ASTP-Rspns_To_RFI

Page 2

            Figure 1 – Areas of additional gross floor area (shown in yellow hatch)


            Information Required
             1. Provide amended plans that demonstrate compliance with Acceptable Outcome AO11
                 and Performance Outcome PO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code by
                 reducing the plot ratio to a maximum of 0.4:1.

RESPONSE
Firstly, it is important to point out that these are not large dwellings with each unit having an internal area of
only ~119m². It is simply not possible to make the dwellings smaller and to achieve the type of product required
for a viable development in such a high value location. It is noted that under the Planning Scheme, dwellings
with a GFA of up to 100m² are considered ‘small dwellings’ which are afforded an increased plot ratio of 0.45:1.
The size of the proposed units are not dissimilar to that of a small dwelling.

Council contends that the ‘laundry’ and ‘open air passage’ to both the upper and lower levels contribute to
additional gross floor (GFA) area as “they are substantially enclosed, are not providing access between levels and
are not unenclosed private balconies”. The definition of GFA is included below for reference.

          gross floor area for a building, means the total floor area of all storeys of the building, measured from
          the outside of the external walls and the centre of any common walls of the building, other than areas
          used for—
              a) building services, plant or equipment; or
              b) access between levels; or
              c) a ground floor public lobby; or
              d) a mall; or
              e) parking, loading or manoeuvring vehicles; or
              f) unenclosed private balconies, whether roofed or not.




Our ref: 240407                                                                                          Page 2 of 9

Page 3

While we disagree that the subject spaces are substantially enclosed, we point out that there is no reference
anywhere in the definition of GFA that refers to the term ‘substantially enclosed’. Instead, the definition refers
to floor area measured from the outside of external walls. As shown in Figure 1 below, where excluding the lift
and fire stair, which are excluded from the definition of GFA, all external edges of the laundry and open-air
passage are ~50% transparent battened balustrade or screening that is open to the sky either above or below
the balustrade or screen, not external walls. Additional perspective views from the laundry and passage are
enclosed in Attachment 2 to better illustrate the external open-air nature of these spaces. It is further noted
that multiple provisions within the relevant assessment benchmarks require the type of screening proposed to
such external spaces to protect privacy and amenity between the proposed and adjoining developments. The
proposed laundry and open-air passage are not enclosed by external walls, are not GFA, and are external spaces
that are screened in accordance with the Planning Scheme. Accordingly, these spaces do not contribute to plot
ratio. A compliant plot ratio is achieved.

Updated Architectural Plans are enclosed in Attachment 1 and have widened the opening between the lift and
fire stair, increased the width of the opening to the lobby and increased the batten spacing in the privacy screens
to increase the openness of this space. Further amendments were considered, however, could not be adopted
due to requirements to maintain a compliant fire escape for the upper floor and also to maintain the privacy of
the neighbouring property at 22 Grant Street.




          Battened balustrade / screen and open to sky


Figure 1 - External Edges of Laundry and Open-Air Passage


From the Information Request item, we understand that Council’s concern is that the spaces add bulk to the
built form of the dwellings. The laundry and open-air passage are located in a rear corner of the site, are not
visible from Grant Street and therefore will not add any building bulk as viewed from the street frontage. In
terms of building bulk to adjoining properties, the external edges of the spaces are open with lightweight
battened screening, are setback from common boundaries compliant with the Performance Outcomes of the
Planning Scheme and contribute to significantly less building bulk than if external walls were proposed in this
location. The proposed outcome also presents less building bulk than the entirely screened void spaces recently
approved for the adjoining Dual Occupancy at 22 Grant Street (refer Figure 2 below).




Our ref: 240407                                                                                          Page 3 of 9

Page 4

                                                                              Screened void spaces not
                                                                              including in plot ratio
                                                                              calculation.




                                                                              Screened void spaces not
                                                                              including in plot ratio
                                                                              calculation.




Figure 2 - 22 Grant Street Approved Upper-Level GFA Plan and Side Elevation

In summary, the laundry and open-air passage spaces are not GFA, do not contribute to plot ratio, do not
contribute to building bulk as viewed from the street and do not contribute to undue building bulk to adjoining
properties. The proposed plot ratio complies with PO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.



