Council Planning Report MCU16/0081

mcu16/0081 - development application for a material change of use for multiple housing type 3 - retirement & special needs (90 bed aged care facility) at 28 eenie creek road noosaville

Document information

Author	Coordinator Planning, Patrick Murphy
Planning & Infrastructure Department

Index	ECM/Application/MCU16/0081

Attachments	1.	Site Plan
2.	Elevation Plans
3.	Perspectives

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	J & G Knowles & Associates Pty Ltd
Proposal	Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing Type 3 - Retirement & Special Needs (Aged care facility)
Properly Made Date	26 July 2016
Information Request Date	5 September 2016
Information Response Date	22 November 2017
Decision Due Date	22 February 2017
Number of Submissions	21 and 1 Petition

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	28 Eenie Creek Road Noosaville
RP Description	Part of Lot 3 SP246584
Land Area	26,104 Square Metres
Existing Use of Land	Vacant

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Noosaville
Zone	Part Shire Business Centre Part Open Space Conservation
Overlays	Biodiversity Overlay (Environmental Enhancement Area, Koala Habitat Area) Natural Hazards Overlay: Bushfire and Acid Sulfate Soils (Potential Acid Sulfate Soils, Bushfire Hazard Area)
Assessment Type	Impact
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Coordinator Planning to the Planning & Organisation Committee Meeting dated 6 June 2017 regarding Application No. MCU16/0081 for a Development Permit for a Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing Type 3 - Retirement & Special Needs (90 bed aged care facility) situated at 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville and Refuse the application for the following reasons:
The proposed works are contrary to the Strategic Framework as the development will place people and property at risk from bushfire and unduly burden disaster management response and recovery capacity and capabilities.
The proposed works are contrary to the Noosaville Locality Code and the Natural Hazards Overlay Code as the development is not compatible with the natural hazard and will place people and property at risk.
The proposed works are contrary to the Natural Hazards Overlay Code as the development will unduly burden disaster management response and recovery capacity and capabilities.
Vegetation removal required within Open Space Precincts 1 and 3 will adversely impact on the intended vegetated entrance to Noosa.

REPORT
PROPOSAL
This application seeks a Development Permit for Material Change of Use to establish a 90 bed Aged Care Facility on the site.
The use is defined as Multiple Housing Type 3 – Retirement and Special Needs under The Noosa Plan.
The proposed development will comprise 90 bedrooms over two storeys.
The ground floor level comprises 41 bedrooms and includes a reception area, offices, meeting rooms and ancillary café. Additional resident facilities include a hairdressing salon, theatre, private dining, sitting, lounge and communal dining rooms. A commercial kitchen, laundry, nurse’s station and staff facilities are also situated on this level.
The second level consists of similar layout as the ground floor, with a further 49 beds and associated rooms. There is also training and physiotherapy treatment rooms, a staff room and staff amenities.
The proposal maintains a maximum height of 8.171 metres above natural ground level.
Vehicles will enter and exit the proposed development from the Walter Hay Drive roundabout, immediately to the south of the site. The location of the access passes through an electrical easement.
A total of 65 car spaces, including 2 disabled spaces, plus 4 motorcycle parks and 16 bicycle spaces are provided.
The proposed development requires the removal of vegetation within areas that are identified as Open Space Conservation Zone and Open Space precincts 1 and 3 within the Shire Business Centre.
Attachments 1, 2 and 3 detail the site plan, elevations and perspectives of the proposed development.
The application material includes specialist reports and supporting documents comprising:
Town Planning Report prepared by Project Urban
Geotechnical Report prepared by Core Consultants
Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Empire Engineering
Traffic Impact Statement prepared by Empire Engineering
Bushfire Assessment Report prepared by Covey Associates Pty Ltd
Ecological Assessment prepared by Cardno consultants
Protected Plant Survey prepared by Core consultants
site details
Site Description
The site is situated along Walter Hay Drive. The site forms part of the larger Noosa Civic landholding and is described as Part of Lot 3 on SP246584. The subject area is approximately 2.6 hectares and currently vacant. The site is presently vegetated.
1.5 hectares of the site is zoned Shire Business Centre (SBC) whilst the remaining 1.1 hectare is zoned Open Space Conservation.
The site is identified as the Recreation/Mixed Use (REC/MU) & Open Space 1 and 3 (OS1 & OS3) precincts on the SBC Map for the zone. The Open Space 1 precinct is external to the Shire Business Centre zone and is encompassed within the Open Space Conservation Zone.
The Noosaville Locality Code acknowledges the precinct’s separation from the balance of the Business Centre land and that development on the site need not be associated with the balance of the Business Centre site.
Noosa National Park
Noosa National Park
Subject site
Subject site
Figure 1: Subject site

