Council archive · source document
L02 TO NC -response to FIN · 51983.3225.16
Council Reference: TPC1632 Our Reference: 03051 L01 GFM 1st November, 2022 Chief Executive Officer Noosa Shire Council PO Box 141 TEWANTIN QLD 4565 Confidential Email Transmission: [email protected] & [email protected] Original in Post: No Attention: Lisa Pienaar Dear Lisa RE: APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO FURTHER ISSUES NOTICE ________________________ Minor Change to Existing Development Approval TPC1632 (51983.3225.15) (multiple dwelling 25 units and 8 shops dwelling unit) for a Premises located at 3/30 Hastings Street, Noosa Heads and described as Lot 3 on GTP1154 in The Hastings CTS21433 Reference is made to the further issues notice issued by Council and dated 22ND September, 2022 (“Council’s notice”) in response to the above change application. Council’s notice identified four (4) issues which Council considered are restricting it from completing its assessment of the above change application. The applicant has agreed to respond all four (4) issues in Council’s notice as follows: Item 1: Setbacks Applicant’s Response: The proposal plans have been amended to highlight the existing setbacks in blue. These setbacks from the existing building to the adjoining existing buildings remain to be shown on the demolition plan. Setbacks from the proposed building to adjoining buildings are also shown on the relevant floor plans. The applicant is aware that Noosa Shire Council has indicated a preference for 2 metre setbacks to be achieved wherever possible. It is understood that such a setback is not specifically nominated in the relevant planning scheme for the assessment of this change application. The basis on which Council has selected the preferred 2 metres does not appear to relate to any architectural, building code or urban design principle but rather a distance that Council would ideally prefer to achieve for any new development on existing lots in The Hastings Community Titles Scheme (CTS). The existing cadastral boundaries would have been established based on recognition on such considerations at the time as – the then requirements of the Registrar of Titles for standard lots and community property when first seeking to register a community titles scheme, the location of improvements as approved by Council in the land use approval and subsequently constructed in accordance with building and operational works approval, the use and occupation of lots and common property as provided for in all relevant development approval and the registered community management statement for The Hastings CTS, etc. None of these have essentially changed since The Hastings CTS was first registered. If the preferred setbacks for any new development are measured from the proposed development to adjoining existing buildings then this could poettnailly complicate the subsequent redevelopment of adjoining lots. If the preferred setbacks were measured from existing cadastral boundaries such an approach fails to adequately acknowledge the above likely basis on which these boundaries have been established and it introduces added complications where setbacks from existing buildings to existing cadastral boundaries are already less than 2 metres. Consequently it is considered appropriately to undertake a site by site and setting by setting assessment. In this regard the following are considered relevant for the current proposed design on the subject site and its setting.
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
Page 2
(a) There is a reduction in setback on the northern elevation of the proposed building however the reduction is a
result of the proposed relocation of the enclosed stairwell. This new stairwell is proposed to be screened by
close and fixed slatted construction. A setback of more than 2 m. has been achieved to the existing building to
the north.
(b) The existing building is 0.39 m. from the lot boundary and the proposal is to align the new boundary on the
boundary. The proposed building on the boundary at ground level is a 1m. long wall with no window openings
proposed. In any regard the proposed building will be greater than 2 m. from the existing building immediately
to the east and over 4 m. to the existing building to the south-east.
(c) The existing building on the lot is setback 0.77m from the lot boundary and 6.46 m. from the existing building to
the south. The proposal shows a 0.17m. boundary setback which provides a setback of 5.885 m. to the existing
building to the south. The existing setbacks have been maintained in those levels proposed above ground
level.
(d) The existing minimum setback to the western boundary of the lot and the scheme land for The Hastings CTS is
proposed to be reduced from the existing 2.62 m. to 0.2 m. on all levels of the proposed building with the
exception of the proposed rooftop terrace. There are no widows in the wall below the roof top terrace within the
exception of two small louvres which will be glazed with obscure glass. The roof top terrace walls has been
setback so as to provide a roof garden behind a parapet wall to at least balustrade height.
Item 2: Landscaping
Applicant’s Response: The set of proposal plan have been amended to show proposed areas of landscaping within
the subject standard format lot. Obviously land outside of the cadastral boundaries of this lot is either common property in
The Hastings CTS, or one of four other standard format lots owned by others in The Hastings CTS or the adjoining
community titles scheme to the north. Only that area within the subject lot can be proposed to be landscaped at this
stage.
All accessible land at ground level within the subject lot that is not required for building or access is proposed to be
landscaped. This landscaping includes the following four separate areas:
Garden (9.5m2) – between the car port and store which includes and outdoor shower
Landscaping (9m2) - along the northern boundary of the lot
Landscaping (2.5m2) – in the north-eastern corner of the lot
Landscaping (6m2) - along the southern boundary of the lot
The applicant has not nominated proposed planting details (i.e. species, locations or pot sizes, mulch) at this stage for a
number of reasons. It is understood that the body corporate is considering a new landscaping regime over common
property within all fo the scheme land. Given the limited areas for such landscaping in common property it is considered
beneficial that any landscaping within individual lots respect that landscaping within common property and contribute
positively to its design intent. In any regard, Council can include a condition requiring a detailed plan to be supplied and
approved by Council before approval of building works within the subject lot.
Item 3: Design
Applicant’s Response: The proposal plans provided with this response includes the eastern elevation as shown below
over the page. This elevation highlights the articulation in the proposed external construction materials in terms of their
detailing/orientation, and colour, and also in the proposed external form of the building.
The designer has embraced a number of recognised urban design approaches commonly relied upon with respect to
articulation for designing infill development. For example, the existing development on either side is externally clad in
plywood with the grooves running vertically. This vertical orientation is proposed to be repeated in the external linear
cladding on the upper and lower levels whereas the middle levels are proposed to incorporate horizontally orientated
cladding that visually connects the existing buildings on either side. The effectiveness of this urban design approach is
increased by incorporating variations in external colour of those levels where vertical cladding is proposed and a more
constant colour in that level where the horizontal cladding seeks to assist in visually connecting the two adjoining existing
buildings. The coordination of variations in colour ands materials is another recognised urban design approach for infill
development
Page 3
Page 3
Proposed Eastern Elevation
Item 4: Roof-top terrace
Applicant’s Response:
Council appears to be concerned that there will be an ability to overlook into windows in existing adjoining dwellings from
the proposed roof-top terrace. The following need to be appreciated if Council is to further consider such a concern:-
(a) The roof top terrace proposed a roof garden on all sides other than the side where there is a hatched stair
access. The roof garden will be planted with shrubs that provide a visual screen.
(b) There is a solid parapet wall around all sides of the propose roof-top terrace to at least handrail level.
(c) Existing surrounding buildings incorporate eaves between that building and the subject lot and these eaves are
pitched as a projection of the steeply pitched roof of these surrounding buildings. As such these existing eaves
provide a screen to windows in adjoining dwellings from available observation locations above on the proposed
roof-top terrace.
(d) As a result of the above it will not be possible for people on the proposed roof top terrace to view into windows
in adjoining dwellings.
The applicant has now responded to Council’s notice for this change application and therefore requests that Council
completes its assessment of this application.
Page 4
Page 4 Council is welcome to contact me directly on 0409632830 or by email through [email protected] if Council requires any further information and/or clarification in relation to any of the above responses or enclosed amended proposal plans. Yours faithfully, Greg Martoo Principal martoo consulting pty ltd. Encl. (1) – Set of plans (sheets 1 to 11) by GT Group Building Design as amended on 24/10/2022
Used in these records
L02 TO NC -response to FIN.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 878 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.