Information Response

Page 2

Applicant’s Response
1. The boundary line has been shown in red in the amended Proposal Plans, provided in
   Attachment 1 (drawing 3951-A100).
2. The existing and finished floor levels have been shown for both the existing and proposed
   dwellings. The levels across the balance of the site will remain as existing.
3. The site plan in Attachment 1 (drawing 3951-A100) has been amended to clarify that a
   fence will separate the two dwelling units.

Council Issue – Setbacks and Amenity
“There is a concern for amenity on the neighbouring property No. 16 Orealla. The new dwelling
is proposed to be located just over 2 metres from the existing shared side boundary which
contains one dwelling. It is recognised that this boundary (should this application be approved)
becomes the rear boundary for this dwelling and thus should comply with rear setbacks in
accordance with AO12.1 of the Medium Density Residential zone code.

Information Required
    4. Provide amended plans that comply with AO12.1 of the Medium Density
       Residential zone code or where there is some variance, provide justification
       against PO12”.

Applicant’s Response
The 2m minimum setback to the north-western boundary has been retained but the applicant
has made the following amendments to ensure that the new dwelling unit will not have an
adverse impact on the amenity of 16 Orealla Crescent:

   •   The stairs, originally shown at the rear of the building, have been moved to its western
       side; and
   •   Privacy screens have been added to all windows in the rear elevation.

Although the proposed minimum setback is consistent with the existing dwelling, the applicant
has included an additional section in the Proposal Plans, 3951-A19 D, to better illustrate the
relationship of the new dwelling to 16 Orealla Crescent. An extract from the section is provided
in Figure 1 overleaf. This section illustrates the following:

   •   The ground level at 16 Orealla Crescent is approximately 1m higher than the
       application site. In this respect, the section shows that the top of the existing retaining
       wall along this section of the boundary is 37.35m compared to the ground level of
       approximately 36.3m.

   •   The section also shows that the boundary fence on top of the retaining wall is 1.76m
       high.

   •   The combined height of the boundary retaining wall and fence is approximately 2.8m
       and this ensures that the private open space for the new dwelling unit will not overlook
       16 Orealla Crescent;

   •   Given the height of the retaining wall and fence, only the upper section of the proposed
       dwelling will sit above the top of the fence, however as mentioned above, the applicant
       has amended the design to relocate the stairs to the side of the unit and has added
       screening to all of the windows in the rear elevation of the new building unit. These
       changes will help to limit any potential overlooking from the rear of the new unit toward
       16 Orealla Crescent; and

Page 3

   •       The landscape plan shows that the landscaping along this common boundary include
           medium sized trees and screening shrubs (Coast Banksia and Lamb’s Tail Wattle).




                                   Figure 1 – Extract from Dwg 3951-A109

As outlined in the original application documents, the boundary between the application site
and 16 Orealla Crescent is a side boundary and on this basis, the proposal is considered to
be compliant with AO12.1. However as set out below, the proposal is also considered to
comply with the overarching Performance Outcome, PO12:

       •     The proposed dwelling will provide a high level of amenity for future residents as it
             has been orientated to the south to take advantage of the views available from this
             side of the property;

       •     Given the difference in ground levels, the amendments made to the proposed design
             and the height of the existing boundary wall/fence, it is considered that the new
             dwelling unit will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining property or result
             in any overlooking. In addition the proposal will not unreasonably obstruct views from
             the adjoining property particularly as the proposed dwelling unit does not take
             advantage of the maximum height limit for the site;

       •     The proposal includes new screen planting along the common boundary between
             the relevant properties;

       •     The proposed setback is consistent with existing properties adjoining the site; and

       •     The development will not have any adverse impacts on any ecologically important
             areas.

Page 4

For the reason set out above, it is considered that the proposal setback delivers the outcome
sought by Performance Outcome PO12 and therefore warrants Council support.

Council Issue – On-site Manoeuvrability
“Acceptable Outcome 12.2 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code states, where
located on any road of a higher order than local, vehicles must enter and leave the site in a
forward gear. The submitted documentation does not demonstrate that vehicles entering the
existing residence via Orealla Crescent are able to manoeuvre wholly onsite and exit in a
forward gear.

Information Required
    5. Provide a Turning Path Plan demonstrating that vehicles entering the existing
       residence via Orealla Crescent able to manoeuvre wholly onsite and exit in a
       forward gear. The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
       person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland)”.