Figure 2: Zoning Map
Background
The site represents a minor section of the Noosa Business Centre (NBC). No previous development approvals have been sought for this section of the NBC.
The majority of the NBC is situated on the opposite side of Walter Hay Drive and has partly been developed with the Noosa Civic established in October 2006 as Stage 1. Stage 1 involved the establishment of a discount department store based shopping centre of approximately 23,900m2 gross floor area, along with 7,200m2 gross floor of retail showrooms, a service station and 4,925m2 gross floor area of commercial office space. As part of the approval for Stage 1, Lot 3 SP182845 was dedicated as open space to the State.
A Stage 2 development was approved by Council in 2008 and comprised four office buildings with a combined gross floor area of 7,701m2 but never proceeded and the approval has lapsed.
This area along the NBC’s western boundary was subsequently subdivided and is currently being developed for a number of industrial uses.
There have been no previous development applications for the land subject to this application.
Surrounding Land Uses
To the north the site adjoins Noosa National Park and Eenie Creek Road. Further north is Noosa Domain Village, a residential retirement village. To the east the site adjoins an easement containing electricity infrastructure and further east is Noosa National Park.
To the south is Walter Hay Drive, which is the primary entry road to Noosa from the south. Further south on the balance of the lot is Noosa Civic and the Shire Business Centre, the principle activity centre for Noosa.
Pre-lodgement Discussions
A formal pre-lodgement meeting was held with the applicant’s key consultants and representatives of the property owner and Arcare on 4 February 2016.  The discussions focussed on the primary planning issues to be assessed including need, grounds for support, access, bushfire, vegetation retention and building design.
Bushfire was identified as a critical issue given the proximity to National Park areas, retained vegetation and the aged care use proposed.
Advice was also provided that Council staff would likely support an amended building location that moves the development east toward the HV Electricity easement. It was recognised that this introduces additional conflicts with the eastern strip of Open Space Conservation zoned land but may be demonstrated to provide a better outcome in relation to:
Retention of tracts of contiguous vegetation rather than the 13m wide strip of vegetation (and showing no net loss of vegetation); and
Improved Bushfire protection outcomes.

assessment
Instruments for Statutory Assessment
Under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 the application must be assessed against each of the following statutory planning instruments to the extent they are relevant to the development:
State Planning Policies;
the South East Queensland Regional Plan;
State Planning Regulatory Provisions;
any Structure Plan or Master Plan in place for declared areas;
any Preliminary Approval Overriding the Planning Scheme for the land;
the Planning Scheme for the local government area; and
any Temporary Local Planning Instrument in place for the local government area.
Of these, the statutory planning instruments relevant to this application are discussed in the sections that follow.
State and Other Statutory Instruments
State Planning Policies
The State Planning Policy April 2016 identifies issues of State significance that must be considered in the assessment of new development. The proposal triggers assessment against the Policy’s Interim Development Assessment Guidelines regarding biodiversity and natural hazards risk. These issues are discussed further at section of this report
South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan 2009 - 2031
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.
State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The following State Planning Regulatory Provisions apply to the application:
SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions
SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions
SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions
The proposal is for an urban activity within the Urban Footprint and is consistent with the SEQ Regional Plan Regulatory Provisions.
SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions
The site is within a Koala Assessable Development Area mapped under the SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provision (SPRP) and is subject to the assessment provisions of Table 7.  An assessment against the SPRP Table 7 is provided below.
Table 7, Column 2 - Assessment Criteria	Assessment
To the extent the premises is outside the Urban Footprint and not in an urban area under a planning scheme, site design does not result in the clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of bushland habitat.	Not Applicable. The development is inside the urban footprint and in an identified urban area under The Noosa Plan.
To the extent the premises is inside the Urban Footprint, site design must avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of bushland habitat, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and offset in accordance with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy at a ratio of five new koala habitat trees for every one non-juvenile koala habitat tree removed or an equivalent cash contribution.	Can Comply. The development will involve the clearing of approximately 1.01ha of mapped Koala Bushland Habitat to facilitate the proposed footprint. The Noosa Civic Master Plan anticipates clearing within the proposed development site. The development proposes the clearing is offset in accordance with the Koala SPRP.
Site design must avoid clearing non-juvenile koala habitat trees in areas of high value rehabilitation habitat, and medium value rehabilitation habitat, with any unavoidable clearing minimised and offset in accordance with the Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy at a ratio of five new koala habitat trees for every one non-juvenile koala habitat tree removed or an equivalent cash contribution.	The SPRP mapping does not identify the site as containing high value rehabilitation habitat and medium value rehabilitation habitat.
Site design provides safe koala movement opportunities as appropriate to the development type and habitat connectivity values of the site determined by reference to the factors for consideration in Schedule 2.	Generally complies. Koala movement opportunities are limited in the east-west direction across the site due to the proposed development. Vegetation retention aspects can be conditioned to comply.
During construction phases: a. measures are taken in construction practices to not increase the risk of death or injury to koalas; and b. native vegetation that is cleared and in an area intended to be retained for safe koala movement opportunities is progressively restored and rehabilitated.	Can be conditioned to comply
Native vegetation clearing is undertaken as sequential clearing and under the guidance of a koala spotter where the native vegetation is a non-juvenile koala habitat tree.	Can be conditioned to comply
Landscaping activities provide food, shelter and movement opportunities for koalas consistent with the site design.	The requirement to provide landscaping in accordance with the Bushfire requirements effectively limits the opportunity to provide food, shelter and movement opportunities. However the retention of some of the existing vegetation will provide limited food, shelter and movement opportunities.
The development generally complies, or can be conditioned to comply, with the SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions, with the applicant indicating it intends to offset clearing of non-juvenile koala habitat trees by a cash contribution.  It is important to note the applicant is able to choose the type of offset it undertakes and Council cannot direct it.  Further detail of the vegetation clearing assessment is included in Section 3.3.1 of this report.

Statutory Instruments – Planning Scheme
Locality Provisions
The subject site is located in the Noosaville Locality and is in the Shire Business Centre Zone.  The zone is further broken down into precincts, with the development proposed within Precincts REC/MU OS1 and OS3, as shown in the Business Centre Map below.

