Original source · versioned page text
M2677 - IR response
BRISBANE | SUNSHINE COAST | CENTRAL QLD KON-TIKI BUSINESS CENTRE TOWER 1, LEVEL 2, SUITE T1.209, 55 PLAZA PARADE, MAROOCHYDORE QLD 4558 JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ABN 79 050 414 045 16 February 2021 Job Ref: M2677 Client Ref:20110/PO11000006 Council Ref: MCU20/0150 Noosa Council By Email: <[email protected]> Att: Patrick Murphy – Coordinator Planning Re: Development application for a Material Change of Use (34 x Multiple Dwellings), over land at 101-105 Eumundi Noosa Road Noosaville, and legally described as Lot 1 on RP 849431 & Lot 1 RP230931 Dear Patrick, We refer to Council’s Information Request, dated 12 January 2021 , regarding the abovementioned application. In accordance with s13.2 of the Development Assessment Rules, we hereby provide all of the information requested as follows: Council Issue 1 – Stormwater It is noted that the proposal includes a proprietary device to treat the stormwater. This is contrary to Performance Outcomes O7 and O9 of the Water Quality and Drainage Code of the Noosa Plan 2020 The use of the proprietary underground stormwater treatment device in this instance is not supported as it has not been shown that use of a vegetated treatment system is not possible at this site and performance of the proposed system has not been verified through an independent national testing protocol (SQIDEP) Information Required Provide a revised stormwater treatment system and management plan which incorporates use of vegetated treatment systems as required by Specific Outcome O7 of the Water Sensitive Design Code. Response The use of an underground proprietary stormwater treatment device is no longer proposed. Accordingly, a revised Site Based Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared by Morgan Consulting Engineers (refer to Attachment A). This revised stormwater strategy incorporates the use of a vegetated treatment system, as outlined in the Water Sensitive Design code. Council Issue 2 – Stormwater Quality Provide a revised stormwater management plan incorporating a stormwater detention system which addresses the following issues: i. Demonstrate that stormwater discharges onto neighbouring land will not be concentrated for all events up to the 1%AEP event. Consideration should be made to adapting the detention basin design such that there is no spillway discharge for the 1%AEP event
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 16 pages
Page 2
ii. Rational method calculations are based on the entire site discharging to a single point, where-as the
catchment plans in Appendix F identify that the existing and developed site will contain a number of sub-
catchments and discharge locations. The rational method calculations should be revised for each sub-
catchment in order to provide comparison to the hydrologic model outputs.
iii. Provide further detail on the hydrologic model assumptions, such as initial and continuing losses, source of IFD
data and temporal patterns adopted.
iv. Clarify how the downstream drainage network has been accounted for in the model and the potential for the
network capacity to affect the basin outlet characteristics. Consideration should be made to including the
downstream pipe network within the easement into the model (to the connection with the street network).
Response
A revised Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared by Morgan Consulting Engineers (Refer to Attachment A),
which includes a revised stormwater detention strategy. Morgan Consulting Engineers have prepared the following
responses to Council items i to iv:
i. From site investigations, it was determined that pre-development stormwater runoff from Catchment A
appeared to generally flow towards the south eastern corner of the site and concentrate across the boundary
adjacent to Lot 46 SP132578. Stormwater discharge exceeding the 5%AEP event in the post development
scenario will be dispersed over the length of the bioretention/detention basin wall (32m approximate) adjacent
to the property boundaries to ensure that discharge from the basin is not concentrated across the neighbouring
properties. Additionally, surface runoff exceeding the 5%AEP event from the landscaping areas located to the
rear of the proposed buildings will sheet flow across the boundaries at less than pre-development flow.
It is not feasible to detain up to 1% AEP in the detention basin as not all flows up to this storm event will be able
to make its way into the detention basin due to some roof slopes and landscaping areas sloping away from the
internal driveway.
However, the updated detention basin design over mitigates post development flows up to 5%AEP to ensure
events greater than 5%AEP will be less than pre-development. Furthermore, the detention design allows for a
120mm freeboard at the 5%AEP event which will withhold flows in excess of the 5%AEP event. Therefore, based
on the above, we can confirm that stormwater discharges onto the neighbouring land will not concentrate nor
worsen for all events up to and including the 1%AEP event.
ii. Refer to the updated Site Based Stormwater Management Plan (20169- SBSMP/2) outlining the amended
Rational Method Calculations to suit the sub-catchments shown in the Concept Stormwater Catchment Plan
(20169/SK20-B)
iii. Refer to the updated Site Based Stormwater Management Plan (20169-SBSMP/2) outlining further detail on the
detention modelling inputs.
iv. Refer to the updated Site Based Stormwater Management Plan (20169- SBSMP/2) outlining the considerations
made to the capacity of the downstream pipe network.
Page 3
Council Issue 3 – Traffic Assessment
A Traffic Report which includes the following at a minimum:
i. Assessment of the capacity, operation and safety (including sight lines and interaction with the zebra crossing) of
the proposed site access to the end of the ten year design horizon (if left in / left out is proposed to no capacity
assessment is required).
ii. A review of parking bays, manoeuvring areas, queuing areas, loading, set down, pickup areas and driveways
confirming that they are designed in accordance with the Australian Standards for Parking Facilities.
iii. A review of the capacity for waste collection vehicles to collect waste from the site in compliance with Planning
Scheme Policy PSP9 – Waste Management
iv. Review of the carport and carpark spaces compliance with AS/NZS 2890.1-2004, in particular door opening
requirements and column sizes (with columns located clear of parking space requirements).
v. Review of the proposed pedestrian path along the centre of the parking aisle.
vi. Provision of disabled parking at the rate specified in the BCA.
