REPS M2915 - Negotiated Decision Representations_200522

Page 2

.




     1) Include a lift, if physically possible, given the small nature of the site; or
     2) remove 1 dwelling (resulting a change of landuse from 3 Multiple Dwellings to a Dual Occupancy)

We contend that neither of the above options are reasonable outcomes for the subject development proposal. Our
change representations are outlined as follows.



2.0 SECTION 2 – DECISION DETAILS


Council decided to issue the following type of approval:
    • Preliminary Approval for Material Change of Use - Multiple dwelling, Office
    • Preliminary Approval for Operational Works - Roadwork, Drainage Work, Landscaping, Stormwater, Earthworks

COMMENTS:

2.1 Preliminary comments on validity of the assessment benchmarks

Notably, the National Construction Code (NCC) does not mandate that Class 2 buildings i.e. sole occupancy multi dwelling
units are required to provide access for people of varied mobility.

We consider that the PO9/AO9 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code, which seek to provide greater
equitable access are more properly regarded as a building matter and not a planning matter. As such, in their effect, the
provisions conflict with the Building Act and National Construction Code (NCC).

In this regard, Section 17 of the Planning Regulation 2017 provides that a planning scheme must not in its effect be
inconsistent with the effect of certain assessment benchmarks including provisions of the Building Act. Reference is made
to an extract of Section 17 below:

          17Assessment benchmarks that local categorising instruments may not be inconsistent with
          For section 43(5)(c) of the Act, a local categorising instrument may not, in its effect, be inconsistent with the effect
          of the following assessment benchmarks—
          (a)…;
          (b) the building assessment provisions stated in the Building Act, section 30(a) to (d), (f) or (g);
          (c)…;

Section 31(3)-(5) of the Building Act 1975 also provides that the effect of the relevant building assessment provisions
cannot be changed by a planning scheme and, to the extent a planning scheme includes provisions about building work in
conflict with the Building Act 1975, the planning scheme is of no effect.

In light of this, we contend that PO9/AO9 seek to, in their effect, regulate matters that are more properly regarded as a
building matters and are therefore of no effect. It follows that Council cannot rely on such provisions to impose Condition
2.1 and issue a preliminary approval.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                        Page 2

Page 3

.




Even if Council disagrees with the above, there are other planning grounds, which we rely on to support our requested
changes to the approval and related conditions. These are outlined as follows:

2.2 Planning Intent

The overall outcomes of the Coastal communities local plan code allows for mixed use development in Medium Density
Residential Zone on seven specific sites where provided in buildings of a domestic scale. In particular, Section
7.2.6.2 provides the purpose and overall outcomes of the Local Plan Code. Section 7.2.6.2(2) includes the following
relevant overall outcomes:

          (z) Development in Peregian Beach –
             i.    provides local convenience shopping, business and employment services, for both permanent residents
                   and visitors.
            ii.    provides multi-unit accommodation located in close proximity to the Peregian Beach Local Centre.
            iii.   maintains Peregian Beach Local Centre’s ‘signature’ informal village-like atmosphere, featuring a low key,
                   attractive village square that distinguishes the Peregian Beach Local Centre from other centres in the local
                   plan area and the wider region. Development and redevelopment maintains the existing strong sense of
                   place and the centre’s function and capacity to provide a public focus for local community interaction and
                   activity.
            iv.    provides a slightly wider range of employment opportunities than other parts of the local plan area due to
                   its more distant separation from a major urban centre.
             v.    in the Innovation zone includes the digital hub and other professional services for local businesses both
                   within and outside the local plan area as well as providing employment opportunities in the digital and
                   creative technology sectors.
            vi.    in the Medium residential zone on the western side of David Low Way provides for mixed use residential
                   with office or health services in buildings of a domestic scale.
           vii.    in the Local Centre Zone provides for well-designed entertainment and dining activities which may operate
                   after hours and include controlled live acoustic and amplified music and entertainment which creates a
                   vibrant atmosphere.
          viii.    maintains the operational efficiency of the Sunshine Coast Airport and enhances the safely of aircraft
                   operating within the airports operational airspace.

