Meeting papers

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING                                                           14 AUGUST 2023


     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.

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.

B.   Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.




                                                                                              Page 262 of 476