Town Planning Report

           •    Contains bedroom windows that are positioned away from communal and mechanical space –
                AO5;
           •    Is not a mixed-use development – AO6;
           •    Provides the opportunity for natural casual surveillance to occur without impacting the privacy
                of surrounding residents – AO7;
           •    Utilises entrances that maintain sight lines and resident safety as well as safe accessibility for
                visitors – AO8;
           •    Delivers a landscape to in excess of 40% of the site with a sufficient degree of soft landscaping –
                AO10;
           •    Contains greater than 25m² of Private Open Space that is directly accessible from living spaces
                and does not exceed a gradient of 10% - AO11;
           •    Does not gain access from a road with a speed of 80kph or more – AO12; and,
           •    Contains a compliant access and car parking outcome – AO13.

5.1.2    Medium Density Residential Zone Code
29. As stated above, Council approved the extension of the Unit 1 of the development on the subject site, with
      the extensions being consistent with the applicable assessment benchmarks. It is noted that the proposed
      Change does not seek to alter the approved land use or introduce any new uses onsite.

30. It is noted that the revised development layout has resulted in non-compliances with AO11, AO12.1(a),
    AO12.1(b), AO12.2, AO17.1 & AO17.2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code. These assessment
    benchmarks have been discussed in the following sections.

5.1.2.1 Acceptable Outcome AO11 – Plot Ratio
31. Acceptable Outcome AO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code delineates that a development
     does not exceed a plot ratio of 0.4:1, the development marginally exceeds this benchmark in proposing a
     plot ratio of 0.43:1. Under the 2004 approval the development was assessed against the superseded Noosa
     Plan, this plan prescribed a maximum plot ratio of 0.45:1 and thus provided the approved Unit 1 extensions
     a greater degree of built form. It is deemed that weight be given to this approval in order to allow the
     development of Unit 2 to deliver a consistent quantity of built form and scale to that allowed to Unit 1.
     With the contextual understanding that these changes are marginally non-compliant against the current
     Planning Scheme and thus would not be generally identifiable as an unacceptable scale nor bulk. Thus the
     proposal aligns with the expectations of community it should be deemed that the proposed Plot ratio is
     compliant with the previous approval and the overall outcomes of the Medium Density Residential Zone
     Code.

5.1.2.2 Acceptable Outcome AO12.1(a) – Front Setback
32. The development proposes a front setback to Avocet Parade and Martin Street of between 4.5 metres and
     5 metres (demonstrated in Figure 10), which does not satisfy Council’s preferred outcome of 6 metres of
     setback from front boundary as prescribed by AO12.1(a).

33. It is important to note the proposed change results in increased front boundary setbacks to that of the
    existing dwelling (refer to Figure 9), thus providing a more compliant outcome to what is currently
    presented by the site. Although not compliant against AO12.1(a) the proposal complies with Performance
    Outcome PO12, as the dwelling:
             a) Provides a sufficient setback such that the unit generally appears as ‘positioned off the site
                 boundary’ and as such effectively minimizes any appearance of bulk in what is an articulated
                 and highly finished façade, providing both a visual aesthetic benefit to the locality. While in

  ASTP 220311                                                                                                  Page 12 of 19