response to information request 33 ross · MCU24/0094

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