2020-05-18 General Committee Agenda

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                       18 MAY 2020


The site is also located approximately 72 metres from the existing approved ancillary dwelling
unit (caretaker’s accommodation) and therefore, would not meet the acceptable outcome in this
instance.
The Draft Caretakers Accommodation, Dwelling Unit and Rural Workers’ Accommodation Code
also includes an acceptable solution for PO4 in achieving an ancillary nature of a caretakers
accommodation in the Low Impact Industry Zone which restricts the gross floor area of the
Caretaker’s accommodation to 65m2 and 1 bedroom. The current proposal includes 2 bedrooms
and 2 bathrooms and has a total GFA of 79.6m2 which is inconsistent with the acceptable
solution in the draft code.
PO6 of the code seeks to achieve acceptable residential amenity for residents of the use
including security, visual and acoustic privacy, and access to private open space. The current
proposal is considered to increase potential risk of break and enter due to windows in the rear
wall of the building having no natural surveillance.
4.    CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposed development for an Ancillary Dwelling Unit (Caretaker’s residence) requires
assessment against the Detached House Code. The Noosa Plan defines ancillary to mean the
use is incidental and subordinate to the main use occurring on the premises. The proposed
ancillary dwelling is too large to be considered ancillary and therefore does not meet the
definition. The purpose of a caretaker’s residence in an ancillary dwelling unit is to provide a
residence which is subordinate to the business use, which can facilitate 24 hour security and
maintenance of premises by the owner or an employee of the business that could not reasonably
be expected to be achieved or undertaken without the caretaker residing on site. The applicant
has not adequately demonstrated that there is a need for the caretaking requirement of the
premises and has indicated that the residence will only be used on a part time basis. The site is
fully lockable and can be secured with no goods, equipment or materials which would ordinarily
be required to remain outside requiring 24 hour monitoring.
The proposal is unable to accommodate the required carparking for the additional ancillary
dwelling unit which adds to the already existing shortfall of carparking. The site currently has less
car parking than was originally approved for the use. The applicant has provided no justification
for the departure from the required 1 carparking space which would be required in addition to the
1 space already allocated to the premises through the Community Titles Scheme.
The proposal is inconsistent with Overall Outcome 14.51.2 (a) and (b) of the Detached House
Code as the use constitutes a detached house in an industrial zone which accommodates uses
that are incompatible with residential uses and would therefore have the potential to adversely
affect the residential use while also resulting in residential development inhibiting or preventing
industrial uses from effectively operating in the area.
Further, the proposal is also inconsistent with Overall Outcome 14.51.2(e) of the Detached
House Code. The proposal is considered to exacerbate an existing safety and security situation
and is unlikely to achieve the overall outcome as the use has been identified to operate part time,
creates additional points of potential access into the premises with no natural surveillance and is
not considered to promote a high level of safety and security for the occupants. Windows in the
western wall are obscured from view of any other casual or natural surveillance due to the 70+
metre wide vegetated corridor at the rear and no other activity or windows overlooking this area.
There is no surveillance of this area and windows in this location are considered to potentially
exacerbate security breaches.
The Draft Planning Scheme does not support the proposed use and identifies the proposal as
impact and inconsistent. In light of the proposal not being considered ancillary or subordinate to
the use area, the increased risk of potential break-ins occurring from the proposed windows at
the rear of the property; the provision of additional on-site parking being unlikely to be physically
possible; and giving some weight to the Draft Planning Scheme intent, the application is not
supported.
The report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

                                                                                      Page 64 of 80