Dawson v Maroochy Shire Council
[2002] QPEC 64
•10 October 2002
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Dawson & Anor v Maroochy Shire Council & Ors [2002] QPEC 064
PARTIES:
B S & E K DAWSON (appellants)
v
MAROOCHY SHIRE COUNCIL (first respondent)
PALM INN PTY LTD (first co-respondent)
B W HOOPER (second co-respondent)
FILE NO/S:
11/02
DIVISION:
Planning and Environment Court
PROCEEDING:
Trial
DELIVERED ON:
10 October 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
24-26 September 2002
JUDGE:
K S Dodds DCJ
ORDER:
Appeal dismissed and the application approved subject to conditions
CATCHWORDS:
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – COUNCIL CONSENT AND APPROVAL – APPLICATIONS -APPEAL – submitters’ appeal against respondent’s approval of co-respondent’s development application to establish motel and manager’s residence subject to conditions – issues include flooding and environmental impacts, conflict with plans, policies and guidelines, agricultural protection, buffering, visual amenity, tourism promotion, and ribbon development.
Integrated Planning Act 1997, ss 3.5.13, 3.5.14, 4.1.50, 4.1.52.
COUNSEL:
A N S Skoien for respondent
SOLICITORS:
Lestar Manning Lawyer for co-respondent
B S Dawson in person
This is an appeal by submitters against a decision by the respondent approving subject to conditions, a development application by the co-respondent for a development permit for a material change of use of premises and preliminary approval of building work and operational work to establish a motel and manager’s residence.
Maroochy Plan 2000 adopted under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) commenced on 1 June, 2000. The subject application was made the day before Maroochy Plan 2000 commenced. Thus it was and is required to be decided under the laws and policies applying when it was made, i.e. under the transitional planning scheme for the whole of the Shire of Maroochy and the policies thereunder. However, weight may be given to Maroochy Plan 2000 if the Court considers it appropriate: s 4.1.52(2) IPA. See also s 6.1.29 IPA as to relevant matters in assessing the application. In the circumstances considerable weight will be given to Maroochy Plan 2000.
Section 4.1.50 IPA provides that in an appeal by a submitter the applicant must establish the appeal should be dismissed. An appeal is by way of hearing anew: s 4.1.52(1). It is decided upon all the evidence before the court.
The Subject Site
The subject site has an area of 7 031 m2. Under the transitional planning scheme it was zoned Rural B. Under Maroochy Plan 2000 it is within Planning Area 22 Petrie/Paynters Creek Plains, Precinct 6 East Nambour, Precinct Class General Rural Lands. This part of planning area 22 adjoins planning area 15 Woombye.
In the strategic plan of the transitional planning scheme and of Maroochy Plan 2000, the subject site has a preferred dominant land use of “agricultural protection”.
The subject site is rectangular in shape. It is situated at the south-east corner of the junction of the Nambour Connection Road and Didillibah Road. Nambour Connection Road may be regarded as running north-south and Didillibah Road as running east from the junction. Nambour Connection Road consists of two lanes in each direction with a centre median area. It is a designated tourist route. The speed limit on Nambour Connection Road in the vicinity of the subject site is at least 80km per hour. The rural township of Woombye is on the west side of the Nambour Connection Road its main street, Blackall Street, having a junction with Nambour Connection Road about 250 metres to the south of the subject site. There is a retail outlet on the north-western corner and a restaurant and other commercial uses on the south-western corner of this junction. There is a motel on the western site of Nambour Connection Road about a kilometre south of the subject site which is operated by the appellants.
The subject site has been excavated at some remote time in the past, from the south-west aspect of it so that it presents generally as a flat block of land with only a slight downslope (about 25 percent) to its north-east corner, thus differing from the abutting land to the south-west which has a greater slope to the north-east. It has a gully or drainage depression (creek) through it in a north-south direction adjacent to its eastern boundary. The creek turns adjacent to the north-east corner of the subject site and runs westerly in the subject site adjacent and parallel to its northern boundary for about half its length where it turns and runs north under Didillibah Road to Paynters Creek a short distance to the north of Didillibah Road. On inspection there was evidence of excavation in the creek at various places along its length. It generally had an appearance of a drain.
