response to information request 33 ross · MCU24/0094

Page 2

The proposal satisfies the performance outcome by stepping the form down the slope of
the site to minimise cut and fill, while remaining below allowable height limits. The design
also retains and relocates natural vegetation to screen and visually softening the built from.
The materials reflect colours found within the local geology and vegetation, with earth-
toned finishes and textures that blend in seamlessly with the surrounding environment.
The proposed roofs are all designed to be masked by cascading landscaping elements,
which the architect considers contributes to the overall aesthetic appeal of the
development. These combined approaches ensures the residence does not stand out,
rather the design integrates smoothly into the natural environment - consistent with the
relevant Performance Outcomes.

       3. Amend the design to reduce the appearance of bulk to more successfully
          respond to PO8 of the Low Density Residential zone code (below).

Further renders are provided to comprehend the scale of the size relative to the
surrounding environmental context. This site is largely hidden from the street; has no
immediate neighbours to the south; and sits behind the primary dune, as shown in the
updated renders below.




Figure. 3 Updated Renders

The town planning address of this Performance Outcome is provided in the original
application report, and the architectural address of each of the relevant Performance
Outcomes is provided below.




The proposal satisfies PO8(a) as the proposed development and is designed to be
compatible with the scale of surrounding development and the unique circumstances of
the site. Given the expansive nature of the lot, the size of the dwelling is appropriate and
maintains a harmonious relationship with neighbouring properties.




The proposal satisfies PO8(b) as the development prioritises a low site impact to maximise
the retention of existing site characteristics, including native vegetation and natural
landforms. The careful placement of the building minimises disruption to the landscape
and allows for the preservation of important ecological features. The proposed
development preserves the existing vegetation and relocates where possible.
Identified trees have been retained and indigenous planting species remain in place that
contribute to screening and visually softening the development. These natural elements
have been retained and or relocated within the site to provide natural buffering and
enhance the visual continuity between the built environment and the surrounding
landscape.

                                                                                 Page 2 of 4


[OCR of page images]
The proposal satisfies the performance outcome by stepping the form down the slope of
the site to minimise cut and fill, while remaining below allowable height limits. The design
also retains and relocates natural vegetation to screen and visually softening the built from.
The materials reflect colours found within the local geology and vegetation, with earth-
toned finishes and textures that blend in seamlessly with the surrounding environment.
The proposed roofs are all designed to be masked by cascading landscaping elements,
which the architect considers contributes to the overall aesthetic appeal of the
development. These combined approaches ensures the residence does not stand out,
rather the design integrates smoothly into the natural environment - consistent with the
relevant Performance Outcomes.

3. Amend the design to reduce the appearance of bulk to more successfully
respond to PO8 of the Low Density Residential zone code (below).

Further renders are provided to comprehend the scale of the size relative to the
surrounding environmental context. This site is largely hidden from the street; has no
immediate neighbours to the south; and sits behind the primary dune, as shown in the
updated renders below.

 

igure. pdated Renders

The town planning address of this Performance Outcome is provided in the original
application report, and the architectural address of each of the relevant Performance
Outcomes is provided below.

‘a) _ is of a scale compatible with surrounding development and the particular circumstances of the site;

The proposal satisfies PO8(a) as the proposed development and is designed to be
compatible with the scale of surrounding development and the unique circumstances of
the site. Given the expansive nature of the lot, the size of the dwelling is appropriate and
maintains a harmonious relationship with neighbouring properties.

(b) has a low site impact to maximise the opportunity to retain site characteristics, such as native
ion and natural landforms;

 

The proposal satisfies PO8(b) as the development prioritises a low site impact to maximise
the retention of existing site characteristics, including native vegetation and natural
landforms. The careful placement of the building minimises disruption to the landscape
and allows for the preservation of important ecological features. The proposed
development preserves the existing vegetation and relocates where possible.

Identified trees have been retained and indigenous planting species remain in place that
contribute to screening and visually softening the development. These natural elements
have been retained and or relocated within the site to provide natural buffering and
enhance the visual continuity between the built environment and the surrounding
landscape.

Page 2 of 4

Page 3

The proposal satisfies PO8(c) by incorporating large areas of soft landscaping within, on
top and around the dwelling, by promoting a seamless integration with the environment.
The proposal not only enhances the aesthetic appeal of the surroundings but also supports
local biodiversity and contributes to the overall green space of the area.




