Council archive · source document
MCU10/2065 Response to information request
adjoining lot. This western orientation is not an
optimum design orientation for daylight or
prevailing breezes, which is evident in the design
of the adjoining building having no window
openings facing the boundary. In any event the
garage wall is lower than the desired maximum
height and only 0.5m higher than the desired
mean height. This minor mean height
exceedance will not unduly restrict light or
ventilation to adjoining habitable rooms which
have no window openings facing this boundary.
(c) Do not adversely impact on the amenity As indicated above, the adjoining building has no
and privacy of residents on adjoining lots. window openings facing the common boundary
and proposed built to boundary wall. A ground
level outdoor deck area exits, which is heavily
screened by timber battens from this boundary.
Established screening landscaping also exists
between the adjoining building and the common
boundary. As such no adverse amenity impacts
will result. Further, as the proposed garage wall
has no openings, no privacy impacts will result. _
2. Submit an amended plan that demonstrates: -
(a) A 2 metre minimum width of soft landscaping can be provided along the site's frontage; and
(b) 0.5m minimum width of soft landscaping can be provided the entire length of the southeast
boundary.
Response:
A 2m minimum width of soft landscaping along the sites frontage is not required by the applicable
codes. The proposed soft landscape frontage outcome is an appropriate design outcome consistent
with the existing adjoining developments and many other approvals granted by Council for duplexes
under The Noosa Plan. The front fence is articulated and setback 1 - 2m from the frontage with
soft landscaping between the fence and frontage in accordance with probable solutions S38.1 and
S38.2 of the specific outcomes and probable solutions for the Semi-attached Housing Zone. All
sections of the frontage comprise soft landscape with the exception of areas required for pedestrian
or vehicular access.
A 0.5m minimum width of soft landscaping along side boundaries is not required by the applicable
codes. Nonetheless a minimum 0.5m of soft landscaping is provided for the majority of the
boundary with the exception of 7.62m of driveway required for vehicle manoeuvring purposes. The
driveway will be screened from the adjoining lot by fencing. Further, there are no window openings
of the adjoining building that face this common boundary.
The proposal compiles with the applicable assessment codes without the amendments suggested by
item 2. Amendments suggested by item 2 would result in substantial and unnecessary design
impact to the proposal.
3. Submit to Council a preliminary Stormwater disposal design for the, proposed
development. The design must be prepared by an RPEQ and must address:
(a) Runoff from the buildings, driveway and manoeuvring areas;
(b) Include any rainwater harvesting system; and
(c) The proposed connection to Council's drainage system.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
MCU10/2065 Response to information requestRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 5.8 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.