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

Original source · versioned page text

Meeting papers

of 201

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

Very large file (49.0 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.

ATTACHMENT 2 - MCU22 0060


REPORT
On 19 August 2022 Council officers under delegation refused a development application for a dual
occupancy at 6 Margit Crescent, Sunrise Beach primarily due to the proposal’s non-compliance with
the planning scheme requirements for an asymmetrical design, site cover and gross floor area. Some
issues were also identified with the proposed stormwater design.

The following reasons for refusal were provided in the Decision Notice to the applicant:
1.   The proposal results in a development that does not comply with the following provisions of
     the Noosa Plan 2020 Medium Density Residential Zone Code in respect to the following:
     a.    Overall Outcome (2)(c) and PO9 as the proposal does not maintain a low scale character
           consistent with the look and feel of the neighbourhood and will have a built form that
           presents an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties and the streetscape.
     b.    Overall Outcome (2)(g) as the proposal does not include small dwellings to increase
           housing choice.
     c.    Performance Outcomes PO9 and PO10 as the proposed site cover exceeds 40% of the
           site area and the proposed dwelling units are not small dwellings;
     d.    Performance Outcome PO11 as the proposed plot ratio exceeds 0.4:1 and the proposed
           dwelling units are not small dwellings.
     e.    Acceptable Outcome AO14.1 and Performance Outcome PO14 as the proposed
           development
            i.      does not provide sufficient visual interest to the street as it has not satisfactorily
                    highlighted the individual dwelling units and provided an asymmetrical design
                    street presentation and
           ii.      Does not satisfactorily incorporate individual design elements and take the form
                    of small separate buildings.
2.   The proposed stormwater design is contrary to the Water Quality and Drainage Code as it is
     not designed to be cost effective across its design life as the design has a high potential to fail
     and consequently impact the system’s overall ability to function as intended.




                                                                                            Page 1 of 6

                                                                                                 Page 164 of 201
Log in to download the original file

f296ff4598.pdf · 49.0 MB (very large file)

The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.

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”.