,000
must be submitted to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this
approval, prior to the issue of a Development Permit for Operational Works. The cash
bond or trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the conditions of
approval less any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of
this permit. Council reserves the right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to
effect compliance with conditions.
B. Find the following are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict with the
Planning Scheme:
1. Some sport and recreational uses are accepted in the Industry Zone given the
potential impacts of sport and recreation uses; and
2.. The fitness centre relies on a large floor area that can be facilitated in an Industry
zone, unlike other zones where it would be difficult to locate.
C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to utilise an existing industrial shed and extend the shed in the future to
accommodate a fitness centre/cross fit training facility. The existing floor space is 271m 2
(including a mezzanine level) and the extension to the east is proposed to be 84m 2. An amenities
block with toilet and showers is to be located in a separate building from the existing building.
The total proposed gross floor area of 377m2.
The development proposes to include 13 car spaces, including 2 staff spaces and a disabled
space and 4 scooter spaces. The original proposal was for 20 patrons and 3 staff. This has since
been amended to allow for a maximum number of people (including staff) on site at any one time
as long as it complies with car parking. To comply with the car parking requirement a total of 15
people are proposed to occupy the site at any one time. The fitness centre proposes to operate
5am-9pm, 7 days a week.
Refer to Figure 1 – Proposed gym.
Page 25 of 90
Section 26
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 1 – Proposed gym
Page 26 of 90
Section 27
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
The site was previously used by Sunrise Engineering and Welding. Part of the site was also
utilised by the adjoining bus depot for access and parking. Refer to Figure 2 – Existing shed.
Figure 2 – Existing Shed
2.2. Site Description
The site has a 21 metre frontage to Project Avenue, with access to the site at the south western
corner of the site. The site is relatively flat and existing on-site parking is informal, with no line
marking. Refer Figure 3 – Subject site.
Figure 3 – Subject site
Page 27 of 90
Section 28
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The site is located in an existing industrial area, which is largely developed with the exception of
some vacant sites located north and west of the site. A motor mechanic business adjoins the site
to the north, a mixed industrial tenancy adjoins to the south and the east. Industrial factory
tenancies are located opposite the site on the other side of Project Avenue.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) and the
SPP raises no further issues relevant to the proposed development.
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the Urban Footprint area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is
consistent with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmark from the Planning Regulation 2017 applies to the
application:
SEQ Development Area
The proposal is for urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the
assessment benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against the whole of the Noosa Plan to the extent the
provisions are relevant to the development.
Locality Provisions
The subject site is located in the Noosaville Locality and is zoned Industry. The proposed fitness
centre is identified as an inconsistent use in the industry zone and is required to follow an impact
assessment process.
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Gross floor area Not applicable 377 m²
Site cover Not applicable 37%
Landscaped open space 15 m² min 152 m² (15%)
Carparking 18.85 based on use area 13 equivalent spaces, X
6 based on patron including 12 spaces
numbers, whichever is and 4 scooter spaces
the greater
Page 28 of 90
Section 29
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Criteria Planning Scheme Proposal Complies
Bicycle Spaces 3.7 bicycle spaces Showers and toilets
End of Trip Facilities* 1 locker per 2 bicycle provided. Condition
requiring bicycle
*(required only where 5 + spaces and;
spaces is proposed.
spaces are required) 1 shower cubicle with
ancillary change room
per 10 bicycle spaces
Land Use & Works Provisions
The application has been assessed against applicable codes as follows:
Noosaville Locality Code
Business Uses Code
Engineering Works Codes
Landscaping Code
The pertinent issues arising out of the assessment against the codes are discussed below.
Overall Outcome vv) ii of the Noosaville Locality Code seeks to protect the Noosaville industrial
estate for industrial functions to the exclusion of incompatible uses, including residential,
community and commercial uses, and some sport and recreation uses. Since the
commencement of the Noosa Plan in 2006, gyms, ballet schools and the like have been
approved in the Noosaville industrial area, given these uses are generally floor area consumptive
and as such difficult to locate in the business centres. The size and scale of the building floor
area for this proposal is larger than other gym uses previously approved in Industrial Zones
within Noosaville, including the 158m2 fitness studio/martial arts centre at 63 Rene Street, and
Crossfit Noosa at 9/5 Commerce Court which is 140m2. Notably, parameters for gross floor area
in the Industry zone are not specified in Noosa Plan.
Carparking
The applicant originally identified that another approved fitness centre in Noosaville’s industrial
estate (Selkirk Drive) have applied a car parking rate of 1.5 persons per car space in support of
20 patrons. The 1.5 persons per car space was applied when other uses were occurring on site
and recognizing the parking demand from those uses. A car parking survey was also conducted
for this site. An analysis determined the compatibility of other uses and their operating times and
found that on site car spaces were available for the gym use due to operating times of the
industrial uses. In this case, there are no other uses occurring on the site. Therefore, this
scenario is not accepted for this site.
The applicant proposes 13 car spaces (12 car spaces, 4 scooter spaces). The Code requires 1
car space per 20m2 of use area or 1 space per 3 persons capable of being entertained,
whichever is the greater. Based on the total tenancy use area of 377m2, 18.85 car spaces would
be required for the proposed use. If 20 patrons were proposed (as originally requested), based
on the rate of 1 space per 3 persons, 6.66 spaces would be required. This latter rate is not the
greater rate in this case and therefore not applicable.
The applicant has indicated their willingness for Council to condition the approval to mitigate any
impacts regarding class sizes and staggering of class times to ensure there is enough onsite car
spaces for peak parking demands.
To arrive at an appropriate number of people able to occupy the site, Council’s traffic consultant
was consulted with regard to such a use occupying the entire site. It was advised that in the
case for gyms, 0.85 spaces per person (including staff) is reasonable in this case. This is based
on the premise that patrons visiting gyms mostly drive their own cars, acknowledging that there is
a small amount of ride sharing, and a small amount of walk and cycle. This is especially relevant
for an industry area, when compared to a Business centre where walking and cycling would be
more common.
Page 29 of 90
Section 30
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Therefore, the proposed 13 spaces would enable sufficient car parking availability for a maximum
number of 15 people present on site. A condition ensuring there is no overlapping of classes is
also recommended to ensure car parks are available at all times.
The proposed fitness centre use, provided numbers are capped as recommended, has sufficient
carparking available on site to address likely parking demands.
End of trip facilities
The Business Uses Code requires secure and convenient parking space for bicycles and end of
trip facilities. The applicant has proposed end of trip facilities being showers and change rooms,
however have not indicated proposed bicycle parking. The applicant indicated they will accept a
condition for this requirement. Minimum bicycle parking is 1 bicycle park per 100m2 of gross floor
area. The proposed gross floor area is 377m2. Therefore, it is proposed to condition the
development to provide for 4 spaces for bicycles.
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The site is to be located within a Medium Impact Industry zone and in the Venture Drive
Enterprise precinct where sport and recreation uses may be accommodated. A fitness centre is
considered an indoor sport and recreation use under the Draft Planning Scheme. Indoor sport
and recreation uses are code assessable if located within an existing building and not involving
the expansion of the building. The proposed use is within an existing building and there are plans
to expand the building. Therefore, the proposal would be impact assessable and a consistent use
under the Draft Planning Scheme.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Not applicable.
5.2. Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers:
Engineering Officer, Development Assessment
Traffic Consultant, Stuart Holland (parking rate only)
5.3. Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act
2016. No properly made submissions were received.
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
Whilst Entertainment and Dining Business Type 2 Recreation, amusement & fitness is an
inconsistent use in the Industry Zone, The Noosa Plan does recognise that some entertainment
uses will locate in the industrial area. The proposal can be conditioned to address car parking
requirements by restricting the number of people on site at any one time, providing 1 car space
per 0.85 persons utilising the site. Therefore the proposal is recommended for approval, subject
to reasonable and relevant conditions.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 30 of 90
Section 31
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 31 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
= ——— ‘\
A
Trofcetie & parmectie a - .
SE) ieee
-somaahacerge beg Feast, les ot eee HON
A (ital OO be
eee
any
ere eT iN i, ~ sel E
a a - 2 ;3
nar Meet Ty Th
ai \ IZ/7 4 on
PPO A ee ET od
P, Fi \ 4 = pa
% vane cone \ 200 (4 in total on wite)
BY) |, Appron, Bam" t \ Ap913612
i Sy" 1013me
\
i | “4. a1
wen 4 4) “see
4 8%) _— entive ouldoer oreo
3h
27 \ Boe
\ :
1, ff
#4. Swoter Gay
7 rentR’ | iP an ne
2 4 aoe [7 oe “ ‘
) } ms orgs) pxisting Fence
oA e ] “ ¢ \
ZS - =: ae: | "
UE
prosecT AVEN
Scam 1200-Maeres
————————————— a.
RPD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LYNDA McDOUGALL CY Lot200 on FRONRES2 SUMMARY Agplcaien ts Water oe mae.
