$40,000 fine in Park Rd
THE word "iconic” is a tad over-used these days.
But the vista of Noosa Main Beach looking east toward the national park can arguably lay claim to the title, given it's one of the nation's most photographed places.
And that surely places an onerous responsibility upon residents of properties along Park Rd, which runs central to the view, to ensure the foliage screening the houses is not compromised in any way.
So we would all hope.
But that has been one of Noosa Council's concerns in dealing with an application from a Park Rd resident to build a retaining wall and un-roofed deck on his property.
"It was subject to a condition that the deck be set back a minimum of two metres from the property boundary,” council's development assessment manager Kerri Coyle said.
"Council required this setback to ensure vegetation within the property would screen the works and maintain the vegetated appearance of Noosa Hill.”
But the resident subsequently lodged an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court.
During the appeal process however, the applicant amended plans for the deck, increasing the setback and and replacing the proposed concrete slab and pillars with a timber platform and posts, giving the deck a thinner profile, also to ensure the piers were clear of significant-tree roots.
The applicant also made changes to the design to ensure all of the piers were located clear of significant trees' roots.
"Council agreed to settle the appeal, but required the applicant to implement a detailed tree protection plan and construction management plan for the works, and to cover the cost of having an arborist's visit the site periodically site during construction to inspect the works and ensure compliance,” Ms Coyle said.
"In April, council officers became aware the owners had started building the deck, but also an unapproved access tunnel from the deck, through the hillside, to a proposed lift shaft adjacent the house, further up the sloping block. This was contrary to the current development approval conditions for the site.
"After inspecting the site, officers directed the builder to cease all unapproved works and stabilise the site.”
Council issued both the owner and builder with infringement notices totalling about $40,000 for breaching the development approval conditions.
"Council officers were particularly concerned that earthworks had been carried out within the protection zone for a significant tree on the site,” Ms Coyle said.