On the same east side of Nambour Connection Road as the subject site and abutting it on the south is a 1.305 hectare block of land containing a house and sheds. Some organic growing of vegetables or salad items for sale appears to occur on the eastern aspect of the block behind the house. Immediately to the south of that block are a further seven small residential blocks containing houses and in one case a church converted to use as a dwelling. These blocks range in size between 647 and 885 m2. All these houses have frontage to Nambour Connection Road. Further to the south and on the east side of the Nambour Connection Road are three separated commercial ventures: Thrill Hill, Characters Restaurant, and the Big Pineapple. Abutting the subject site on its eastern side is a 5 446 m2 block approved for use as a plant nursery and landscape supply yard. It contains a house, a large enclosed shed and a level vehicle movement area. To the east and south-east of the subject site and the other uses mentioned above is a 6.575 hectare block of fairly steeply rising rural land used for pineapple growing. To the east up Didillibah Road there are what appear to be rural blocks some with houses upon them. To the north of the subject site on the other side of Didillibah Road is a 8 607 m2 block containing a dwelling. To the east of that is an orchard. Opposite the subject site on the western side of the Nambour Connection Road is a truck sales and service yard. To an observer travelling on Nambour Connection Road the vista on the east side of the road is of general rural land with some exceptions as described.
Proposed Development
The proposed development is for 24 motel rooms arranged on one level in a U-shape having a gross floor area of 936 m2. Eighteen of the rooms are proposed as one bedroom and six as two bedroom. There are 39 carparking spaces and one bus space. Carparking generally is contained in the U-shape. There is to be a restaurant including kitchen and toilets having a gross floor area of 142 m2 and a three bedroom manager’s residence having a gross floor area of 120 m2. Access to the motel is to be off Didillibah Road. Due to the slight slope on the site and flooding considerations, part of the building proposed is to be a slab on the ground and part (adjacent to the creek) is to be elevated on piers.
Grounds of Appeal
The Notice of Appeal sets out 10 grounds of appeal which have been the subject of further and better particulars. The issues which emerge are:
· conflict with the strategic plan and with State Planning Policy 1/92 and its planning guidelines involving issues of development and/or conservation of agricultural land based upon the subject site being worthy of or being designated as worthy of agricultural protection, and issues of inadequate buffering between the proposed use on the subject site and the agricultural land to the south-east presently used to grow pineapples;
· urban encroachment onto rural land and the undermining of the Woombye Local Area Plan;
· ribbon development;
· flooding impacts and likely increase thereof;
· environmental impacts on the creek and downstream;
· visual amenity involving an intrusion of the use into a rural vista on a recognised tourist route; and
· the design of the motel as inappropriate to promote tourism.
I will deal with these issues and the application generally. Before doing so, I note that the male appellant gave evidence and called as a witness an architect employed in the respondent’s Urban Design Unit, Phillip Smith. Mr Smith had written a memorandum on behalf of the respondent’s Urban Design Unit during the assessment stage of the application not supporting the proposal “as the use and its resultant impacts are inconsistent with Council adopted policy (Woombye LAP) and the strategic plan objectives of the superseded planning scheme”.[1] Woombye LAP is the Woombye Local Area Plan which, it seemed to be accepted, was adopted by the respondent under its transitional planning scheme. Its thrust has apparently been incorporated into Maroochy Plan 2000. In his evidence, Mr Smith maintained a consistent position.
[1]Document 17, exhibit 2.
The appellant put evidence before the Court from a number of consultants with expertise in different fields. The respondent put evidence before the Court from a consultant town planner. There was also reference to a report of a Mr Kenneth Mott, an acoustical planning consultant, which was before the respondent during the assessment stage.[2]
[2]Document 13, exhibit 2.
Flooding Impacts
Evidence about this was given by a Mr Ken Sutherland, an apparently well-qualified hydraulic engineer. There is no apparent reason not to accept Mr Sutherland’s opinions. His report[3] demonstrated his investigations and contained his opinions which were maintained in his oral evidence. He concluded that although the development would result in a greater area of impervious surface, because of the water storage conditions of the approval, there would be no run-off at all for the majority of storms resulting in improvement to the pre-development situation.
[3]Exhibit 4.
