Response to RFI - 25-27 Toolar St · MCU21/0083

Page 2

Our Ref: P20.52-001

7th December 2021

The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Via email: [email protected]

Attention : Patrick Murphy



Dear Patrick,

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION – MCU21/0083 AT 25 & 27 TOOLAR STREET,
TEWANTIN, QLD 4565

On behalf of the applicant, Riverport Properties Pty Ltd, I submit herewith the applicants’ response to
Council’s information request. Pursuant to section 13.2 of the Development Assessment Rules the
applicant is providing all of the information requested.

The following documentation is attached: -

          • Attachment 1 – Concept Stormwater Management Plan
          • Attachment 2 – Civil Engineer Response to RFI
          • Attachment 3 - Traffic Engineer Response to RFI
          • Attachment 4 – Amended Architectural Plans
          • Attachment 5 – Amended Landscape Architect Plans
          • Attachment 6 – Letter of Support from ANUHD
          • Attachment 7 – Letter of justification from Applicant/ Developer

Item 1 Information required

    1. Provide a site specific stormwater management plan for the proposed development. The plan
         must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and include but not be limited to:

             a. Stormwater collection, detention, retention and harvesting;

             b. A system that limits the discharge to predevelopment rates. Please note that any
                  system must assume that any reuse tanks are already full when determining
                  discharge rates;

             c.   Any proposed harvesting and reuse tanks that are to be plumbed for not-potable
                  purposes as described in the Sustainable Building Code;

             d. Connection to Council existing system. Please note that discharge to the kerb and
                  channel must not exceed 25 l/sec at any one location;

             e. Any necessary improvements to Council’s current infrastructure.

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                       1


[OCR of page images]
Our Ref: P20.52-001
7 December 2021

The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council

9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565

Via email: [email protected]

Attention : Patrick Murphy

Dear Patrick,

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - MCU21/0083 AT 25 & 27 TOOLAR STREET,
TEWANTIN, QLD 4565

On behalf of the applicant, Riverport Properties Pty Ltd, | submit herewith the applicants’ response to
Council's information request. Pursuant to section 13.2 of the Development Assessment Rules the
applicant is providing all of the information requested.

The following documentation is attached: -

e Attachment 1 — Concept Stormwater Management Plan
e Attachment 2 — Civil Engineer Response to RFI

e Attachment 3 - Traffic Engineer Response to RFI

e Attachment 4 — Amended Architectural Plans

e Attachment 5 — Amended Landscape Architect Plans

e Attachment 6 — Letter of Support from ANUHD

e Attachment 7 — Letter of justification from Applicant/ Developer

Item 1 Information required

1. Provide a site specific stormwater management plan for the proposed development. The plan
must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and include but not be limited to:

a. Stormwater collection, detention, retention and harvesting;

b. A system that limits the discharge to predevelopment rates. Please note that any
system must assume that any reuse tanks are already full when determining
discharge rates;

c. Any proposed harvesting and reuse tanks that are to be plumbed for not-potable
purposes as described in the Sustainable Building Code;

d. Connection to Council existing system. Please note that discharge to the kerb and
channel must not exceed 25 I/sec at any one location;

e. Any necessary improvements to Council’s current infrastructure.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 1

Page 3

Response to Item 1

A concept stormwater management plan prepared by SCG Consulting Engineers is provided at
Attachment 1 for your perusal.          The SWMP demonstrates that the proposed development has
capacity to mitigate the rate of stormwater discharge to the Council stormwater system at the kerb
using onsite harvesting. The applicant’s RPEQ confirms that, as per the SPP2017, water quality
treatment is only required for land areas greater than 2500m 2 and therefore water quality treatment for
the site is not required (refer Attachment 2). No additional improvements are required to Council’s
existing stormwater infrastructure.       Rainwater from the development will be harvested in large
underground tanks in the common property under the driveway.             The Body Corporate will retain
control over the maintenance and access to these rainwater tanks. Rainwater will be reused on site
for garden irrigation and flushing of toilets.



Item 2 Information required

    2. Provide a traffic management plan for the proposed development. The plan must be prepared
         by a suitably qualified person (Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include
         but not be limited to:

             a. Revised plans and/ or sufficient detail to demonstrate how the layout addresses the
                  potential for conflicts at the entrance to the site.

             b. Any necessary signage at the entrance and within the site. Please note that priority
                  must be given to incoming vehicles.

             c.   A cross section of the driveway/ pedestrian path that includes any necessary
                  measures (kerb etc) to provide a safe pedestrian environment.

             d. A fully dimensioned plan of the carparking/ manoeuvring areas.

             e. Vehicles manoeuvring plans for each space or alternately RPEQ endorsement of
                  architectural manoeuvring plans

             f.   The proposed visitor spaces have not setback from the property boundary, Indicate
                  on the plans the visitor spaces with a suitable setback that does not overlap with the
                  adjacent carport space.

             g. A preliminary design of the vehicle access in the road reserve that includes levels,
                  grades etc. Please note that the design must demonstrate that vehicles will not scrap
                  or bottom out on either the driveway or the road formation.