The Medium density residential zone is normally reserved and intended for medium density residential uses (and limited
community and other uses to serve local residents). Importantly, the overall outcomes do not reference mixed-use
developments in the zone. The purpose and overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential Code are reproduced
below:

           6.3.2.2 Purpose and overall outcomes
           1.      The purpose of the Medium density residential zone is to provide for:-
                   a) medium density multiple dwellings; and
                   b) community uses, and small-scale services, facilities and infrastructure, to support local residents.
           2.      The overall outcomes sought for the Medium density residential zone are as follows:-




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                      Page 3

Page 4

.




                  a) Medium density residential neighbourhoods are predominantly home to permanent residents.
                  b) The character of medium density residential neighbourhoods varies due to factors such as proximity
                     to beaches, the Noosa River, recreation spaces, centres, topography, availability of views, the
                     established vegetated character, the presence of visitor accommodation and the age of development.
                  c) Development makes a positive contribution to the look and feel of residential neighbourhoods by
                     maintaining a low scale character with well designed buildings and landscaping that enhance the
                     streetscape.
                  d) New uses are located, designed and managed to be compatible with surrounding uses.
                  e) The intrusion of incompatible uses, or uses which are more appropriately accommodated in other
                     zones is avoided to protect land for dual occupancies, community residences, rooming
                     accommodation, multiple dwellings, retirement and relocatable home park facilities.
                  f) Development caters for both the current and projected demographic and socio-economic profile of
                     the area, including one and two-person households, households on low to moderate incomes and
                     residents with reduced mobility.
                  g) Small dwellings and co-housing models are integrated within the medium density residential built
                     form to increase housing choice.

Performance outcome PO1, within Table 6.3.2.3 - Criteria for assessment of the Medium Density Residential code,
provides:

          PO1 Development provides for medium density dual occupancy and multiple dwellings in a range of dwelling sizes
          and styles, which meet the needs of current and future resident populations including small households, older
          persons, people on low incomes and people with special mobility needs.

Performance outcome PO7 of the Medium Density Residential code provides a more fine-grained local planning intent for
Peregian Beach. It states:

          Peregian Beach
          PO7
          Offices and health care services are allowed for in conjunction with small dwellings in a mixed use format on
          premises located on the western side of David Low Way (street numbers 233-245), Peregian Beach, on land
          described as Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 P9315 and all lots on BUP9496.

(Author’s emphasis added in bold-type).

Notwithstanding the general planning intent, which supports medium density residential uses within the Medium Density
Residential zone, it is clear that the detailed local planning intent expressed in Performance Outcome (PO7), and which
specifically applies to 7 small lots on the western side of David Low Way including the subject site, allows for Offices and
Health care services, where provided in a mixed use format. See Figure 1 below.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                   Page 4

Page 5

.




                              Figure 1 – Locality Plan


Nowhere else is this situation allowed in the Medium density residential zone, as mixed-use developments are usually
reserved for centre/ commercial zones. The relevant provisions also mandate that the commercial aspect occurs at grade
and for carparking to be provided at the rear. Hence, the residential component is required to be established above
ground or on the first floor. That is, in an apartment format instead of a traditional 2 storey townhouse format with
bathroom at ground level.

In the event we were providing a standalone residential (multiple dwelling) development, as is usually anticipated by the
zone, the provision of step free access, wide door openings and bathroom at grade would be readily achievable to satisfy
AO9 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code.

In this instance, however, the planning scheme expresses a local planning intent for an apartment style typology for the
site, by virtue of its support for mixed use format development outcomes for the site and the other 6 small sites
identified in Peregian Beach. As a consequence, it promotes mixed use development above the desire for development
which is accessible by people of varied mobility, who can be catered for in other Medium Density Residential zoned sites,
located in close proximity to centre precincts.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                Page 5

Page 6

.




2.3 Scale of Development

The development application seeks approval for 3 Multiple Dwellings (comprising small dwellings) and an 80m2 Office.
This is generally consistent with the local plan and zoning intent for the subject site, being a mix-use format of a domestic
scale. The proposal plans demonstrate that this outcome can be suitably accommodated on the site. However,
Condition 2.1 of the approval, which requires the development to provide access to persons with limited mobility
precludes this outcome, as it essentially requires the development to be redesigned to include a lift or remove 1 dwelling
(resulting in a Dual Occupancy).

