2019-07-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                          9 JULY 2019


The original approval required that all buildings have a maximum height of 2 storeys and 8.0
metres, except for Villa 2 which may be 8.50 metres. Villa 2 on the original approved plans was
situated above the existing car park to the front of the site. The current proposal maintains the 2
storey height limit but results in the buildings to the rear of the site exceeding 8 metres. The
following table details the heights of these buildings:
      Villa building             Extent of fill        Height to top of wall     Height to top of roof
                                                      above natural ground      above natural ground
                                                               level                     level
       Villa 1 and 2             1.10 metres              7.17 metres               9.30 metres
       Villa 3 and 4             1.50 metres              8.11 metres               9.75 metres

The increased height is generally related to the extent of fill required for each building. The fill
creates a platform for the new buildings which is consistent with the level of existing development
on site to the west of the proposed buildings. The applicant advises….that the fill is required to
provide a relatively level site for residents noting that many utilise walking frames or have stability
issues. Minimising trip hazards such as stairs or significant changes in level is an important
component of Carramar’s safety requirements.
Whilst the maximum height of the buildings require a significant variation to the 8.0 metre maximum
building height permitted by the planning scheme, the variation does not result in the buildings
dominating the street, surrounding spaces or the existing skyline. It is noted that approximately
900mm of the building height relates to the skylights which are centrally located and unlikely to be
visible to surrounding properties. It is also noted that the applicant maintains compliance with the
scheme requirements by providing a 7o roof pitch. It is recommended that the variation to the
building height be supported and the relevant conditions be amended to reflect the amended plans.
Further, the amended layout has been reviewed by Council’s Environment Officer (water quality)
who is satisfied with the revised Integrated Stormwater Management Plan on the basis that the
following additional conditions be included which address the ongoing maintenance of the system.
      47.   All elements of the approved Integrated Stormwater Management Plan system must
            be maintained in accordance with the Water by Design, Maintaining Vegetated
            Stormwater Quality Treatment Assets or manufacturer’s maintenance protocol where
            appropriate.
      48.   Stormwater management measures must be maintained in accordance with this
            approval and a contract by an appropriate company to undertake maintenance in
            accordance with this approval for a minimum 10 years must be signed and provided to
            Council prior to the commencement of use.
Consequential changes to conditions
The amended plans require consequential changes to conditions 1, 6, 26(b) and 36. The changes
generally relate to the amended list of plans, and conditions which make reference to plans which
have been updated. The amendment to condition 6 relates to the increased height of the
development. Furthermore Item 9 of the decision notice is to be rectified to remove the reference
to the remnant requirement for a further Development Permit for Material Change of Use being
required.
4.    DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME
The draft Noosa Plan proposes to zone the site Community Facilities (Residential Care Facilities)
and a future application would be subject to code assessment. The extent of site covered by the
Biodiversity Overlay is proposed to be reduced, being more reflective of the existing vegetation
cover. The flood hazard is consistent with Council’s current modelling.




                                                                                      Page 47 of 128