Original source · versioned page text
MCU21-0164 -Applicant's Response
3 November 2021 Our Ref: 002047 Council’s Ref: MCU21/0164 Noosa Shire Council The Chief Executive Officer 9 Pelican Street Tewantin QLD 4565 Via email: [email protected] ATTENTION: Patrick Murphy Response to Council’s Information Request– Application for a Development Permit MCU21/0164 for a Material change of use for a Food and Drink outlet. 52 hasting Street, Noosa Heads Lot 0 on BUP4745 Lot 6 on BUP4575 Dear Patrick, In relation to the abovementioned property and development application MCU21/0164, on behalf of Coffee Rock Investments Pty Ltd, we hereby submit the following information as requested in Council’s Information Request dated 21 October 2021. In accordance with section 13.2 of the Development Assessment Rules, we wish to advise that the applicant is providing all the information requested. The following attachments are enclosed within this response: • Attachment 1 – Approved and Proposed Site Cover Comparison, • Attachment 2 – Use Area Comparison, • Attachment 3 - Proposal Architectural Plans prepared by Frank Macchia, • Attachment 4 - Proposed Landscape Plans prepared by Frank Macchia. RG Strategic PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873 Noosa Heads [email protected] QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 11 pages
Page 2
Information Required by Council
The proposal results in additional site cover and gross floor area. The Tourist Accommodation Zone Code
permits a maximum site cover of 45% and a maximum plot ratio of 1.12:1. The application material has not
addressed these requirements.
1. Assessment of site cover and plot ratio and demonstration that the proposal complies with these
aspects of the planning scheme.
Applicant’s Response
Historically many old sites have numerous approvals and often changes to the development were not
submitted as change to the existing applications, but individual new applications/approvals, which has
resulted in confusing development approvals over many old developments. This appears to be the case with
this development where the subject restaurant has 2 relevant approvals. No single approval is afforded to
this restaurant but has been assessed individually under 2 approvals TPC 1135 (including change approvals)
and TPC 2754.
The historical nature of development approvals makes it difficult to calculate Site Cover and GFA for the
whole development. Some of the existing approvals over the whole site are listed below:
• TPC 1135 approved 1980 – 64 units, 5 shops, restaurant, cafe;
• 4 x changes to TPC1135 (1992 – car parking ,1994 – sail structures,1994 – extensions to shops, 2008 –
covered outdoor dining area)
• TPC 2360 – hire car premises
• TPC 2704 – extension to shops (overturned by court)
• TPC 2754 – extensions and alteration s to existing restaurant
• 18247 DA – Shop fruit cart and 2 x changes to this approval
In terms of the restaurant the most recent relevant change approval TPC 1135 was approved on 9 July 2008.
Given the nature of the old development, rather than requiring assessment of the parameters for the whole
development, it is requested that Council accept TPC 1135 approval as a base for the areas of Site cover and
Use area. These areas have been accepted and approved by Council. The proposal only seeks to provide
built form changes to the outdoor covered area subject of and approved by the most recent approval
(change approval TPC 1135 dated 9 July 2008) except for some minor changes to where the upper level
outdoor dining area is located.
It is proposed that there is no increase in GFA or Use area than already approved and only a slight increase
in Site Cover of 0.11% (6m²).
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 3
Site cover, Gross floor area and Use area
The following Table 1 provides a comparison of the key parameters.
Table 1 - Site Cover GFA and Use area
Approved by most recent
approval (TPC 1135). Proposed Difference
Outside of the existing building
Site Cover 72m² 78m² 6m² 0.11% of whole site
Gross floor area - - -
Use area 85m² 85m² 0m²
Site Cover
The proposed increase of 6m² or 0.11% 9 (less than 1%) is considered negligible and minor in nature. The built
form presents as single storey to Hastings Street with the new upper level pergola setback 5.5m which
provides a stepping to the new built form. The small increase in Site Cover does not create any adverse bulk
or scale as the 6m² is could be attributed to the new staircase leading to the upper level and an awning near
the front boundary.
The following Figure 1 (Included as Attachment 1) shows -
• Red shaded area- existing approved building;
• Yellow shaded area – approved Site Cover by TPC 1135 (change 2008) outside existing building = 72m²;
• Purple outline – proposed site cover outside existing building = 78m².
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 4
Figure 1 - Approved and proposed Site cover comparison
Gross Floor Area
Similar to the most recent approval, the proposal is considered an open unenclosed structure for outdoor
dining and therefore does not constitute Gross floor area.
Use area
The approved (TPC 1135 dated 9 July 2008) Use area outside the existing approved building is 85m².
