Original source · versioned page text
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. D153 OF 2023 – APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE – RELOCATABLE HOME PARK (COMMUNITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 32 DWELLINGS) AT 55 AND 70 CARPENTERS RD COOROY · ATTACHMENT 1 – MCU22 0039 – Acting Coordinator Planning, Report
ATTACHMENT 1 – MCU22/0039 – ACTING COORDINATOR PLANNING, REPORT REPORT On 17 August 2023, Council at its Ordinary meeting resolved to refuse a development application for a Material Change of Use - Relocatable Home Park (Community and Affordable Housing – 32 Dwellings) at 55 and 70 Carpenters Road, Cooroy for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is contrary to Section 3.2.2 of the Strategic Intent and Sections 3.3.1(b), (f) and 3.3.3 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (k) of the Strategic Outcomes of the Noosa Plan 2020 as: a. The proposed development is located outside the Urban Boundary, intrudes into a rural residential area, and does not integrate well with the existing settlement pattern and the broader urban areas of the Cooroy community. b. The land is not suited or designated for the proposed housing form. c. The land is located in the vicinity of industrial land uses and industrial zoned land that has the potential to impact the amenity of residents. d. The proposed development is likely to inhibit the development and future use of 70 Carpenters Road and land zoned Low Impact Industry in Jarrah Street due to potential reverse amenity impacts. e. The proposed development will need to provide its own infrastructure and is located outside the Priority Infrastructure Area. 2. The proposed development is contrary to Overall Outcomes 2(b), (j), (l), (p), and PO14 of the Local Plan Code for Cooroy which details that development is to be limited to land within the urban boundary. The site is located outside the urban boundary and does not respond or integrate well with Cooroy’s country town feel, with attached housing planned close to the town centre and low to medium density semi-attached housing dispersed through existing residential neighbourhoods. 3. The proposal is contrary to the Rural Residential Zone Code as the development will not result in a high level of amenity for residents and it does not achieve the zoning intent for houses on larger lots. 4. The proposal is contrary to the Overall Outcomes 2(c), (d), (f), (g) and (h) and PO1, AO1.1, AO1.2, AO1.3, AO1.4, PO4, AO4, PO6, PO7 and PO9 of the Special Residential Zone Code as: a. The proposal does not have reasonable access to a variety of essential services and facilities, including retail, commercial, social and medical facilities and public transport. b. The proposal is not located so as to avoid conflicts with surrounding land uses. c. The proposal is of a high density that is not compatible with the zoning intent and the preferred character of the area. The proposal is of a design, layout and intensity that will not integrate with the broader neighbourhood and allow residents to interact with the wider community. d. The proposed development is not appropriately sited and designed in a manner that is compatible with the developed character of the area. 5. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Driveways and Parking Code as the proposal provides no car parking for likely visitors to the development. 6. The proposal has not demonstrated that safe and satisfactory roadway configuration is achievable to the site from the Carpenters Road and Mary Street/ Jarrah Street roundabout. 7. The proposal does not meet PO6 of the Bushfire Hazard Overlay Code as it has not been demonstrated that an efficient and safe evacuation route is available to residents and that emergency vehicles can access the site. Page 1 of 3
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 2 pages
Page 2
8. The proposal is not consistent with actions A5.3.1 to A5.3.6, A5.6.2, A5.6.3, and A5.7.2 of
the Noosa Housing Strategy 2022 as:
a. The land is not located within the urban boundary and is more than 400m from the town
centre, school and public transport.
b. The land is located where it would have a reverse amenity impact on industrial
business and land committed for industrial purposes.
c. The proposal is not well integrated within the community and is clustered in an isolated
area.
9. The proposal is unlikely to satisfactorily deliver the social outcomes sought as:
a. The land is not suited for the proposed development it has poor accessibility,
adjoins industrial land and is not well connected to services.
b. The proposal has not been designed to integrate well with the neighbourhood and
within the community with driveways extending around the permitter of the site and the
density not consistent with the surrounding character.
c. The applicant has provided no clear mechanisms that can be conditioned through a
development approval to achieve the proposed social/affordable housing outcomes.
10. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development will not interfere with
koala habitat mapped by the state as being Core Koala Habitat Area or that the works in this
area are considered exempt works.
As a result of Council’s decision to refuse the application, the applicant has now lodged an appeal
to the Planning & Environment Court. The applicant seeks that the development be approved
subject to reasonable and relevant conditions.
The matter is in order for Council to defend the appeal and the recommendation is worded
accordingly.
Previous Council Consideration
Not Applicable
Finance & Risk
It is premature at this stage to provide advice on the likely prospects of the appeal. There will be
costs associated with defending the appeal, particularly if the matter proceeds to trial.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil
Internal Consultation
Page 2 of 3
Page 3
Departments consulted:
Office of the CEO, Mayor & Community Services Corporate Services
Councillors
Mayor & Councillors Director Director
Chief Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Officers Sport & Active Lifestyles Fleet
Community Engagement Arts & Culture Revenue Services
People & Culture Community Connection ICT
Governance Customer Experience Commercial Property
Strategy & Environment & Development & Regulation Infrastructure Services
Sustainable Development
Director x Director Director
Strategic Land Use Planning x Development Assessment Infrastructure Planning, Design
and Delivery
Economic Development & Local Laws Civil and Asset operations
Destination Management
Environmental Services Environmental Health Asset Management
Innovation & Digital Hub Building & Plumbing Building & Facilities
Property / Permits Disaster Management
Waste
Page 3 of 3