Skip to the record
Noosa’s premier civic archive.

Council archive · source document

Refused Decision Notice MCU22 0094 · MCU22/0094

of 6

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

                      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

Used in these records

About this file

File size
297 KB (small file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

Refused Decision Notice MCU22 0094.pdf · 297 KB (small file)

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”.