Figure 7: Noosa Business Centre Map
Locality Provisions
The development is located within Precinct REC/MU and extends into Precinct OS1 and OS3.
The Noosaville Locality Code identifies the following uses as consistent uses in Precinct REC/MU – Recreation Mixed Use:
Education – Type 1 Childcare
Emergency Services – Type 1 Station
Open Space Type 1 – Sport and Recreation
Wellbeing Type 3 – Worship
Ancillary dwelling unit
No uses are identified as being consistent uses in Precincts OS1 – Open Space (Environmental) and OS3 – Preservation of Visual Amenity
The proposal is for an inconsistent use with the zone and is required to follow an impact assessable application process.
Overall Outcomes
The Overall Outcomes of the Noosaville Locality Code state:
11.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noosaville Locality are the following—
a) New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
i 	be compatible with other uses and works;
ii 	maintain the safety of people and works;
iii 	avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by users of other premises, including acoustic and visual qualities; and
iv 	avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native habitat removal, fragmentation and attrition;
l) Areas of native remnant or regrowth vegetation, including their biodiversity and habitat values are protected and retained in their natural state;
z) For the Shire Business Centre Zone—the Shire Business Centre—
is a Major Activity Centre for the purposes of the SEQ Regional Plan, and the principle business centre for Noosa, servicing Noosa-wide business and employment needs by providing for a wide range of Business Uses as well as administrative, community, and open space functions;
is a multi-function employment node forming the major focus of employment growth in the coastal area of Noosa;
follows a logical sequencing of development consistent with the needs of the community that is dependent on the—
A	timing and construction of the external and internal road systems;
B	dedication of a substantial area of open space; and
C	development of a substantive amount of non-retailing development for employment opportunities beyond Retail business;
is developed at a low scale and density with distinctive and unique design elements, determined by the setting and recognisable as a Noosa development;
comprises buildings of low rise form separated by attractive and low key informal spaces that are integrated with landscaping and open space areas;
has an outdoor focus, particularly for Retail business uses, office uses and Community Uses;
provides for an inter-regional transit facility that functions as an integrated public transport node, with pedestrian and bicycle paths and appropriate external connections;
provides visual and physical connectivity across and throughout the site;
is designed to ensure that peak traffic flows and access to the Shire Business Centre do not impact on the wider functions of Eenie Creek Road and Walter Hay Drive;
retains development capacity within the Shire Business Centre in the longer term to take advantage of potential new employment opportunities;
is developed into precincts, as depicted on Schedule 4 - Shire Business Centre Map, which include a dynamic mix of development with an appropriate integration of uses within each, including—
A	Business Precincts (B1-B2), which provide for the highest order of retail development in Noosa and comprises the retail core of the Shire Business Centre site, with associated car parking generally located with Precinct B2;
B	Precinct B3, which provides for showroom and office development;
C	Employment Precincts (E1-E7) for future employment growth, which include 3 precincts (E1, E2, E3) with preferred themes to allow these precincts to take advantage of new employment opportunities;
D	a civic area located within Precinct E1, which provides for a range of civic uses and functions;
E	an inter-regional transit facility in Precinct E6;
F	a Residential Precinct (RES), which provides residential support accommodation to the other key precincts; and
G	a Minor Recreation/Minor Mixed Use/Open Space Precinct (REC/MU), developed for the purposes of a minor recreation use or minor mixed-use development;
The proposed aged care facility aligns, or partially aligns, with some of the above Overall Outcomes but raises conflicts with others, in particular:
11.7.2(a)ii – That the new use and works are not appropriately located, designed and managed to maintain the safety of people and works.
11.7.2(a)iv – That new uses and works are not appropriately located, designed and managed to avoid significant adverse effects on the natural environment, including native, habitat removal, fragmentation and attrition.
11.7.2(l) – The requirement to provide bushfire protection requires the removal of areas of native, regrowth vegetation, including their biodiversity and habitat values are protected and retained in their natural state.
11.7.2(z)iv and v – The built form of the development is not low form and exceeds the height limits specified for the Recreation/Mixed Use Zones. The effect of the building bulk is magnified by the requirement to manage the Open Space buffer vegetation at the front of the site to accord with bushfire management requirements.
11.7.2(z)xi(G) The proposed development does not provide for a minor recreation use or mixed-use development in the REC/MU precinct.
These issues are discussed in more detail later in this report.
Built Form
The locality code includes built form requirements for new development and specific requirements relating to the Recreation/Mixed Use precinct for Height and Plot Ratio.
The table below summarises the development’s level of compliance with the built form provisions for the Recreation/Mixed Use Zone precinct and other built form aspects of the Noosaville Locality Code.
Criteria	Planning Scheme	Proposal	Complies?
Site Area	-	2.6ha	N/A
Population density	Nil Persons max.	51.92 per hectare	N/A
Gross floor area	N/A	6185m2	N/A
Site cover Plot ratio	N/A 0.1	13% 0.24	N/A X
Building height storeys metres	1 storeys max 6 metres	2 storeys 8.3 metres	X X
Carparking	24 spaces min	65 motor vehicle 2 motorcycle 16 bicycle	
The proposal seeks a variation to the requirements for Specific Outcomes O8 (max 1 storey), O16 (plot ratio) O91 (use) and O169 (use).
Of particular note is the variation to the Plot Ratio requirement of 0.1. The planning scheme seeks a development of substantially smaller scale on the site than what is proposed. A smaller scale building would be less intrusive on the streetscape and result in less vegetation removal on site including vegetation within the Open Space buffer.
It is noted that the development is consistent with the Specific Outcome for density in the Community Services Zone where aged care services are typically located. The specific outcome allows for 320 persons per hectare exclusively for the purposes of Residential Aged Care and 160 persons per hectare for any other form of Retirement & Special Needs Housing. No requirement for plot ratio is specified.
The applicant contends that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the proposal despite this conflict in accordance with Statutory Guideline 05/09. The statutory guideline provides guidance on matters that may be considered in determining if there are sufficient grounds to justify a decision that conflicts with a relevant instrument under sections 326(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
A summary of the Applicant’s grounds in support of the application form the conclusion of the submitted planning report and state:
This report demonstrates the proposals compliance with the applicable state planning provisions and general compliance with the Noosa Plan. Where conflicts exist with the Noosa Plan sufficient planning grounds are demonstrated to justify the proposal despite this conflict, in accordance with Statutory Guideline 05/09 the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
Specifically a needs analysis confirms that there exists strong demand for further aged care facilities in Noosa Shire, with Noosa aging at a faster rate than the rest of Queensland. Projections estimate a shortfall of 251 beds by 2026. Further there is a lack of suitable sites within Noosa to accommodate this need. The proposed 90 bed facility fits well within this projected demand.
This need analysis demonstrates that an ‘urgent need’ for the proposed aged care facility exits and also that the ‘relevant instrument is out of date’ both of which are matters under Statutory Guideline 05/09 of public interest considered to provide sufficient grounds to justify the proposal despite the conflict with the Noosa Plan.
Approval of the proposed Aged care facility is warranted.
Land Use, Works and Overlay Code Provisions
The following further codes which regulate land use and design are most applicable to this application:
Residential Uses Code
Landscaping Code
Biodiversity Overlay Code
Natural Hazards Overlay Code
Generally speaking, the development complies or can comply with most provisions of these codes; however, some significant issues arise.  The primary assessment issues for the development are discussed below.
Primary Planning Scheme Assessment Issues
Need
Since the proposal raises fundamental conflicts with the planning intent for the site, need is crucial to this assessment.  Need may present community benefit grounds sufficient to support the application.  Need in the development sense is commonly recognised as relating to community wellbeing. A development may be said to be needed if, on balance, it improves community wellbeing - such as by access to new services or facilities, or a range of other ways.
The application included an extensive assessment of the level of need for aged care facilities. This assessment involved an analysis of existing and projected demand, against existing and projected facilities which was in part based on findings from Council initiated reviews by Humphreys Reynolds Perkins in 2006 and more recently by Briggs & Mortar in 2015.
Both of these reports identify that there is a significant need for aged care facilities as the population demographic within the Noosa Shire consists of a substantial ageing population.
Noosa is aging at a faster rate than the rest of Queensland, with even the ‘youngest’ suburb having a median age of 42.3 years. This is significantly higher than the Queensland average of 36.0 years, and the SEQ’s average of 38.1 years.
The 65+years age group has grown from 16.5% in 1991 to 19.3% in 2011.
By 2036 this is expected to grow to 30% with almost a third of the shire’s population to fall into the 65yrs+ age group.
The applicant’s needs analysis concludes with the following summary:
The above needs analysis confirms that there exists strong demand for further aged care facilities in Noosa Shire, with Noosa aging at a faster rate than the rest of Queensland. Projections estimate a shortfall of 251 beds by 2026. The proposed 90 bed facility fits well within this projected demand.
The applicant has demonstrated at a Federal level that the facility will meet the needs of the aged community, having achieved the necessary bed licence.
This need analysis demonstrates that an ‘urgent need’ for the proposed aged care facility exits and also that the ‘relevant instrument is out of date’ both of which are matters under Statutory Guideline 05/09 of public interest considered to provide sufficient grounds to justify the proposal despite the conflict with the Noosa Plan.
As such there should be no reason to deny the community of Noosa such a valuable facility.
It is agreed that there is a significant need for aged care facilities within the Noosa region. It is also noted that there are limited opportunities of appropriately zoned land for the development of aged care facilities.
Bushfire
Assessment of the proposal’s ability to respond to and manage the threat from bushfire is crucial to the assessment of this application.
There are a number of elements within the Noosa Plan which address the risk from a natural hazard to a proposed use or development.
These elements are detailed below:
Strategic Framework:
1.7.12	Natural Environment Protection
Development in areas at risk from natural hazards is to be compatible with the nature of the hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk.
Development is avoided in areas subject to natural hazards or where natural hazards cannot be avoided, mitigation or adaptation measures are adopted taking into account predicted frequency and severity of the natural hazard.
Development supports and does not unduly burden disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities.