Flooding of the subject site is due to backwater from Paynters Creek. The proposed building is required to have floor levels above the 100-year ARI level. To achieve that, cut and fill is proposed. In the opinion of Mr Sutherland, fill proposed for the site will have little effect on flood level generally. Flood storage on the subject site will not be affected by a 10-year ARI storm, there will be a 45 m3 reduction in flood storage for a 20-year ARI storm, and an 846 m3 reduction for a 100-year ARI storm. There is room on the site to equalise the cut and fill so that flood storage will remain unchanged. Mr Sutherland demonstrated[4] how this could be achieved.
[4]Exhibit 4.
Environmental Impacts
This was addressed in the evidence of M/s Paula Duke, an apparently well-qualified environmental scientist employed by Golder & Associates,[5] and by Mr Robert Burrell, the holder of a Bachelor of Science (Ecology) degree and a Graduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture.[6]
[5]Exhibit 6.
[6]Exhibit 7.
Mr Burrell was concerned with landscaping and vegetating the subject site to achieve an attractive visual amenity when viewed from both within and from off the site in the context of the surrounding land uses. He was also concerned with the establishment of vegetative buffering required by state planning guidelines which I will deal with later. M/s Duke had regard to Mr Burrell’s proposals and their impact on issues with which she was concerned.
The applicant’s proposal as approved by the respondent has, at its south-east corner, an at least five metre buffer area between the building and the top of the creekbank. This is the closest point. Elsewhere it is greater.
The transitional planning scheme included policies for erosion and sediment control and for water quality assessment and management. In appropriate cases:
· applicants for development were required to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely impact upon human health or Shire ecosystems to such an extent that the environmental values and any key indicator levels in certain guidelines and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1994 were compromised;
· applicants for development were required to take appropriate measures to manage erosion and sediment control because of their potential impacts on ecology, water quality and waterways.[7]
[7]Exhibit 6, appendix B.
Under Maroochy Plan 2000, there is a Code for Waterways and Wetlands which applies where development is or on a site which includes, adjoins, or is within 100 metres of a waterway.[8]
[8]Vol 4, Part 2.1.2.
M/s Duke considered the requirements of the policies and the Code. She also considered the provisions of the natural resources part of the strategic plan under both the transitional scheme and Maroochy Plan 2000. This part of the plan focuses on land where the preferred dominant land use is “conservation”, or “rural or valued habitat”, rather than “agricultural protection”. Consequently the environmental hurdles are set higher.
The Code for Waterways and Wetlands contains performance criteria and acceptable measures to achieve the performance criteria. The acceptable measures are not prescriptive; the determinative matter being that the performance criteria, in keeping with the purpose of the Code, are met: see Maroochy Plan 2000, vol 4, para 1.2(4) and (5). Performance criteria 2 of the Code provides that the environmental values of waterways and wetlands must be maintained through sensitive development, layout and design and by the provision of adequately large setbacks and buffers from waterways and wetlands. Acceptable measures provide that any built structure or infrastructure setbacks in all cases must be a minimum buffer width of no less than 40 metres comprising existing vegetation and/or new plantings.
In making a decision about part of an application requiring code assessment which conflicts with an applicable code, regard may be had to the purpose of the code and an application may be approved if there are sufficient grounds justifying the decision and so long as the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes for the planning scheme area are not compromised: s 3.5.13(2) and (3) IPA. To refuse such an application, the decision-maker (assessment manager or the court) must be satisfied compliance with the code cannot be achieved by imposing conditions: s 3.5.13(4). The onus being on the applicant to show the appeal should be dismissed, the applicant must cause the court to “fail to be satisfied that compliance with the Code cannot be achieved by imposing conditions”. See the discussion of these provisions by Davies JA in Reservilt Pty Ltd v Maroochy Shire Council and State of Queensland.[9]
[9][2002] QCA 367.
Additionally in making a decision about any part of an application requiring impact assessment in the planning scheme area, the decision must not compromise the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes for the planning scheme area or conflict with the planning scheme unless there are sufficient planning grounds to justify the decision: s 3.5.14 IPA.
In each case, the proposal must be consistent with any state planning policies applying: ss 3.5.13(5) and 3.5.14(4) IPA.