The proposal satisfies PO8(d) as the development incorporates a strategy of stepping
down with the natural slope, thereby minimising the appearance of any bulk form seen
from adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site. The developments
architectural features, landscaping, and stepped building heights, integrates harmoniously
with the surrounding environment. This approach enhances the visual aesthetics of the
area while maintaining a scale that is consistent with neighbouring structures. Overall, the
development promotes a sense of openness and contributes positively to the character of
the neighbourhood.

       4. Provide confirmation by a suitably qualified representative of Westera
          Partners’ that:
               a. The location of the proposed infiltration trenches aligns with the
                   recommendations contained in Tectonic’s Geotechnical
                   Investigation (24096-001-Rev0) dated 18 June 2024; and
               b. A meaningful area of roof water cannot reasonably be
                   discharged into Council’s existing stormwater system along
                   Ross Crescent.
       5. Provide additional detail by a suitably qualified representative of
          Westera Partners’ that demonstrates:
               a. the peak post-development flow will not exceed the peak pre-
                   development flow in events up to and including the DFE; and
               b. b. how stormwater surcharging from the infiltration pit will be
                   dispersed to sheet flow.
       6. Provide comment by a suitably qualified representative of Westera
          Partners’ that demonstrates how the catchment areas bypassing the
          infiltration trenches will follow the existing drainage regime of the site
          (i.e., sheet flow) and will not cause nuisance downstream.

Westera Partners provides a detailed response letter to the above items, concluding that
the proposed stormwater outcome is appropriate for the scale of development and is in
accordance with that of other similar developments in the region.

       7. Provide additional detail demonstrating that the extent of earthworks on
          site (i.e., cut and filling) does not exceed 1,000m3.
       8. If the proposed on-site earthworks exceeds 1,000m3, confirm that a
          missed state referral has not occurred.

Earthworks plans were provided with the application demonstrating operational works -
earthworks (not associated with the dwelling house) is less than 1,000m3. An email from
the State Assessment Referral Agency confirming this interpretation is provided below.

       The trigger is for 1,000m3 of earthworks associated with operational works. Earthworks associated with a
       building is not considered Operational Works and the trigger is trying to capture earthworks which are for
       retaining structures and new cuts/fills away from buildings. Regardless, the total earthworks is <1,000m3.

       I also appreciate the additional information you’ve provided regarding any proposed earthworks,and can confirm
       that this is also my understanding of trigger 10.17.3.6.1.

       Kind Regards,

       Jackie Larrarte
                                                                                                       Page 3 of 4


[OCR of page images]
(c) __ allows the opportunity to provide soft landscaping between buildings

The proposal satisfies PO8(c) by incorporating large areas of soft landscaping within, on
top and around the dwelling, by promoting a seamless integration with the environment.
The proposal not only enhances the aesthetic appeal of the surroundings but also supports
local biodiversity and contributes to the overall green space of the area.

(d) does not present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of
the site

The proposal satisfies PO8(d) as the development incorporates a strategy of stepping
down with the natural slope, thereby minimising the appearance of any bulk form seen
from adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site. The developments
architectural features, landscaping, and stepped building heights, integrates harmoniously
with the surrounding environment. This approach enhances the visual aesthetics of the
area while maintaining a scale that is consistent with neighbouring structures. Overall, the
development promotes a sense of openness and contributes positively to the character of
the neighbourhood.

4. Provide confirmation by a suitably qualified representative of Westera
Partners’ that:

a. The location of the proposed infiltration trenches aligns with the
recommendations contained in Tectonic’s Geotechnical
Investigation (24096-001-Rev0) dated 18 June 2024; and

b. A meaningful area of roof water cannot reasonably be
discharged into Council’s existing stormwater system along
Ross Crescent.

5. Provide additional detail by a suitably qualified representative of
Westera Partners’ that demonstrates:

a. the peak post-development flow will not exceed the peak pre-
development flow in events up to and including the DFE; and

b. b. how stormwater surcharging from the infiltration pit will be
dispersed to sheet flow.

