Council archive · source document
Refused Decision Notice MCU22 0094 · MCU22/0094
Officer: Nadine Gorton
Direct Telephone: 07 53296215
Our Reference: MCU22/0094
Your Reference: n/a
25 June 2024
Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd
PO Box 3144
SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101
[email protected]
Dear Sir/Madam
Decision Notice
Planning Act 2016
I refer to your application and advise that on 20 June 2024, Council decided to refuse the
application.
Details of the decision are as follows:
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No: MCU22/0094
Street address: Noosa Civic 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville Qld 4566
Real property description: Lot 3 SP 246584
Planning Scheme: Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020)
2. TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
The application sought the following type of development approval:
• Material Change of Use - Childcare centre
3. REASONS FOR REFUSAL
1. The proposed development is not consistent with condition no. 53 of Development Permit to
Reconfigure a Lot (1 lot into 23 lots) RAL18/0023 as the proposal does not include the
required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the Strategic Intent and Strategic Outcomes 3.3.1(o), and
3.3.5 (s)(i) (D) of the Noosa Plan 2020 as the proposal fails to incorporate the 10m wide
landscaping required to Hofmann Drive to achieve the parklike, vegetated setting envisaged
for the centre which is synonymous with the Noosa style.
3. The proposal is not consistent with acceptable and performance outcomes AO5, PO5,
AO7.4, PO7 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code as:
ABN 97.969.214.121 PO Box 141
noosa.qld.gov.au Tewantin QLD 4565
[email protected] 07 5329 6500
Page 1 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 5 pages
Page 2
a. The development does not retain or propose to enhance the required 10m wide
landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive which is important to contribute and create
the character sought for the Noosa Business Centre.
4. The proposal is not consistent with the overall outcome (3)(f) and (4) acceptable and
performance outcomes AO32.4, AO32.5, AO32.6, PO32 and PO33 of the Major Centre Zone
as:
a. Reducing the width of the landscaped garden beds required to Hofmann Drive,
particularly where this approach is continued for the remainder of the lots with frontage
to Hofmann Drive, will compromise and impact the ability to achieve a centre which is
overall recognisable as having a Noosa style.
b. The proposal does not retain, incorporate, or enhance the existing vegetation within
the required 10m wide landscaped garden bed to Hofmann Drive, which is important to
enhance the visual amenity and natural landscape character of the Noosa Business
Centre.
c. The proposal disrupts the landscaped streetscape treatment required to Hofmann
Drive intended to enhance the amenity and contribute positively to the centre’s
character.
d. The proposed use is an inconsistent use in the Major Centre Zone Code – Business
Park Precinct will not deliver the commercial and employment uses intended for the
Precinct such as health and wellbeing, education, research and technology and
knowledge-based industries.
e. The bio retention basin at the front of the site is located within the required setback
area and in front of the proposed carparking area which results in the development
being more visible to the road and not located in a park like setting.
5. The proposal is not consistent with overall outcome 2(a), (d) and performance outcome PO8
of the Sustainable Building Design Code as the development does not provide a minimum
floor to ceiling height of 2.7m.
6. The proposed bicycle parking is not consistent with acceptable outcomes AO6.1 of the
Driveways and Parking Code as they are located in an area that impedes access around the
site.
4. REFERRAL AGENCIES
The referral agencies applicable to this application are:
Referral Status Referral Agency and Referral Trigger Response
Address
Advice Energex Limited Town Schedule, 10, Part 9, The agency provided its
Planning GPO Box Division 2, Table 2 – response on 22 June
1461 BRISBANE QLD Premises near a 2022 (Reference No.
4001 substation site or subject HBD 7618080). A copy
to an easement of the response is
attached.
5. SUBMISSIONS
There was one properly made submission about the application. In accordance with the Planning
Act 2016, the name, address and electronic address of the principal submitter for each properly
made submission is provided and attached.
Page 2 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
Page 3
6. RIGHTS OF APPEAL
You are entitled to appeal against this decision. A copy of the relevant appeal provisions from the
Planning Act 2016 is attached.
7. OTHER DETAILS
If you wish to obtain more information about the decision, electronic copies are available on line at
www.noosa.qld.gov.au or at Council Offices.
