Response to further advice notice · MCU21/0171.01

Page 2

Previous lower floorplan                             Revised lower level floorplan




Revised elevation with RL’s included, blue line representing previous approved proposal and showing that
proposed design sits lower than previous approved design




Issue - Rooftop Deck
The dwelling includes a rooftop deck approximately 3.0 x 10 metres in dimension which is located within close
proximity to the northern and eastern edges of the dwelling. A rooftop terrace is not supported under AO16.3
of the Low Density Residential Zone code.
Advice Required
The proposed roof deck occupies a large rectangular portion of the eastern roof which has the potential to create
overlooking to neighbouring properties.
Provide revised plans that substantially reduces the area of the deck to ensure overlooking cannot occur from
the roof to adjoining dwellings private open space, habitable windows or doors. If overlooking can occur,
remove the roof deck.



2

Page 3

Response – The revised proposal plans included herein show the following changes to address Council’s
comments regarding the rooftop deck:

1. An increased side setback along the northern side boundary from 1 metre to 1.5 metres providing
   greater separation to the northern neighbour
2. The roof deck has been significantly reduced in size from 30m2 to 14m2
3. The roof deck set back 1 metre from the roof edge with a planter box between the roof deck and
   roof edge.

Below is a comparison between the original roof deck and the revised plans herein.

Original plans submitted                              Revised plans




There are 2 new plans in the revised plan set. 4001 privacy diagram (section) and 4002 privacy diagram
(floor plan and photos) include a north-south section through the proposed dwelling and neighbouring
properties to demonstrate that there is significant separation of at least 9.447 metres between the
neighbouring dwelling which is a significant setback. Photos are also included showing the openings on
the southern side of the adjoining dwelling to the north to demonstrate that there is minimal opportunity
for overlooking to occur between the dwellings.




3

Page 4

We trust that the significant reduction in size, inclusion of landscape screening, increased side setback
and additional documentation provided herein is sufficient to address Council’s comments and
demonstrate compliance with PO16 of the Low density residential zone code.

Northern side setback
For the proposed building height and scale of building; the northern side setback of 1.0 metre
is not supported and does not comply with AO9.3 and PO9 of the Low Density Residential zone code.
Advice Required
6. Amend the plans to show a minimum landscaped side setback of 1.5 metres.

Response – The northern side setback has been increased from 1m to 1.5m and the plans have been
amended to show landscaping in the side setback zone.

Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity
The plans and elevation do not show the intended landscaping to the rear of the dwelling as
required under AO5 of the Coastal Protection and scenic amenity overlay code.
The plans and elevation show the intended architectural ‘Finishes Schedule’ however is
considered a limited palette when compared to the intended range listed under AO5 of the
Coastal Protection and scenic amenity overlay code (below).
Appropriate wall colours will depend on the existing native vegetation and backdrop, but may include
muted earth/environmental tones that blend with the natural environment, such as–
• green, • olive green; • blue green; • grey green; • green blue; • indigo; • brown; • blue grey; and • green yellow.

Amend the plans to show landscaped areas to the rear of the site and incorporate a more varied architectural
colour palette as listed under AO5.

Response – The site plan has been amended to show a 5m landscaped area at the rear of the site. In
relation to the proposed colour scheme, the project architect has provided the following justification: V&P
have put together the following written response in relation to the current colour selection:

1. There is a long history of using tar or ash (black), red-oxide (earth) and lime (white) coloured timber
   buildings in the landscape, as these colours relate to the earliest forms for timber preservative used
   by both western and eastern cultures. These naturally occurring elements/pigments have always
   been used to preserve timber buildings in the natural vegetated landscape.’
2. Red is not the sole colour in the buildings elevation and is employed as a secondary colour acting as
   a shadow in the composition. The primary material of the building elevations is natural timber board
   and glass (as requested in A05 of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay).
3. Red paint is also present within local existing buildings within Plover Street include a well renowned
   house by Architect Geoffrey Pie.

We trust this additional information and justification is sufficient to allow Council to determine
compliance is achieved with PO5 of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Code in terms of the
colour scheme being finished predominantly in colours and hues of the surrounding natural landscape.



4

Page 5

We trust the significant changes made by the applicant to address Council’s further advice notice allow
for a speedy resolution of the application.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further to aid your assessment.

Kind regards



Pamela Davidson
DIRECTOR
0427 635 004
[email protected]




5