\ oar 200 ov ]>S 25 Proje Awe, NOOEAWILLE eee Change of Use (yrenasiun) Bs
e See on 2 UNRIS E oneenias. Cain Mentha Wat Lie
Pp Pen bra
Page 31 of 90Section 32
Page 32 of 90
one ic
ige 46
Sev a>
gaeo o>
$23 Ҥ
¢¢ 8
33
3 ‘=
8 oO
3 >
- |
c
n 28995
i [_—_>ARS—_KSA a a 399 a 7000 ——
sz [/-——— 4598 ———_| --————_ [/-&-—— 5800 —————_+
70 |
wn at | | )
m | ' 2 il |
| | y tt 3 | PwD
1 s 2 | u & |
\-— STRUCTURAL BEAM 1 |
Si & a6 | | L CONCRETE FLOOR TO MATCH o we
ge ¢ Bo | | Tn EXISITING TO ENGINEERS &
8? > > l |—STRUCTURAL BEAM & | i SPECIFICATIONS
z & 3 | UNE OF MEZZANINE OVER! I SHR
Pas | | | i
™ ' ! SHR
E | | | GYM FLOOR AREA || WALL TO BE DEMOUSHED AND PROPOSED EXTENSION = >
= | |—— INTERNAL BLOCKWORK DIMDING
| \ ' || NEW BEAM INSTALLED TO APPROX, £dm* S
i | il STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS & +t -
DETA
=== = ' | | | 00 |
se 23 | ei Ree
s2¢ € ——- EXISTING AMENITIES 7
a3 zn LT To ae cemousHe. 1 || PROPOSED AMENITIES
27 28 i | 1
e° “2 t ' II
4 tr | I
= VI
} ' | |
| RECEPTION ls | in
1 1 II
| N
+ ROLLERDOOR ROLLEROOOR ROLLEROOOR
222 $8 73 so ef ee
ae SA Sem | 4800 ———_-|-—— 4000 ———| 1000 | ——— 4000 ——-|_ 2000 —|__—. 400 ———_|—- 200 4000 ———-|—1sc0-+|
ge 3 ose
az & =
"gs & $F BLOCK EXTERIOR WALL
§ = ae TO MATCH EXISTING
g 8
2 $=
. z © GROUND FLOOR PLAN
= 3
3
ez og ¢ bs
i ak 3
x 2 3
Be S #
ae
= © =
3
= o
3
Page 32 of 90Section 33
Page 33 of 90
So
our 3& §
rai as |L,;
eR g> 3
q Sg 2=
ef 9 3 G
2¢ *%
a8 2 x
27 © s NOTES:
: = — COLOURBOND ROOFING & GUTTERING TO MATCH EXISTING
5 3 [380-510 —
i 3360 3100
S| —_—— EXTERNAL WALLS TO MATCH EXISITNG BLOCKWORK. FINISH
wn ] _ T TO BE RENDERED & PAINTED
Cc 2 8 EXISITNG sink] | NEW 2500 WIDE EAVES ALONG ENTIRE SOUTHERN WALL TO
J
o> = STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SPECIFICATIONS.
220 | gas AMENITIES BLOCKWORK WALLS & FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING
i_ & BUILDING FINISH, HYDRAULIC DRAINAGE PLANS TO BE
w —————————————— So SUPPLUED.
Mm
0 n NEW CONCRETE TO ALL EXTERNAL SURFACES PER
Siti STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DETAILS.
_ - NOTE: | EXISITNG AMENTIES WITHIN EXISITNG STRUCTURE TO BE
z 8 g e 110mm INTERNAL ——————_—_—_—__—_—__--= DEMOUSHED. SERVICES TO BE CAPPED OFF AND MADE
Be $ 2b PLASTERBOARD WALLS |—-s370 GOOD.
g & 8 & 820 WIDE DOORS To
82 = MEZZANINE AREA DRAINAGE & WATER SERVICES TO NEW AMENITIES BLOCK TO
z § 3 HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS DETAILS
eS g 3 THESE PLANS ARE CONCEPT ONLY.
=
" EXISITNG MEZZANINE PLAN
APPROX. FLOOR
AREA 30.7m*
27 ao
e— ¢€
ig z a
2 aS
La
=z
a
NEW 2500 WIDE EAVES
=o 992 oro I ——_—_ |
FTE £2 223 eee | a |
Be nh 88 SE f a
3 £F= a8 I i =>
a= § e a 4 t t
2 =F es f 1
u = of ROLLER DOOR I {
se s 438 8 S | |
o = a = a = | }
fi’ fe COC | | |
o 2 = g > * a | o a } 4
g 5 & I t 1
- . | [| ! |
Exit AMENITIES BLOCK f t |
te se Sf ENTRY
ae 3 Sh [999 — | pgp |
& * =
ee
& 3p EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
oF
8 y
s Om Im 2m 3m__4m 5m
Page 33 of 90Section 34
Page 34 of 90
our 3
ba2 46
288 82
3 ; S 88 TT S006
: © |}——___ 7000 —_____—_.
FT
An 3
om nnn)
a= TO MATCH EXISTING
"70 | [oorne
a | T 7
ee ROOFING
8 “
gi 3 g8 | |
g 8
gf 3 —
Ss" 3 |—— 4000 ———_| 4100 ———|
= 8 EXISTING EXTENSION
g a RENDERED & PAINTED BLOCKWORK EXTERIOR WALL
= TO ALL EXTERIOR WALLS
SOUTH ELEVATION AMENITIES
o- oo
ge 5
~ 2 é
qf a8
= ——
PER SF FFa
ee” 3 a 3
7 i aq S COLOURBOND
a = te ROOFING _ 2
5 32 L
: t i 3
ft ef of |» ——|
ak
RF AMENITIES NORTH ELEVATION
ef
8 Om Im 2m 3m_4m 5m
= (el Ll
Page 34 of 90Section 35
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
3 MCU16/0079.03 - REQUEST TO CHANGE A DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR 5
MEMORIAL DRIVE, TEWANTIN
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ MCU16/0079.03
Attachments 1. Proposal Plans
2. Comments by WBP Architects
APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No. MCU16/0079.03
Development Approval Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises -
Extension to existing RSL Club
Applicant Rubicon Design and Construct
Request Received On 4 February 2019
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address 5 Memorial Avenue, Tewantin
RP Description Lot 10 on SP 273411
Land Area 6,116m2
Existing Use of Land Tewantin Noosa RSL Club
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality Tewantin and Doonan
Zone Community Services
Overlays Natural Hazard Overlay (Bushfire & Acid Sulphate Soils)
Assessment Type Minor Change to Development Approval
Page 35 of 90
Section 36
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 9 April 2019 regarding Application No. MCU16/0079.03 to make a
minor change to an existing approval for extensions to the RSL club situated at 5 Memorial
Avenue, Tewantin, described as Lot 10 on SP 273411 and:
A. Refuse the change for the following reasons:
1. In accordance with architectural commentary at the time of the assessment of the
original application the screens are required to reduce the impact of the building and
provide visual interest to the building and streetscape.
2. The building form presents as a back of house/ service area to Pelican Street with
limited opportunity for landscaping to screen the building. The proposed presentation
to Pelican Street is not an appropriate response to the local streetscape and is not
reflective of the Tewantin character.
3. The screens are required to ensure the building meets the overall specific outcomes
of the Tewantin and Doonan Locality Code.
B. Consider the amended colour on the louvres as Generally in Accordance with the original
approval.
C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The applicant has recently completed construction of extensions and renovations to the existing
RSL club on the site, which were approved by Council in February 2017. A recent inspection of
the site by Council staff revealed that the external appearance of the building was not in
accordance with the conditions of approval with regard to the provision of timber look aluminium
screens that were specifically included as part of the approved plans to address concerns with
the appearance of the proposed building.
The applicant is requesting to amend the approved plans in order to be consistent with what has
already been implemented on site. In this regard, the applicant seeks to amend Condition 2 and
include amended plans that reflect the building façade without the approved louvres and
screening.
A copy of the proposal plans are included at Attachment 1.
2. BACKGROUND
The Tewantin Noosa RSL has been located on the site for a number of years, with the original
building occupying the land fronting Poinciana Avenue, being Lot 3. Since that time, the RSL has
continued to grow in response to community need. The current development approvals for the
existing RSL are briefly described below:
TPC 1894 – Dining Room (Caterer’s Room) an Extension to Existing RSL;
TPC 2782 – Extensions to Existing RSL Club;
R 473 – Rezoning from Special Use – Church to Special Facilities RSL Club in accordance
with a Plan of Development;
3B-388 Special Facilities (RSL Club in accordance with the Plan of Development);
1043 TC – Tewantin Noosa RSL and Citizens Memorial Club – Liquor Sales Area &
Ancillary Changes;
MCU16/0079 - Development Permit for Material Change of Use of Premises - Extension to
existing RSL Club.
Page 36 of 90
Section 37
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
MCU16/0079.01 – An amendment to the existing approval was approved by Council on 29
August 2017 primarily relating to changes to the internal floor layouts and the roof form.
MCU16/0079.02 – An amendment to the existing approval was approved by Council on 22
May 2018 which increased the number of gaming machines from 180 to 195 machines.
The most recent Material Change of Use application (MCU16/0079) related to significant
extensions and alterations to the RSL Club proposed along the Pelican and Doonella Street
frontages of the site. During assessment of MCU16/0079, significant concerns were raised with
the proposed building’s street presentation in terms of bulk, amenity and setbacks which resulted
Council engaging an architectural consultant to review the proposal plans.
A locality plan of the site is provided below:
Figure 1 – Site Location
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
Page 37 of 90
Section 38
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The applicant has requeted to make a minor change to a development approval under s78 of the
Planning Act 2016. An application for a minor change to a development approval can only be
made in circumstances where a change would constitute a ‘minor change’.
The proposed change to the development approval requested by the applicant is determined to
constitute a minor change on the grounds that:
the development would not result in substantially different development as the use and built
form are not significantly altered;
the change does not include prohibited development;
the change would not require the application to be referred to an additional referral agency
or cause a referral agency to have regard to new matters prescribed by regulation;
where the original application was code assessable, the change would not cause the
application to become impact assessable.
3.2. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The applicant seeks to amend condition 2.