Yours faithfully,
Richard
Director- Development Regulation
Phone: 07 5329 6500
Email: [email protected]
Enc: Referral Agency Response
List of Submitters
Appeal Rights
cc. Energex
Page 3 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
Page 4
Referral Agency Response
PLANNING ACT 2016 & PLANNING REGULATION 2017
Page 4 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
Page 5
List of Submitters
PLANNING ACT 2016 & PLANNING REGULATION 2017
Name Email Address
Vanessa Hazelton 11 Elm Court Yandina
Page 5 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
Page 6
Appeal Rights
PLANNING ACT 2016 & PLANNING REGULATION 2017
Chapter 6 Dispute resolution (3) The appellant or, for an appeal to a tribunal, the registrar must,
within the service period, give a copy of the notice of appeal to –
Part 1 Appeal rights
(a) the respondent for the appeal; and
229 Appeals to tribunal or P&E Court
(b) each co-respondent for the appeal; and
(1) Schedule 1 of the Planning Act 2016 states –
(c) for an appeal about a development application under schedule
(a) Matters that may be appealed to –
1, table 1, item 1 – each principal submitter for the
(i) either a tribunal or the P&E Court; or development application; and
(ii) only a tribunal; or (d) for and appeal about a change application under schedule 1,
table 1, item 2 – each principal submitter for the change
(iii) only the P&E Court; and
application; and
(b) The person-
(e) each person who may elect to become a co-respondent for the
(i) who may appeal a matter (the appellant); and appeal, other than an eligible submitter who is not a principal
submitter in an appeal under paragraph (c) or (d); and
(ii) who is a respondent in an appeal of the matter; and
(f) for an appeal to the P&E Court – the chief executive; and
(iii) who is a co-respondent in an appeal of the matter; and
(g) for an appeal to a tribunal under another Act – any other
(iv) who may elect to be a co-respondent in an appeal of the
person who the registrar considers appropriate.
matter.
(4) The service period is –
(2) An appellant may start an appeal within the appeal period.
(a) if a submitter or advice agency started the appeal in the P&E
(3) The appeal period is –
Court – 2 business days after the appeal has started; or
(a) for an appeal by a building advisory agency – 10 business
(b) otherwise – 10 business days after the appeal is started.
days after a decision notice for the decision is given to the
agency; or (5) A notice of appeal given to a person who may elect to be a co-
respondent must state the effect of subsection (6).
(b) for an appeal against a deemed refusal – at any time after the
deemed refusal happens; or (6) A person elects to be a co-respondent by filing a notice of election,
in the approved form, within 10 business days after the notice of
(c) for an appeal against a decision of the Minister, under chapter
appeal is given to the person.
7, part 4, to register premises or to renew the registration of
premises – 20 business days after a notice us published under 231 Other appeals
section 269(3)(a) or (4); or
(1) Subject to this chapter, schedule 1 and the P&E Court Act, unless
(d) for an appeal against an infrastructure charges notice – 20 the Supreme Court decides a decision or other matter under this
business days after the infrastructure charges notice is given Act is affected by jurisdictional error, the decision or matter is non-
to the person; or appealable.
(e) for an appeal about a deemed approval of a development (2) The Judicial Review Act 1991, part 5 applies to the decision or
application for which a decision notice has not been given – matter to the extent it is affected by jurisdictional error.
30 business days after the applicant gives the deemed
(3) A person who, but for subsection (1) could have made an
approval notice to the assessment manager; or
application under the Judicial Review Act 1991 in relation to the
(f) for any other appeal – 20 business days after a notice of the decision or matter, may apply under part 4 of that Act for a
decision for the matter, including an enforcement notice, is statement of reasons in relation to the decision or matter.
given to the person.
(4) In this section –
Note – decision includes-
See the P&E Court Act for the court’s power to extend the appeal
(a) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision; and
period.
(b) other conduct that relates to the making of a decision; and
(4) Each respondent and co-respondent for an appeal may be heard
in the appeal. (c) the making of a decision or failure to make a decision; and
(5) If an appeal is only about a referral agency’s response, the (d) a purported decision; and
assessment manager may apply to the tribunal or P&E Court to
(e) a deemed refusal.
withdraw from the appeal.
non-appealable, for a decision or matter, means the decision or
(6) To remove any doubt. It is declared that an appeal against an
matter-
infrastructure charges notice must not be about-
(a) is final and conclusive; and
(a) the adopted charge itself; or
(b) may not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed,
(b) for a decision about an offset or refund-
set aside or called into question in any other way under the
(i) the establishment cost of trunk infrastructure identified in Judicial Review Act 1991 or otherwise, whether by the
a LGIP; or Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity; and
(ii) the cost of infrastructure decided using the method (c) is not subject to any declaratory, injunctive or other order of
included in the local government’s charges resolution. the Supreme Court, another court, a tribunal or another entity
on any ground.
230 Notice of appeal
232 Rules of the P&E Court
(1) An appellant starts an appeal by lodging, with the registrar of the
tribunal or P&E Court, a notice of appeal that- (1) A person who is appealing to the P&E Court must comply with the
rules of the court that apply to the appeal.
(a) is in the approved form; and
(b) succinctly states the grounds of the appeal. (2) However, the P&E Court may hear and decide an appeal even if
the person has not complied with the rules of the P&E Court
(2) The notice of appeal must be accompanied by the required fee.
Page 6 of 6
Document Set ID: 23071497
Version: 6, Version Date: 26/06/2024
Used in these records
Refused Decision Notice MCU22 0094.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 297 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.