Overall Outcomes for the Noosaville Locality:
11.7.2 The overall outcomes sought for the Noosaville locality are the following –
New uses and works are located, designed and managed to—
maintain the safety of people and works;
Natural Hazards Overlay Code:
13.30.2 The overall outcomes sought from the Natural Hazards Overlays Code are—
development in areas at risk from natural hazards is compatible with the nature of the natural hazard so as not to place people, property, economic activity, social wellbeing and the natural environment at risk;
development is resilient to natural hazard events by ensuring siting and design accounts for and minimises potential risks of natural hazards to people and property;
development supports, and does not unduly burden disaster management response or recovery capacity and capabilities;
for bushfire hazard areas—bushfire risk mitigation treatments are accommodated in a manner that avoids or minimises impacts on the natural environment and ecological processes
Specific Outcome 4 New Uses states:
The proposed use does not compromise the safety of people or property from bushfire.
There is a clear intent within the planning scheme that land use and development appropriately manages the safety of occupiers/users of new development.
The proposal must ensure that persons accommodated within the facility, associated staff and visitors are not subject to an unreasonable level of risk associated with a natural hazard.
The applicant has provided a Bushfire Assessment against the Noosa Plan’s Natural Hazards Overlay Code provisions for bushfire, which concludes that the relevant requirements can be met
The applicant’s bushfire mitigation measures include:
All site vegetation is to be cleared on the site except for those areas deemed for protection in buffer areas or conservation offset zones;
Fire breaks are to be provided around the proposed building as indicated on the plans by Oksio and outlined in this report. Fire breaks are to be measured from the exposed wall of the facility toward the hazardous vegetation and include (minimum):
24m to the north
20m to the east
20m to the south
20m to the west