Condition 2 Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally
comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the
following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No. Rev. Plan/Document Name Date
1620/DA/1.02 D Existing/Demolition Ground Floor Plan 15/05/17
1620/DA/2.01 P Proposed Basement Plan – Stage 4 28/07/17
1620/DA/2.02 L Proposed Ground Floor Plan – Stage 4 28/07/17
1620/DA/2.05 K Proposed Roof Plan – Stage 4 28/07/17
1620/DA/3.01 G Sections – Stage 4 28/07/17
1620/DA/4.01 K Elevations – Stage 4 28/07/17
1620/DA/5.01 G Landscape Concept Strategy – Plan 28/07/17
1620/DA/5.02 E Landscape Concept Strategy 28/07/17
For clarity, in regard to Plan No. 1620/DA/2.02 Rev. L Proposed Ground Floor Plan – Stage
4 dated 28/07/17 the maximum number of gaming machines is limited to 195 machines.
Applicant’s Request
The applicant requests that condition 2 be amended to reflect the building façade as constructed
on site. The applicant states:
As seen below, the current Pelican Street façade of the RSL building is considered to be
generally consistent with the stamped plans referenced within the decision notice. Whilst the
timber look aluminium louvres are slightly different to that approved by Council, the chosen
materials are still considered to be in keeping with the heritage character of Tewantin and thus
complies with Condition 12 of the decision notice.
Page 38 of 90
Section 39
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 2 – Applicant’s Photograph of Existing Screens and Treatment.
In addition, it is acknowledged that the Pelican Street façade does not include the additional
louvers as illustrated within the stamped approved plans. Following DA approval, the construction
estimates resulted in the need for cost saving measures. It was determined that the additional
louvers along Pelican were not required as they were to be solely used a cosmetic feature, unlike
the louvers used for the adjacent smoker’s area which provided a barrier between the patron
area and the street frontage.
Given the land owner and operator is a not-for-profit entity it is considered to be unreasonable to
enforce the implementation of the additional louvers when they serve no other purpose than
being a cosmetic feature.
The applicant considers the building façade to be in keeping with the heritage character of the
area and has included a commentary plan prepared by WBP Architects included in Attachment
2 that outlines the difference between the approved plans and the current façade. An extract of
this comparison is detailed below.
Page 39 of 90
Section 40
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 3 – Extract of Applicants Comparison
Assessment of Request
It is agreed that the aluminium screens installed around the smoking area are in keeping with the
intent of the approved plans and reflect the appearance of timber battens. Whilst the finish of the
screens is more reflective than originally envisaged, the subdued colour is sympathetic to the
building and the surrounds and can be considered in accordance with the conditions of approval.
Page 40 of 90
Section 41
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The applicant’s request for deletion of the screens approved to the eastern façade however is not
supported. During assessment of the original application, significant concerns were raised with
regard to the bulk and scale of the development especially with regard to the treatment of the
street frontages. Council engaged an architectural consultant to review the plans and a number
of revised plans were submitted. The second peer review of the proposal plans by Council’s
architectural consultants included comments:
the introduction of additional materiality, screening services, battening with a timber
appearance and the deletion of one set of stairs has improved setback treatment;
the introduction of different materials in response scheme has assisted in breaking up the
perception of the podiums bulk when viewed from Pelican and Doonella Street.
The requirement for the screens was therefore a direct result of architectural comments that
these screens were significant in reducing the impact of the building, breaking up the form and
providing visual interest to the building and streetscape.
The current streetscape presentation to Pelican Street includes a sealed driveway entrance of
over 9 metres in width that provides a direct view to the eastern façade of the building which has
limited articulation as demonstrated in figure 4 below. The building form presents as a back of
house/ service area to Pelican Street with limited opportunity for landscaping to screen the
building. This presentation to Pelican Street is not considered an appropriate response to the
local streetscape and is not reflective of the Tewantin character which provides for smaller
building forms with high levels of detail.
Figure 4 – Photograph of Pelican Street Streetscape Presentation
It is also noted that a number of setback concessions were granted as part of assessment of the
original application and were linked to the use of additional materials, landscaping and screens
and battens to break the bland, bulky building form.
The applicant’s submission is not supported.
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The Draft Planning Scheme includes the site in the District Centre zone and the RSL use is a
consistent use in the zone. The purpose of the District Centre zone includes outcomes that relate
to design including:
Development has a high level of architectural merit and contributes positively to the
activation of the street and the character of the centre.
Development reinforces the traditional ‘main street’ character and scale of development in
the centre;
Page 41 of 90
Section 42
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Development facilitates the creation of vibrant and safe business centres, with attractive
and functional buildings and streets with integrated high amenity public spaces
Performance outcomes also include specific requirements relating to building design and
streetscape including:
Frontages to public streets or other public or semi-public spaces are articulated with
vertical elements to emphasise a finer-grain and human scale to the building frontage;
Variations in the treatment and patterning of windows, sun protection and shading devices,
or other elements of a façade treatment at a finer scale than the overall building structure
5. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The applicant’s request to amend the approved plans to enable removal of screens that were
required to provide articulation to the façade of the building is not supported. The screens were
considered by architectural consultants to be an important component of the overall fabric of the
building and were required to assist in reducing the overall scale and bulk of the development.
Due to the existing driveway access, there is limited opportunity for landscaping to screen the
area and the screens are required to provide additional articulation and detail to this area. The
request to change the appearance of the louvres however is supported and considered to be
Generally in Accordance with the approved plans.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 42 of 90
Section 43
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 43 of 90
—— | | moc
Si lit | ine it .
(Ted ptt . | aR ani AT)
Th A | 1. te
| | 4
| a I 4 th | @ it le \
mn | i : |
| | | (cs 5) |
fe oi ie? : |e
| a il | | | I a aI i —
| Hest 74 | i “al :
al TW 4 hE [| = i
. ENT Ae [i aE to
| | — . F | = | a mr |
| — =) | J — | E= | | HII =)
og =i Fa | eel! a
SI =) le ay WA. we.
S| ae ae Bay | Ee
| | : = 2) ° == | A Zag
OE Ss ie i iS iL. | ull =
| | === | | gee =|== i cH ==
| | L = “thy ee | at ee ae
ty Slat Ne | aE =
ok Je a a | a
| r & | ay } te ve se
; | t | | mal | oth filed lie
| . el — 1h RH = :
|i ' || at ney i
| B\ & ie my : ae is
| ' & 1 | rae
| | fj @ an 1-be al | E Mi
| f |i fj = | —a E
; | TN f ae me i 4 i z
| V/ | = eT Tdi
; \ / wil t-- Eg - >
pS | ik Ae 2
| | f | | We | =
| To | lig sls a §_e
p | a ee
an i i . .
i Bt 236 3 —
el 5 a's |
= i g2 cue
oSection 44
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 44 of 90
ATTACHMENT 2
MINOR CHANGE COMMENTARY
eo 4 ef FB ee
pemanemnmen |e) EES se="= allie —_
ee eee; eam TTT
if {cf ,
: 2
— Pe reer rete
© a 6 © & © és é
ms ELEVANON — PELICAN STREET — TWEER-LOCK LOUVRE FINGH IS — TWEER-LOOK ALUWINUM LOUVRE
sree © Came cae eases
ORIGINAL CONSENT VERSION |. |-ssgz:azae
BUILDINGS IN THE VERNACULAR STYLE
° ° ? T atin at ae
ssermepemine |p Saul =" _
a SSS aml AN TEM KAA |
i BB —————_ —— I Set ee i
0 eS LSS SS ae {
—— ern sree ae tI ee dee
__ | SEIS NT ee | ae
CBR ES Serr
MINOR CHANGE VERSION
Page 44 of 90Section 45
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
4 OPW19/0046 - DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS
(ADVERTISING DEVICE) SITUATED AT 1/100 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE
OCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Contract Planner, Ben Thrower
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ OPW19/0046
Attachments Nil
APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant Reece Australia P/L
Proposal Operational Works - Signage
Properly Made Date 28 February 2019
Information Request Date N/A
Information Response Date N/A
Decision Due Date 18 April 2019
Number of Submissions N/A
PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address Noosa Metro Innovation Park, 1/100 Rene Street, Noosaville 4566
RP Description Lot 1 SP 230643
Land Area 1,585 m²
Existing Use of Land Industrial Business Type 1
Industrial Business Type 2
Education Type 3
STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation Urban Footprint
Locality The Noosa Plan
Zone Shire Business Centre
Open Space
Overlays Biodiversity: Environment Protection Area
Natural Hazard Overlay: Bushfire Hazard and Acid Sulfate Soils
Assessment Type Code
Page 45 of 90
Section 46
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Contract Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee
Meeting dated 9 April 2019 regarding Application No. OPW19/0046 for a Development Permit for
Operational Works - Signage, situated at Noosa Metro Innovation Park, 1/100 Rene Street,
Noosaville and:
A. Refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The application proposes an Advertising Device in the form of a Wall Sign in excess
of 4m2 signface area which is inconsistent with:
i. Overall Outcomes of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
a. The proposed advertising device does not complement and detracts from
the desirable characteristics of the natural and built environment in which
the advertising devices are exhibited;
b. The proposed advertising devices is not designed and integrated into the
built form so as to minimise visual clutter;
c. The proposed Advertising Device exceeds the legitimate need to provide
directions and business identification in a manner that is consistent with
achieving the codes overall outcomes; and
d. Signs with a signface area exceeding 4m² are not located in Noosa Shire.
ii. Specific Outcomes of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
a. Signs with a signface area exceeding 4m² are inconsistent with the
overall outcomes sought by this Code and are not located in Noosa Shire;
b. The proposed sign is not compatible with the existing and future planned
character of the locality in which it is situated;
c. The proposed sign is not designed, sited and integrated to not contribute
to the proliferation of visual clutter and to not unduly dominate the visual
landscape; and
d. The proposed sign is not of a scale, proportion and form that is
appropriate to the streetscape in which it is located.
iii. Probable Solutions of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
a. Advertising devices do not include signs with a signface area exceeding
the Acceptable Solutions of this Code or 4m², whichever is the lessor; and
a. General design and amenity complies with the specific requirements for
all types of advertising devices, including a Wall Sign, do not exceed a
maximum signface area of 4m².