Response to Item 2

The applicant has engaged Hayes Traffic Engineering to prepare a response to Item 2 at Attachment
3. Each of the vehicle swept paths have been checked and endorsed by the traffic engineer as
suitable for the proposed development. Amended plans demonstrating the traffic requirements are

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        2


[OCR of page images]
Response to Item 1

A concept stormwater management plan prepared by SCG Consulting Engineers is provided at
Attachment 1 for your perusal. The SWMP demonstrates that the proposed development has
capacity to mitigate the rate of stormwater discharge to the Council stormwater system at the kerb
using onsite harvesting. The applicant's RPEQ confirms that, as per the SPP2017, water quality
treatment is only required for land areas greater than 2500m? and therefore water quality treatment for
the site is not required (refer Attachment 2). No additional improvements are required to Council's
existing stormwater infrastructure. Rainwater from the development will be harvested in large
underground tanks in the common property under the driveway. The Body Corporate will retain
control over the maintenance and access to these rainwater tanks. Rainwater will be reused on site

for garden irrigation and flushing of toilets.

Item 2 Information required

2. Provide a traffic management plan for the proposed development. The plan must be prepared
by a suitably qualified person (Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include
but not be limited to:

a. Revised plans and/ or sufficient detail to demonstrate how the layout addresses the
potential for conflicts at the entrance to the site.

b. Any necessary signage at the entrance and within the site. Please note that priority

must be given to incoming vehicles.

c. A cross section of the driveway/ pedestrian path that includes any necessary
measures (kerb etc) to provide a safe pedestrian environment.

d. A fully dimensioned plan of the carparking/ manoeuvring areas.

e. Vehicles manoeuvring plans for each space or alternately RPEQ endorsement of

architectural manoeuvring plans

f. The proposed visitor spaces have not setback from the property boundary, Indicate
on the plans the visitor spaces with a suitable setback that does not overlap with the
adjacent carport space.

g. A preliminary design of the vehicle access in the road reserve that includes levels,
grades etc. Please note that the design must demonstrate that vehicles will not scrap
or bottom out on either the driveway or the road formation.

Response to Item 2

The applicant has engaged Hayes Traffic Engineering to prepare a response to Item 2 at Attachment
3. Each of the vehicle swept paths have been checked and endorsed by the traffic engineer as
suitable for the proposed development. Amended plans demonstrating the traffic requirements are

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 2

Page 4

provided at Attachment 4.

The requirements for vehicle manoeuvring and car parking does not allow for a setback of visitor
spaces from the side boundary. The visitor parking space proposed adjacent to the western boundary
of the site is not located close to any existing habitable rooms of neighbouring premises and will be
screened from view by the 1.8m high boundary fence (see Figure 1 below). Landscaping is also
proposed to abut the proposed car space on the north and south.



                                                                                      Existing house
                                                   Existing shed
                                                   opposite




                                            Approximate location
                                            of visitor carpark

Figure 1: Proposed location of visitor space on western boundary.

The car parking space on the eastern boundary will also be bounded by landscaping north and south
of the parking space. The finished level of the parking space is approximately 150mm lower than the
existing ground level. The 1.8m high boundary fence will screen the parking space from neighbouring
habitable rooms. The property to the east is also cut down approximately 0.5m below the finished
level of the parking space, further decreasing visibility of any visitor cars from neighbouring premises.
Existing habitable rooms are not located close to the parking space and the amenity of surrounding
residential uses is unlikely to be significantly affected by the proposed location of the visitor spaces on
the subject site. See Figure 2.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                             3


[OCR of page images]
provided at Attachment 4.

The requirements for vehicle manoeuvring and car parking does not allow for a setback of visitor
spaces from the side boundary. The visitor parking space proposed adjacent to the western boundary
of the site is not located close to any existing habitable rooms of neighbouring premises and will be
screened from view by the 1.8m high boundary fence (see Figure 1 below). Landscaping is also
proposed to abut the proposed car space on the north and south.

 
 
     
    

 

 

Existing house

 

 

  

Existing shed
opposite

 
 

Approximate location
of visitor carpark

Figure 1: Proposed location of visitor space on western boundary.

The car parking space on the eastern boundary will also be bounded by landscaping north and south
of the parking space. The finished level of the parking space is approximately 150mm lower than the
existing ground level. The 1.8m high boundary fence will screen the parking space from neighbouring
habitable rooms. The property to the east is also cut down approximately 0.5m below the finished
level of the parking space, further decreasing visibility of any visitor cars from neighbouring premises.
Existing habitable rooms are not located close to the parking space and the amenity of surrounding
residential uses is unlikely to be significantly affected by the proposed location of the visitor spaces on
the subject site. See Figure 2.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 3

Page 5

                                                                        Approximate location
                                                                        of visitor carpark


Figure 2: Proposed location of visitor space on eastern boundary.



