Skip to the record
Noosa’s premier civic archive.

Council archive · source document

MCU10/2065 Response to information request

of 21

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Check the original when the exact wording matters.

                                                       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.

Used in these records

About this file

File size
5.8 MB (large file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

MCU10_2065 Response to information request.pdf · 5.8 MB (large file)

The download may take up to a minute.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.