Newspaper article Sunshine Coast Daily (Maroochydore, Australia)

Breeze Site Coverage Doubt; Just What Did the Council Approve in 2014?

Newspaper article Sunshine Coast Daily (Maroochydore, Australia)

Breeze Site Coverage Doubt; Just What Did the Council Approve in 2014?

Article excerpt

BILL

HOFFMAN

bill.hoffman@scnews.com.au

DEVELOPER Aria proposed a site coverage for its Mooloolaba Breeze apartments well in excess of planning scheme limits based on what it described as an "exceptional design outcome for the site" which would positively contribute to the local area.

Sunshine Coast Council will decide today whether what was ultimately built delivered that outcome and also complied with the approval granted for the development.

A planning department report into an application from the developer for a "permissible change of use" to bring the development approval into line with the nine-storey building that now sits on the Esplanade at Mooloolaba, has found partly in favour of the developer.

However it has also found some of the changes made to the approved plans are not acceptable.

The report recommends councillors reject approval of those elements, a position it says will ultimately result in the matter being decided in the Planning and Environment Court at a minimum cost of $50,000.

The initial development application sought a site coverage of 65%, an amount well in excess of the planning scheme maximum of 40% and representing a windfall of 2485 sq metres more floor area over the building's nine floors.

Analysis of the completed building shows it does occupy 65% of the 993 sq metre site bordered by the Esplanade, Meta Street and First Avenue.

The developer is emphatic it has not exceeded the site cover approval it was granted.

However the 2014 planning department report to council detailing the development's approval lists the site coverage at 56%.

And a planning department report produced this year into an initial application from the developer in June to vary the approval also lists the site coverage as 56%.

The report further stated "the original application's compliance with the Planning Scheme requirements relating to bulk, scale and setbacks was marginal and was only supported on the basis of the design outcomes, and was at the upper limits of officer's discretion to support the application".

The council yesterday ignored questions asking for definition of the upper limits of a delegated officer's discretion. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.