B. With regard to the other existing Window Sign advise the applicant to:
1. Make the Window Sign compliant with the Advertising Devices Code’s Acceptable
Solutions; or
2. Remove the Window Sign; or
3. Lodge a development application seeking approval for the Window Sign.
C. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Page 46 of 90
Section 47
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL
The application seeks a retrospective Operational Works Development Permit for an existing
Advertising Device in the form of a Wall Sign (non-illuminated) located on the side of an existing
building located at Noosa Metro Innovation Park 1/100 Rene Street, Noosaville (refer to Figures
1 and 2). The subject sign is already erected on the wall of the existing building, in addition to:
A second unapproved and non-conforming Window Sign which does not form part of this
application; and
An existing pylon sign which is located within the common property of Noosa Metro
Innovation Park. This sign is the outcome of a successful appeal and approval by the
Planning and Environment Court on 20 July 2009 following a decision by Council to refuse
the sign.
This application is in response to a compliance check undertaken by Council’s Compliance
Officer on or about 20 November 2018, who found the existing Wall Sign does not conform to the
original approved plans and/or the Noosa Plan provisions.
The subject sign comprises a width of 5.6m and height of 1.57m, being a total signface area of
8.792m² (refer to Figure 3). Pertinent to the assessment of this application, the applicant
considers the proposed sign is consistent with The Noosa Plan signface area provisions for the
following reasons:
“The proposed sign is compatible with the character of the industrial
business locality in which it is exhibited. The locality comprises
predominately of large, industrial buildings including examples of signage of
similar or greater dimensions;
The proposed sign is compatible with the scale and proportion of the
building with the sign reflecting 2.5% of the northern façade;
The proposed sign is of scale, proportion and form that is appropriate to the
streetscape with the sign being integrated into the built form and
proportionate to the size of the building. The sign is also compatible with
other development in the immediate locality such as the directly adjacent
Trade Link;
The sign has been carefully considered so that it is integrated into the built
form and proportionate to the size of the building with the size limited to
2.5% of the northern façade. Furthermore, the proposal seeks to
consolidate signage into a single sign rather than having multiple signs so
as to minimise visual clutter. The proposed sign is maintained below the
total overall signage allowance of 10sqm for the site;
The sign maintains and supports a high standard of architectural, urban
and landscape design for the site in manner that is compatible with the
industrial business locality.”
The application is before Council in accordance with the current decision making delegations
because the proposed Wall Sign is recommended for refusal.
Page 47 of 90
Section 48
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Figure 1 - Proposed Advertising Device (Wall Sign) location
Figure 2 - Photo of the subject Wall Sign, the unapproved Window Sign and existing Pylon Sign servicing 11
lots within the estate, as viewed from Rene Street
Figure 3 - Proposed Wall Sign dimensions, being 5.6mm width, 1.57m height and 8.792m² signface area.
Page 48 of 90
Section 49
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2. SITE DETAILS
2.1. Background
On 13 May 2008 a Development Permit was granted for a Material Change of Use for Industrial
Business Type 1 & 2 and Education Type 3 uses to operate on the site.
On 20 July 2009, the Planning and Environment Court issued a consent order permitting a 9.5m
high Pylon Sign (Council reference 142008.1689). The sign was constructed soon afterwards
and now provides a place for businesses within the estate to advertise, as seen within Figure 2.
On the 14 October 2010, an estate containing eleven individual lots and common property was
created. The common property includes the driveway/access point to each lot and the location of
existing Pylon Sign.
On 16 February 2018 a minor change to the existing approval was granted which included plans
of development for the subject building (Council reference 132007.1841.7). The approved plan
identifies two proposed Wall Signs, with each sign complying with the Noosa Plan, being 4m
width, 1m height and a signface area of 4m² (refer to Figure 4).
Figure 4 - Extract of plans approved 16 February 2018 illustrating two wall signs, each complying with the
Noosa Plan, being 4m width, 1m height and a signface area of 4m².
On or about 20 November 2018 Council’s compliance officer noted the existing sign does not
conform with:
The signage plan assessed and approved as part of the preceding change to the existing
approval; and
The Noosa Plan provisions as they relate to Advertising Devices.
As a result the applicant was advised that the sign needed to be reduced to 4m² signface area or
an application (i.e. this application) would need to be submitted to Council.
Prior to lodgement of this application, the applicant’s representative contacted Council’s planning
department, whereby they were advised that Council’s planners would likely recommend the
application be refused based on conflicts with the Noosa Plan provisions. Regardless of this
advice, the applicant proceeded to lodge this application as is.
Page 49 of 90
Section 50
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
On 14 March 2019, being post lodgement of this application, the applicant’s representative was
again advised that Council’s planners would likely recommend the application be refused based
on conflicts with the Noosa Plan provisions. Regardless of this advice, the applicant’s
representative advised that they wished to proceed to a final decision to be made by Council.
Of relevance to the assessment and decision making for this development application, Council
strengthened the signface area provisions within The Noosa Plan at its Ordinary Meeting on 15
June 2017 as part of the package of alignment amendments undertaken with the transition to the
new Planning Act 2016. The amendment was directly in response to unfavourable mediation
outcomes relating to the nearby StorageFirst Self Storage application for signage (Council
reference OPW15/0214) and to address changes to decision rules under the Planning Act 2016.
Based on the outcomes of this mediation process, Council’s solicitor recommended that:
The Advertising Devices Code is strengthened if Council wishes to enforce the maximum
signface area of 4m² for all developments; and
The maximum signface area should be included as an item within the outcomes of the
Advertising Devices Code rather than relying on the more subjective statements of the then
current overall and specific outcomes of the code.
2.2. Site Description
The site supports an existing warehouse operating as an Industrial Business at 1/100 Rene
Street, Noosaville (refer to Figure 5).
The site forms part of the Noosa Metro Innovation Park estate, which consists of similar
warehouses and uses, while some of the lots within the estate remain vacant. The common
property within the estate supports the existing Pylon Sign.
The proposed location of the Wall Sign is clearly visible from Rene Street.
Figure 5 - Aerial Photo of the site and Noosa Metro Innovation Park estate, illustrating the existing Pylon Sign,
Wall Sign and Window Sign.
Page 50 of 90
Section 51
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2.3. Surrounding Land Uses
The site is surrounded to the north and west by other similar Industrial Warehouse uses and
Eenie Creek Bushland Reserve to the south and east (refer to Figure 6).
Adjoining the estate to the west is StorageFirst Self Storage which includes two signs exceeding
4m² signface area, being 6m² each. These signs are the result of a successful appeal against
Council’s decision to refuse the proposed signs on the basis they exceed 4m² this occurred prior
to Council strengthening its provisions related to signage in 2017.
Figure 6 - Aerial photo of the site and surrounding land uses.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1. Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Planning Act 2016 the application must be assessed against each of the following
statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policy;
South East Queensland Regional Plan;
Planning Regulation 2017;
The Noosa Plan.
3.2. State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policy
The Noosa Plan is generally consistent with the State Planning Policy July 2017 (SPP) and the
SPP raises no further issues relevant to the proposed development.
Page 51 of 90
Section 52
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan
The site is located within the urban area of the SEQ Regional Plan. The proposal is consistent
with the regional policies of the SEQ Regional Plan.
Planning Regulation 2017
The following assessment benchmark from the Planning Regulation 2017 applies to the
application:
SEQ Development Area
The proposal is for urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the
assessment benchmarks contained in the Planning Regulation 2017 for the SEQ Region.
3.3. Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
The application must be assessed against the Advertising Devices Code. The pertinent issues
arising out of the assessment against the code provisions generally relate to the proposed sign’s
8.792m² signface area exceeding 4m². In addition, it is also considered the size and siting of the
proposed sign is an excessively prominent element of the streetscape, contributes to the visual
clutter in the street and is not consistent with the unobtrusive signage strategy sought for Noosa
Shire.
Notably, the surrounding locality includes some other signs which exceed 4m² signface area.
However, these signs have either been approved under court order, following a Council
resolution to refuse the subject signage and/or are unlawful, with no development permit in place.
It is noted that the Planning Scheme was amended, following the most recent Court Order, to
strengthen Council’s resolution that advertising devices exceeding 4m² signface area are not
located in Noosa Shire.
On this basis, the proposal is not supported as it is inconsistent with:
1. Overall Outcomes of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
i. The proposed advertising device does not complement and detracts from the
desirable characteristics of the natural and built environment in which the advertising
devices are exhibited;
ii. The proposed advertising devices is not designed and integrated into the built form
so as to minimise visual clutter;
iii. The proposed Advertising Device exceeds the legitimate need to provide directions
and business identification in a manner that is consistent with achieving the codes
overall outcomes; and
iv. Signs with a signface area exceeding 4m² are not located in Noosa Shire.
2. Specific Outcomes of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
i. Signs with a signface area exceeding 4m² are inconsistent with the overall outcomes
sought by this Code and are not located in Noosa Shire;
ii. The proposed sign is not compatible with the existing and future planned character of
the locality in which it is situated;
iii. The proposed sign is not designed, sited and integrated to not contribute to the
proliferation of visual clutter and to not unduly dominate the visual landscape; and
iv. The proposed sign is not of a scale, proportion and form that is appropriate to the
streetscape in which it is located.