M/s Duke considered various management measures to achieve desired environmental outcomes. She concluded that provided the management measures recommended by her during construction and thereafter were properly planned, implemented, and maintained, the policies and their performance criteria and indeed those objectives of the strategic plans she considered could all be met despite the reduction in minimum buffer width.
I can detect no reason not to accept M/s Duke’s uncontradicted evidence. She considered that what was proposed, particularly Mr Burrell’s contribution, contained the potential to restore the environmental health of the creek. Provided the management measures she proposed were properly planned, implemented, and maintained during construction and thereafter the reduction of the buffer distance to a minimum five metres at the south-east aspect of the block would not compromise environmental outcomes.
Conflict with the Strategic Plan and State Planning Policy 1/92;
Development of Land Worthy of and/or Designated as Worthy of Agricultural Protection;
Inadequate buffering between agricultural land and the proposed use
In both the transitional planning scheme strategic plan and Maroochy Plan 2000 strategic plan, the subject site is included in land with a preferred dominant land use of “agricultural protection”. In each, such a designation is intended to identify “good quality agricultural land apart from land determined to be required for other purposes. The principal intention of this designation is to retain the land for agricultural purposes and consequently protect the future viability of agriculture in the Shire - - uses which contradict the intention or threaten the agricultural capability will not be “permitted”,[10] “supported”.[11]
[10]Transitional planning scheme, Part 6, Preferred dominant land use.
[11]Maroochy Plan 2000, para 6.4.1.
State Planning Policy 1/92 is supported by planning guidelines.[12] It is about the protection and preservation of good quality agricultural land. Such land as identified by broad scale mapping is to be identified in local authority planning instruments. Small scale holdings of such land which were not agriculturally viable were not to be regarded as overriding the need to conserve such land. Planning instruments and policies were required to encourage amalgamation of holdings. Development of good quality agricultural land should not be permitted unless there was an overriding need in community terms of public benefit for a development proposal and the proposal could not be located on an alternative site of poor agricultural quality land, or the land the subject of the proposal was so located that farming it alone or in association with surrounding parcels was not practicable, eg. a small isolated parcel of land surrounded by urban land uses. It was recognised that broad scale mapping identification of land as good quality agricultural land may not be sufficiently precise in the context of applications for development so that more detailed consideration of the land contained in a subject site may be sought. Even if land the subject of a proposal was not good quality agricultural land, it was necessary a local authority consider whether the proposal would generate conflict between it and adjoining agricultural uses which may compromise the latter. If conflict was likely, measures to avoid conflict needed to be considered.
[12]Exhibit 1.
The principles and planning guidelines of State Planning Policy 1/92 were generally reflected in the transitional planning scheme and are reflected in Maroochy Plan 2000.
The transitional planning scheme described the intent of the Rural B zone as “to provide for a wide range of activities within a rural environment but at a higher intensity than Rural A. Subdivisional land requirements are intended to maximise flexibility of land use within the rural definition whilst preserving the viability of established farming”.[13]
[13]Part II, Division II.
A use for a motel was not a prohibited use in the rural B zone. Rather it was a use requiring local authority consent. Part V, Division XI of the Scheme provided the conditions and requirements with respect to erection or use of premises for the purpose of a motel.[14]
[14]Table of Zones.
Maroochy Plan 2000 described the subject land Precinct 6 East Nambour as “a mix of steep and undulating lands with a significant mosaic of farms, small rural lots, and remnant forest areas. Pockets of good quality agricultural land have been identified mainly on the alluvial plains of Paynters Creek and are indicated on the strategic plan map. Extensive fragmentation of land holdings has occurred throughout the precinct”; and
under the intent of the precinct:
“While parts of this precinct contain good quality agricultural land, the land holdings within the precinct are probably too extensively fragmented, too close to urban areas, and/or contain too steep land to allow for commercial rural production of any significance.
It is intended to allow for a wide range of rural activities within this precinct while favourable consideration could be given to other “broad-hectare” activities that are compatible with a rural setting and do not require urban services and infrastructure. Any development for non-rural purposes should provide for the development to be sensitively integrated into its rural setting.