Item 3 Information required

    3. Provide a stormwater management strategy which demonstrates how the development is
         consistent with the Water Quality and Drainage Code of the Noosa Plan of the Noosa Plan. In
         particular, the plan must demonstrate how the development is consistent with PO2, PO6, and
         PO10 of that code.

Response to Item 3

The applicant’s stormwater management strategy incorporated into the Concept Stormwater
Management Plan in Attachment 1 prepared by SCG. Roof runoff will be collected and directed to
the on site rainwater tank beneath the driveway. Rainwater in the underground tank will be retained
on site for reuse in gardens and other lawful uses within the buildings such as toilet flushing. Once
full, the rainwater tank will overflow to a further detention tank before release into Council’s stormwater
network. Gross pollutant traps will be located inside the site boundaries to capture gross pollutants
prior to discharge to the street. Surface runoff from the driveway will be collected in a grated drain
across the driveway and water directed to the GPT’s before discharge.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                           4


[OCR of page images]
Approximate location
of visitor carpark

 

Figure 2: Proposed location of visitor space on eastern boundary.

Item 3 Information required

3. Provide a stormwater management strategy which demonstrates how the development is
consistent with the Water Quality and Drainage Code of the Noosa Plan of the Noosa Plan. In
particular, the plan must demonstrate how the development is consistent with PO2, PO6, and
PO10 of that code.

Response to Item 3

The applicant’s stormwater management strategy incorporated into the Concept Stormwater
Management Plan in Attachment 1 prepared by SCG. Roof runoff will be collected and directed to
the on site rainwater tank beneath the driveway. Rainwater in the underground tank will be retained
on site for reuse in gardens and other lawful uses within the buildings such as toilet flushing. Once
full, the rainwater tank will overflow to a further detention tank before release into Council’s stormwater
network. Gross pollutant traps will be located inside the site boundaries to capture gross pollutants
prior to discharge to the street. Surface runoff from the driveway will be collected in a grated drain
across the driveway and water directed to the GPT’s before discharge.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 4

Page 6

Item 4 Information required

    4. Amended plans which do not exceed a plot ratio of 0.4:1

Response to Item 4

Amended architectural plans are provided at Attachment 4. The plot ratio of the site is calculated as
follows:

Total GFA          874.76 divide by
Site Area          2020m2
Plot Ratio         0.43:1
The development now provides 4 x small dwellings of <100m2 GFA.

The plot ratio proposed exceeds the expectations of PO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone
Code by approximately 8m2 per unit which equates to less than a small bedroom sized area of GFA.
The GFA definition leaves open the opportunity to reduce the GFA by 8m 2 per unit rendering the
upper floor level unworkable, and yet, still complying with the GFA definition and the plot ratio and
having no visible impact on the bulk or scale of the development which is, in reality, not excessive by
any means. The applicant has opted to design sensible, usable space in the proposed units that will
comply with the area, circulation and mobility requirements of Gold Standard Livable Housing Design
and has embarked on assessment of the design for accreditation by Livable Housing Australia. The
proposed design is supported and endorsed by Dr Margaret Ward and David Brant, convenors of the
Australian Network for Universal Housing Design.              Their letter of support is provided for your
information at Attachment 6. Further justification and detail of the principles behind the proposed
development is provided by Riverport Properties Pty Ltd in Attachment 7.

The proposal as presented complies with the overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code and, despite the conflict with PO11, Council has the capacity under the Planning Act to
approve the development despite the conflict, on the basis that the development is providing much
needed housing options to the community.



Item 5 Information required

    5. Provision of at least 16 covered car parking spaces noting that the additional built form will
           add to site cover.

           As a result of Items 4 & 5 it is considered that the proposal in its current form represents an
           overdevelopment of the site and that significant modification to the footprint of the dwellings,
           and potentially the deletion of at least one of the units, is required to comply with the relevant
           outcomes of the Noosa Plan.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                             5


[OCR of page images]
Item 4 Information required

4. Amended plans which do not exceed a plot ratio of 0.4:1

Response to Item 4

Amended architectural plans are provided at Attachment 4. The plot ratio of the site is calculated as
follows:

Total GFA 874.76 divide by

Site Area 2020m?

Plot Ratio 0.4311

The development now provides 4 x small dwellings of <100m? GFA.

The plot ratio proposed exceeds the expectations of PO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone
Code by approximately 8m? per unit which equates to less than a small bedroom sized area of GFA.
The GFA definition leaves open the opportunity to reduce the GFA by 8m? per unit rendering the
upper floor level unworkable, and yet, still complying with the GFA definition and the plot ratio and
having no visible impact on the bulk or scale of the development which is, in reality, not excessive by
any means. The applicant has opted to design sensible, usable space in the proposed units that will
comply with the area, circulation and mobility requirements of Gold Standard Livable Housing Design
and has embarked on assessment of the design for accreditation by Livable Housing Australia. The
proposed design is supported and endorsed by Dr Margaret Ward and David Brant, convenors of the
Australian Network for Universal Housing Design. Their letter of support is provided for your
information at Attachment 6. Further justification and detail of the principles behind the proposed
development is provided by Riverport Properties Pty Ltd in Attachment 7.