Page 52 of 90
Section 53
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
3. Probable Solutions of The Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code, being that:
i. Advertising devices do not include signs with a signface area exceeding the
Acceptable Solutions of this Code or 4m², whichever is the lessor; and
ii. General design and amenity complies with the specific requirements for all types of
advertising devices, including a Wall Sign, do not exceed a maximum signface area
of 4m².
While the existing unapproved and non-compliant Window Sign (refer to Figure 2) does not form
part of this application, it is considered likely the same assessment outcome would apply should
a development application be lodged seeking its approval. On this basis, and post Council’s
decision of this application, it is recommended that Council’s compliance officers advise the
applicant to either make the sign compliant, remove the sign or lodge a development application
seeking a development permit for the sign.
4. DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The Draft Planning Scheme does not contain any assessment criteria relevant to Advertising
Devices. Alternatively, Advertising Devices are proposed to be assessed under a new Local Law
which is currently under draft.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Nil.
5.2. Other Referrals
Not applicable.
5.3. Public Notification
Not applicable.
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The application seeks a retrospective Operational Works Development Permit for an existing
Advertising Device in the form of a new Wall Sign located on the side of the existing industrial
building located at Noosa Metro Innovation Park, 1/100 Rene Street, Noosaville. The proposed
Advertising Device, in the form of a Wall Sign in excess of 4m² signface area, is considered
inconsistent with the Overall Outcomes, Specific and Probable Solutions of the Advertising
Devices Code because:
Signs with a signface area exceeding 4m² are not to be located in Noosa Shire;
The proposed advertising device does not complement and detracts from the desirable
characteristics of the natural and built environment in which the advertising device is
exhibited;
The proposed sign is not compatible with the existing and future planned character of the
locality in which it is situated; and
The proposed sign is not of a scale, proportion and form that is appropriate to the streetscape
in which it is located.
On this basis, it is recommended the application is refused.
While the existing unlawful Window Sign does not form part of this application it is recommended
that Council’s compliance officers advise the applicant to:
1. Make the Window Sign compliant with the Advertising Devices Code’s Acceptable
Solutions; or
2. Remove the Window Sign; or
3. Lodge a development application seeking approval for the Window Sign.
Page 53 of 90
Section 54
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service X Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 54 of 90
Section 55
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2019 (M DESIGN &
FOURTEEN ENTERPRISES) - REFUSAL OF A MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL FOR ADDITION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND DECK AT 42 SEAVIEW
TERRACE, SUNSHINE BEACH
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Development Assessment, Kerri Coyle
Environment & Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Application/ 51987.2951.01 / Case / 245/2019 M Design and Fourteen
Enterprises Pty Ltd
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 9 April 2019 regarding Planning & Environment Court
Appeal No. 245 of 2019 and agree to defend the appeal.
REPORT
A report on this application to change an existing development approval for a house to facilitate
the construction of a swimming pool and extend a deck within the Coastal Building Line at 42
Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach was considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 20
December 2018.
At the Ordinary Meeting Council found the proposal was contrary to the Noosa Plan and state
policy for coastal management and accordingly resolved to refuse the application for the
following reasons:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the assessment benchmarks of the State Planning Policy as
it proposes development in an Erosion Prone Area and Natural Hazard Area.
2 Development seaward of the Coastal Building Line is contrary to the building setbacks
contained in the Planning Scheme and the setback provided under State Code 8; Coastal
Development and Tidal Works of the State development assessment provisions.
3. Recent modelling carried out by the Council indicates significant erosion is likely to occur in
the future which may threaten life and property should the proposed development proceed.
4. The proposal does not comply with the Planning Scheme in force at the time of the original
approval, given the extent of excavation and vegetation removal in a sand dune area.
5. The proposal does not comply with the Natural Resources Overlay Code for Coastal
Protection as it has the potential to adversely impact on natural coastal processes.
6. Given the site is affected by the Coastal Building Line and is located in a highly vulnerable
erosion prone area, the proposed 6m setback is not sufficient to minimise the risk of
erosion.
7. The proposal does not comply with the Biodiversity Overlay Code as vegetation is
proposed to be removed within the Environmental Protection Overlay placing the integrity
and resilience of the foreshore at risk.
Page 55 of 90
Section 56
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
8. The proposal is contrary to the Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality as it
does not protect the dunal area and natural environment nor maintain the safety of people
and works.
The applicant subsequently appealed the decision stating that the application should be
approved subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.
It is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded accordingly.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 20 December 2018, Item 1, Page 12
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 December 2018 regarding Application No. 51987.2951.01 to make
a minor change to an existing approval for additions to a detached house to include a swimming
pool, deck and other structures seaward of the coastal building line situated at 42 Seaview Tce,
Sunshine Beach and:
A. Refuse the change for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is in conflict with the assessment benchmarks of the State Planning
Policy as it proposes development in an Erosion Prone Area and Natural Hazard
Area.
2. Development seaward of the Coastal Building Line is contrary to the building
setbacks contained in the Planning Scheme and the setback provided under State
Code 8; Coastal Development and Tidal Works of the State development assessment
provisions.
3. Recent modelling carried out by the Council indicates significant erosion is likely to
occur in the future which may threaten life and property should the proposed
development proceed.
4. The proposal does not comply with the Planning Scheme in force at the time of the
original approval, given the extent of excavation and vegetation removal in a sand
dune area.
5. The proposal does not comply with the Natural Resources Overlay Code for Coastal
Protection as it has the potential to adversely impact on natural coastal processes.
6. Given the site is affected by the Coastal Building Line and is located in a highly
vulnerable erosion prone area, the proposed 6m setback is not sufficient to minimise
the risk of erosion.
7. The proposal does not comply with the Biodiversity Overlay Code as vegetation is
proposed to be removed within the Environmental Protection Overlay placing the
integrity and resilience of the foreshore at risk.
8. The proposal is contrary to the Overall Outcomes for the Eastern Beaches Locality as
it does not protect the dunal area and natural environment nor maintain the safety of
people and works.
B. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
Finance & Risk
It is premature at this stage to provide advice on the likely prospects of the appeal. There will be
costs associated with defending the appeal.
Page 56 of 90
Section 57
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Wakefield Sykes – Solicitor
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 57 of 90
Section 58
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
CONFIDENTIALITY OF THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED –
4 JUNE 2019
CLOSED SESSION
6 ENVIRONMENT LEVY POTENTIAL
LAND ACQUISITION - LOT 3 RP186809
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Principal Environment Officer, Peter Milne
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Environment Levy
Attachments 1. Conservation Evaluation Report (1999)
2. Bugler Francis Valuation
REASON FOR CLOSED SESSION
This report was considered in closed session in accordance with Section 275 (1) of the Local Government
Regulation 2012, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the
following:
(e) Contracts proposed to be made by it.
Page 58 of 90
Section 59
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 9 April 2019 and:
A. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the purchase of Lot 3 RP186809 based
on the valuation obtained by Council; and
B. Remove the confidentiality in relation to this report upon the signing of a contract to
purchase Lot 3 RP186809.
REPORT
The Environment Levy Policy provides for the acquisition of environmentally significant land. The
Conservation Land Guideline was adopted by Council in September 2018 and provides a
methodology for identifying suitable land parcels for acquisition. The criteria for suitable land
parcels are:
30ha or more;
Have connectivity with Core Protected Areas including National Park and/or Bushland
Reserve; and
Have high biodiversity value.
1. Environmental values
1675 Louis Bazzo Drive, Boreen Point, (3RP186809) is currently for sale for $425,000 and meets
the criteria under the Environment Levy Policy and the Conservation Land Guideline:
Size of land parcel: 51.53ha
Connectivity: The property has direct connectivity with Lake Cootharaba Bushland
Reserve, on the shores of Lake Cootharaba. The Noosa River and lakes are considered
part of the Noosa-Cooloola Core Protected Area. Purchase of this land would essentially
extend the Lake Cootharaba Bushland Reserve, while the parcel also helps provide
connectivity between Yurol-Ringtail State Forest and Cooloola National Park (see Map 1).
Biodiversity value: The property has mapped ‘Of Concern’ vegetation (Regional
Ecosystem 12.3.11 Eucalyptus tereticornis, Eucalyptus siderophloia and Corymbia
intermedia), which is potential koala habitat (see Photo 1 & 2). Eucalyptus robusta was
recorded at the site which is also an important koala food source. The land also has
Regional Ecosystem 12.3.5 Melaleuca wetlands. Although classified as Least Concern,
wetlands provide important recharge areas for groundwater and help maintain the water
quality for the Noosa River. The land parcel has been on previous Council acquisition lists
and a comprehensive environmental assessment was undertaken in 1999 (Attachment 1).
Page 59 of 90
Section 60
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Map 1. 1675 Louis Bazzo Drive, Boreen Point, has direct connectivity with Lake Cootharaba Bushland Reserve
and could potentially help link Yurol-Ringtail State Forest to Cooloola National Park.
Photo 1 Koala food trees
Photo 2 Habitat tree with hollows
Page 60 of 90
Section 61
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2. Noosa Plan
Under the Noosa Plan 3RP186809 is zoned Rural and is covered by the overlays shown below:
Map 2. Biodiversity Overlay-Environmental Protection Area
Map 3. Flood hazard Overlay
Page 61 of 90
Section 62
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Map 4. Bushfire Overlay-High potential bushfire intensity
Map 5. Koala Habitat Overlay-largely remnant koala habitat
Page 62 of 90
Section 63
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
3. Climate change considerations
Council now has new climate change mapping which identifies lands that are preferred
biodiversity retreat areas. These are areas where ecosystems can adapt under climate change
sea level rise scenarios. 3RP186809 is included as a biodiversity retreat area under these maps
(see Map 6 areas coloured in blue to the west of Boreen Point)
Map 6. Biodiversity climate change adaptation areas
4. Threats
Under the Noosa Plan 3RP186809 is zoned as Rural and is covered by the Biodiversity Overlay.