Future buildings are constructed to AS3959:2009 BAL19 or as determined by subsequent specific site design and assessment by private certifiers at Building Application Stage;
A perimeter road able to accommodate 2wd urban fire appliances is constructed as indicated on the design plan by Oksio Designs;
A copy of the QFES Prepare Act Survive brochure (or latest equivalent) be provided to future management of the facility from the developer);
Vegetation within the buffer areas to the south and east that is to be retained is to be thinned and replaced with non-flammable species.
A fire hydrant system should be designed, provided and maintained to the minimum required performance standard as per AS2419.1 2005. Hydrants are to be provided to all sides of the building;
The Energex Electrical Easement to the east of the site is to be regularly slashed or mown to reduce the fuel load in this area which contains numerous shrubs and grasses. A properly prepared fuel management plan signed with Energex would be the basis of this obligation. This should include management of the grass / fuels within the easement to the north east of the site to reduce the risk of a fire front moving from the east into the bushland to the north of the site. This would ideally include management of the fuels to a grass sward and at a minimum slashed 4-5 times a year and prior to the start of the bushfire season;
Landscaping within the proposed bio-retention basin avoids the predominant use of flammable species;
Landscaping within the internal courtyards and the landscape area to the south of the building is to be carefully landscaped to not exacerbate fire risk.
All firebreaks, buildings and mitigation measures are to be maintained to achieve optimum mitigation performance;
Gas supply is to comply with Australian Standards;
A bushfire evacuation plan is to be developed for the facility to evacuate residents and staff in the face of an imminent bushfire threat. The emergency / evacuation plan is be prepared consistent with the NSW RFS guidelines for the Preparation of Emergency / Evacuation Plan
It is the applicant’s position that the facility can operate as a standalone facility as:
The development can withstand any bushfire event without external intervention and evacuation.
There will be no increase in demand on resources for the management of the adjacent NP as a result of the establishment and use of the development.
There will be no decrease in the ecological values of the adjacent NP as a result of the establishment and use of the development.
Council engaged bushfire consultants, Rob Friend & Associates, to assess the proposal. Whilst acknowledging that the building has the capacity to withstand fire, the consultant has raised significant concerns with the proposal.
The primary concern relates to the placement of vulnerable persons in a location where there is a high risk from the threat of bushfire and smoke. The site is identified as located in a buffer to a Very High Potential Bushfire Intensity area.
Whilst the applicant has provided a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) it is Council’s consultant’s opinion that it is not sufficient to effectively respond to the bushfire hazards and threats within and around the proposed facility. The applicant has also submitted an Evacuation Management Plan (EMP) however this has also been considered unsuitable.
It is Mr Friend’s opinion that neither the BMP nor the EMP provides suitable evidence that the facility can operate as a standalone facility. In the event of a bushfire, it is Mr Friend’s opinion that the facility will require evacuation and that assistance from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES) will be required. Mr Friend also anticipates that Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) will have an on-going duty of care to manage fuel reduction efforts within the adjoining National Park as an on-going consequence of the development.
Mr Friend has also raised concerns with the single road access to the site as the access could be cut off, which is likely to have a negative effect on the ability to facilitate an evacuation.
Based on the advice of Mr Friend, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with numerous provisions within the Noosa Plan as the proposal does not adequately address the risk attributed to bushfire, particularly with regard to enabling safe evacuation of the vulnerable residents from the premises.
QPWS made a submission raising concerns with the siting of an aged care facility adjacent to the national park. In the submission QPWS
…confirms its position that the proposed development for an aged care facility at the location adjacent to the Weyba Creek Section of the Noosa National park is inappropriate on the basis that it puts at risk a vulnerable community facility by locating them adjacent to bushland that is conducive to wildfire.
…Further, there should be no reliance on QPWS for fire protection measures including the establishment of buffer zones on protected area estate, fire hazard reduction or response to wildfires. Whilst QPWS will make every effort to manage smoke during planned burn programs, the issue of smoke management impacting on the facility should not be used as an impediment for QPWs undertaking its responsibilities for fire management on the adjoining protected area.
The application was referred to QFES seeking advice; the response from QFES was received on 16 May 2017 and includes the following:
Conducting an entire evacuation from a 90 bed aged care facility is not an easy task to undertake. In aged care facilities it is common to find people who have mobility impairment. Residents who can’t walk themselves to a waiting vehicle will have to wait until whatever assistance needed, can be provided. The staff/evacuee ratio for residents with poor mobility would be 1:1 as a minimum and will often be higher. Staffing levels at aged care facilities will generally be adequate enough for day to day duties but the demands of a full scale evacuation will require extra staff involvement.
Effective filtration can do a good job at excluding smoke particles but it should be noted that P1 or P2 air masks will not provide adequate protection. While filtering smoke particles can reduce the irritation caused by bushfire smoke, filtration does not remove carbon monoxide that is always a by-product of burning vegetation.
QFES firefighters use P3 face masks to mitigate the irritating effects of smoke when attending bushfire incidents. However, these masks do not provide any protection against carbon monoxide (CO). CO is a poisonous gas and because of the risk posed, firefighters using P3 respirators at bushfires must also monitor their exposure to CO and withdraw from danger if the exposure standard for CO (30 parts per million (ppm) is exceeded.