The precinct adjoins urban and rural residential areas and there is a potential for land use conflicts to arise. It is intended that such conflict potential be addressed through use of best land management practices and through buffering measures incorporated in any new development at the precinct boundaries”; and
preferred and acceptable uses within the precinct:
“those referred to in the Table of Development Assessment for the General Rural Lands precinct class provided they are undertaken in a manner which avoids or minimises land use conflicts and retains or enhances the area’s environmental values.
Neither urban nor rural residential uses are considered consistent with the intent and desired character of this precinct”.[15]
[15]Vol 3, PA 22, para 6.
Reference to the Table of Development Assessment for the General Rural Lands precinct class reveals that motel and caretakers residence are impact assessable forms of development in the precinct.[16]
[16]Vol 1, Table 5.1.
Maroochy Plan 2000 includes a Code for Development and Use of Motels. The purpose of the Code is to encourage the development of motels:
“(a) in locations which can adequately and conveniently serve travellers and visitors in the Shire”, ie. locations which can “be easily found from the Shire’s major road and other transport networks (and) are in close proximity (or have relatively direct access) to tourist and other visitor attractions and facilities;
(b) that contribute positively to the streetscape and townscape character of the Shire through:
· buildings being sited and designed to be compatible with the locality in which they are situated;
· signage being appropriate to the other elements of the premises and to the areas desired character;
· landscaping being attractive and integrated with the other aspects of the site development; and
· provision of adequate access signage and lighting”.[17]
[17]Vol 4, para 4.6.
The Code contemplates such a development in a rural setting: see eg. performance criteria and acceptable measure A.3.1 set out therein.
The motel then is not a preferred use in Precinct 6 East Nambour but may be established in the Precinct if it is sensitively integrated into the rural setting.
The evidence is that, for the most part, the proposal complies with the conditions and requirements or performance standards with respect to the erection or use of motel premises. In the context of the transitional planning scheme, the exceptions are setback requirements and minimum width at the building line. Paragraph 1(1)(c) of Division XI provides for a relaxation “in consideration of the topography and shape of the site, existing vegetation on the site, and the nature of adjoining land use”. Under the conditions or requirements, permitted site coverage is 50 percent of the site. The proposed site coverage is 21.91 percent. The relaxations sought are relatively minor and are due to the constraints imposed by the site. In the context of the Code for the Development and Use of Motels in Maroochy Plan 2000, the exception to compliance is in performance criteria 3. This provides for setbacks from boundaries and streets. Acceptable measure A.3.4 provides that the building be set back, inter alia, 10 meters to an arterial road or 20 metres to a rural road. The veranda of the restaurant is said to intrude into the 20 metres to Didillibah Road. If this be the case and I am not clear from the amended plans provided that it is the case, then the intrusion is minor. I would think the acceptable measures may be relaxed to the extent necessary.
The subject site was investigated by Mr Bruce Napier, the holder of a Bachelor of Natural Resources degree, as to the land quality for agriculture.[18] Mr Napier’s brief was to consider the agricultural suitability classification of the land in terms of State Planning Policy 1/92 and the respondent’s strategic plans and the potential of the proposal to impact on nearby agricultural land and generate land use conflict.
[18]Exhibit 5.
According to Mr Napier’s report, his investigation was done in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources’s planning guidelines for the identification of good quality agricultural land. He concluded that the subject site’s suitability classification for agriculture was class D (non-agricultural land – land not suitable for agricultural uses due to extreme limitations - - ). This was due to a number of factors being extensive exposed rock fragments on the surface and in the subsoil and shallow soil due to the removal of topsoil during apparent excavation of the site in the remote past. He considered it was marginal for pasture usage but its size was an obvious inhibiting factor. Its agricultural value was further diminished by its close proximity to the residences immediately to the south and the commercial premises to the east. Necessary buffering to those would occupy a large proportion of the subject site.
With regard to potential land use conflicts, he considered the land approximately 80 metres to the east and south-east presently used for pineapple growing. He noted the existence of the creek on the eastern part of the subject site and the location of the proposed motel resulted in a vegetative buffer on the subject site of 13 metres reducing to five metres at one point which was at the eastern end on the southern boundary.
The Department of Natural Resources guidelines separating agricultural and residential land uses specifies a design for vegetated buffering for use where adequate separation distance between conflicting land uses is not available. The design is of a total width of 40 metres of which 20 metres is to be planted with suitable vegetation.