Applicant’s Response
Advice has been sought from the an RPEQ certified engineer, who has advised that due to the
site constraints (distance to boundary and topography) and the client’s preference to retain
existing vegetation, the most sensitive solution to achieve compliance with AO12.2 of the Dual
Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code is to provide an automated turntable. A turntable is
shown on drawing 3951-A100. Refer to the Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3.


Council Issue – Stormwater Management
“The submitted documentation does not include sufficient information for Council to assess
how the proposed development will control, collect, and release stormwater. The proposed
stormwater management plan does not include 3,000 litres of rain water storage per dwelling.
Note that the proposed development must not adversely affect the existing drainage conditions
of the subject site and neighbouring properties.

Information Required
    6. Provide additional detail demonstrating how the rainwater collected throughout
       the proposed development will be controlled, collected, and released without
       causing scour damage to neighbouring properties. The additional detail must be
       prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
       Engineer of Queensland).

   7. Provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the development achieves
      compliance with The Noosa Plan 2020 – Water Quality and Drainage Code and
      Sustainable Building Design Code. The detail must be prepared by a suitably
      qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland)”.


Applicant’s Response
6. The Engineer’s response letter in Attachment 3 explains that rainwater will be collected
   and stored in a water tank and slowly released to the kerb to eliminate any scour damage.
   The water tank is shown on drawing 3951-17A of Attachment 2.

7. The Engineer’s letter in Attachment 3 confirms that the development is able to achieve
   compliance with the Water Quality and Drainage code of the Noosa Plan 2020.

Page 5

Council Issue – Existing Stormwater Pits
Engineering recognise that two Council-owned stormwater pits are located in close proximity
to the proposed driveway crossover along the Ventura Street frontage. Insufficient detail has
been submitted demonstrating that the proposed driveway crossover complies with Council’s
standards (RS-049).

Information Required

       8. Provide additional detail demonstrating that the proposed vehicle crossover
          is 1.0 metres clear of the existing pit lintel. The additional detail must be
          prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
          Engineer of Queensland)”.

Applicant’s Response
The applicant’s surveyor has determined the location of the stormwater pit on Ventura Street.
Drawing 3951-A100 of Attachment 1 shows the location of the stormwater lintel and the
location of the crossover. The crossover has been designed to be 1m from the pit lintel.


Council Issue – Earthworks
An Earthworks Plan has not been provided as part of the submitted documentation.

Information Required
    9. If earthworks are required for the proposed development, provide an Earthworks
        Plan demonstrating the extent of the proposed earthworks required to carry out
        the proposed development. The additional plan must be prepared by a suitably
        qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and
        include, but not be limited to:
                    a. the extent and volume of cut and fill;
               *Note that temporary on-site storage piles must be suitably treated to
               ensure short-term stabilisation”.

Applicant’s Response
An Earthworks Plan has been provided in drawing 3951-A114 of Attachment 1. The plan
shows the proposed 34.4m3 of cut. The cut material is to be removed from the site immediately
and no storage piles are proposed.

Council Issue – Driveway Access
The submitted documentation does not contain sufficient information for Council to assess the
proposed driveway and crossover.

Information Required
      10. Provide additional detail on the proposed driveway and crossover. The detail
          must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and include, but not be
          limited to:
          a. a design generally in accordance with RS-049, RS-050 and any associated
              addendum;
          b. levels and grade of the access driveway;
          c. a longitudinal section extending from the centre of the formation along
              Ventura Street to the property boundary; and

Page 6

           d. demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not scrape or bottom out while
              entering or exiting the driveway”.

Applicant’s Response
The Engineer’s response in Attachment 3 explains that drawing 3951-17A and 18 show:
      a. That the proposed driveway and crossover is generally in accordance with RS-049,
          RS-050 and associated addendum. It is noted from the drawings that the driveway
          access for the proposed new lot along Ventura Street Sunrise Beach will not strictly
          meet the requirements in RS-049 and RS-050 for footpath corridor. The driveway
          is designed to follow existing contours to keep coverage over the main sewer and
          facilitate landscape maintenance without introducing retaining walls onto the
          Council’s land.
      b. The levels and grade of the driveway; and
      c. A longitudinal section of the driveway.


Part 3: Information Request has now concluded, and the application is now in Part 5: Decision.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN



Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]