While it is unlikely that smoke would present a problem every year, it should be carefully considered how much interruption bushfire smoke might cause and for how long that interruption might persist.
The recent Coolum Fire (Jan-Feb 2017) occurred towards the end of an extended dry period. The extended dryness had allowed low lying land that would normally be sodden, to dry out, allowing fire to propagate through the sub-surface layers of duff, humus and peat. This residual burning persisted for almost 4 weeks with QFES receiving multiple complaints over that time about the ongoing irritation from the smoke produced. Unfortunately, the task of extinguishing sub-surface burning is not an easy thing to achieve due to inadequate access and the quantity of water needed. Usually these situations are monitored closely for uncontained fire spread until enough rain falls to extinguish the smouldering combustion and re-establish typical ground moisture levels.
I see the main issues with this development to be the difficultly that would arise should a full building evacuation be needed due to a nearby vegetation fire. The follow-on issue would then be how long the facility would need to remain evacuated if smoke persisted in the area. Atmospheric smoke will also contain poisonous carbon monoxide gas and whilst filtration will reduce exposure to particles it will not remove CO.
I don’t see the likelihood of a vegetation fire spreading to destroy any of the proposed structures as a significant risk due to setback distances and the suggested building site layout within the proposal.
There are consistent themes of concern that have been raised by Mr Friend and QPWS.
Of primary concern is the placement of a vulnerable community within an area of increased risk from smoke inhalation and fire. It is important to note that even QPWS’ normal fuel reduction operations present a risk to the proposed residents.
There is a distinct likelihood the development of an aged care facility in this location will negatively impact on the ecological values adjacent to the National Park. The management of the interface of the National Park will involve modification of the habitat to create reduced fuel loads to reduce the risk of bushfire to the facility. The use of fire as an ecological management tool by QPWS will be hindered due to the health needs of the facility’s residents.
Furthermore, there is an alignment of opinion that the facility will not be able to operate as a standalone facility. Whilst the building is likely to be able to withstand damage from a bushfire a fire event will most probably require evacuation of the residents.
Evacuation of the aged care residents raises concerns including:
Adequate staffing levels required to evacuate 90 persons;
Suitable locations for 90 residents to be accommodated when evacuated;
Evacuation resulting from the presence of smoke will require the extended relocation, potentially weeks, of residents; and
Additional pressure placed on QFES to monitor the threat of fire on the facility and provide advice to evacuate.
Biodiversity
The submitted ecological assessment report suitably analyses the quality of habitat for the purposes of this assessment. The development requires the removal of vegetation within the Open Space Conservation Zone, the Open Space Precincts 1 and 3 and the Recreation/Mixed Use precinct for the purposes of bushfire hazard management.
A total of 1.01 hectares of vegetation is expected to be cleared, including building envelopes, car parks and landscaping. This is less than the 1.5 hectare area identified as Recreation/Mixed Use which would reasonably be expected to be cleared of vegetation with any development of the site. On balance, the scale and extent of clearing is consistent with the master planning for the Noosa Business Centre.
It is noted though, that the proposed development will result in vegetation removal within the Open Space Precincts 1 and 3. The removal of this vegetation degrades the Open Space buffers and will result in the development being visually more prominent to the streetscape than intended and create the potential for edge effect on the National Park to the rear of the site.
The vegetation in the development footprint is regrowth vegetation consisting predominantly of Eucalypt, Melaleuca and Corymbia species, with a mixed age class of pioneer species. The species assemblage is consistent throughout the development site.
In compensation for the removal of vegetation within the Open Space Conservation Zone required for bushfire hazard management the applicant proposes:
…to dedicate an equivalent area of land, to the northwest of the development footprint, currently included within the Business Centre Zone as Open Space Conservation Zone. This will ensure that the development does not result in any net loss of Open Space Conservation Zone area within the site. It is noted that the Ecological Assessment has established that the ecological value of the site is consistent across the site and as such this outcome will not diminish the ecological value of the Open Space Conservation Zoned area.
The development requires the removal of 2,522 square metres of land within the Open Space Conservation Zone and it is proposed to dedicate 2,529 square metres of land within the Business Centre Zone.
It is not possible to re-zone the proposed dedicated land through a Development Approval. Therefore, a covenant for the purpose of vegetation protection may be placed over the proposed dedicated 2,529 square metres of land within the Business Centre Zone.
Whilst the site is vegetated and within close proximity of the Noosa National Park the vegetation is not of the same quality as that located within the national park. A key finding of the submitted ecological report was that no significant / protected plant species occur on site.
A review of the applicant’s ecological report by the Shire’s external consultant identifies that the subject site does not contain remnant vegetation.
An analysis of aerial photography showed significant disturbance and vegetation clearing occurred at the site between 1979 and 1993 followed by little to no vegetation clearing since 2002 and potentially since 1993. The vegetation on site is therefore non-remnant and regrowth is at least 14 years old.
The following images detail aerial photographs of the site which demonstrate that the site does not contain remnant vegetation due to previous clearing.
Figure 8: Aerial photograph of the subject site: 1979
Source: Qld Department of Natural Resources and Mines (contained within Ecological Report)