The proposed use area consists of
• Upper level – 23m²;
• Ground level = 62m²
• Total use area = 85m² outside of the existing approved building.
There is no net increase in Use area when compared to that approved.
Figure 2 (Included as Attachment 2) below provides the existing approved plans with the approved Use area
shaded in red and the proposal plans with the proposed use areas shaded in yellow.
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 5
Figure 2 - Use area comparison
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 6
Summary – Site Cover, GFA and Use area
The proposal seeks an insignificant increase (0.11% or 6m2) to Site Cover, no change to GFA and no net
increase to Use area when compared to the most recent change approval TPC 1135 dated 9 July 2008. The
proposal therefore complies with the most recent approval and Noosa Plan 2020.
Information Required by Council
Issue
The elevation plans detail the new works as being primarily constructed of feature timber whilst visually
representing the works as being of a dark colour. The provided perspectives detail the work to be of a light
(white) colour. To avoid confusion clarity is sought regarding proposed colours and materiality, noting that a
lightweight appearance is sought by the planning scheme.
Information Required
2. Details of the proposed colours and materials to be provided on both the elevation plans and the
perspectives
Applicant’s Response
The elevations and perspectives provided as Attachment 1 indicate a consistent material and colour palette.
The materials include rough sawn timber, much of which will be recycled, with metal clad / brass colour tones
as features. Glass roof to the entry and to the internal pedestrian access ways through the restaurant.
The material and colour palette comply with the planning scheme provisions of natural material and colour
tones that blend with the natural environment, given the use of stained natural timber and copper / brass
tones are proposed. The new structures have been designed for open outdoor dining and have a natural feel
with roof top gardens hanging over the edges. The glass roof over the internal pedestrian ways provides
natural light into the existing restaurant building and a light weight feel to the building.
Consideration of the material palette and design elements drew inspiration from Noosa councils own Visitor
Information centre which sits directly opposite. These elements include,
• Large framed areas of glass,
• Hopper style windows opening to present as an open space allowing natural ventilation,
• Natural stained timbers with, and
• See through opaque glass provided for awnings.
Refer Images below which show the original artists renders for the Information against the completed build.
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 7
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873 Noosa Heads [email protected] QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au [OCR of page images] aia Centre PO Box 1818 Noosa Heads QLD 4567 07 S474 3873 [email protected] rgstrategic.com.au
Page 8
Information Required by Council
Issue
In 2008 a change to TPC 1135 allowed for the development of lightweight awning structures over the alfresco
dining areas of Café Le Monde. The approval required the relocation of Pandanus trees, and replacement of
these trees if they did not survive the relocation, however, it is noted that it was intended that the frontage
included meaningful ‘coastal-character’ vegetation. It is apparent that the trees were neither retained nor
replaced.
Whilst the site plans detail vegetation to the frontage of the site no landscape has been provided.
Whilst landscaping within the road reserve, from the front boundary of the site to the existing tiled footpath
is supported it is also noted that this comprises a significant extent of the proposed landscaped is proposed
within the road reserve/footpath.
Information Required
3. Provide a landscape plan which provides for meaningful landscaping within the site, including but not
limited to:
a. Additional planting within the site – it is noted that a paved area is proposed at
the entry which could incorporate additional landscaping.
b. The provision of meaningful coastal character vegetation (ie. Pandanus trees)
c. Landscaping areas to be designed and located so that they cannot be
compromised by customers of the food and drink outlet
d. The removal of the large rocks
4. Landscaping off the site must not extend into the existing tiled footpath and must not include rocks.
Applicant’s Response
We have sought advice from Conor Neville Ecologist who has provided the following commentary after his
review of the Plans and Councils Information Response,
In response to Council’s RFI Issue 3 for MCU21/0164 (reproduced below), I note the following with reference to
the MACCHI drawing TP 7-00 Version A
Information Required
3. Provide a landscape plan which provides for meaningful landscaping within the site,
including but not limited to:
a. Additional planting within the site – it is noted that a paved area is proposed at the
entry which could incorporate additional landscaping.
b. The provision of meaningful coastal character vegetation (ie. Pandanus trees)
c. Landscaping areas to be designed and located so that they cannot be compromised
by customers of the food and drink outlet
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 9
d. The removal of the large rocks
Ground Floor:
1. The use of Pandanus sp. in high use pedestrian traffic areas can be hazardous:
a. Spines on leaves causing eye and other spike related injuries
b. Large nuts falling from heights can cause injuries to people and property
c. Damage from Pandanus leaf hopper (Jamella sp.) can cause leaf failure and failure of the plant.