Council’s requirement to include greater equitable access effectively makes the development economically unviable,
particularly given the small or ‘domestic’ scale of the proposal. The proposed size and scale of the development is not
dissimilar to a Dual Occupancy or a Dwelling House, neither of which are required to provide more equitable access under
the planning scheme.

If a lift was to be provided (without removing a dwelling, which we contend is not achievable or viable), the initial
construction and ongoing maintenance costs would significantly reduce the dwellings’ affordability and inflate the Body
Corporate fees to an extent the development is no longer economically feasible.

Morgan Consultant Engineers has prepared a lift construction cost comparison based upon previous projects to
demonstrate the additional construction costs involved with the inclusion of a lift (assuming 3 units can be achieved).
Refer to Appendix A.

The lift cost comparison indicates that the installation of the lift will result in additional cost of $138,200 or an additional
$46,066 per unit.

It is clear from the above that a condition which in effect necessitates construction of a lift, represents a significant
financial imposition on this small scale development, and on future purchasers / owners.

It is noted that the applicant has provided equitable access provisions in compliance with the PO9/AO9 on larger Medium
Density Residential zoned sites within Noosa Council area. For example, 99, 101 & 105 Eumundi Noosa Rd, Noosaville
(MCU20/0151.01). It is considered that such an outcome is not feasible or warranted for the current application, given
the scale and nature (i.e domestic scale) of the proposal and the small site area.

In light of the above, Council’s decision to impose Condition 2.1 on a mixed use development involving only 3 Multiple
Dwellings is considered neither reasonable nor relevant in the circumstances. For example:

         it results in an unreasonable financial imposition on a small-scale development that seeks to provide affordable
          “small dwellings”.
         the proposed 3 small (2 bed) Multiple Dwellings comprises the same equivalent persons/ occupancy rate, as a 2 x
          3 bedroom Dual Occupancy. Notably, a Dual Occupancy is not required to provide greater equitable access under
          the planning scheme even though it is for a similar scale.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                       Page 6

Page 7

.




         it is not a relevant requirement as the planning scheme expresses a local intent to allow mixed use development
          on small Medium Density Residential zoned sites, which by their nature will require an apartment style mixed use
          outcome instead of a traditional townhouse outcome.

2.4 Affordability

The need for affordable housing in the Noosa local government area is a critical issue, as highlighted by the recent Noosa
Housing Needs Assessment 2021, which was commissioned by Council in response to the housing crisis that is impacting
the community. The purpose of the Needs Assessment was to investigate and assist Council to develop a Housing
Strategy that improves housing choice and affordability within the shire, including for those households on low to
moderate incomes.

2.4.1 Design investigations
Blackburne Jackson Design (BJD) architects have confirmed that it is not possible to design a Code compliant mixed-use
development comprising 3 x 2 bedroom units plus a lift due to the small site area. Whilst it may be possible to maintain 3
dwelling units albeit incorporating 1 bedroom units, such an outcome is not a viable option for this location and is not
proposed.

The alternative to providing the proposed 3 small dwelling units is to provide 2 units (ie a Dual Occupancy) in a mixed use
format. The attached concept plan prepared by BJD architects (refer to Appendix B) demonstrates that if a lift is included,
the site can only viably support a mixed use development comprising 2 units, noting that a lift would not be required for
such a proposal, as PO9 “reduced mobility” requirements do not apply.

Such an outcome is not desirable as it reduces housing choice afforded by the current proposal for 3 small dwellings, and
erodes housing affordability as it results in larger (more expensive) dwelling units.

2.4.2 Additional construction and maintenance cost
Incorporating a lift as required, in effect, by Condition 2.1 will add to the overall construction cost of the development. As
mentioned in Section 2.3 above, the inclusion of a lift will add an additional $138,200 to the construction cost or an
additional $46,066 per dwelling unit. Therefore, by installing a lift as implied by Condition 2.1 results in a 13.6% increase
in cost per unit.