            ITEM 2:
            Issue – Proposed Connection into Existing Stormwater Infrastructure
            Barlow Shelley’s Roadworks and Stormwater Drainage Plan (C201, Rev. A) proposes to
            connect into an existing stormwater manhole in the verge fronting 22 Grant Street, Noosa
            Heads. For clarity, this “stormwater manhole” will be referred to as “stormwater pit”

             In January 2023, Council approved the removal of this existing stormwater pit as part of
            OPW22/0234. As part of this approval, a new stormwater lintel and pit will be constructed
            further downstream. A copy of the approved plans for OPW22/0234 are attached this
            information request.

            Council recommends that the proposed Roadworks and Stormwater Drainage Plan be
            revised to incorporate the ongoing/future works downstream.



Our ref: 240407                                                                                          Page 4 of 9

Page 5

            Information Required
            2. Provide an amended Roadworks and Stormwater Drainage Plan that includes the
                 ongoing/future works downstream (i.e., the removal and relocation of the existing
                 stormwater pit fronting 22 Grant Street). The amended plans must be prepared by a
                 suitably qualified person (RPEQ).

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. Barlow
Shelley has contacted the adjacent property developer and builder to coordinate the outcome. It is proposed
that the adjacent property builder remove the existing pit and cap the line. Our client’s proposed development
would then extend the stormwater pipe from the top of the existing line to the site frontage to provide
connection. The adjacent site owners are amenable to this as it avoids trenching through their newly constructed
driveway. The proposed solution is documented on the revised Engineering Drawings in Attachment 4.



            ITEMS 3 & 4:
            Issue – Earthworks Levels
            The interface between the proposed finish levels within the subject site and the existing
            natural ground levels of the adjacent properties is unclear. Council is unable to accurately
            assess the impacts of the proposed earthworks on adjoining properties.

            Information Required
            3. Provide site-specific survey data detailing the existing levels along the north-western
                 and south-eastern shared property boundaries. The site-specific survey data must be
                 prepared by a suitably qualified person.
            4. Provide amended Bulk Earthworks Plan (C101) and Earthworks Sections (C102) that
                 highlights the levels at the interface between the subject site and the neighbouring
                 properties. The amended plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ),
                 incorporate data for site-specific survey, and include, but not be limited to:
                 a. Spot levels of the proposed finished levels along the north-western and south-
                       eastern shared property boundaries; and
                 b. Natural ground line in all earthworks sections.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. There is
active construction occurring on the south-eastern property boundary shared with No. 22 Grant Street. The
levels and cross sections shown on the updated plans in relation to this boundary refer to the current
construction drawings for the adjacent site when referencing the adjacent basement construction. The
boundary shared with No. 18 Grant Street is consistent with the levels shown on the survey plan prepared by
LSD surveyors, except where adjacent to the carport. The existing retaining wall here is approximately 0.4 –
1.4m high. In this location, stairs for access are required for Unit 1 so the proposed development finished levels
are consistent with the existing site levels.

The updated Engineering Plans (Attachment 4) include levels from the survey file along each boundary and
sections with the natural ground lines (as surveyed) shown.




Our ref: 240407                                                                                            Page 5 of 9

Page 6

            ITEM 5:
            Issue – Earthworks Sections
            Additional earthworks sections are required to accurately assess the proposed development.

            Information Required
            5. Provide additional earthworks sections through the areas highlighted in red below. The
                 additional sections must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) and include
                 the requested information in Item 4.




            Figure 2 – Requested sections extracted from Barlow Shelley’s Bulk Earthworks Plan (C101, Rev. A).


RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. The updated
Engineering Plans (Attachment 4) include the requested additional sections and information.



            ITEM 6:
            Issue – Retaining Wall
            The sections of retaining structures shown in the below extract require further justification.




            Figure 3 – Sections of retaining wall in question extracted from Barlow Shelley’s Bulk Earthworks Plan (C101, Rev.
            A)


Our ref: 240407                                                                                                                  Page 6 of 9

Page 7

            Figure 3 shows the rear portion is hatched for ‘cut’ which Council believes to be an error, as
            Section A of Barlow Shelley’s Earthworks Sections (C102, Rev. A) does not indicate a cut and
            annotations suggest the existing levels are to be retained.