6. Provide comment by a suitably qualified representative of Westera
Partners’ that demonstrates how the catchment areas bypassing the
infiltration trenches will follow the existing drainage regime of the site
(i.e., sheet flow) and will not cause nuisance downstream.

Westera Partners provides a detailed response letter to the above items, concluding that
the proposed stormwater outcome is appropriate for the scale of development and is in
accordance with that of other similar developments in the region.

7. Provide additional detail demonstrating that the extent of earthworks on
site (i.e., cut and filling) does not exceed 1,000m:3.

8. If the proposed on-site earthworks exceeds 1,000m:, confirm that a
missed state referral has not occurred.

Earthworks plans were provided with the application demonstrating operational works -
earthworks (not associated with the dwelling house) is less than 1,000m°. An email from
the State Assessment Referral Agency confirming this interpretation is provided below.

The trigger is for 1,000m3 of earthworks associated with operational works. Earthworks associated with a
building is not considered Operational Works and the trigger is trying to capture earthworks which are for
retaining structures and new cuts/fills away from buildings. Regardless, the total earthworks is <1,000m3.

/ also appreciate the additional information you’ve provided regarding any proposed earthworks, and can confirm
that this is also my understanding of trigger 10.17.3.6.1.

Kind Regards,

Jackie Larrarte

Page 3 of 4

Page 4

         Senior Planning Officer – Regional Assessment and Projects
         Planning and Development Services, Planning Group
         Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works
         P 07 4122 0407
         E [email protected]
         123 Wharf Street, Maryborough QLD 4650
         PO Box 839, Maryborough QLD 4650



         9. Recalculate the EPA using a storm tide level of 2.21m AHD within the
             Vellinga equation for the design storm event component (C), to offset
             uncertainty regarding findings of the Aurecon (2013) study. Update the
             coastal hazard assessment report accordingly.
         10. Provide a reassessment of the slope stability and update the
             geotechnical report accordingly, assuming the following:
                a. no shear pile wall is in place;
                b. piled foundations supporting the proposed dwelling; and
                c. the recalculated EPA as per request 1 above (or an EPA of 102m
                    if it is not recalculated as per request matter 1).

Coastal Engineers Royal Haskoning provides a further address to Council’s request for a
recalculation of the coastal hazard assessment, based on recent calculations along
Sunshine Beach. The Noosa Plan is also not fully integrated with the relevant State
Interests and that any assumptions for coastal modelling should be endorsed by the
State’s Principal Coastal Scientist.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the Development Assessment Rules, the applicant has given the assessment
manager the information requested. Please proceed with the processing of the application
at your 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
0406 334 227




                                                                                                      Page 4 of 4


[OCR of page images]
Senior Planning Officer - Regional Assessment and Projects

Planning and Development Services, Planning Group

Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works
P 07 4122 0407

E [email protected]
123 Wharf Street, Maryborough QLD 4650
PO Box 839, Maryborough QLD 4650

9. Recalculate the EPA using a storm tide level of 2.21m AHD within the
Vellinga equation for the design storm event component (C), to offset
uncertainty regarding findings of the Aurecon (2013) study. Update the
coastal hazard assessment report accordingly.

10. Provide a reassessment of the slope stability and update the
geotechnical report accordingly, assuming the following:

a. no shear pile wall is in place;

b. piled foundations supporting the proposed dwelling; and

c. the recalculated EPA as per request 1 above (or an EPA of 102m
if it is not recalculated as per request matter 1).

Coastal Engineers Royal Haskoning provides a further address to Council’s request for a
recalculation of the coastal hazard assessment, based on recent calculations along
Sunshine Beach. The Noosa Plan is also not fully integrated with the relevant State
Interests and that any assumptions for coastal modelling should be endorsed by the
State’s Principal Coastal Scientist.

2.1.1 State interests in the state planning policy not integrated or partly integrated

State Planning Policy (July 2017):
+ Natural hazards, risk and resilience - coastal hazards - in part

Editor’s Note — Development in the erosion prone area, as shown on the SPP interactive mapping system, will be subject to assessment against
the assessment benchmarks — natural hazards, risk and resilience within the State Planning Policy.

 

Pursuant to the Development Assessment Rules, the applicant has given the assessment
manager the information requested. Please proceed with the processing of the application
at your 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
0406 334 227

Page 4 of 4