2020-05-18 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                         18 MAY 2020


Fill
The original Planning Officer’s report raised concerns with the extent of fill on the site, stating that
the proposal includes filling at approximately 1 -2 metres above natural ground level toward the
rear of the dwelling. Works within the 6 metre rear setback include an above ground swimming
pool and retained garden (refer to Figure 1).




                                 Figure 1: Works within the rear setback

The fill was accepted on the basis that an application was also lodged on the neighbouring
property (7 Park Crescent), which was assessed concurrently with the subject application. As
such, each proposal considered the neighbouring sites proposal, reducing the impact of the fill on
both sites. As discussed, since the original approvals were issued, both lots have been sold to
separate entities.
The 2016 and 2018 extensions were approved on the basis that the neighbouring approval also
remained current. The extension report from March 2018 stated:
       ‘…should this neighbouring approval lapse or the design change, the subject development
       would create overlooking and privacy concerns.’
       ‘Both land owners are aware of the approved design for the neighbouring lot and are aware
       of the repercussions for the relevant period to lapse for either lot.’
       The Noosa Plan requires that buildings and structures are sited to ensure visual privacy for
       residents on neighbouring properties, which as stand alone design, the subject
       development raises concerns.
The neighbouring property’s development approval (132005.1137) on 7 Park Crescent lapsed on
23 March 2020.
The Noosa Plan encourages development to be responsive to the natural topography of the site
and to minimise cut and fill (eg. by stepping down the slope). The topography of the subject site
slopes from the north western corner of the lot towards the south eastern corner of 7 Park
Crescent, with a difference in elevation of approximately 4.5 metres. As a result, 7 Park Crescent
sits at a lower elevation than 5 Park Crescent. Any fill on the subject site would need to be
reassessed in terms of the potential for causing ponding on the site or nearby land, impacts on
overland flow paths, and any potential impacts of the overall design of the fill on 7 Park Crescent.
As such, the extent of fill approved on the site can no longer be supported.

                                                                                        Page 22 of 80