There are exemptions for clearing of vegetation under this overlay including clearing for:
A house site (up to 2000 metres square)
Fire trails
Timber for fencing and firewood
Emergency services
Although there is an old house site to the west on the land parcel (see Map 7) it is quite possible
that a new landholder may prefer to build a house next to Louis Bazzo Drive because of its close
proximity to the Boreen Point township and ease of power connection. This would require
clearing of remnant vegetation and raising the ground levels with fill for a house site.
Page 63 of 90
Section 64
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Map 7. Shows old house site and dam. The land parcel is in close proximity to Boreen Point Township.
5. Conservation Land Guideline purchase options
The Environment Levy Policy and Conservation Land Guideline provides for two types of
acquisition. ‘Buy and hold’ or ‘Revolving fund’.
The advantages and disadvantages of each option for 3RP186809 is shown in Table 1 below:
Option Advantages Disadvantages Notes
Buy and hold Remains in public Becomes a Council asset Weeds such as umbrella
ownership and public requiring management for trees were recorded on
access would be allowed. weeds, feral animals and edges
fire.
Revolving Eventually comes under Being private land, public Potentially the land parcel
fund private ownership with a access would not be could be subdivided for
Nature Refuge protection allowed unless permitted by park purposes and the
and doesn’t require Council the landholder. house site area on-sold.
maintenance. A house site on western This would allow continued
On the sale of the property, side of land parcel would public access through the
capital costs are recouped need to be cleared of Nature Refuge. However
for further EL purchases. weeds and an access road there are costs associated
would need a minor with subdivision and on-
upgrade and short selling the entire Nature
causeway crossing. (refer refuge with a house area is
to photo 1, 2 & 3). There is preferred under a revolving
no power connection to the fund scenario. Being within
house site but power lines the flood hazard overlay a
are 500m away. future house site would
require raised floor levels
If a house site was selected
and access road, and/or
on the eastern portion of
pole house construction.
land, clearing of vegetation
and fill would be required.
Selling costs such as
agency fees and Nature
Refuge processing.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of purchasing options.
Page 64 of 90
Section 65
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
The ELWG initially recommended that the land parcel be purchased as a ‘buy and hold’
proposition to avoid any house site vegetation clearing and selling costs under a revolving
scenario. A cost benefit analysis for a revolving fund transaction could be developed post
purchase to allow time for a thorough assessment and a report brought back to the ELWG and
Council.
Photo 1. Access road to western house site has been gravelled previously and would need minor clearing of
regrowth (i.e. for a revolving fund option).
Photo 2. Western house site overgrown with weeds, Photo 3. Dam in front of western house site.
mostly Lantana and Setaria.
Page 65 of 90
Section 66
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 20 September 2018, Item 3, Page 13
That Council note the report by the Principal Environment Officer to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 September 2018 and adopt:
A. The Conservation Land Guideline provided at Attachment 1 to the report which provides a
mapping methodology to support the Environment Levy Land Acquisition Program and
Private Landholder Conservation Partnerships Programs, with minor changes as
authorised by the CEO;
B. The Revolving Fund Guideline provided at Attachment 2 to the report which provides a
framework to implement a revolving fund, with minor changes as authorised by the CEO;
C. The Private LandConservation Guideline provided at Attachment 3 to the report to guide
the Voluntary Conservation Agreement (VCA) and Land for Wildlife (LfW) Programs, with
minor changes as authorised by the CEO; and
D. The Fact Sheet - Conserving Land in Noosa Shire provided at Attachment 4 to the report.
Finance
A valuation was undertaken by Bugler Francis Valuers (Attachment 2). The property has been
valued between $400,000 to $450,000, with an estimate of $425,000 (which is the same as the
asking price).
By comparison the most recent Environment Levy purchases of Johns Landing and Cooloothin
Creek were much more expensive to purchase having direct river frontage and higher ground.
Prices are summarised in Table 2.
EL Land parcel Purchase cost Price per ha
Johns Landing $2.2m $44,900/ha
Cooloothin Creek $2.7m $25,470/ha
1675 Louis Bazzo $425,000 $8,250/ha
The restricted cash reserves of the Environment Levy are forecast to be $1.8 million by 30 June
2019 based on the current budget forecasts. This indicates that there is sufficient capacity to
purchase the land parcel using Environment Levy funds without impacting the delivery of current
environmental programs and still retaining a surplus of reserves for utilisation in future years.
It is proposed that, should Council proceed with the recommendation, an allocation of $425,000
be set aside in the capital works program for the purchase at Budget Review 3 (BR3).
Risks & Opportunities
There is a risk that if Council does not purchase the land, a new landholder will clear vegetation
and fill a portion of the land for a house site on the eastern side of the parcel.
If Council purchases the land there is inherent risks of bushfire similar to other bushland reserves
and ongoing weed maintenance requirements.
By purchasing this land there is an opportunity to help consolidate a linkage between Yurol-
Ringtail State Forest and Cooloola National Park.
Page 66 of 90
Section 67
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Bugler Francis Valuers
Internal Consultation
The Environment Levy Working Group met on 7 March 2019 and recommended Council
consideration for the purchase of 3RP186809 under the Environment Levy program.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development x Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws x Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director x Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service x Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
x Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 67 of 90
Section 68
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 68 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
"|. le ° st
CONSERVATION EVALUATION REPORT
Lot 3 RP 186809
1675 Louis Bazzo Drive
Boreen Point
Author: Jacky Williams (B App. Eny Se) September 1999
SCANNED
REGISTERED
Page 68 of 90Section 69
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 69 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
2
1, Property Description
The property is situated in the Boreen Point locality and the property description is Lot 3
RP 186809 1675 Louis Bazzo Drive, Boreen Point. The property owner is Monika Frank.
There are no dwellings on the site. Map | indicates the cadastral boundaries and the sites
of survey works. The property is approximately 51.5 hectares and is almost entirely
covered in native vegetation.
2. Methodology
This Conservation Report is based on a site visit, a brief flora and fauna survey of two
sites of the property, aerial photographic analysis and literature review.
A brief field survey was conducted on September 13” 1999 after an initial visit to the
property with the landholders and Noosa Council Environment Officer in August. The
sites surveyed were after assessment of the aerial photography provided by Council.
Floristics of each site and fauna (cither by calls, skats, tracks or sightings) were recorded.
The two sites selected were based on demonstrating the different forest types present on
site and also accessibility of other sites was difficult, and time and money constraints
limited the scope of fieldwork. An accurate fauna and flora survey would entail weeks of
work conducted at differing times of the day and night and would require a number of
field scientists. This survey was conducted in the late hours of the morning hence a great
deal of fauna is not captured. Habitat assessment of the forest types present on the site
can provide an indication of potential fauna capability. The age of the vegetation was
estimated to be approximately 40 to 50 years old, and there are present small hollows,
fallen logs and a developed structural forest that provides a viable habitat potential for
many native fauna species.
The aerial photography demonstrated a number of different textures indicating a change
of vegetation community, however from site assessment this change would is more
Page 69 of 90Section 70
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 70 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
3
present in understorey composition and the site is heavily dominated with a Melaleuca
quinguenervia overstorey.
3. Literature Review
The property is categorized under the " Vegetation of Noosa Shire" Report 1995 as being:
" Sub-type 4.2 Melaleuca quinguenervia with Wetland Understorey
The variation in the fluctuating water table determines the length of the period during
which these communities are waterlogged. Some sites have free water all year round (in
years of average or greater rainfall), whilst other sites are flooded for only certain parts of
the year. The factor they share in common is the regular and prolonged inundation which
results in the understorey of these forests being dominated by wetland plant species
{Appendix 2, Site #019). This is in contrast to the other Melaleuca forest which has a
more variable understorey and less frequent and regular history of inundation. Melaleuca
guinguenervia dominates the canopy with only infrequent occurrence of other species
such as Eucalyptus robusta, E.tereticornis and Lophostemon suaveolens. These latter two
species are more commonly found in the drier Melaleuca communities. Members of the
Cyperaceae and Restionaceae are common elements of the understorey of these regularly
flooded forests, Ferns may be locally abundant and form a diagnostic understorey on
some sites with Blechnum cartilagineum, a species which has substantial cultural
significance to Aboriginal peoples. Land filling and drainage practices have probably
destroyed many of these Me/aleuca communities outside the Crown estate.
The Melaleuca communities would appear to be one of the most threatened habitat types
remaining on the coastal plain. Their former extent is now difficult to comprehend, as
detailed historical distributions for this Vegetation Type are not readily available. To
ascertain the location of any remnants of this forest type would be a valuable exercise In
order to determine whether or not any extent remnants retain the natural attributes of this
community. Drainage and fire (often with associated grazing) usually results in the
destruction of these communities, so the degraded or regenerating phase of this forest
Page 70 of 90Section 71
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 71 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
4
type is seldom found in the field. Where the source of degradation is less dramatic, such
as eutrophication of the aquifer via nutrient pollution from surrounding land use
practices, or alteration to the drainage patterns of the aquifer, the understorey of the
community can become dominated by weed species such as Para Grass (Brachiaria
mutica) and the canopy species exhibit progressive die-back. This scenario is repeated in
many of the Melaleuca communities which are downstream of agricultural or pine
plantation areas where nutrient pollution of the aquifer has occurred. "
The Vegetation Community present on the property is best defined as Melaleuca
quinguenervia tall open forest to tall woodland, The Forest Assessment Unit and
Queensland Herbarium Department of Environment have mapped and classified this
regional ecosystem in South East Queensland in the project "Forest Ecosystems Mapping
and Analysis " as part of the Queensland CRA/RFA process.