In addition, the inclusion of a lift will also attract ongoing maintenance cost that will be required to be borne by the future
purchasers / owners. Cassels Strata, strata management consultants have prepared a budget estimate which
demonstrates the additional and ongoing costs associated with a lift (Refer to Appendix C). The report indicates the Body
Corporate fees would increase by $10,070 per annum compared to the Body corporate fees without the lift. This equates
to an additional $2,517 per unit/ annum or a 45% increase in the Body Corporate fees as a direct result of installing the
lift.

The additional costs (both construction and ongoing maintenance) outlined above are a significant and present an
unreasonable imposition on a development of this scale.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                     Page 7

Page 8

.




Further, Council’s Condition 2.1, in its operation, is clearly contrary to Council’s desire to address housing affordability as
it will remove affordable small dwellings from the Peregian Beach locale, which has an acute lack of well-located
affordable housing options, particularly for those households on low to moderate incomes.

2.5 Process

At no time during the application process, did Council indicate that it would require the proposal to provide access to the
residential units for less mobile residents or visitors. Importantly, our client sought to work closely with Council officers by
partaking in the pre-lodgement process and at no stage was the issue raised throughout the assessment phase of the
application.

Only after we, at Council’s request, agreed to provide Council additional time to finalise its decision, did Council raise the
concern about providing greater equitable access.

Leaving aside the question of whether there is a planning justification for Council’s requirement (which we believe there
is not), it is unconscionable for Council as the assessment manager to impose a full redesign requirement so late in the
approval process. If the issue was so critical for Council, it should have been identified and raised much earlier in the
assessment process.

2.6 Summary

Section 60(2)(b) of the Planning Act 2016 is reproduced below:

          (1)      This section applies to a properly made application, other than a part of a development application that is
          a variation request.
          (2) To the extent the application involves development that requires code assessment, and subject to section 62,
          the assessment manager, after carrying out the assessment—
          (a) must decide to approve the application to the extent the development complies with all of the assessment
          benchmarks for the development; and
          (b) may decide to approve the application even if the development does not comply with some of the assessment
          benchmarks; and
                Examples—
                1 An assessment manager may approve an application for development that does not comply with some
                of the benchmarks if the decision resolves a conflict between the benchmarks.
                2…
        (c) may impose development conditions on an approval; and
        (d)….
(Author’s emphasis added in bold-type).

Section 60 of the Planning Act 2016 provides Council with discretion to approve an application even if the development
does not comply with some of the assessment benchmarks. This is particularly so where the approval of the application
resolves a conflict between other assessment benchmarks. We consider the following grounds support the exercise of




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                      Page 8

Page 9

.




Council’s discretion to issue a development permit, despite a potential conflict with PO9 of the Dual Occupancy and
Multi-Unit Use Code, (assuming the provision is valid). The development:

         Includes 3 small dwellings thus providing diverse housing choices
         Is a mixed use format of a domestic scale
         Provides an office at ground level and parking at the rear
         Retains existing mature vegetation along the site’s frontage (where possible)
         Results in affordable housing for low to moderate income households
         Is not required to provide greater equitable accessible under the mandatory building requirements for Class 2
          sole occupancy units
         Does not preclude the development of more accessible multiple dwellings on other well-located Medium Density
          Residential zoned sites within Peregian Beach. On the contrary, other Medium Density Residential zoned sites are
          not promoted as mixed use sites and are therefore able to provide access for people of varied mobility.

Based on the representations above, we consider that there are appropriate grounds for Council to amend Condition 2.1
and approve the application for a Development Permit. Accordingly, we request that Council upgrade the Preliminary
Approval to Development Permit, and amend the decision notice as follows.

          Council decided to issue the following type of approval:
          • Preliminary Approval Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Multiple dwelling, Office
          • Preliminary Approval Development Permit for Operational Works - Roadwork, Drainage Work, Landscaping,
          Stormwater, Earthworks



3.0 SECTION 3. CURRENCY PERIOD OF APPROVAL

The currency period for this development approval is stated in the conditions below.

