MCU14/0067 - PM Submission Object - William Benjamin Sharpe

• Page 2




      MCU141OO~7- extract of plans - Elevation Architecture



2.   The proposal does not comply with the Noosaville Locality Code - Specific Outcome 019
     Plot ratio which details a maximum plot ratio of 0.6 whereas the proposal seeks at plot
     ratio of 0.93.

     Facts and Circumstances relied on in this submission for Ground NO.2 include the following:

     The pianning report accompanying the application notes that the proposal does not ccmply with
     the Noosaville Locality Code - Specific Outcome 019 Plot ratio. Under Specific Outcome 019 a
     maximum plot ratio of 0.6 is detailed.
                    "
     The proposal' seeks approval for a plot ratio of 0,93 on the basis that scheme amendments
     increasing" plot ratio for the precinct have been endorsed by Council.

     This request and justification is considered premature as whilst the amendments may have been
     endorsed by Council the exact nature of the changes are not known and other technical
     requirements may be introduced as part of the amendments. Further the general public has not
     had the opportunity to view the exact nature of the amendments which cculd alter the overall
     provisions. f
                ':- .
     The non compiiance with plot ratio has resulted in a building that has an unappealing and bulky
     fa98de .to the street and should not be accepted or approved,
                e



3.   The landscaping            proposed for the site is inadequate and not consistent   with the intent of
     the area.

     Facts and Circumstances relied on in this submission for Ground NO.3 include the following:
             lv~
     Limited landscaping has been provided on site. It appears from the proposal plans that
     landscaping includes areas predominately required for stormwater management. The Noosa
     Plan defines that landscaped areas as:
                "';"1'




             ,.) '"'     ::.'