This vegetation community is classified as vulnerable, and results of this survey indicate
that the extent preclearing of this vegetation community was 51,000 ha, and the current
extent is 18,500ha. 7% of this vegetation community is in protected areas and 2% in State
Forests. Further to this the effects of clearing between 1995-1997 indicate a loss of 700
hectares (or 3.6% of 1995 area} during this period.
The Vegetation Community described in the Forest Ecosystem Mapping and Analysis
report is as follows:
Regional ecosystem 12.3.5
Description: Melaleuca guinguenervia tall open forest to tall woodland on Cainozoic
alluvial plains in coastal areas. Understorey depends upon duration of waterlogging with
sedges and ferns especially Blechmum indicum in wetter microhabitats and grasses and
shrubs in drier microhabitats. Other tree species that may be present as scattered
individuals or clumps include Lophostemon suaveolens, Eucalyptus robusta,
E. tereticornis, Corymibia intermedia, Livistona australis, Endiandra sieberi. Melastoma
affine and Glochidion sumatranum and Euodia elleryana are often in understorey.
Provinces: 4, 8, 10.
Page 71 of 90Section 72
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 72 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
5
Protected areas: Burrum Coast NP (1000ha), Great Sandy NP (2700ha); also in
protected areas <1000ha.
Extent reserved: Medium.
Special ecological values: Habitat for rare and threatened flora species including Phaius
australis and P. tancarvilleae.
Comments; Extensively cleared for sugar cane and urban development in south of
bioregion. Tallest stands associated with estuarine sediments.
Subject to weed invasion especially groundse! Baccharis halimifolia. Data on clearing
rate between 1995-97 indicate that the RE continues to experience an annual loss in
excess of 1% of current extent per annumn, The area remaining is likely to fall below 30%
within 5-10 years.
Estimated extent: 36% remains of a preclearing area of about 51 000ha.
Conservation status: Vulnerable.
Regional ecosystems have been assessed using JANIS (1997) criteria to determine
whether they are endangered or vulnerable. An endangered RE is defined thus:
“ An endangered ecosystem is one where its distribution has contracted to less than 10%
of its former range or the total area has contracted to less than 10% of its former area, or
where 90% of its area is in small patches which are subject to threatening processes and
unlikely to persist”.
A vulnerable ecosystem is one which is:
“j) approaching a reduction in areal extent of 70% within a bioregional context and
which remains subject to threatening processes; or
ii) not depleted but subject to continuing and significant threatening processes which
may reduce its extent.”
4, Field Survey data
Field data collected from the site follows this brief discussion. There is presently a heavy
occurrence of groundsel in the understorey of areas in and adjoining Site 1, however in
some areas this is being superceded by other native pioneer species. Management of the
Page 72 of 90Section 73
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 73 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
6
groundsel especially during flowering season would be required to assist with facilitation
of succession by native species. Introduced Cassia is also a problem on site, and this
would need to be managed to avoid future infestation through the remnant. Site 1 had a
different overstorey from the rest of the site with Eucalyptus tereticornis and
Lophostemon suavelons more dominant. The under and midstorey also has more drier
species present. Eucalyptus robusta was not recorded at either site and the understorey
appears to be dependent on soil type and waterlogging. Site 2 is dominated by
Melaleuca overstorey and has rainforest and vine species present, with some rainforest
species occurring in the upper canopy. There is a small lantana problem at the edge of the
forest at the road reserve and management of the road reserve is an issue that will need to
be considered to avoid degradation of the site. The property in general consists of a large
plain of tall Melaleuca forest with a variety of understorey consisting of sedges, ferns,
palms, vines, banksias and rainforest species. There is a large quantity of fallen logs and
ferns, mosses and lichens are abundant. The species diversity in the understorey is
extremely diverse and a key feature of the site. If purchased by Council the site would
lend itself to having an education facility or boardwalk based on wetlands. Potential
partnerships could be forged with education bodies such as Sunshine Coast University,
Education Queensland and CSIT.
FLORA AND FAUNA SPECIES LIST
SITE 1 (21 native species)
Scientific Name Common Name
Jacksonia scoparia Dogwood
Acacia aulacocarpa Brush Ironbark Wattle *
Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood *
Acacia maidenii Maiden's wattle *
Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum or Blue Gum
Melaleuca quinquenervia Paperbarked Tea Tree
Page 73 of 90Section 74
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 74 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
7
Lophostemon suaveolens Swamp Box *
Commersonia bartramia Brown Kurrajong
Glochidon sumatranum Umbrella Cheese Tree
Glochidon ferdinandi Cheese tree
Elaeocarpus obovatus Hard Quandong *
Symplocos thwaitesii White Hazelwood *
Smilax australis Barbed wire vine *
Alphitonia excelsa Red Ash*
Banksia robur Swamp Banksia
Livistona australis Cabbage palm
Cupaniopsis parviflora Small leaved Tuckeroo
Lomandra longifolia Long leaved Mat rush
Cordyline rubra Red fruited lilly pilly *
Hibbertia scandens Twining Guinea flower *
Hibiscus diversifolius Swamp Hibiscus
Weeds present
Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel
Cassia coluteocides Winter Senna
Evidence of Fauna ( by sight, call, skats and tracks)
Birds
Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler
Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler
Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater
Myzomela obscura Dusky Honeyeater
Eopsaltria australis Eastern Yellow Robin
Zosterops lateralis Silver eye
Page 74 of 90Section 75
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 75 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
8
Psophodes olivaceus Eastern Whipbird
Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's honeyeater
Alectura lathami Scrub Turkey
Mammals
Wallabia bicolor Swamp Wallaby
Isodon macrourus Brown Bandicoot
Macropus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo
(The introduced Brown hare skats were found on site)
Monotremes
Tachyglossus aculeatus Echidna
SITE 2 { 43 native species)
Scientific Name Common Name
Asplenium australascium Crows Nest Fern
Acacia aulacocarpa Brush Ironbark Wattle
Acacia maidenii Maiden's wattle
Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood
Polyalthia nitidissima Polyalthia
Polyscias elegans Celery wood
Notelea longifolia Large mock olive
Lophostemon suaveolens Swamp Box
Clerodendrum floribundum Smooth Clerodendrum
Alyxia ruscifolia Prickly Alyxia
Page 75 of 90Section 76
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 76 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
9
Endiandra sieberi Hard corkwood
Denhamia celastroides Denhamia
Zieria smithii Sandfly zieria
Alphitonia excelsa Red Ash
Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly
Corymbia intermedia Bloodwood
Wilkea huegeliana Veiny wilkea
Duboisia myoporoides Corkwood
Elaeocarpus obovatus Hard Quandong
Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash
Acronychia wilcoxiana Lemon Aspen
Symplocos thwaitesii White Hazelwood
Dianella caerulea Common Flax Lilly
Euodia elleryana Euodia
Cordyline rubra Red fruited palm lilly
Melaleuca quinquenervia Paperbarked Tea Tree
Guioa acutifolia Northern Guioa
Guioa semiglauca Guioa
Cryptocarya glaucescens Jackwood
Lygodium microphyllum Climbing Fern
Smilax australis Barbed wire vine
Flagellaria indica Whip vine
Cissus antartica Water vine
Cissus hypoglauca Five-leaf water vine
Hibbertia scandens Twining Guinea flower
Sacropetalum harveyanum Pearl vine
Blechnum cartilagineum Gristle ferm
4 Cyperaceae species 2 species of Gahnia and 2 species of
water reeds/sedges
Page 76 of 90Section 77
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 77 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
LO
Millettia australis Blunt Wisteria
Weeds present
Lantana camara Lantana
Evidence of Fauna (by sight, call, skats and tracks)
Birds
Eopsaitria australis Eastern yellow robin
Cuculus saturatus Oriental cuckoo
Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood duck
Rhipidura fuliginosa Grey fantail
Monarcha frater Black faced Monarch
5. Wildlife corridor linkages
The site is predominantly vegetated and has adjoining properties with significant
vegetation being both freehold and crown lands. The site is part then of a wildlife corridor
network and provides a significant area of habitat to facilitate genetic diversity.
The road is a management issue for fauna as this intersects the corridor to the lake and
adjoining crown lands to the south of the property. The site at present is a section of a
large viable remnant that provides habitat and linkages between other remnants. The
property forms part of a wildlife corridor that links crown lands to the National Park. This
linkage provides access to Lake Cootharaba and to the Cooloola National Park. The
continued viability of this site will be dependent on future management of adjoining lands
and the implementation of vegetation controls on private lands. This vegetation
community is a known food source for the grey headed and common blossom bats, with
the Eucalyptus tereticornis being food source for both the Koala and Yellow-bellied
Glider.
Page 77 of 90Section 78
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 78 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
i
6. Aboriginal cultural significance
As previously identified in the Noosa Council Vegetation Report the site could have
aboriginal cultural significance and the local Aboriginal custodians need to be contacted
and involved with the management of the property if identified as a cultural site.
7. Recommendations
The site is identified as housing a Vulnerable Ecosystem identified by the Forest
Ecosystem Mapping and Analysis Project which is the most up to date assessment of
vegetation communities in the region. This alone provides a basis that the site has merit
for purchase as a Conservation Reserve. The site also provides an important linkage
between crown lands and the National Park, which assists with the facilitation of genetic
diversity of our native flora and fauna.
