Skip to the record
NoosaWatch™: The source of truth.

Original source · versioned page text

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. BD2147 of 2022 – APPLICATION FOR A DUAL OCCUPANCY AT 6 MARGIT CRESCENT, SUNRISE BEACH · ATTACHMENT 2 - MCU22 0060 REPORT

of 6

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

      •     An increase to the minimum front and rear setbacks
      •     3 distinct roof forms rather than 2
      •     The louvres of the vergola at the rear of the dwelling units remain fixed
      •     The plot ratio of the building has been reduced to comply with the maximum plot ratio of 0.4:1
            by:
            o replacing the multi-purpose rooms and ensuites on the upper level of both dwelling units
                with unroofed balconies and
            o reducing the area of the living rooms on the lower floor of each dwelling unit by increasing
                the indentations in the northern and southern walls.
The amendments not only reduce the building bulk but assist in better articulating the building
particularly the proposed building’s presentation to the side boundaries.




  Figure 5 – Comparison of front façade render of refused proposal (left) and proposed amended plans (right)

Council’s architect for the appeal and officers have reviewed the plans and conclude that the plans
now comply with the Noosa Plan 2020.
Since the amended plans were provided in February 2023, discussions have been had with the
applicant on the proposed conditions, with the applicant now accepting the recommended conditions.
It is therefore recommended that the appeal be settled with reasonable and relevant conditions.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 15 December 2022, Item 1, Page 5
That Council note the report by the Acting Manager Development Assessment to the Planning &
Environment Committee Meeting dated 6 December 2022 in relation to Planning & Environment
Court Appeal BD2147 of 2022 and approve the defence of the appeal.
Finance & Risks
Should Council not wish to settle the appeal, there will be further costs in defending the appeal and
while advice on prospects has not been received from Council’s barrister, based on the expert
architect’s advice and officer’s assessment of the amended plans, a favourable outcome by trial may
be unlikely.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Thynne Macartney – Tim Quirk


Internal Consultation
Nil
Departments/Sections Consulted:
          Mayor                     Community Services                            Corporate Services

          Councillors               Director                                      Director
                                    Community Development                         Financial Services


                                                                                                   Page 5 of 6
Log in to download the original file

ATTACHMENT 2 - MCU22 0060 REPORT.pdf · 2.8 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

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”.