Comment
We request and believe that the currency period of the approval should be incorporated into this part of the
development approval only and not in the approval conditions. The stated currency period aligns with the default
currency period under the Planning Act 2017 and is not a sunset clause for a staged development. Accordingly, we
request that Section 3 be amended as follows:

     The currency period for this development approval is stated in the conditions below.
          This development approval for Material Change of Use lapses if the use has not happened by 29 March 2028,
                 unless an application to extend the currency period is approved by Council
                The development approval for Operational works lapses if the development has not substantially started by 29
                 March 2028, unless an application to extend the currency period is approved by Council.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                   Page 9

Page 10

.




4.0 SECTION 4 – ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS

Condition 1
 1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of
    development. The approved plans are numbered 1622-DA02 to DA09 prepared by Blackburn and Jackson, dated 11
    February 2022, and 1622_L01_01_03 and 1662_L03_01_03 prepared by Blackburn and Jackson, dated 11 February
    2022. These plans must be amended in accordance with these conditions.

Comment
In accordance with the outcomes sought by these representations the proposal plans are considered to be generally in
accordance with the approval sought. However, in response to the outcomes sought by the Arborist report (attached as
Appendix D) we have updated OPW landscape plan to reflect the retention of the vegetation in the front verge (where
possible) and the new fence alignment to accord with Condition 15 of this approval. As a consequence of the outcomes
sought by these representations we are of the opinion that no further plan amendments are required or necessary. It is
therefore recommended that the list of approved plans be updated to reflect amendments undertaken as part of the
Negotiated decision process and that Condition 1 be amended as followed:

     1. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of
        development. The approved plans are numbered 1622-DA02 to DA09 prepared by Blackburn and Jackson, dated
        11 February 2022, and 1622_L01_01_03 and 1662_L03_01_03 1622_L01_01_04 and 1662_L03_01_04 prepared
        by Blackburn and Jackson, dated 11 February 19 May 2022. These plans must be amended in accordance with
        these conditions.

Condition 2
2. Amended plans and associated reports must be submitted to Council prior to any further development applications
   being made and must include the following to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, Development Assessment:
   2.1. One of the three (3) Multiple Dwelling units is to be:
         i. accessible by a safe, continuous and step free path of travel from the street entrance of the property or from a
         car parking space;
         ii. has a step-free entrance door with opening width of at least 820 millimetres; and
         iii. contains a bathroom on the entry level.
   2.2 The depth of the vertical screen along the front façade of Unit 1 is to be reduced to 350mm; the outermost
         projection of Unit 1 is not to exceed 5.45 metres from the front property boundary.

Comment:

Condition 2.1
We refer Council to our comments above made in relation to Section 2 of the decision notice. In light of these arguments
we request that Council delete Condition 2.1 as follows:

      2.1. One of the three (3) Multiple Dwelling units is to be:
          i. accessible by a safe, continuous and step free path of travel from the street entrance of the property or from a
          car parking space;
          ii. has a step-free entrance door with opening width of at least 820 millimetres; and
          iii. contains a bathroom on the entry level. Deleted




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                    Page 10

Page 11

.




Condition 2.2
The projection of the vertical screen across the front facade of unit 1 was intended to provide access behind the screen
for maintenance as well as additional articulation and shade for the ground floor tenancy. Council’s request to reduce the
depth to 350mm is not practical for construction or ongoing building maintenance. Accordingly, if the setback must be
reduced, it is proposed to incorporate a projection for the screen of 600mm, which results in a front setback of 5.4m. It is
sought that Condition 2.2 be amended as follows:

      2.2 The depth of the vertical screen along the front façade of Unit 1 is to be reduced to 350 600mm; the outermost
         projection of Unit 1 is not to exceed 5.45 5.4metres from the front property boundary

Condition 5 - Currency Period
5. This development approval lapses if the use has not happened by 29 March 2028, unless an application to extend the
currency period is approved by Council.

Comment
This requirement applies the default currency period under the Planning Act 2017. As such, it should be included in
Section 3 of the Decision Notice titled “3. Currency period of approval”, not in the approval conditions, as this is not a
“sunset clause” condition of a staged development.

Accordingly, we request that the currency period be included in Section 3 of the Development Permit and the Condition
be Deleted.