At the present time with the land to the east and south-east of the subject site being used for pineapple growing, there are no spray drift or noise issues. However, he considered that the distance separating the farming of this land and the subject site was such that there would be a relatively low concentration of any spray drift arriving at the subject site in any event. He expressed the opinion that provided the vegetative buffering in the available area was established in accordance with the planning guidelines for separation of agricultural and residential land uses, it would be adequate for protection against any spray drift given the distance from the spray area. As to noise conflicts arising from the use of the pineapple growing land, he concluded that the only significant noise impact for the proposed development would arise if the land use changed so that nighttime operations were required, eg. growing avocados or some other tree crops. In that event, nighttime noise impacts according to Department of Natural Resources data may exceed appropriate levels for about 28 hours per year. This may be reduced to achieve satisfactory noise levels by appropriate building design.
Mr Napier also provided a report[19] regarding regarding acoustic issues arising from the proximity of the Nambour Connection Road. The proposal, as approved by the respondent, included an acoustic fence along the frontage to the Nambour Connection Road as a result of Mr Mott’s testing. Mr Burrell in his report had the fence on top of some landscaped and vegetated land mounding. Vegetative planting was also proposed outside this fence to provide a more attractive vista to passers-by. Mr Napier concluded that there should be an 8 metre southerly extension of the barrier shown in Mr Burrell’s drawings to provide sufficient noise attenuation in that area. He concluded that the height of the barrier would need to vary from 1.2 to 2.3 meters to work effectively. He supported the conclusions of Mr Mott that the acoustic barrier proposed would attenuate noise to meet the level stipulated in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy (1977).
[19]Exhibit 15.
There is no apparent reason to reject Mr Napier’s conclusion about the quality of the land. For that reason alone, no conflict with the provisions of the strategic plans arises because site-specific investigation has revealed the land is not good quality agricultural land.
Apart from that, the evidence is that the use of the subject site for agricultural purposes is somewhat constrained by other features. It is separated from the rural land to the east and south-east presently used for pineapple growing by the creek which runs through it. It is adjacent to residential uses immediately to the south and to a commercial use immediately to the east. These factors impact upon its suitability for commercial agricultural use either as a stand-alone parcel or by amalgamating it with the pineapple growing land to the east and south-east.
Undermining Woombye Local Area Plan
Woombye is one of the rail towns in the Shire. It is situated on the main north-south railway line which is to its west. In October 1998 a local area plan[20] for Woombye was brought into existence. Its objectives were to ensure the continuance of Woombye’s physical identity, to conserve the town’s historic character, to maintain and improve traffic and transport arrangements and to provide community facilities especially those for young people. The primary study area of the plan was an area west of the Nambour Connection Road where urban development presently existed and where to the north and south of that, the respondent’s planning strategies indicated future urban development. However, the plan recognised that it was not confined exclusively to the primary study area and that is apparent when regard is had to the strategies of the plan: see objective 1, strategy 1.3 “future rezoning of the land for residential development immediately east of the Nambour Connection Road and west of the railway line should not be supported”.
[20]Exhibit 12.
The appellants submitted that the proposal was in conflict with the Local Area Plan and that such a development should be in an appropriate area on the western side of the Nambour Connection Road. Allied to this they referred to the lack of pedestrian access across the Nambour Connection Road from the proposed development to Woombye.
After considering this issue I do not think that the proposed development of a motel on the subject site is in conflict with the Woombye Local Area Plan. The Plan is inter alia concerned with the expansion of urban development in and around Woombye. The intention is to confine that to the west of the Nambour Connection Road and east of the railway in line with the respondent’s planning strategies. In more detail the Plan was concerned:
· to contain residential development west of Nambour Connection Road and control it at that location. To that end it focussed on rezoning of land for residential development;
· to protect the town centre in Blackall Street by retaining and protecting its valued features and enhancing pedestrian safety;
· to retain important elements of the town’s heritage; and
· to retain direct access to the main road system and manage local traffic.
