Council archive · source document
Refused Decision Notice MCU22 0094 · MCU22/0094
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
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed 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.