          This development approval lapses if the use has not happened by 29 March 2028, unless an application to extend
          the currency period is approved by Council. Deleted

Condition 15 - Fencing and Walls
15. Any street fencing must be set back an average of 1 metre from the front property boundary. Any fencing on the front
boundary must not exceed a maximum height of 1.8m.

Comment
To enable greater flexibility and to facilitate the preservation of the existing trees and landscaping at the front of the site.
It is requested that Condition 15 be amended as follows:

          15. Any street fencing must be set back an average of at least 1 metre from the front property boundary. Any
          fencing on the front boundary must not exceed a maximum height of 1.8m.

Condition 16
16. The area of land between the fence and the front property boundary must be densely landscaped to screen any fencing
from the street.

Comment
In consultation with the architect, it is considered impractical to completely screen all fencing when viewed from the
street. Accordingly, we request Condition 16 be amended to include the word obscured, as outlined below:

          The area of land between the fence and the front property boundary must be densely landscaped to screen
          obscure any fencing from the street.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                      Page 11

Page 12

.




Condition 22
22. All landscape works must be maintained generally in accordance with the approved design for the life of the
development.

Comment
This condition includes the same wording and intent as Condition 21, as such, it is recommended that Condition 22 be
deleted, as outlined below:

          22. All landscape works must be maintained generally in accordance with the approved design for the life of the
          development. Deleted

Condition 23
23. All mature trees within the road reserve must be retained in accordance with the approved landscape plan unless prior
written authorisation from Council is gained for removal.

Comment
This condition appears to be a repetition of Condition 24. Accordingly, it is requested that Condition 23 be removed.

          All mature trees within the road reserve must be retained in accordance with the approved landscape plan unless
          prior written authorisation from Council is gained for removal. Deleted

Condition 24
24. The existing vegetation between the proposed fence along the road boundary of Lot 22 P9315 and the kerbside must
be assessed by a qualified person* and retained, and protected where possible.

Comment
The vegetation across the front of the site has been assessed by an Arborist. (refer to Appendix E). The Arborist report
recommends that all the mature trees in the front verge be retained where possible. In light of this, it is recommended
that Condition 24 be amended as follows:

          The existing vegetation in the road reserve between the proposed fence along the road boundary of Lot 22 P9315
          and the kerbside must be assessed by a qualified person* and retained in accordance with the approved landscape
          plans, and protected where possible.

Condition 26
26. A minimum of one (1) street tree with a minimum pot size of 100L is to be provided along the frontage of the lot,
setback at least 1 metre from the kerb in the road reserve verge, and are of a species that do not impact on services.

Comment
In accordance with the recently prepared Arborist report (Refer to Appendix E) for the site, all mature trees in the front
verge are considered to be in good health and recommended for retention. The retention of this vegetation is also
captured through Condition 25 (where possible) and therefore, Condition 26 is considered superfluous. The retention of
the existing vegetation is also considered an appropriate means of maintaining the current streetscape without the need
for an additional street trees, refer to Figure 2 below.

The widening of the footpath as required by Condition 33, together with the requirement to retain existing vegetation
(Condition 25), precludes the ability to provide an additional street tree. Accordingly, it is requested that this condition be
deleted.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                    Page 12

Page 13

.




          A minimum of one (1) street tree with a minimum pot size of 100L is to be provided along the frontage of the lot,
          setback at least 1 metre from the kerb in the road reserve verge, and are of a species that do not impact on
          services. Deleted




                            Figure 2 – Existing vegetation within the front road reserve

Condition 27
27. A revised Landscaping Plan relative to plan numbered, 1622_L01-01_03 & 1622_L03-01_03, and findings specific to
Conditions 24 and 25 are to be provided for approval. The revised plan is clearly identify the vegetation within the front
boundary setback and road reserve which are to be retained and supplementary plantings.