Figure 9: Aerial photograph of the subject site: 1993
Source: Qld Department of Natural Resources and Mines (contained within Ecological Report)
A 25 metre wide electrical easement exists within the eastern boundary of the site and the Noosa National Park. This easement contains power lines and the vegetation situated within the easement is managed to protect the asset and generally limited to grass.
The following image details the 25 metre wide easement to the east of the site.
25 metres wide easement
25 metres wide easement
Figure 10: Aerial photograph detailing 25 metre wide easement
The national park directly abuts the sites northern boundary along which a continuous strip of existing vegetation will be retained, the width of this strip ranges from 5 metres to 21 metres.
The applicant has submitted a landscape concept plan which is designed to accord with the requirements of the Bushfire Management Plan. The need to provide bushfire protection limits the amount of re-planting that can be undertaken.
Koala Habitat and Offsets
The application involves the clearing of 1.01 hectares of vegetation which is mapped as Medium Value Bushland Koala habitat according to SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions.
Survey work in 2014 failed to find koalas in the development footprint, with one koala located in bushland south of the Noosa Civic development. A recent Council commissioned review of koala records notes the intersection of Walter Hay and Eenie Creek roads as being a location for koala movements. The vegetation contained within the proposed development footprint contains regrowth vegetation used as a food source by koalas. No reliable estimates exist for the numbers of koalas using the site and the surrounding resources.
The site is zoned for development as part of the Shire Business Centre and clearing is anticipated to facilitate development. Clearing could be conditioned to comply with SEQ Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions. Any clearing of koala habitat is required to be offset in accordance with Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
Traffic
The submitted Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Empire Engineering concludes:
The analysis completed as part of this Traffic Impact Statement has found that the proposed aged care residential development located at Walter Hay Drive, Noosaville will not have a tangible negative impact on the existing operational conditions of the surrounding road network.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the proposed development is pursuant to the intended function of the surrounding road network.
The sight distance investigation has also found that excellent sight distance is achievable at the location of the proposed site access connection to the existing roundabout controlled intersection of Walter Hay Drive and the access road to Noosa Civic Shopping Centre. The layout of the car parks and driveway access was found to be compliable with the requirements of AS2890 and a swept path plans showing unrestricted access are attached.
The traffic impact associated with the proposed development was reviewed internally by the Shire’s development engineer. The internal review had no concerns with the proposed development and supported the findings of the submitted traffic impact assessment.
Stormwater Quality & Quantity
The issue of Stormwater is divided into two parts, quality and quantity. The acceptable outcome is a “non-worsening” in regard to the quality and quantity of stormwater released from the site due to the development of the site. Council engaged hydrology consultants, O2 Environment and Engineering, to undertake a peer review of the Empire Engineering Stormwater Management Plan, including associated MUSIC and XPSTORM model files.  In regard to stormwater quality and treatment, O2 advised:
It is anticipated that sufficient modelling has been undertaken to meet the requirements of Council’s guidelines, though some details are not entirely clear. If Council are agreeable with this level of detail at this stage of the application process, then it is recommended that the stormwater assessment can be approved.
The issues with the proposed methods could be addressed via the inclusion of reasonable conditions and resolved by amended detailed designs submitted at Operational Works stage.
cONSULTATION
IDAS Referral Agencies
The application was referred to the following IDAS Referral Agencies:
Concurrence
SARA – Concurrence Agency

