Skip to the record
Noosa's #1 Council Tracker.

Original source · versioned page text

2019-08-12 General Committee Agenda

of 68

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                12 AUGUST 2019


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 situated in a Landslide Hazard area. The proposal is contrary to overall outcome in the
Building Works Code in that the development does not maintain setbacks that avoid adverse
impacts on the natural values of the foreshore. The applicant has provided a preliminary
geotechnical report relating to proposed development which is required by the Building Works
Code. The report has a number of recommendations which include the need for a more detailed
geotechnical investigation. The report does not make recommendations about the risk from
adjoining land (ie. the foreshore).
Notwithstanding the above, the proposal generally complies with the Building Works Code.
However it is noted that 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 33 of 68
Log in to download the original file

2019-08-12 General Committee Agenda(PDF, 6MB).pdf · 6.7 MB (large 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.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.