Further survey works are required as the site could house rare ad threatened flora and
fauna species and ] would like to recommend that the site be nominated for any fauna
studies that are to be conducted in the future by Noosa Council and Noosa River
Catchment Co-ordinating Committee.
Page 78 of 90Section 79
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 79 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
12
8. References
Queensland CRA/RFA Steering Committee 1997 Draft Systematic Vertebrate Fauna
Survey Project Queensland Government
Noosa Council 1995 Vegetation of Noosa Shire A Planning Scheme Review Project
Noosa Council
Queensland CRA/RFA Steering Committee 1998 Forest Ecosystems Mapping and
Analysis Queensland Government
Page 79 of 90Section 80
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 80 of 90
vu
rm
ATTACHMENT: MAP 1 OF BOREEN POINT PROPERTY CONSERVATION REPORT 7
=
z
Gq)
= ~ . — Ts Qo
m
=
| <
| zw
fp Oo
} ie ee G =
———— m
| oo =
| ae =i
| ae a Q
| he oO
| oe ° =
| Oxsite | oe =
° ~.
| L3RP186809 1675 Louis Bazzo ° m
Drive, Boreen Point =
— m
® m
a
~ z
} 7 q
} . _ >
: )
7 2
~., Oo
>
. SITE 2 Oo
°
|
S ©
>
e U
© vv
° r
° 8
Oo —_
So oSection 81
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 81 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
- ATTACHMENT 2
Lancelyn Pty. Ltd. ABN 41 010 865 273 T/A
P.O. Box 232
BUGLER FRANCIS VALUERS A | aeaaeyart NOOSA HEADS Q 4567
J aeeTenaans Phone: (07) 5447 4911
EE site Email: [email protected]
VALUATION OF
1675 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE
BOREEN POINT QLD 4565
FOR
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL
PO BOX 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
; * ey ee SPOS :
oe oc. vt. | *
‘3 ‘ ? Tone
4 ey te “
oe 3
VALUATION
$425,000
INSPECTION DATE
21 MARCH 2019
REPORT DATE
22 MARCH 2019
Page 81 of 90Section 82
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 82 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
-2?-
INSTRUCTIONS To ascertain the “market value” of the subject property as at the date of
inspection, subject to the definitions and conditions set out in the valuation
addendum attached.
REGISTERED
OWNER/S Sundale Ltd
REAL PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION Lot 3 on Registered Plan 186809
County of March, Parish of Noosa
LAND AREA 51.53 Hectares
ZONING Rural
SITE VALUE Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy.
$350,000 as at 30/06/2018
SERVICES/ROADS Electricity and telephone available for connection. Bitumen sealed road.
ACCESS Average
LOCATION Boreen Point on the western shores of Lake Cootharaba approximately
20 kilometres north west of Tewantin in the Noosa Hinterland
SITE DESCRIPTION An irregular shaped parcel of land which is mostly low lying and flood
prone. It consists of heavily timbered forest regrowth and melaluca wetlands,
A lagoon is located near the western boundary and a possible slightly elevated
House site is available nearby however the access is difficult with the unformed
Cootharaba Downs Road the frontage. The frontage to Louis Bazzo Drive is
Approximately 552 metres.
IMPROVEMENTS Nil
Page 82 of 90Section 83
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 83 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
-3-
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES Contamination
The subject existing and past land use indicates that contamination is
UNLIKELY.
We are not contaminated land experts and cannot confirm ff the site is
contaminated or otherwise.
Flooding Hazard
The land IS located in a flood hazard area.
Landslide Hazard
The land IS NOT located in a landslide hazard area.
Bushfire Hazard
The land IS located in a medium bushfire hazard area.
Biodiversity
The land IS located in an environmental! protection area.
The land IS NOT located in an environmental enhancement area.
Acid Sulphate
The land IS located in an acid sulphate area.
The potential hazard is ...HIGH...
Page 83 of 90Section 84
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 84 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
4.
> a’
Ls %
, B : ——— a
at ae a
es os eee Ke "
a. ead es Se ———
Pope te Aas ot ~
eee Bigs i, |
es Same Epa
ert METH,
Bl era Bese
Pispeseny lee a Feige be et erent
OLS OTE ISN,
“View south along Louis Bazzo Drive frontage”
t “4
7" aha bi 7 yy 1
* ca . 7
“View north along Louis Bazzo Drive frontage
Page 84 of 90Section 85
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 85 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Sp
ea Tae iy BY Seine 4 Paine ae hat ear
eh “Gh k wie ’ a Fog wy
Seder’ Yip. 5 Oe pe ee ae
J Sift eae e 4 Pagpear’.. :
CP eee tek te a Na
A 4 heey k, ie : ; = 4 oy: RR FE .
rs os |
tal alae. Leg jap Oe eae
eS en, et REE at :
- be a as a am = ie | 4 3
= Are Le eae 2 :
Wa ai Rae eee ee
\ ‘ ares oN oe oP os ae: ny
\ BS \e beat WP TAG:
: NZ
““Atypical vegetation”
” A r ag
+e
a : : a
: ’ v" eles ‘ oe aa
eae aca Fie “te
- ey a) * ; ira! ane
“Unformed Cootharaba Downs Road
Page 85 of 90Section 86
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 86 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
-6-
SALES EVIDENCE Sale 1 20 JUNE 2016
55 Lake Flat Road, Boreen Point. Lot 7 on SP 109944 40.51 Ha
A large habitable shed on an elevated house site.
Sold for $388,000
Adjoining allotment consisting of heavily timbered low lying flood prone land.
Land content assessed at $8,000/ha. Considered the most comparable sale
Sale 2 21 AUGUST 2017
104-196 Burtons Road, Maroochy River. Lot 2 on SP 269537 43.54 Ha
An irregular shaped generally level partly cleared allotment.
Sold for $450,000
Former flood prone part cane land allotment with a house site. Land content
assessed at $10,335/Ha
Sale 3 30 OCTOBER 2018
90 Eastern Branch Road, Kin Kin. Lot 3 on RP 164586 45.38 Ha.
A Timber and metal roof Queenslander with a machinery shed
Sold for $601,000
Superior quality useable land assessed at $11,018/ha
Page 86 of 90Section 87
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 87 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
-7-
Sale 4 25 AUGUST 2018
327 Eastern Branch Road Kin Kin. Lot 2 on RP 65204 32.42 Ha
A timber and metal roof Queensland with sheds.
Sold for $570,000
Superior quality mostly improved pasture assessed at $13,880/Ha
Sale 5 24 MAY 2018
54-64 Dynes Road, Valdora Qld. Lot 30n SP 277877 49.18 Ha
An irregular shaped generally level flood prone allotment.
Sold for $682,500
Cleared flood prone former Cane land assessed at $13,877/ha.
Page 87 of 90Section 88
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 88 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
-8-
COMMENTS The subject property comprises a 51.51 Hectare parcel of heavily timbered low
lying flood prone land within 600 metres of the Boreen Point Village and Lake
Cootharaba in the Noosa Hinterland. In our opinion in the current market
conditions and having regard to limited recent recorded sales evidence of similar
size parcels of land and the subject topography we consider a range of
$400,000 to $450,000 indicative.
VALUATION WE VALUE 1675 LOUIS BAZZO DRIVE, BOREEN POINT QLD 4565 AS
FOLLOWS
$425,000 ($8,247/ha)
(FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS)
laa
a i
Warren Walker AAPI
Certified Practising Valuer/Registration No.1828.
Our Ref: 19-08
Page 88 of 90Section 89
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 89 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
VALUATION ADDENDUM
Market Value
“Market Value” is defined as “The estimated amount for which an asset should exchange on the date of
valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm's length transaction after proper marketing
wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion”.
Easements/Encumbrances
The title deed has not been searched to venfy if any encumbrance or easement exists. This valuation is
assessed on the title being free from any encumbrance or easement other than a registered mortgage.
Improvements
Nil
Basis of Valuation
We have assessed our valuation on the basis of Freehold Title with vacant possession. Our valuation is
determined on the basis that the property, the title thereto and its use is not affected by any other matter
than that mentioned in this report. Specifically, we have assumed that the property is not affected by
financial liens of any nature.
We have neither undertaken, requested, nor sighted the following:
®* Detailed Title Search or a photocopy of the Certificate of Title:
= Written Town Planning Certificate:
= Identification Survey by a Licensed Surveyor,
= Queensland Transport Roads Search;
= Written Flood Search;
Page 89 of 90Section 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
Page 90 of 90
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 APRIL 2019
® Soil Survey;
= Weare not Contaminated Land Experts;
= A-search of the Contaminated Land Register has not been made;
= We have assumed the land is free from contamination for valuation purposes.
NOTE: Any comments on these issues are based on observations on site and, where necessary,
appropriate verbal inquiry without the benefit of searches, surveys etc. The valuer reserves the right to
review the valuation and the report if searches and inquiries reveal contrary conditions or matters not
addressed herein.
Disclaimers
Third Party This valuation is for the use only of the party to whom it is addressed and for no other
purpose. No responsibility is accepted to any third party who may use or rely on the whole or any part of
the content of this valuation.
Market Movement This valuation is current as at the date of valuation only. The value
assessed herein may change significantly and unexpectedly over a relatively short period
{including as a result of general market movements or factors specific to the particular property).
We do not accept liability for losses arising from such subsequent changes in value. Without
limiting the generality of the above comment, we do not assume any responsibility or accept any
liability where this valuation is relied upon after the expiration of three months from the date of
the valuation, or such earlier date if you become aware of any factors that have any effect of the
valuation.
Private Lending No responsibility is accepted to any party associated with solicitor arranged mortgages.
Page 90 of 90