REPS M2915 - Negotiated Decision Representations_200522

.




         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