The proposal as presented complies with the overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code and, despite the conflict with PO11, Council has the capacity under the Planning Act to
approve the development despite the conflict, on the basis that the development is providing much
needed housing options to the community.

Item 5 Information required

5. Provision of at least 16 covered car parking spaces noting that the additional built form will
add to site cover.

As a result of Items 4 & 5 it is considered that the proposal in its current form represents an
overdevelopment of the site and that significant modification to the footprint of the dwellings,
and potentially the deletion of at least one of the units, is required to comply with the relevant
outcomes of the Noosa Plan.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 5

Page 7

Response to Item 5

A total of 12 covered car spaces have been provided on the site. Each 2 bedroom unit (Units 1-4) has
been provided with a single, covered vehicle space with the additional space that was previously
dedicated to a second vehicle space now converted to landscaping to mitigate against any future
application seeking cover over a second car space and thereby taking the site cover over the
allowable 40%.

The remaining Units 5-8 at the rear, will have two covered car spaces.



Item 6 Information required

    6. Amended plans which provide for compliant front and rear setbacks.

Response to Item 6

The revised architectural plans provided at Attachment 4 illustrate the site setbacks.

PO12 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code requires buildings and structures to be designed
and sited to:

    (a) provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises including
        provision of visual and acoustic privacy.
    (b) not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable
        areas of adjoining premises;
    (c) Provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
    (d) Preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
    (e) Allow for space and landscaping to be provided between buildings including adequate area at
        ground level for landscaping with trees, shrubs, outdoor living and utilities;
    (f) Be consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area; and
    (g) Protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such
        as national parks, waterways and wetlands.



The proposal is consistent with the performance outcome as follows:

    (a) The proposed setback to front and rear boundaries allow for the amenity of site uses to be
         protected by creating separate, visually screened courtyards within which users can recreate
         with relative privacy. The articulation provided by the blades and roof extension on the street
         boundary positively contributes to the visual amenity of the building when viewed from the
         street, providing visual interest, areas of light and shade consistency with neighbouring
         building setbacks.     The extension of the terrace roof on the rear of proposed Units 5-8
         contribute to the articulation of the building and provide shade and shelter for users. It also
         provides a level of privacy for users of the terrace from adjoining premises which may
         overlook their private open space area due to their elevated position relative to the finished
         level of the proposed terrace. The proposed setbacks do not result in any significant adverse
         impacts on amenity for users of the premises or that of adjoining premises.

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        6


[OCR of page images]
Response to Item 5

A total of 12 covered car spaces have been provided on the site. Each 2 bedroom unit (Units 1-4) has
been provided with a single, covered vehicle space with the additional space that was previously
dedicated to a second vehicle space now converted to landscaping to mitigate against any future
application seeking cover over a second car space and thereby taking the site cover over the
allowable 40%.

The remaining Units 5-8 at the rear, will have two covered car spaces.

Item 6 Information required

6. Amended plans which provide for compliant front and rear setbacks.

Response to Item 6

The revised architectural plans provided at Attachment 4 illustrate the site setbacks.

PO12 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code requires buildings and structures to be designed
and sited to:
(a) provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises including
provision of visual and acoustic privacy.

(b) not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable
areas of adjoining premises;

(c) Provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
(d) Preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;

(e) Allow for space and landscaping to be provided between buildings including adequate area at
ground level for landscaping with trees, shrubs, outdoor living and utilities;

(f) Be consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area; and

(g) Protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such
as national parks, waterways and wetlands.

The proposal is consistent with the performance outcome as follows:

(a) The proposed setback to front and rear boundaries allow for the amenity of site uses to be
protected by creating separate, visually screened courtyards within which users can recreate
with relative privacy. The articulation provided by the blades and roof extension on the street
boundary positively contributes to the visual amenity of the building when viewed from the
street, providing visual interest, areas of light and shade consistency with neighbouring
building setbacks. The extension of the terrace roof on the rear of proposed Units 5-8
contribute to the articulation of the building and provide shade and shelter for users. It also
provides a level of privacy for users of the terrace from adjoining premises which may
overlook their private open space area due to their elevated position relative to the finished
level of the proposed terrace. The proposed setbacks do not result in any significant adverse
impacts on amenity for users of the premises or that of adjoining premises.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 6

Page 8

    (b) The proposed setbacks will not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private
           open space or habitable areas of adjoining premises. In contrast, the setbacks will help to
           protect the potential for overlooking between premises.

