$2.16m planning overhaul could stop ‘cookie cutter’ estates

A new planning scheme could put an end to “cookie cutter” developments on the Sunshine Coast, some groups hope.

A new planning scheme could put an end to "cookie cutter" developments if Sunshine Coast Council is willing to introduce strict rules for developers.

That is the hope of some community groups who urging the council to have a "better" approach to development to house the growing population.

Councillors have been recommended to scrap the current planning scheme and draw up a new one to better reflect land uses, housing trends and to ensure the region is prepared for its forecast population increase of almost 170,000 by 2041.

Sunshine Coast Environment Council liaison Narelle McCarthy said if the council voted on Thursday in favour of a new scheme, it should reflect better housing estate design.

The $2.16m vote on how to handle Coast's growth

IN PHOTOS: Coast's worst estates or way of the future?

If supported, a new planning scheme would cost $2.16 million and involve a complex four-year process with input from residents and the State Government.

The planning scheme includes maps and rules to dictate where to house residents and the locations of future development.

Some of the houses in new estates on the Sunshine Coast.

According to a council report, a new scheme would need to be in line with the South East Queensland Regional Plan.

The plan insists that 54,000 of the 87,000 new homes needed to accommodate the region's population growth should be built within the urban footprint instead of "greenfield" sites.

Ms McCarthy said guidelines in the Sunshine Coast Design Strategy should be mandatory for future housing estates.

She said this could prevent "cookie cutter" style developments seen in some new areas.

Since 2014 the scheme has been amended 21 times.

School's in: Traffic headache on major Coast roads

Pioneering doc keeps close eye on community

"We're seeing developments with relaxations in height limits, and they're changing setbacks," Ms McCarthy said.

"So we're getting more density and dwelling yield than what was initially envisaged in this scheme.

"We'd also like to see development prohibited from flood prone land and regionally significant flood plains such as Maroochydore."

 

The ongoing Mass Transit Plan, which is investigating transport options between Maroochydore and Caloundra, was identified by the council as a reason why a new scheme was necessary.

A council report said the transport project would "provide opportunities for sustainable urban villages" between the two coastal hubs.

It notes a new planning scheme must reflect proposed staging, zoning and height changes.

It said it must also have "robust and best practice" rules to ensure further development between the coastal hubs reflected "density done well" and the region's character and design.

Organisation Sunshine Coast Association of Residents president Melva Hobson raised concerns with the council's time frame.

Ms Hobson said she was supportive of a new planning scheme reflecting recommendations from the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Strategy and the Mass Transit Project.

"However, neither of these processes have been completed," she said.

"The council has set a very tight time frame of three years."

She said proposed changes to allow more compact development, higher densities and changes to building heights should not be watered down.

Ms Hobson also questioned what consideration the council had given to the impacts of COVID-19 on higher density development - given more residents were seeking space and escaping city lifestyles.

Development Watch president Lynette Saxton said the organisation welcomed the review, but believed it was premature.

She said the organisation wanted a new scheme to address shortfalls in public carparking and prevent further "bulky and unattractive" developments.

Ms Saxton also raised concerns that the council had already spoken with development and planning experts about their wants in a new scheme.

"There appears to have already been quite extensive consultation both within council and with the development industry … it is regretful that (Development Watch) and other community groups have not been afforded the same opportunity," she said.

Originally published as