RPS Information Request Response _Final_

Our Ref:     PR122781-4.1002BRW.lp
Council Ref: MCU14/0083
Date:        21 April 2015

Attn:              Glen Conforti


Sunshine Coast Council
Locked Bag 72
Sunshine Coast MC Q 4560


Via Email ([email protected]) and Mail


Dear Glen

RE:             MCU14/0083 - INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 278 OF THE SUSTAINABLE PLANNING ACT 2009
                178 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE (PART OF LOT 101 ON SP241371)

We act on behalf of Mogpropmanagement Pty Ltd, regarding the abovementioned Development
Application. This Development Application seeks approval for the following aspects of development:

      •        Development Permit for Material Change of Use to establish Industrial Business Type 2
               (Production, alteration, repackaging & repairing) [Code Assessable].
          th
On 11 November 2014 an Information Request was received from Sunshine Coast Council.
Pursuant to Section 278 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, we provide our response to this
information request in full, as below and attached.

INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE

Planning Issue
The proposal plans indicate a zero lot alignment to the southern, eastern and western
boundaries. The court order allowed for a zero lot alignment to Gateway Drive (western
boundary) and the Park (southern boundary) boundaries. The Planning Scheme requires a 6m
setback to the primary frontage and 4.5m to a secondary frontage.

The proposal is in a prominent location with a considerable quantity of the building proposed
within the required 6m setback to the eastern boundary. The proposal does not incorporate
varying wall planes to provide visual relief, nor does it provide sufficient area for landscaping
within the property boundary to soften the elevation. The setback is not consistent with other
building and landscape elements nearby.

1. Please provide amended plans with the building setback 6m from the eastern boundary.

Response:

The issue of a boundary setback encroachment of the proposed building upon the eastern property
alignment was disclosed, recognised and discussed with Council Officers in the Council pre-
lodgement meeting that occurred on the 17.07.2014.

Whilst it is minuted that Council Officers would ordinarily prefer an increased setback to allow
some on-site landscaping at the building’s eastern end, it was also discussed and recognised
that the extent of the boundary setback incursion was a relatively short length of built form, being