A motel has a commercial or business component and a residential component, the latter being different to urban development as would primarily occur in land zoned residential A and B under the transitional planning scheme. In these zones there may be expected to be blocks of land used for permanent residence. I do not think that establishing a motel on the eastern side of the Nambour Connection Road compromises the plan or for that matter Precinct 6 in Maroochy Plan 2000. It is a stand-alone development to be assessed on its merits against the planning instruments. It was submitted Mr Smith’s expressed opinion should be accepted, that if the development occurred it would tip the balance on the eastern side of the Nambour Connection Road from a rural impression to an urban impression and presumably lend weight to further built form development on that side of the road. I have considered that view but I am unable to agree. The evidence is that what will result from the proposed development on this relatively small vacant block between a row of houses and a large shed is an attractively landscaped and vegetated low profile built form of attractive design and colour which will blend into the backdrop of rural lands. Any other proposal elsewhere on the eastern site of Nambour Connection Road would be assessed on its merits against the appropriate planning instruments at that time.
Ribbon Development
The appellants submitted the proposed development amounted to commercial ribbon development and should not be permitted. It was submitted it would add to the strip of development represented by the dwellings fronting Nambour Connection Road immediately to the south.
Development which truly answers this description is undesirable in planning because of issues of access and safety to roads particularly major traffic carrying roads.
The application was referred to Main Roads as a concurrence agency. It required, inter alia, that any approval be conditioned so that all access to the site be via Didillibah Road. Direct access to the site from Nambour Connection Road was not permitted. No doubt a motel on the subject site would provide a minor increase in traffic entering Nambour Connection Road from Didillibah Road, but there is no suggestion from responsible authority that creates any safety issue to the road system in the vicinity.
Development of the motel will add additional built form to the area fronting the eastern site of Nambour Connection Road between the dwellings I have referred to and Didillibah Road. However, that in itself does not constitute commercial ribbon development.
Visual Amenity;
Design inappropriate to promote tourism
Other aspects of the appellants’ appeal involved visual amenity and the design of the development. As to the latter, the state of the evidence leaves me with the impression the design in its landscaped setting will be attractive and will blend in to the generally rural surroundings. There was reference by the appellants in this context to the access from Didillibah Road being liable to flooding in an ARI 20-year flood and the bridge over the creek from Didillibah Road to the motel being 400 mm below the ARI 100-year flood. As to this, it is undoubtedly the case that if the access is flooded, customers will not go to the motel more particularly if the level of flooding is such they cannot safely drive through it. A 100-year ARI flood may be statistically considered a quite rare event. There is no requirement for access to the site to be above the ARI 100-year flood level as opposed to the floor of the building upon it. I am unable to see that this consideration renders the proposal as inappropriate for tourism.
As noted above, Nambour Connection Road is a recognised tourist route. The appellants contended that siting a motel on the subject site would be an inappropriate intrusion into the rural vista on the eastern side of the Nambour Connection Road. Mr Smith acknowledged that there already existed non-rural uses intruded into the immediate area of the subject site and elsewhere on the eastern side of Nambour Connection Road. He expressed the view that this site was the one which would tip the vista one way or the other, that is either move it to an urban appearance or allow it to retain its rural appearance.
I do not doubt Mr Smith’s opinion is genuinely held. The proposed development is single storey and will be the subject of considerable vegetative landscaping. It will occupy what is presently a flat, low-lying, vacant block of land on the corner of Nambour Connection Road and Didillibah Road vegetated only by long grass situated between residential blocks containing houses and a commercial block containing a large shed. It is no doubt true as Mr Smith said that rural blocks often contain sheds, some large. The fact remains that the large shed exists on the block immediately to the east of the subject site. I am unable to agree that the development approved will lead to the erosion of the rural vista on the eastern side of Nambour Connection Road.
Conclusion
The appeal will be dismissed and the application approved subject to conditions.
The approval will be subject to the conditions attached to the approval the subject of this appeal. The following must be the subject of appropriate conditions:
(a) conditions requiring as a minimum implementation of the management measures recommended by M/s Duke during construction and thereafter and ensuring their ongoing maintenance;
(b) conditions requiring the design and construction of the extension of the acoustic fence at the Nambour Connection Road frontage recommended by Mr Napier;
(c) conditions ensuring as a minimum the implementation and maintenance of the landscaping and vegetation measures proposed by Mr Burrell; and
(d) conditions requiring that the cut and fill on the site be equalised so flood storage on the site be not affected as described by Mr Sutherland.
2