Comments
The subject landscape plans have been amended in accordance with the recommendations of an Arborist report (Refer to
Attachment E) and general intent of Conditions 24 and 25 of this approval. Accordingly, it is requested that Council review
and approve the revised set landscape plans, as provided (and captured by Condition 1) and delete the condition as
follows:

          27. A revised Landscaping Plan relative to plan numbered, 1622_L01-01_03 & 1622_L03-01_03, and findings
          specific to Conditions 24 and 25 are to be provided for approval. The revised plan is clearly identify the vegetation
          within the front boundary setback and road reserve which are to be retained and supplementary plantings.
          Deleted

Condition 35 - Stormwater Drainage
35. The site must be provided with a stormwater drainage system connecting to a lawful point of discharge. The works
must be undertaken generally in accordance with the “Site Based Stormwater Management Plan” – Reference number
188-002-001, Revision A prepared by BAX Engineering dated 3 February 2022 and must include:
   a. the deletion of the connection from the proposed infiltration pit to the existing infiltration pit in the adjoining
     property, and
   b. any modifications to the proposed infiltration pit necessary due to the deletion of the abovementioned connection

The amended plans must be submitted to Council at least 5 business days prior to the prestart meeting.
Condition 35 is imposed pursuant to s145 of the Planning Act 2016 being non-trunk
infrastructure.




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                     Page 13

Page 14

.




Comment
To avoid delays at plan sealing, we seek confirmation that the amendments to the stormwater management system
required by this condition achieve a lawful point of discharge to Council’s satisfaction.


Condition 46
46. Amended plans and associated reports must be submitted to Council prior to any further development applications
being made and must include the following to the reasonable satisfaction of the Manager, Development Assessment:
    a. A revised Landscaping Plan relative to plan numbered, 1622_L01-01_03 & 1622_L03- 01_03, is to be provided for
    approval detailing:
        i. The existing vegetation between the proposed fence along the road boundary
        of Lot 22 P9315 and the kerbside must be assessed by a qualified person* and retained, and protected where
        possible.
        ii. Where mature trees are to be removed, reasonable grounds must be given by
        the qualified person*, and substituted with additional Baeckea virgata or Banksia integrifolia with a minimum pot
        size of 100L or greater.

Comment
In light of the Arborist assessment (Refer to Appendix E) and updated landscape plan (Refer to Appendix D) it is
considered that we have addressed Condition 46. As such, we request that Council approve the Arborist report and
amended landscape plans, and delete Condition 46, which is no longer relevant.

          46. Amended plans and associated reports must be submitted to Council prior to any further
          development applications being made and must include the following to the reasonable
          satisfaction of the Manager, Development Assessment:
              a. A revised Landscaping Plan relative to plan numbered, 1622_L01-01_03 & 1622_L03- 01_03, is to be
              provided for approval detailing:
                   i. The existing vegetation between the proposed fence along the road boundary
                   of Lot 22 P9315 and the kerbside must be assessed by a qualified person* and retained, and protected
                   where possible.
                   ii. Where mature trees are to be removed, reasonable grounds must be given by
                   the qualified person*, and substituted with additional Baeckea virgata or Banksia integrifolia with a
                   minimum pot size of 100L or greater.Deleted

Condition 47 – Currency Period
47. The Currency Period for this development approval lapses if the development has not substantially started by 29 March
2028, unless an application to extend the currency period is approved by Council.

Comment
The currency period for the Operational work aspects of the development aligns with the default period under the
Planning Act 2017 and is not a sunset clause for a staged development. As such, it should be included in Section 3 of the
Decision Notice, not as a Condition of approval. Please delete the Condition.

          47. The Currency Period for this development approval lapses if the development has not substantially started by
          29 March 2028, unless an application to extend the currency period is approved by Council. Deleted (refer to
          Section 3)




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                 Page 14

Page 15

.




Condition 56
56. All works must be constructed and work procedure undertaken in accordance with:
a. The approved plans/documents and conditions detailed in this Decision Notice
a. All relevant Noosa Council Planning Scheme Policies, standard drawings, standard specifications and guidelines
b. The latest version of the Healthy Waterways document “Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Design Guidelines for
South East Queensland” for all water quality devices to be constructed on site.

Comment
Condition 56 includes a minor topographical error. It is requested that the condition be updated as follows:

          56. All works must be constructed and work procedure undertaken in accordance with:
          a. The approved plans/documents and conditions detailed in this Decision Notice
          ab. All relevant Noosa Council Planning Scheme Policies, standard drawings, standard specifications and
          guidelines
          bc. The latest version of the Healthy Waterways document “Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Design
          Guidelines for South East Queensland” for all water quality devices to be constructed on site.


