Further Advice Response_050820 · 51901.3614.01

Page 2

of the proposal changes. We also did a detailed ‘walk around’ of Netanya to better explain the proposed
changes compared to the current situation.

The on-site meeting and explanation demonstrated that the areas of increased site cover largely related
to new awning/weather coverage adjacent to the retail shops next to Providore, in front of the Netanya
reception and over the car park entry. All other areas were shown to be needed to meet legislative
requirements. It is believed fair to say that Council could see the merit in the increased weather
protection being proposed in these key locations and from that it was our understanding that Kerri
accepted that Council can support such minor increases in site cover.

As a side comment, we note that Noel Robinson was very supportive of these “improvements” in his
peer review of the proposal. In fact, Noel offered the following positive observations relevant to these
elements:

   “- The alterations to the entry of the site have provided good street presence to the Providore
   tenancy.”
   “- Site entry has been improved from the perspective of pedestrian experience”

On this basis, the proposal has not been changed in relation to these design items.

Item 2 – Gross Floor Area

Issue:
Specific Outcome O13 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code allows a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of
3,917m2 in the Visitor Mixed Use Zone. The existing GFA exceeds the maximum allowable, and the
proposal plans are proposing an additional increase in GFA. An increase in GFA is not supported,
except where required in order to meet legislative requirements (ie fire and DDA standards).

Changes required:
    2.   Provide updated proposal plans that do not result in any additional GFA for the whole of the
         development, except where required in order to meet legislative requirements (ie fire and DDA
         standards).

Response:
This matter was also discussed in greater detail with Council at the site meeting on 17 July 2020. As a
result of this on-site review, it was determined there was only one area of additional GFA that wasn’t a
consequence of meeting current legislative requirements. This being the proposed improvements to the
Providore outdoor dining area, which represents an increase of just 28m2.

As with site cover, we understood from the on-site meeting and our detailed explanation of the general
improvements proposed within this entry area and adjacent to Providore, that Council are comfortable
with and would support this minor increase.

Again, the proposal has not been changed in relation to GFA items.

Item 3 – Height
Issue:
Specific Outcome O7 of the Noosa Heads Locality Code allows a maximum height in the Visitor Mixed
Use Zone of:
    • Northern side of Hastings Street –
           o within 7m of the Hastings St alignment – 2 storeys; or
           o balance area of site – 4 storeys with a 3 storey presentation to the beach




                                                   2

Page 3

The pergolas proposed on the roof terraces, although not constituting a storey by definition, result in
the building presenting as 4 storeys to the beach.

Advice required:
    3.   The proposed pergolas are to be peer reviewed by Noel Robinson (refer to below item for
         further information).

Item 4 – Peer Review
Issue:
Due to the prominence and locality of the subject site, the proposal plans are required to be peer
reviewed by NRA Collaborative. The peer review is to be at the expense of the applicant, as per
Council’s Fees and Charges.

Information required:
The proposal plans are to be peer reviewed, with the review to be provided to Council.

Response to Items 3 & 4:

An architectural peer review was undertaken by NRA Collaborative and as Council is aware, we had a
meeting with Noel Robinson and Tara Norley to discuss the key areas of interest raised by Noel. Noel’s
review included a number of recommendations, which have been considered by Sprout Architects and
the applicant. Accordingly, Sprout Architects has made a number of consequential changes to the
proposal plans – refer Attachment 1 for an amended set of plans for this application.

Sprout Architects has also provided the attached detailed response to the matters raised by Noel
Robinson – refer Attachment 2. This detailed response addresses each item in turn and provides written
and visual responses showing how the applicant has addressed Noel’s recommendations.

In summary, Sprout’s response shows that Noel’s recommendations have, for the most part, been
incorporated into the proposed development.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Peter Folker
Director
Email: [email protected]




                                                   3

Page 4

                        ATTACHMENT 1
Amended Architectural Plans, prepared by
                       Sprout Architects




                4


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT
URBAN
ATTACHMENT 1

 

Amended Architectural Plans, prepared by
Sprout Architects

Page 5

                           ATTACHMENT 2
Response to Peer Review Items, prepared by
                          Sprout Architects




                   5


[OCR of page images]
PROJECT
URBAN
ATTACHMENT 2

 

Response to Peer Review Items, prepared by
Sprout Architects