    (c) The proposed setbacks allow for adequate setbacks from adjoining land uses.                   The
           alternative setback solution proposed by the applicant consists of blades, parts of balconies,
           roof overhang and terrace roof. These elements do not result in an unreasonable visual
           imposition on adjoining landuses or prevent or hinder users of either site from being able to
           carry on their usual, day to day activities.

    (d) The reduced setback proposed will not impact on the ability to retain existing vegetation on
           the site. Existing vegetation largely consists of trees, shrubs and gardens which will not be
           able to be retained due to earthworks being required on the site to accommodate the
           proposal. A new native landscaping plan is proposed to provide a soft green edge to the
           development and to maintain buffering between the site and adjacent residential properties.

    (e) As indicated above, the proposed landscaping plan (refer Attachment 5) will provide a dense
           landscape to the subject site at ground level and allow space to be provided between
           buildings.

    (f) The predominant character of the area includes varied frontage setbacks and garden
           landscaping. Dwellings are characterised by a mixture of single storey high set or lowset
           houses, 2 storey houses and medium density units. Setbacks to the rear are as close as 3
           metres on adjacent and nearby premises with frontage setbacks ranging from 2 metres to 6
           metres on adjacent and nearby premises.

    (g) The site is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on ecologically significant areas. There is no
           ecologically sensitive landscape, habitat or species identified on the site.

As demonstrated above, the proposal is able to meet the performance outcome and can be supported
as an alternative solution for PO12.



Item 7 Information required

    7. Amended plans which mitigate the potential for overlooking.

Response to Item 7

The applicant has examined the potential for overlooking by inspecting the view to neighbouring
properties at the approximate height and location of future upper storey windows using a drone.

As demonstrated in Figures 1-6 below, the potential for overlooking is very low due to the following
factors:

    •      The change in ground level on the subject site is unlikely to result in high windows from
           habitable rooms directly overlooking into the private open space of neighbouring properties;



Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                           7


[OCR of page images]
(b) The proposed setbacks will not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private
open space or habitable areas of adjoining premises. In contrast, the setbacks will help to
protect the potential for overlooking between premises.

(c) The proposed setbacks allow for adequate setbacks from adjoining land uses. The
alternative setback solution proposed by the applicant consists of blades, parts of balconies,
roof overhang and terrace roof. These elements do not result in an unreasonable visual
imposition on adjoining landuses or prevent or hinder users of either site from being able to
carry on their usual, day to day activities.

(d) The reduced setback proposed will not impact on the ability to retain existing vegetation on
the site. Existing vegetation largely consists of trees, shrubs and gardens which will not be
able to be retained due to earthworks being required on the site to accommodate the
proposal. A new native landscaping plan is proposed to provide a soft green edge to the
development and to maintain buffering between the site and adjacent residential properties.

(e) As indicated above, the proposed landscaping plan (refer Attachment 5) will provide a dense
landscape to the subject site at ground level and allow space to be provided between
buildings.

(f) The predominant character of the area includes varied frontage setbacks and garden
landscaping. Dwellings are characterised by a mixture of single storey high set or lowset
houses, 2 storey houses and medium density units. Setbacks to the rear are as close as 3
metres on adjacent and nearby premises with frontage setbacks ranging from 2 metres to 6
metres on adjacent and nearby premises.

(g) The site is unlikely to result in adverse impacts on ecologically significant areas. There is no
ecologically sensitive landscape, habitat or species identified on the site.

As demonstrated above, the proposal is able to meet the performance outcome and can be supported
as an alternative solution for PO12.

Item 7 Information required
7. Amended plans which mitigate the potential for overlooking.

Response to Item 7

The applicant has examined the potential for overlooking by inspecting the view to neighbouring
properties at the approximate height and location of future upper storey windows using a drone.

As demonstrated in Figures 1-6 below, the potential for overlooking is very low due to the following
factors:

e The change in ground level on the subject site is unlikely to result in high windows from
habitable rooms directly overlooking into the private open space of neighbouring properties;

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 7

Page 9

    •    The height of existing and proposed fences at the perimeter of the site provide screening to
         neighbouring habitable rooms and private open space;

    •    Existing adjacent buildings already have windows screened to prevent views between the
         adjacent premises and habitable rooms;

    •    The internal design of the proposed dwellings will not result in upper storey windows enabling
         overlooking due to the arrangement of internal spaces;

    •    Neighbouring buildings are set back significantly from the site boundary thus minimising
         potential for upper storey windows to clearly see any habitable room activity.

It is also likely that habitable room windows will be fitted with curtains or blinds by the residents to
address light, cooling, privacy and interior decoration purposes and ‘Holland Blinds’ are required to be
modelled on all windows for the energy efficiency rating to meet the appropriate energy efficiency in
any case.

