Development rejected to protect area’s ‘character’
A developer's bid to subdivide a block to build more homes at Landsborough has been rejected again because it would significantly change the street's character.
The Planning and Environment Court has upheld Sunshine Coast Council's rejection of Silk Properties Australia Pty Ltd's application to subdivide 26 Bella St to build eight homes.
Two town planners, a character and amenity expert and a real estate agent were called to give evidence into the benefits and disadvantages of the proposal.
The application received 10 submissions, nine of which were against it, and the council rejected it due to planning concerns.
The developer appealed the decision and a four-day hearing was held in June.
Real estate agent Graham King, who gave evidence during the appeal for the developer, said there was limited land supply and the proposed development had "buyer appeal".
The application complied with the Queensland Government's South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017 because it was in the plan's urban footprint zone, but not with the Sunshine Coast Regional Council Planning Scheme, where it is in the rural residential zone.
The 7289sq m block is at the end of the Bella St with 47 metres of street frontage, but to the north it borders new, suburban-styled, low-density homes in Echidna Crt.
The developer proposed to subdivide the land into eight lots ranging from 600sq m to 683sq m in size.
Town planners Chris Schomburgk and Stephen Buhmann's joint report described Landsborough's character as "patchwork" because of its urban and residential areas.
But they agreed the proposed development would change the local character and amenity on Bella St.
Mr Schomburgk said under the state government's plan it said not all land within the urban footprint zone should be developed for urban purposes.
He said the extra vehicle movements from the eight new homes would have a noticeable impact.
On July 29 Judge Glen Cash handed down his decision to dismiss the appeal.
He said the reasons the development did not comply with the council's planning scheme were "significant".
"It represents urban development in an area reserved for rural residential development," Mr Cash said.
"The proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the area.
"The fact that the development may be well situated from a town planning perspective, and Mr King's confidence he could sell the development, are not reasons why approval of the development serves the public interest to an extent greater than maintaining the status quo."