Information Request Response Lot 22 · MCU22/0038

        open     space    areas      of provides focus to access and circulation entry points. 5 degree
        neighbouring properties.        pitched roofs continue from the gateway end around the
                                        verandah to the North West Elevation as a skillion that extends
                                        back beyond the verandah pushing the pitch along the North
                                        East Elevation. Similarly, the gateway bookend wraps around
                                        the South East to a lower verandah roof that transitions to 3
                                        degrees and then a subtle 1.5-degree pitch with wider
                                        overhangs around the North East which reduces the mass and
                                        scale. The façade composition utilises a mix of overhang
                                        witdths, roof pitches, screens and verandahs to provide a
                                        layering of materials, light and shade whilst avoiding boxed
                                        parapet roof forms.

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the development complies with this Specific
Outcome of the Local Plan.




Council Item 2 – Car Parking Provisions

Section 5 of the SLR memo assesses parking requirements of the proposal against the superseded
planning scheme provisions as being 109 spaces.


The SLR memo also assesses parking requirements based on “amended structure plan” rates quoted as
being 1 space per 20m2 GFA at ground level plus 1 space per 30m2 GFA on other levels. This only relates
to development located in the Major Centre Zone Code in Noosa Heads, the subject site is within
Noosaville.


My reading of the Noosa Plan 2020 parking requirement for the development is 1 space per 20m2 GFA
for office and 1 space per 20m2 GFA for health care service, both of which would require the provision
of 109 parking spaces at the site.


That is, both the superseded planning scheme and the current planning scheme require 109 parking
spaces, compared with only 99 proposed parking spaces. The SLR memo attempts to justify the shortfall
on two grounds (directly quoted from the report hereunder):


   i.      “The proposed parking capacity is however considered to be acceptable owing to the
           proponent’s intended delivery of the nearby multi-modal transport hub, which would increase
           the attractiveness of public transport to both employees and customers as an alternative to
           driving to and from the proposed development”.



                                                                                                    |4