The upper level balconies on proposed units 1 -4 are unlikely to result in overlooking across Toolar
Street to premises to the north primarily due to the distance between windows across the road reserve
and building setbacks. Upper level windows on the southern elevation of Units 5-8 have the capacity
to be screened with privacy screens should council feel that a condition is necessary to mitigate the
overlooking potential.

On the eastern elevation, only the louvre window to the family room of Units 4 & 8 can result in any
view from the windows to the neighbouring premises. The windows on upper storey rooms of the
neighbouring premises to the east are approximately 6 metres from the proposed building, separated
and by a driveway running along the boundary adjacent to Unit 4. Together with landscaping and
privacy screens fixed to the windows on the adjacent building, overlooking potential is negligible in this
instance. Proposed Unit 8 will overlook the roof of the adjacent dwelling and is unlikely to result in
adverse amenity issues for neighbouring premises.

Similarly, on the western side, Proposed Unit 1 will only result in perceived overlooking from the louvre
windows in the upper level family room. Other windows on this facade will not allow overlooking to
occur due to the internal arrangement within the design.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                          8


[OCR of page images]
e The height of existing and proposed fences at the perimeter of the site provide screening to
neighbouring habitable rooms and private open space;

e Existing adjacent buildings already have windows screened to prevent views between the
adjacent premises and habitable rooms;

e The internal design of the proposed dwellings will not result in upper storey windows enabling
overlooking due to the arrangement of internal spaces;

e Neighbouring buildings are set back significantly from the site boundary thus minimising
potential for upper storey windows to clearly see any habitable room activity.

It is also likely that habitable room windows will be fitted with curtains or blinds by the residents to
address light, cooling, privacy and interior decoration purposes and ‘Holland Blinds’ are required to be
modelled on all windows for the energy efficiency rating to meet the appropriate energy efficiency in
any case.

The upper level balconies on proposed units 1 -4 are unlikely to result in overlooking across Toolar
Street to premises to the north primarily due to the distance between windows across the road reserve
and building setbacks. Upper level windows on the southern elevation of Units 5-8 have the capacity
to be screened with privacy screens should council feel that a condition is necessary to mitigate the
overlooking potential.

On the eastern elevation, only the louvre window to the family room of Units 4 & 8 can result in any
view from the windows to the neighbouring premises. The windows on upper storey rooms of the
neighbouring premises to the east are approximately 6 metres from the proposed building, separated
and by a driveway running along the boundary adjacent to Unit 4. Together with landscaping and
privacy screens fixed to the windows on the adjacent building, overlooking potential is negligible in this
instance. Proposed Unit 8 will overlook the roof of the adjacent dwelling and is unlikely to result in
adverse amenity issues for neighbouring premises.

Similarly, on the western side, Proposed Unit 1 will only result in perceived overlooking from the louvre
windows in the upper level family room. Other windows on this facade will not allow overlooking to
occur due to the internal arrangement within the design.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 8

Page 10

Figure 1 View to West from Proposed Unit 5 at 1.5m above upper level floor height




Figure 2 View to west from Proposed Unit 1 at 1.5m above upper level floor height

Figure 1 illustrates that the habitable rooms of the dwelling at 19 Werin Street are a substantial
distance from the proposed dwelling Unit 5 making overlooking into habitable rooms difficult. Only the
loungeroom louvre window would have the capacity for this view and could be screened. Figure 2
illustrates the view from the louvres over the stairs in Unit 1 which will not physically allow overlooking
to occur due to the internal layout of the Unit.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                           9


[OCR of page images]
 

Figure 2 View to west from Proposed Unit 1 at 1.5m above upper level floor height

Figure 1 illustrates that the habitable rooms of the dwelling at 19 Werin Street are a substantial
distance from the proposed dwelling Unit 5 making overlooking into habitable rooms difficult. Only the
loungeroom louvre window would have the capacity for this view and could be screened. Figure 2
illustrates the view from the louvres over the stairs in Unit 1 which will not physically allow overlooking
to occur due to the internal layout of the Unit.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 9

Page 11

Figure 3 View to East from 1.5m above upper level floor height in front of Proposed Unit 4




Figure 4 View to East from Proposed Unit 8 at 1.5m above upper floor height

Figure 3 shows the view to the east near the front boundary in front of Proposed Unit 4. The windows
to the existing dwelling are already screened which will assist in mitigating potential overlooking. The
only window facing this development near this location is the louvre window over the stairs in
Proposed Unit 1 which will not physically enable overlooking to occur. Figure 4 shows the existing
building located adjacent to proposed Unit 8. Through the existing vegetation can be seen the side of
the existing dwelling with a lean to along the side. It is not expected that any overlooking will occur in
this location but the louvre to the loungeroom Could be screened if the Council requires.