Condition 79 - As Constructed Plans and ADAC XML Files
79. Prior to acceptance of civil works to become Council assets “On Maintenance”, satisfactory “As-Constructed” records
must be submitted to Council. The bundle of “As Constructed” information shall include:
    a. As-Constructed Engineering Drawings. Data is to be submitted in an electronic drawing file format (.dwg), with all
       plans clearly endorsed “As-Constructed”, along with the accompanying hardcopies (PDFs of the As-Constructed .dwg
       drawing files), and;
    b. ADAC XML Digital File. ADAC File format (ADAC - Asset Design As Constructed) prepared in accordance with industry
       standards and recorded in “MGA - UTM56 / GDA94” projection.

     Please Note: Further information and advice relating to the as-constructed drawing presentation, as-constructed
     survey capture and associated guidelines for preparation of a compliant ADAC XML digital file are available on the
     webpage titled “As- Constructed Guidelines” and accessible at the Noosa Council Website: Planning & Development /
     Development Tools & Guidelines / As-Constructed Guidelines.

     c. The “As-Constructed” drawings will require certification by a:
        iii.Qualified experienced Civil Engineer (RPEQ) confirming design intent and conformance with applicable standards
        and specifications, along with the relevant descriptions of assets, services and structures and;
        iv. Licensed Surveyor in regard to the cadastral and locational information, levels and applicable survey datum.
     d. The data must be in accordance with Council’s “Planning Scheme Policy 6 – Engineering Design Standards”, and
          fully detail the levels for all engineering works including but not limited to the drainage network and structures,
          finished ground and pavement surface levels.

Comment
Condition 79 includes a minor topographical error. It is requested that the condition be updated as follows:

     79. Prior to acceptance of civil works to become Council assets “On Maintenance”, satisfactory “As-Constructed”
     records must be submitted to Council. The bundle of “As Constructed” information shall include:
         a. As-Constructed Engineering Drawings. Data is to be submitted in an electronic drawing file format (.dwg), with
            all plans clearly endorsed “As-Constructed”, along with the accompanying hardcopies (PDFs of the As-
            Constructed .dwg drawing files), and;




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                    Page 15

Page 16

.




          b. ADAC XML Digital File. ADAC File format (ADAC - Asset Design As Constructed) prepared in accordance with
            industry standards and recorded in “MGA - UTM56 / GDA94” projection.

          Please Note: Further information and advice relating to the as-constructed drawing presentation, as-constructed
          survey capture and associated guidelines for preparation of a compliant ADAC XML digital file are available on the
          webpage titled “As- Constructed Guidelines” and accessible at the Noosa Council Website: Planning &
          Development / Development Tools & Guidelines / As-Constructed Guidelines.

          c. The “As-Constructed” drawings will require certification by a:
                 i.   iii.Qualified experienced Civil Engineer (RPEQ) confirming design intent and conformance with applicable
                      standards and specifications, along with the relevant descriptions of assets, services and structures and;
                ii.   iv. Licensed Surveyor in regard to the cadastral and locational information, levels and applicable survey
                      datum.
          d. The data must be in accordance with Council’s “Planning Scheme Policy 6 – Engineering Design Standards”, and
              fully detail the levels for all engineering works including but not limited to the drainage network and structures,
              finished ground and pavement surface levels.


We look forward to Council’s consideration of our change representations and receiving Council’s Negotiated Decision
Notice as soon as possible.

Should you require any clarification on any of the above issues please do not hesitate to contact our office.



Yours faithfully,




TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

CC/- Altum Property Group

APPENDICES

    Appendix A – Lift construction cost comparison (Morgan Consulting Engineers)

    Appendix B – Alternative design concept (Blackburne Jackson Design architects)

    Appendix C – Body Corporate fee estimate with lift (Cassels Strata, Strata Management Consultants)

    Appendix D – Amended landscape plans (Blackburne Jackson Design architects)

    Appendix E – Arborist assessment (ACA Arboricultural Contractors Australia)




JFP Ref: M2915                                                                                                      Page 16