Original source · versioned page text
100350_Council_Representation_250912
Attached to the e-mail Representations to Decision Notice REC12/0062.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012 Our Ref: 100350 / Office: Sunshine Coast Council Ref: REC12/0062 SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL LOCKED BAG 72 SUNSHINE COAST MAIL CENTRE QLD 4560 ATTENTION: Tracy Jones Dear Tracy REPRESENTATIONS ON DECISION NOTICE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR RECONFIGURING A LOT 42 AVOCET PARADE, PEREGIAN BEACH LOT 2 SP231606 Further to Council’s Decision Notice issued for the above development application and the applicants suspension of the appeal period, we make the following representation in regards to Council’s approval: Condition 6 Condition 6 provides that sealing of the plans shall not occur until such time that the approved duplex (Council Ref 10/0838) has been constructed on site and a final building certificate has been issued. It is considered that this condition is not reasonably required in respect of the development and places an unnecessary limitation on funding and presales options for the duplex development. While it is acknowledged that the lot sizes proposed/approved under the reconfiguration are less than the minimum lot sizes for a standard format subdivision and relate to the approved duplex development on the site, the creation of the lots prior to development will not impact the intended development outcome. An alternative approach to enable the lots to be created prior to the duplex development, would be the imposition of a condition requiring the Community Management Statement to include a provision requiring the lots to be developed in accordance with the approved duplex (Council Ref 10/0838). This will provide some certainty on the development outcome for the site/new lots. Notwithstanding that the applicant is happy for a condition along the lines suggested above to be imposed, the need for this is questionable given Councils recent approval of a 2 lot subdivision at 14 Santa Monica Avenue, Coolum Beach (rec12/0030). This approval allows for the creation of 2 small lots within a Neighbourhood Centre precinct, inconsistent with the minimum lot size provisions for both standard and small lots, and on the basis the site could be developed for a duplex and that the proposal would not unduly compromise the areas character. While this approval was under the PLANNING | SURVEYING | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | COURT APPEALS Brisbane Sunshine Coast North Queensland Suite 1, 14 Lever Street, Albion Qld 4010 Suite 1, Corner Surf Road & Gardak Street 1C/41 Sturt Street, Townsville Qld 4810 PO Box 266, Albion DC Qld 4010 Alexandra Headland Qld 4572 PO Box 5027, Townsville Qld 4810 p | 07 3262 1200 f | 07 3262 1499 PO Box 6380, Maroochydore BC Qld 4558 p | 07 4721 3066 f | 07 4721 3088 p | 07 5443 2844 f | 07 5443 7146 Ken Hicks & Associates Pty Ltd ACN 010 278 823 ABN 74 308 405 611 trading as KHA Development Managers
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 1 page
Page 2
Maroochy Plan and not the Noosa Plan, the planning principles and approach remain the same. If this principle and approach was applied to the subject site it would have more planning merit given the sites inclusion under the Semi-attached Housing Zone allowing for higher density development. Any development on the site needs to comply with the planning scheme and applicable codes. If the site was not subject to an approved duplex, the only potentially self-assessable development that could be undertaken would be a single detached house on each proposed lot. Any non-compliance with the code would trigger a code assessable application. Any other site development would also be subject to a code or impact assessable application. In this regard Council would have certainty about the development outcome even if the current approval did not exist. Accordingly, we request that Condition 6 be deleted and a new condition included requiring the Community Management Statement to include a provision requiring the lots to be developed in accordance with the approved duplex (Council Ref 10/0838). Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct. Yours faithfully KHA DEVELOPMENT MANAGERS Scott Sobey DIRECTOR