• Where required to be established in these high traffic areas, a Pandanus maintenance program
will need to be implemented to manage risk to public and staff and to control Pandanus leaf
hopper.
2. The use of the Pandanus sp. could be restricted to the most eastern garden bed, if desired, in order to
contain leaf and nut drop within the existing garden beds, away from public, whilst meeting the intent of RFI 3
(b).
3. If Council requires the Pandanus sp. to be substituted, this can be achieved with a selection of local coastal
native species as listed below to meet the intent of RFI 3(b):
a. Elaeocarpus reticulatas(Blueberry Ash)
b. Elaeocarpus ovata (Hard Quandong)
c. Cupaniopsis anacardioides(Coastal Tuckeroo)
d. Acronychia imperforata(Lemon Aspen)
e. Syzygium francisii (Frances Lilly Pilly)
f. Syzygium luehmannii (Small leaved Lilly Pilly)
4. Lomandra sp. should be set back 0.5m minimum from pedestrian accesses to limit spikiness and arranged to
meet the intent of RFI 3 (c).
5. Structural soils are recommended where soil compaction will inhibit root growth and should be factored in to
costings and build (e.g. refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_Soil).
6. Root Guards are recommended where tree roots are in close proximity to services, in particular stormwater
and sewer.
Roof Terrace:
7. Species selection is good.
8. Adequate drainage and automatised watering system is recommended and should be factored in to costings
and build.
As the application is for the use of the premises the landscaping plan should be marked as “concept”. Actual
works within the road reserve will be the subject of a further operational works application where further
detailed landscaping design will be considered.
Kind regards,
Conor Neville
Ecologist
0484868620
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 10
As indicated on the proposal landscaped plans provided as Attachment 2, a feature tree garden has been
provided to the front of the site in accordance with Council’s request.
Five pandanus trees have also been provided to the sites frontage and as street trees near the sites
boundary. Whilst noting the comments from our ecologist re the Pandanus and some of the issues related to
them, we are willing to accept a condition around the maintenance requirements to protect public safety, or
for a more desirable species to be planted.
The gardens will not pose a risk to the patrons of the use and the rocks have been removed from the road
reserve.
The landscaping will provide will complement the natural timber tones of the built form and provide an
additional softness to the development.
Summary
The development has good landscaping along the front of the site, is designed with recycled timber finishes
and copper / brass colour tones which comply with the built form provisions of the Planning Scheme that
require colour tones that blend with the natural environment. The development will be a better outcome than
many developments in Hastings Street which have no setback and no landscaping to the front of the site.
The proposed development compliments and is in line with the design and material palette used by Noosa
Council for the Visitor Information Centre. In doing this the applicant has taken heed to various elements of
Noosa Councils Design Principles,
• Respect the character of existing towns and villages - don’t force or contrive designs that do not fit,1
This design is in keeping with the establish design within this locality.
• Discourage high solid walls along front property boundaries2. The design provides for a landscaped
buffer between the footpath and the dining, large window openings and awnings encourage the
pedestrian to interact with the space rather than be shut away from it.
• Use natural timber features in our public environments to soften hard structures and blend with our
green backdrop. 3 All timbers being used are being presented as rough sawn with natural stains to
highlight and compliment the timber.
• Use finishes that bring out the colour and texture of timber elements 4. Refer the previous commentary.
• Encourage an environment where innovation and experimentation is the norm rather than simply
accepting a standard approach5. The approach to the design, layout and approach is creative and
not the standard rendered block design which of recent times has been approved.
Consideration was also given to the State of Queensland Publications - QDesign and QCompanion to ensure
1
Noosa Design Principles – Our Local Character P19
2
Noosa Design Principles – Enjoying the Footpath P23
3
Noosa Design Principles – Working with Nature P31
4
Noosa Design Principles – Working with Nature P31
5
Noosa Design Principles – Our Creative Environment P37
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 11
that climate responsive design principles were provided for within this development.
Best practice outcomes including the 9 Principles as contained within QDesign were considered and
implemented within the design outcome provided.
This ends my client’s response to matters raised by Council within their Information Request.
We ask that Council proceeds with the assessment of this application under section 13.3 of the Development
Assessment Rules, effectively ending our applicant’s response period.
Should you require any additional information or have any queries please to not hesitate to contact us.
Kind Regards,
Russell Green APIA MQELA
Managing Director
RG Strategic
PO Box 1818 07 5474 3873
Noosa Heads [email protected]
QLD 4567 rgstrategic.com.au
Page 12
STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS, CREATIVE THINKING