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                         10


[OCR of page images]
4 vw

 

Figure 4 View to East from Proposed Unit 8 at 1.5m above upper floor height

Figure 3 shows the view to the east near the front boundary in front of Proposed Unit 4. The windows
to the existing dwelling are already screened which will assist in mitigating potential overlooking. The
only window facing this development near this location is the louvre window over the stairs in
Proposed Unit 1 which will not physically enable overlooking to occur. Figure 4 shows the existing
building located adjacent to proposed Unit 8. Through the existing vegetation can be seen the side of
the existing dwelling with a lean to along the side. It is not expected that any overlooking will occur in
this location but the louvre to the loungeroom Could be screened if the Council requires.

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 10

Page 12

Figure 5 View to 48 Poinciana Avenue




Figure 6 View to 46 Poinciana Avenue

Figure 5 illustrates the view to the south at Proposed Unit 7 & 8 at 1.5m above ground level through
the existing vegetation The finished floor level at this point will be raised approximately 300mm lower
than existing natural ground. The dwellings at the rear are approximately 5.2m from the rear boundary
which will result in approximately 11.7-12.3m separation between the dwellings. A 1.8m high screen
fence will be located on the boundary. The proposed landscaping plan identifies a range of species
including Syzygium floribunda and Elaeocarpus reticulatus which will provide a vegetated screen
between the properties.       The ground level shown in Figure 6 above, will be cut to achieve the
earthworks levels and finished ground floor level approximately 1.36 below the natural ground level


Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                      11


[OCR of page images]
 

Figure 6 View to 46 Poinciana Avenue

Figure 5 illustrates the view to the south at Proposed Unit 7 & 8 at 1.5m above ground level through
the existing vegetation The finished floor level at this point will be raised approximately 300mm lower
than existing natural ground. The dwellings at the rear are approximately 5.2m from the rear boundary
which will result in approximately 11.7-12.3m separation between the dwellings. A 1.8m high screen
fence will be located on the boundary. The proposed landscaping plan identifies a range of species
including Syzygium floribunda and Elaeocarpus reticulatus which will provide a vegetated screen
between the properties. The ground level shown in Figure 6 above, will be cut to achieve the
earthworks levels and finished ground floor level approximately 1.36 below the natural ground level

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 11

Page 13

facing 46 Poinciana Avenue. No substantial overlooking is anticipated. If necessary, screens can be
added to the upper level, louvre windows to Bedroom 2 and the family room of Proposed Units 5-8.



Item 8 Information required

    8. Roof plan to include details of boundary setbacks

Response to Item 8

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 4. The setbacks to the outermost
projection of the roof are shown on the site plan, floor plans and elevations.



Item 9 Information required

    9. Elevation plans to include the RL’s of the highest point of each building

Response to Item 9

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 4 showing the RL’s of the highest
point of the buildings on the elevation plan..



Item 10 Information required

    10. A schedule of colours and materials to be included on the elevation plans

Response to Item 10

A colour palette and finishes schedule has been provided in the package of amended architectural
plans at Attachment 4 on the cover sheet.



Item 11 Information required

    11. Amended plans to provide for a minimum 5 degree roof pitch

Response to Item 11

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 2. The roof pitch has been changed
to 5 degrees.



Item 12 Information required

    12. Variation in the building design of the southern elevation of proposed units 5-8. In this regard
         it is recommended that this part of the development takes the form of small separate buildings
         rather than large single bulky development.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                       12


[OCR of page images]
facing 46 Poinciana Avenue. No substantial overlooking is anticipated. If necessary, screens can be
added to the upper level, louvre windows to Bedroom 2 and the family room of Proposed Units 5-8.

Item 8 Information required

8. Roof plan to include details of boundary setbacks

Response to Item 8

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 4. The setbacks to the outermost
projection of the roof are shown on the site plan, floor plans and elevations.

Item 9 Information required

9. Elevation plans to include the RL’s of the highest point of each building

Response to Item 9

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 4 showing the RL’s of the highest
point of the buildings on the elevation plan..

Item 10 Information required

10. A schedule of colours and materials to be included on the elevation plans

Response to Item 10

A colour palette and finishes schedule has been provided in the package of amended architectural
plans at Attachment 4 on the cover sheet.

Item 11 Information required

11. Amended plans to provide for a minimum 5 degree roof pitch

Response to Item 11

Amended architectural plans have been provided at Attachment 2. The roof pitch has been changed
to 5 degrees.

Item 12 Information required

12. Variation in the building design of the southern elevation of proposed units 5-8. In this regard
it is recommended that this part of the development takes the form of small separate buildings
rather than large single bulky development.

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 12

Page 14

Response to Item 12

The existing building design is articulated to provide variation in the building elevation. The stepping
of the units allows each separate dwelling to be identified as its own entity. The building façade also
provides visual interest and articulation through the use of mixed textures and materials. The façade
includes Hardies’ Linea’ Cladding and Hardies’ Axon Cladding to provide variety (refer Figure 7
below) as well as glass in solid panes and louvres and timber. The roof of the outdoor terrace also
projects from the building façade to create greater pockets of light and shade. Windows are provided
with shade by using hoods which also project into the space. A large portion of the rear façade will be
located below the natural ground level due to the stepping of the proposed development across the
site and cut and fill to provide a step-free entrance to each dwelling. The visual impact of the rear
façade is not significant or overly bulky in the landscape.