The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning is a concurrence agency as the application is for a development impacting on State Transport Infrastructure.

The response was received on 13 September 2016 did not object to the proposal and provided conditions.
Advice
Energex – Advice Agency
Energex is an advice agency as the premises is subject to an easement in favour of Energex for high voltage overhead power lines.
The response was received on 2 November 2016 recommending approval subject to conditions.
Other Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council specialists:
Strategic Planning
Engineering
Strategic Planning Comments included:
The planning scheme does not envisage a residential use on this property. The overall outcomes for Noosaville locality suggest the site will contain a minor recreation / minor mixed use with open space on the site.  Initial work on Master Plan 1 and Master Plan 2 suggested the site be allocated to formal indoor and outdoor recreation use, although predominantly outdoor functions.

The planning scheme allows for a single storey building height of 6 metres. The intent for single storey buildings dates back 10/15 years to the early master planning. Mature vegetation on site, however includes tall species and should a vegetated buffer along the road frontage be retained a 2 storey building could be relatively well screened.
There is an increasing demand for residential aged care (as distinct from independent living retirement village) in Noosa and suitable sites are obviously limited.
Pedestrian connectivity to this site is poor, even with the existence of grade separated pathways.  Any development of the site should improve wayfinding and pathway approaches to the existing network so that connection with the adjoining centre and transport is more logical.
Public Notification
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The applicant provided a Notice of Compliance on 20 December 2016, certifying the advertising was correctly undertaken.  25 submissions, comprising 23 properly made submissions and 2 not properly made submissions, were received by Council.  One petition was received with 1381 signatures relating to the protection of koala habitat.
Submissions were received from a number of community groups and other bodies objecting to the development, including Noosa Koala Sitings, Wildlife Queensland Preservation Society of Sunshine Coast and Hinterland, Koala Rescue Inc, Friends of Lake Weyba, Noosa Biosphere Association, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
The following table provides a summary and assessment of the issues raised by submitters.
Issues	Comments
Object Natural Environment Natural environment of Noosa has already been destroyed by developments. Developers should be looking at land areas that have already been developed rather than seeking to take the least cost option of acquiring public land. Koala habitat in Noosa Shire is already endangered and this development will face further pressure on koalas. Plenty of vacant areas that can be utilised without destroying Koala habitat. As land adjoins Noosa National Park to the east this tract of land is a koala/wildlife corridor. Offsets are not appropriate for current koala population. Proponent has not identified a physical area in the region appropriate to provide an offset and in contrast has offered a cash payment to Council as an offset. Koala Conservation Plan has been written to protect open space conservation zoning. Establishment of fire protection zones within National Park would be required that would pose a threat to maintaining the present natural habitat. Fauna within the National Park would forage from within the subject site. Site may contain or influence surrounding habitat of other vulnerable and endanger species such as wallum froglet, wallum sedgefrog, elf skink and the locally significant Little Bentwing Bat The use of non-native species for landscaping creates a risk of spread into the National park. Geographical location means that it will have an impact on Lake Weyba and Eenie Creek and will create storm water issues. Special attention would need to be made to drainage and waste overrun as the area is adjacent to Eenie Creek and we need to protect out waterways. Flooding from Eenie Creek could be a problem for the development. Noosa is a special place with world wide recognition by the granting of UNESCO Biosphere Listing. Noosa’s community economy is sustained by an ecologically (nature) based tourism industry and the preservation of our remnant habitats and species is vital to our future prosperity. Stormwater runoff will effect National Park and surrounding land	The development footprint within the NBC site has been committed for development, with areas of highest ecological importance previously dedicated for conservation.  The development does not raise insurmountable environmental conflicts. Koalas are known to occur in the area. The location of main roads, Walter Hay Drive and Eenie Creek Road, has resulted in koala car strikes. The cleared powerline easement and existing road network presents a threat to existing koala numbers. Additional clearing for the development will result in the loss of koala habitat however will remove a food source from adjacent road network. The positioning of the development will likely influence the management of the adjacent National Park for bushfire, resulting in additional resources being dedicated to reduce the risk of bushfire. QPWS states the development will negatively impact on the natural values of the national park due the requirement to reduce fuel loads and to manage the impacts of smoke on the residents.
Need There already multiple aged care and retirement facilities in Noosa and Sunshine Coast area. Should be supporting business that attracts youths and the younger generation to live and work here. There is no overriding need for the development in the public interest.	Studies commissioned by Noosa Council confirm that there is a need for additional aged care facilities.
Land use Not consistent with Noosa’s Town Plan. The area is not consistent with the plan for the Shire Business Centre, which identifies the site for open space recreation uses. A previous application for an aged care facility in this location was not approved. There is no significant change in circumstances to suggest that this decision should be reconsidered. Conflict’s with the Noosa Plan’s 3.13 Desired Environmental Outcomes	The proposed use is an inconsistent use within the Shire Business Centre Zone however it is acknowledged that there is a need for this type of development. There have been no previous applications for an aged care facility at this location. The establishment of a vulnerable community in a location at significant risk from bushfire is not consistent with the Noosa Plan.
Traffic Will create further traffic pressures, resulting in the need for infrastructure to cope with such a huge increase in use. The site fronts very busy sections of two heavily used roads, with the entrance being off a roundabout. There would be road works required to access the site, and a continuous traffic flow to contend with, traffic hold up in busy times. Will be unsafe for vehicles to enter and exit site at the roundabout. No safe way for pedestrians to traverse Walter Hay Drive to access shops and services, although vague reference to pedestrian link in planning report	It is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in increased traffic at this location. However the supporting report submitted with the application and assessment of the impact of traffic by Councils development engineer
Non-compliance with Noosaville Locality Code Not compliant with Specific Outcomes: O8 (max 1 storey), O16 (plot ratio) O89 (use) O167(use) Development is for double storey when zoning is for single storey. Will create a precedent for inappropriate development	The built form of the development is not considered to be unreasonable where the Open Space buffer to the site’s front could be maintained. Bushfire measures however would impact on the ability to suitably screen the proposed development.
Bushfire Risk Not a suitable site for an aged care facility due to the bushfire risk Can residents quickly evacuate the premises Fire management within the National Park would be a risk to the intended aged care residents that may suffer from the effects of bushfire smoke. Evacuation procedures would need to be implemented every time fire is detected within the adjoining bushland.	Agreed
Amenity Development will create social isolation. No connectivity to public transport or areas for recreation and medical care.	Council’s Strategic Unit has commented that pedestrian connectivity to this site is poor. Assisted recreation and staff movements would be impacted by the poor pedestrian connectivity.
Environmental Sustainable Design No environmentally sustainable design elements such as rainwater collection and solar panels.	Conditions to an approval could require environmentally sustainable design elements.
conclusion
The application for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Multiple Housing Type 3 - Retirement & Special Needs (Aged care facility) at 28 Eenie Creek Road Noosaville is recommended for refusal. The proposed development is not in accordance with the Strategic Framework and the Natural Hazards Overlay Code. The development will place people and property at risk and unduly burden disaster management response capability. The removal of vegetation in accordance with Bushfire requirements will result in the development having a detrimental impact on the streetscape.

Departments/Sections Consulted:
	Chief Executive Officer		Community Services		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer to the Mayor & CEO		Community Facilities		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Development		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property & Facilities
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Office	X	Planning & Infrastructure		
	Community Engagement		Building & Plumbing Services		
	Customer Service		Civil Operations		
	Economic Development		Infrastructure Planning & Design		
	Governance		Planning & Environment		
	Human Resources		Strategic Land Use Planning		
	Sustainability				

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 21 of 25

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	6 JUNE 2017