response to further advice Pitta · MCU20/0070

Page 2

Page 2 of 4


[OCR of page images]
 

 

 

|
ui HM HAT
=

 

 

RSE Sse A

 

 

 

 

 

NORTH VATION — IARY.
‘SCALE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ervey!
soaponooe aye . ae
‘| tect test
me ceve ee eee EE —— -
5 ms =a
wom ueva sy _ ___ | pee
team rinse |
muses easement vey, | Of as
gh (survey) ——
sinanas gros ine setiovares nat
ng furry stove
simee

{sour ELEVATION - BUILDING
‘SEALE 1-108

Page 2 of 4

Page 3

2. Provide amended plans that comply with 50%/30% or 40% overall. Any building
   over the permissible site cover outlined in Noosa Plan will not be supported.
The building has been amended to include more landscaping areas around the building in
compliance with the 40% site cover for the two levels.




3. Provide amended plans that remove any structure that is not cantilevered from
   the 6-metre setback to the seaward boundary. No structure in the 6-metre
   setback will be supported.
The proposed pool is to be cantilevered 3.2m over the 6 setback line. Only the fence and
small gatehouse are located along the property boundary in the north eastern corner of
the site adjacent to the Pitta St carpark and beach walkway access.




                                                                            Page 3 of 4

Page 4

4. Provide amended plans that remove the stairs to the roof as accessed from the
   top level.
A drop-down ladder is only provided for maintenance access to the roof and solar panels.
Considering the harsh salt environment, cleaning of the panels will be required on a
regular basis. No balustrading is provided ontop of the building (for habitable rooftop
terrace use) and is only to be used for maintenance purposes, which will require
appropriate harnessing for Occupational Health & Safety reasons. In this regard, the
applicant is willing to accept a condition for maintenance use only.




5. Provide RPEQ certification that the proposed stormwater arrangement will not
   create a worsening of stormwater conditions to any of the neighbouring
   properties.
The RPEQ engineer provides a letter outlining that the proposed design will not create a
worsening of stormwater conditions to neighbouring properties (Council’s road reserve).

Pursuant to the Development Assessment Rules, the applicant has given the assessment
manager the information requested. It is therefore requested that Council proceed with its
assessment of the development application at their earliest convenience.

If you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
myself.

Regards,




Jack Lewis B.Sc Hons UNSW M.Plan Otago
Planner/Director
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd




                                                                              Page 4 of 4