           EW-1 = Hardies ‘Linea’ Cladding                        EW-2 = Hardies ‘Axon’ Cladding




Figure 7 Elevation and examples of façade cladding


Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                       13


[OCR of page images]
Response to Item 12

The existing building design is articulated to provide variation in the building elevation. The stepping

of the units allows each separate dwelling to be identified as its own entity. The building fagade also

provides visual interest and articulation through the use of mixed textures and materials. The fagade

includes Hardies’ Linea’ Cladding and Hardies’ Axon Cladding to provide variety (refer Figure 7

below) as well as glass in solid panes and louvres and timber. The roof of the outdoor terrace also

projects from the building fagade to create greater pockets of light and shade. Windows are provided

with shade by using hoods which also project into the space. A large portion of the rear fagade will be

located below the natural ground level due to the stepping of the proposed development across the

site and cut and fill to provide a step-free entrance to each dwelling. The visual impact of the rear

facade is not significant or overly bulky in the landscape.

‘AT BOUNDARY
OPOSED GROUND LINE 300 STEP

 

EW-1 = Hardies ‘Linea’ Cladding EW-2 = Hardies ‘Axon’ Cladding

Linea Weatherboard. Available in 180mm and 150mm Axon Cladding 133mm Smooth. One of three available
widths. tyles.

 

Figure 7 Elevation and examples of facade cladding

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467

13

Page 15

Item 13 Information required

    13. Provision of at least 500mm of landscaping adjacent to either the eastern side of proposed
         unit 2 or the western side of proposed unit 3.

Response to Item 13

In balancing the requirements of the site to achieve compliance with Livable Housing standards and
meeting Council’s requirements for traffic movement and setbacks, the ability to provide a 500mm
landscape strip along the driveway is not physically possible. A dense landscape is provided along
the frontage to the site with additional landscape proposed at the end of the driveway with a feature
tree located in the landscaped area forward of Proposed Units 6 & 7. The landscape plan has also
been amended to include vertical gardens along the driveway to help soften the visual effect of the
driveway and in lieu of Council’s request for a 500mm landscape strip. (Refer Attachment 5)



Item 14 Information required

    14. The extent of earthworks to be reduced and resultant impact on streetscape and private open
         spaces areas mitigated.

Response to Item 14

Earthworks calculations have been determined to maintain step free entrances to the buildings while
also minimise cut and fill requirements. The earthworks plan provided in the engineering drawings at
Attachment 1 show a maximum cut of approximately 1.6 m in the south western corner of the site,
with the slope being benched to step the units down the slope. The finished pad level for Proposed
Unit 4 is approximately 1.2m above street level in the north-eastern corner of the site. The batter
between the units and the street will be densely vegetated as per the landscape plan provided at
Attachment 5 with fencing set back inside the boundary.



The applicant has provided their response to all of the information requested and requests that
Council proceed with assessment of the application.

Should you have any further queries please to not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Kind Regards,




Nadine Kirley MPIA
Principal Consultant
Concept Planning and Development Consultants

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                    14


[OCR of page images]
Item 13 Information required

13. Provision of at least 500mm of landscaping adjacent to either the eastern side of proposed
unit 2 or the western side of proposed unit 3.

Response to Item 13

In balancing the requirements of the site to achieve compliance with Livable Housing standards and
meeting Council’s requirements for traffic movement and setbacks, the ability to provide a 500mm
landscape strip along the driveway is not physically possible. A dense landscape is provided along
the frontage to the site with additional landscape proposed at the end of the driveway with a feature
tree located in the landscaped area forward of Proposed Units 6 & 7. The landscape plan has also
been amended to include vertical gardens along the driveway to help soften the visual effect of the

driveway and in lieu of Council’s request for a 500mm landscape strip. (Refer Attachment 5)

Item 14 Information required

14. The extent of earthworks to be reduced and resultant impact on streetscape and private open
spaces areas mitigated.

Response to Item 14

Earthworks calculations have been determined to maintain step free entrances to the buildings while
also minimise cut and fill requirements. The earthworks plan provided in the engineering drawings at
Attachment 1 show a maximum cut of approximately 1.6 m in the south western corner of the site,
with the slope being benched to step the units down the slope. The finished pad level for Proposed
Unit 4 is approximately 1.2m above street level in the north-eastern corner of the site. The batter
between the units and the street will be densely vegetated as per the landscape plan provided at
Attachment 5 with fencing set back inside the boundary.

The applicant has provided their response to all of the information requested and requests that
Council proceed with assessment of the application.

Should you have any further queries please to not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Kind Regards,

Nadine Kirley MPIA
Principal Consultant
Concept Planning and Development Consultants

 

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467 14