Planning application at 35 Saltair St, Kings Beach, QLD
Jan. 12, 2017, 6:31 a.m.
Dear councillor Dwyer,
Nice to see you respond to Mr Lindsay's concern.
I am considering buying a unit on the Sunshine Coast but am a little unsure of the strength of the wording in the 2014 Planning Scheme (220.127.116.11 Purpose and overall outcomes ).
Specifically the part that Mr Lindsay has cited.. "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ..."
I am wondering just what is considered reasonable or unreasonable if we purchase a unit with nice ocean views, and someone decides to develop the block right in front, or beside us that removes much of our views.
Are there examples where a single (or a few) unit holders have managed to hold back a multistory development with their objection ?
Dear Mike, Thank you for your email. I have done a basic search on the 35 Saltair St application as the officer responsible for the assessment is away until next week. *Saltair St falls within the "High Density Residential Zone"(HDRZ) in the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme. *The application is "Code Assessable" as the applicant has not applied for any development rights outside of the planning code for the location that would elevate the application to a more stringent level of assessment. *As it is a Code Assessable application there are no formal 3rd party submissions that can be formally lodged in regard to the application. *The application is currently at the "Information Request" stage as officers need further information from the applicant to enable them to properly assess the application. *The height limit for the location is 21M, as is the case for the rest of Saltair St. There are also setback requirements from each boundary as set out in the Planning Scheme Codes for this HDRZ. These requirements along with site cover are used to determine appropriate bulk and scale of a development.
In regard to your question, "development ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity for surrounding premises ...", I would think that if the application meets the intent of the scheme and is in general accord with the relevant Codes, then it would be hard to mount a legal argument that the proposed development is unreasonable. By that I mean any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that a development that aligns with the Planning Scheme should be expected, hence not a surprise. Using scenic amenity(view lines) as an example, the only way to ensure a person would not lose their view would be to buy an absolute beachfront property, where no other development could build you out. Or you might buy the top floor unit in a development located on the town's highest point. I believe the subject address currently has a house on it, so it would be obvious to anyone that has made themselves aware of the Planning Scheme and had done their due diligence, that a building of up to 21M will impact on surrounding properties. Using history as an example, when the first multi-unit complex was constructed in/around the subject address, it no doubt impacted on surrounding properties. So it goes that each time there is subsequent development there will be further impact to adjacent properties. From the experience I've gained as a councillor over the past 16 years, it would probably be deemed unreasonable for a person to object to a Code Assessable development generally compliant with the Scheme, when the objector is living in a development that followed a similar development path. In saying that, I certainly respect the right of any person to voice their opinion, whether that be an objection or support. Privacy and overlooking are also considered by the assessing officer, however when considering development in HDRZ's there is no way to avoid seeing the development next door. Council officers work with an applicant to ensure the placement/location of balconies, privacy screens, floor plans and apartment configurations, and other relevant elements are designed to respond to the characteristics of neighbouring development.
In response to you final question below, it is usually only where an application is "Impact Assessable" rather than "Code Assessable" where objectors have the ability to stop, delay or hold back development. So whilst Mr Lindsay, whom you mention below, has emailed his concern/objection , the council officer assessing the application does not have a responsibility under the State Govt's Planning Act to give any formal consideration to it. The officer must respond to the development codes and intent of the Scheme when doing the assessment and this in itself is the way that the concerns raised by Mr Lindsay will be addressed to the extent possible under the Planning Scheme.
Mike, I will send this email to the council officer responsible for the assessment and allow her to make any corrections to the information I have provided above. Should you need me to provide further information or clarify anything, please let me know. At this time I have not read the 35 Saltair application as it is still at the Information Request stage, so my comments above are about the principles of planning for the street, rather than any judgement.
Thanks again Mike. Tim.
Regards, Cr Tim Dwyer Deputy Mayor Division 2 Sunshine Coast Council (07) 5420 8965 office (07) 5420 8986 fax 0418 348 896 mobile
Website: www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au Mail: Locked Bag 72 Sunshine Coast Mail Centre Qld 4560
Please consider the environment before printing this email Sunshine Coast Regional Council, Councillor confidential email. Council intellectual property rights subsist in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the author. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email is prohibited without the express permission of the author