L05 Response to NC FURTHER advice · MCU20/0026

Page 2

 Page 2
With regard to the setbacks and proposal, Council must consider the topography of the site and
surrounding development. The site slopes sharply and steeply downwards from the Park Crescent
frontage which makes vehicular and pedestrian access to the site difficult to achieve. Council has in the
past acknowledged this constraint of the area and approved dwellings and the adjoining duplex with
reduced front setbacks along the eastern side of Park Crescent as detailed in the image below.




Aerial photograph illustrating location of existing buildings within the front setback area

As demonstrated by the aerial above, six of the premises along Park Crescent have garages that are
almost to the front boundary of their property including the existing building on the subject site. The
reduced setback proposed provides a greater setback than any of these existing buildings.

The proposed setbacks of the dwelling are noted as being greater that the existing building with the
proposed height at a similar level to the existing ridge line.

The proposed garage is located an average of 4.5metres back from the street frontage which enables
informal parking off Park Crescent. This setback and area for informal parking is highly desirable in Park
Crescent which is very narrow and experiences significant impacts from residents and visitors parking
along the street.

The second floor level visible to Park Crescent (level 3) is setback an average of 4.5metres which is
greater that then existing dwelling on site. This level is at a similar height to the existing ridge line.
Photomontages (plan 900.03 and 0.4) and have been provided that illustrate the impact of the reduced
setbacks from the Unit development at 21 Park Crescent. As detailed in the views an increase in the
upper level setback has little impact on view lines for surrounding area due to existing vegetation, the
existing building and the adjoining duplex development. It noted that the existing proposal is well under
the 12 metre height line at the front of the property and that a greater upper level setback could result
in building form altering to take advantage of the height limit which would have greater impacts than that
proposed.

As the setbacks do not meet the setbacks detailed in Schedule 1 the development has been reviewed
against the of the outcomes the Eastern Beaches locality detailed below:

        O5 Buildings and other structures are appropriately designed and sited to—
        a) provide amenity for users of the premises as well as preserve the visual and acoustic privacy of
           adjoining and nearby properties;

Page 3

 Page 3

       As demonstrated by the photomontages the visual amenity of nearby premises is maintained.
       Significant view lines are maintained and the development of the site for a dwelling is a desirable option
       for the steep site and narrow roadway.

       b) provide adequate distance from adjoining uses;

       The reduced front setbacks provide greater setbacks to Park Crescent than the existing dwelling on
       site and other dwellings along the eastern side of the road. The setback enables informal parking on
       site and complements the adjoining carparking areas.

       c) preserve any existing vegetation that will buffer the proposed building;

       Due to the constraints of the site there is limited opportunity to retain the existing vegetation at the front
       of the premises and provide appropriate access.

       d) allow for landscaping to be provided between buildings and street frontages and between
          neighbouring buildings;

       Landscaping able to be provided between adjoining buildings and to the street frontage.

       e) maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings and landscape elements within the street; and

       As detailed the eastern side of Park Crescent contains dwellings that are located within the front
       setback. The proposed setbacks and building are consistent with the form of buildings that have been
       approved in the area. It is noted that approved duplex to the south of the site has been approved with
       the garages located at the front boundary and the third storey at 6 metres. The proposed setbacks
       therefore maintain the visual continuity of the street.




Proposed dwelling section

Page 4

 Page 4




Approved duplex MCU17/0046 illustrating three storeys to Park Crescent frontage



       f) protect the natural character and visual amenity of the beachfront

         The reduced setbacks do not impact on the natural character and visual amenity



Item 3: Provide updated plans complying with the required side boundary setbacks.

Applicant’s Response to Item 3: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
the area of non-compliance. As detailed in these plans, the area that is non-compliant relates to a small
section of window. This area of non-compliance is considered minor and does not impact on any
surrounding view lines or adjoining residents.

Page 5

 Page 5


Item 4: 4. Provide an updated Site Cover Plan calculating site cover in accordance with the definition
of site cover under The Noosa Plan, including all buildings and structures in excess of 1 metre in height
from natural and/or finished ground level..

Applicant’s Response to Item 4: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
compliance. Please note that the pool has been lowered and is below one metre in height. The project
architect has reviewed the plan and site cover complies with Scheme requirements.


Item 5: Provide evidence (eg. site line diagrams) that the ‘uncovered balcony’ will not result in
overlooking of neighbouring properties.

Applicant’s Response to Item 5: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
the upper level balcony and view lines. The plans detail that the balustrade from the main bedroom is
well setback from the edge of the roof line which results in view lines being restricted to distant views.
The setback ensures that the residents will not be able to look down on neighbouring properties.


Item 6: 6. Provide structural details of the proposed retaining garden wall/structure and demonstrate
how it will not compromise the structural integrity of the existing stormwater infrastructure; and

Applicant’s Response to Item 6: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
removal of structures within the easement.


Item 7: Demonstrate how it is proposed to ensure that tree roots will not compromise the existing drain.

Applicant’s Response to Item 7: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
removal of structures and landsaping within the easement.


Item 8: Provide a work method statement demonstrating how Council’s existing stormwater
infrastructure will be protected and not affected by the proposed works.

Applicant’s Response to Item 8: Please refer to Attachment A which provides revised plans detailing
removal of structures within the easement.


The applicant has provided further information in response to Councils decision and I withdraw my notice
of 21st July 2020 stopping the decision making period. The Decision Making Period has therefore
recommenced and we request that your Council proceeds with its assessment of the application as soon
as possible in accordance with the Planning Act 2016.

Please contact our Sunshine Coast office if you require any further information and/or clarification.


Yours faithfully,




Nadine Gorton
Senior Town Planner
Martoo Consulting Pty. Ltd.