Development Tribunals Final Decision - Appeal no. 23-052 for 6 & 8 Coral Sea Court, Sunshine Beach - Signed · RAP23/0003

31.   The most dominant streetscape feature in this part of Coral Coast Court is the large, very
      high set modern dwelling at 12 Coral Coast Court, which occupies the highest site and
      dominates the whole frontage at the top end of this cul-de-sac. This dwelling with its
      setback, fenestrated living areas behind extensive, full length balconies, is very similar in
      design to the proposed subject development.

32.   The proposed development will have minimal impact on the overall streetscape because it
      fronts the private road higher up from the top of the Coral Coast Court cul-de-sac and is
      effectively located ‘side on’ to Coral Coast Court and the dominant dwelling at 12 Coral
      Coast Court which takes up the full frontage at the head of the cul-de-sac which is below
      the subject site.

Reasons for the decision

33.   The Tribunal concurs with the appellant’s and Council’s agreement at the time of the
      hearing that there are no grounds for refusing the proposed dwelling in the original
      development application on the basis that the proposed development does not comply
      with Acceptable Outcome AO19.1 and Performance Outcome 19 of the Noosa Council
      ‘Low Density Residential Code’.

34.   The Tribunal concurs with the appellant’s and Council’s agreement at the time of the
      hearing that there are no grounds for refusing the dwelling as originally proposed on the
      basis that the proposed development does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO 9.4
      and Performance Outcome 9 of the Noosa Council ‘Low Density Residential Code’, given
      the extent of pre-existing boundary fence heights and the lower height now proposed for
      the new boundary fence.

35.   The Tribunal finds that the proposal as amended will comply with Performance Outcome
      PO16 of the Noosa Shire Low Density Residential Code in that the roof design does not
      present an appearance of excessive bulk to the street and neighbouring properties; and
      will not create opportunities for residents or building users to overlook the private open
      spaces or view into the habitable windows and doors of neighbouring properties.

36.   For clarity, the Tribunal had regard to Acceptable Outcome AO16.3 that states
      ‘Development does not include rooftop terraces’. The Tribunal formed the view that the
      proposal includes a roof top terrace, not a balcony as claimed by the appellant’s
      representatives – given both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define a balcony inter
      alia as a platform built out from a wall. The Tribunal formed the opinion that the distinction
      between a balcony and a rooftop terrace was immaterial in this case, given the Tribunal
      was of the opinion that the proposed development would comply with Performance
      Outcome PO16 of the Noosa Shire Low Density Residential Code.

37.   The Tribunal finds that the proposal as amended will comply with Performance Outcome
      PO7 of the Noosa Shire Low Density Residential Code in that:
       a. the building height does not exceed two storeys and is consistent with nearby
           premises and the predominant character of the area.
       b. the design will provide an interesting streetscape and complements the landform
           and is responsive to the topography of the site.
       c. the design will not visually dominate the landscape nor present the appearance of
           excessive bulk.
       d. the proposal will not significantly nor unreasonably obscure views from neighbouring
           properties.

38.   For clarity, the Tribunal finds that the visual intrusion into the sight line above 8 metres
      from the natural ground level is of a very minor nature and will provide an interesting
      streetscape and complement the landform changes without significantly impacting, or




                                                  6