Original source · versioned page text
MCU17/0559.05 - Planning & Environment Court Appeal 1842 Of 2026 - For Minor Change To A Development Permit For A Material Change Of Use For A Duplex Dwelling At 2/16 Grant Street, Noosa Heads · Attachment 1 – Development Assessment Manager’S Report
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 11 AUGUST 2026
ATTACHMENT 1 – DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT MANAGER’S REPORT
REPORT
Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Multiple Housing- Type 2 Duplex was issued
on 1 August 2020. The plans indicated that sections of the lower level were to be below ground
level and considered as a basement to ensure compliance with gross floor area provisions.
In February 2020, a minor change to the original development approval was issued (Council ref.
MCU17/0559.02). The main change related to the development’s roof form, a reduction to the
roof pitch from 8 to 1 degrees and reduction in the extent of eaves.
On 20 November 2020, a Generally in Accordance Letter (Council ref. MCU17/0559.03) was
issued, relating to revised location of the swimming pools and roof pitch from 1 to 2 degrees.
A Plan Seal application (Council ref. PS23/0020) and Operational Works (Council reference
OPW20/096.01) off-maintenance request was lodged in September 2023. Following a site
inspection carried out by Council Officers’, it was identified that there were inconsistencies
between Council approved plans and the constructed dual occupancy.
The variations to the approved plans included:
a. Shade structure at the rear of each unit
b. Internal reconfiguration to the upper level and lower levels of each unit, creating self-
contained dwellings on the lower level of each unit.
c. Spiral staircase within the southeastern side boundary setback.
d. Storage areas on the lower level below the outdoor recreational areas of each unit.
e. Extent of earthworks carried out contrary to Condition 5, the approved plans, and
maximum plot ratio permitted for the development.
f. Variation to the approved window placement along both side elevations.
A minor change application (MCU17/0559.04) was submitted in October 2023 seeking
retrospective approval for the matters listed above. The original approval required backfilling to
ensure the lower level met the definition of a basement under The Noosa Plan. As this work was
not completed it resulted in the lower level contributing to gross floor area and increased the total
GFA to 391.6 m² and a plot ratio of 0.658:1 which exceeded the 0.45:1 maximum.
To address the area of non-compliance the applicant proposed 1.5 m high planter boxes to
screen the non-compliant section in lieu of backfilling. Council did not consider this to the optimal
planning outcome however after considerable discussions with the applicant and builder,
accepted the proposal as it avoided structural risks associated with earthworks and provided a
landscaped outcome that screened the lower exposed floor level.
Page 1 of 3
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 11 AUGUST 2026
The minor change application was approved 31 January 2024.
On 19 February the applicant lodged a minor change application seeking to amend the plans and
conditions to allow for the removal of the requirement for the planter boxes along the external
walls of the lower floor unit 2. The applicant cited structural deterioration, movement in the posts
and sleepers, moisture accumulation at the slab edge and increased termite risk identified in
structural and pest inspection reports as justification for the removal of the external walls.
On 2 June the application was refused under delegation for the following reasons:
1. The proposed changes are contrary to Specific Outcome 011, and Overall Outcome (oo) of
the Noosa Heads Locality Code of the 2006 Noosa Plan, and Performance Outcome PO13,
and Overall Outcomes of (2) (c) (d) of the Medium Density Residential Code of the Noosa
Plan 2020.
1.1. The subject level does not constitute a basement under either the Noosa Plan 2006 or
the Noosa Plan 2020 and must therefore be included in gross floor area calculations.
When included, the development exceeds the acceptable gross floor area and plot ratio
outcomes anticipated under both planning schemes.
1.2. The resulting development represents an intensity and built form outcome that is
materially greater than that envisaged for the site and surrounding area. The absence of
visual impact does not mitigate the non-compliance with density controls, which regulate
development intensity rather than visibility alone.
1.3. The proposed removal of the planter boxes is not warranted, as they are capable of
being reinstated in accordance with the approved development and do not justify the
recharacterisation of the subject level as a basement.
1.4. Approval of the proposed amendments would result in an undesirable planning outcome
and precedent by allowing non-complying above-ground floor area to be excluded from
gross floor area calculations, undermining the intent and consistent application of gross
floor area and plot ratio controls under the Planning Scheme.
On 23 June 2026 the Appellant lodged an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court.
The appellant argues that the planter boxes should be removed because their removal complies
with both the Noosa Heads Locality Code and the Medium Density Residential Zone Code, would
not adversely affect neighbouring properties, and would not alter the development’s site cover or
Page 2 of 3
Page 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT 11 AUGUST 2026
plot ratio. Further, the planter boxes are said to be deteriorating, create moisture and termite
risks, and hinder termite inspections.
On these grounds, the appellant submits that removing the planter boxes would improve the
amenity of the premises and seeks orders allowing the appeal and amending the development
approval to permit their removal.
It is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded accordingly.
Previous Council Consideration
Not Applicable
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, particularly if the matter proceeds to trial.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Thynne Macartney – Tim Quirk
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Office of the CEO, Mayor & Community Services Corporate Services
Councillors
Mayor & Councillors Director Director
Chief Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Officers Sport & Active Lifestyles Fleet
Community Engagement Arts & Culture Revenue Services
People & Culture Community Connection ICT
Governance Customer Experience Commercial Property
Strategy & Environment & Development & Regulation Infrastructure Services
Sustainable Development
Director Director Director
Strategic Land Use Planning x Development Assessment Infrastructure Planning, Design
and Delivery
Economic Development & Local Laws Civil and Asset operations
Destination Management
Environmental Services Environmental Health Asset Management
Innovation & Digital Hub Building & Plumbing Building & Facilities
Property / Permits Disaster Management
Waste
Page 3 of 3