            Information Required
                 6. Clarify the intent of the sections of retaining wall highlighted in Figure 3 and
                    comment on the overall intent of the rear portion of the site with respects to
                    earthworks (cut). Any commentary must be prepared by a suitably qualified person
                    (RPEQ) and include amended plans where necessary.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. The updated
Engineering Plans (Attachment 4) show the cut hatch filtered for a minimum depth and the natural slope to the
rear of the site left intact as described on the site sections.



            ITEMS 7 & 8:
            Issue – Vehicle Manoeuvring
            Insufficient Vehicle Turn Paths have been provided demonstrating that the carparks
            highlighted below are functional for a B99 vehicle.




            Figure 4 – Potential collision and carparks requiring Vehicle Turn Paths extracted from Barlow Shelley’s Vehicle Turn
            Paths (C300, Rev. A)


            It is unclear if the garage “gate” is intended to function as a traditional gate and open
            inwards. If it is the intention for the garage “gate” to open inwards, then the B99 Vehicle
            Turn Path shown in Figure 4 collides with the open gate.

            Information Required
            7. Provide additional Vehicle Turn Paths demonstrating a B99 vehicle can manoeuvre in
                 and out of the carparks highlighted in blue in Figure 3. The additional Vehicle Turn


Our ref: 240407                                                                                                                     Page 7 of 9

Page 8

                  Paths must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and include, but not be limited
                  to:
                   a. a ‘finished position’ that complies with Figure 5.2 of AS2890.01; and
                   b. avoid any elements of the template colliding with elements of the development
                         (i.e., wheel path, body overhang, etc.).
            8.    Clarify if the proposed garage “gate” is to function as a traditional gate and open
                  inwards. If this is the intention, then provide amended Vehicle Turn Paths avoiding the
                  collision highlighted in yellow in Figure 4.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. The most
constrained vehicle movements were shown in the original engineering set. The updated Engineering Plans
(Attachment 4) have been updated with the requested additional swept paths to demonstrate no issues with
vehicle access / egress from site.

The gate has been reconfigured to mount hinges from the back of the walls so that it can open wider than 90
degrees to sit clear of the swept paths as shown on the updated Engineering Plans (Attachment 4).



            ITEM 9:
            Issue – Footpath Width
            Barlow Shelley’s Roadworks and Stormwater Drainage Layout Plan (C201, Rev. A) details a
            new 1.16m wide footpath. The Noosa Plan 2020 – Planning Scheme Policy 6 Engineering
            Design Standards calls for footpaths to be a minimum width of 1.5m (Table SC6.7.2).

            Information Required
            9. Provide amended plans including the provision of a 1.5m wide footpath. The amended
                 plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ).
                 The footpath may be reduced in width to a minimum of 1.2m where necessary due to
                 existing constraints (i.e., existing services, grades, etc.). Any reduction must be
                 adequately justified.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Responses and updated Engineering Plans in Attachments 3 and 4. The verge
has greater than 3% crossfall and is narrow (3.6-3.7m width). In order to keep the footpath crossfall at a
maximum of 2.5%, the footpath is proposed to be reduced to a width of 1.2m as shown on the updated
Engineering Plans including verge sections (Attachment 4). The remaining 0.75m to the boundary has between
5 and 10% grade. If the footpath was made wider, it would require a vertical landscape edge in the verge in front
of each adjacent property where the footpath tapers out creating a trip hazard and structure in the verge. This
is not a recommended outcome for Council. Therefore a 1.2m width footpath is proposed.




Our ref: 240407                                                                                             Page 8 of 9

Page 9

This represents our complete response to the Information Request issued by Council, and we look forward to
the Decision Notice being issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 2016.

As always, please feel free to contact me direct should you require any additional information or clarification.

Yours faithfully,


ADAMS + SPARKES
TO WN P L ANN ING




Adam Seaton
SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

Encl:       Updated Architectural Plans (Attachment 1)
            Perspective Views of Laundry and Passage (Attachment 2)
            Engineering Responses (Attachment 3)
            Updated Engineering Plans (Attachment 4)




Our ref: 240407                                                                                         Page 9 of 9