Further RFI items may be issued following provision of the Traffic Report.
Response
A Traffic Engineering Report has been prepared by TTM Group (refer to Attachment B). This report provides an
assessment of the site’s access, parking and on-site manoeuvring outcomes. The report includes recommendations for a
‘left in - left out’ primary access arrangement and associated road treatments. The report also confirms the development
complies with the relevant Australian Standards.
Council Issue 4 – Garage and aisle width
Provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the garages, garage door widths and the aisle widths are in accordance with
section 5.4 of AS/NZS2890.1:200
Response
This matter has been reviewed by TTM Group as part of their traffic assessment (refer to Attachment B). The report
provides sufficient detail to demonstrate the garages, garage doors and aisle widths comply with the relevant Australian
Standard 2890.1 – 2004.
Council Issue 5 – Hydrant location
Confirmation, from a hydraulic consultant, that the existing hydrant location is sufficient to cater for the development for
fire-fighting purposes.
Response
In response to item 5, a Hydraulic Services plan has been prepared by MRP Hydraulic and Fire Fighting Services
Consultants Pty Ltd (Refer to Attachment F), which demonstrates that the hydrant location is adequately sized and
located, to cater for the development with respect to fire-fighting purposes.
Council Issue 6 – Stormwater detention tank
The submitted stormwater management plan includes a harvesting and detention tank adjacent to the front boundary but
it is not clear from the documents whether this tank will extend above ground level. If the tank extends above ground level
it may impact on the visual appearance.
Page 4
Information required
Updated plans which clarify the form of the proposed harvesting and detention tank adjacent to the front boundary. Built
form/bulk which detrimentally impacts on the streetscape will not be supported.
Response.
A revised Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared by Morgan Consulting Engineers (refer to Attachment A).
This plan, along with the architectural plans, demonstrate that the tank is to be located above ground (circa 1.3m), but is
now partially setback from the frontage to provide landscape screening to minimise any visual impacts. In addition, the
tank’s design (including its height and construction material) will blend in seamlessly with the proposed fencing along the
site’s frontage. As such, the tank is not considered to be detrimental to the streetscape.
Council Issue 7 – Built form and building design
There a number of provisions with the Noosa Plan 2020 which address the preferred design outcomes. Specifically, these
include: Noosaville Local Plan … Medium density Residential Zone …
It is considered that the proposed development does not accord with the design requirements of the planning scheme as a
consequence of:
The proposed large buildings are not of a scale reflective of surrounding development and present an appearance
of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site;
The proposed development visually dominates the street;
The proposed design does not provide for a suitable range of textures, colours, styles and finishes
The proposed design is uniform and does not provide for an asymmetrical design presentation to the street noting
that both the northern and southern elevations will be visible from Eumundi-Noosa Road
The roof form not being varied
Insufficient variation of the horizontal plane
Insufficient landscaping within the central areas of the site
The proposal does not offset or stagger buildings to the street
The proposal includes more than 6 dwellings on a plane (building 1)
Provide amended plans that have considered this and demonstrate compliance with the relevant requirements of the
Noosa Plan 2020 with respect to bulk, building design, mix of materials, articulation, considering the character of
Noosaville and the local and surrounding streetscape. This should include but not be limited to:
i. Increased variation in colours and materials
ii. Eaves to western elevation of buildings 1 and 3
iii. Create a separation within buildings 1 and 2
iv. Variation of the roof form and horizontal planes
v. Increased landscaping within the site, including landscaping which is visible when viewed from the Eumundi-Noosa
Road access
vi. Compliance with the maximum plot ratio of 0.5:1
Response.
A revised set of proposal plans prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects (refer to Attachment C) have been specifically
prepared to address the issues raised in Council’s information request. An overview of the proposed changes, in light of
issues raised in Item 7 is provided below.
Page 5
Proposal overview
The revised development proposal maintains 34 multi-dwelling units, comprising 28 x 2 bedroom and 6 x 3 bedroom
units. The main changes include converting the town house configuration in Building 1 to apartments. In doing so, this
reduces the maximum number of dwellings in a plane from 8 to 6. The revised plans also reduce the number of dwellings
in a plane for Building 2 from 6 to 5, and Building 4 from 4 to 3. The proposed changes also reduce building mass through
increased articulation, compliant site cover and plot ratio, additional landscaping and reduction in the size of Building 4,
which fronts the street, Eumundi Noosa Rd.
The revised development layout will also provide 40 resident carparks and 12 visitor parks.
The table below illustrates the revised building/dwelling types as a compared with the original proposal:
Dwelling Type Original GFA Proposed GFA
Type 01 – 85m2 12 1020m2 5 425m2
Type 02 – 105m2 2 210m2 1 105m2
2 2
Type 03 – 75m 10 750m 14 1050m2
Type 04 – 78m2 6 468m2 9 702m2
2 2
Type 05 – 92m 4 368m 5 460m2
Total (Plot Ratio %) 34 2,816m2 or 51% 34 2742m2 or 50%
Table 1 - Proposed dwelling type configuration
As shown above, the development will predominantly consist of small dwellings i.e less than 100m2.
Our response to Council’s information request items i-vi is provided below:
Item i) – Increased variation in colours
The development has been amended to present increased variation in colours and materials. As part of the revised set of
plans (Refer to Attachment C), a Materials and Finishes Palette is provided as seen in Figure 1 below. This demonstrates
the full extent of proposed materials and external finishes. Further, Figure 2 provides an artist impression of the proposed
colour scheme, which involves the use of neutral tones, natural finishes and textured materials. The artist impression
illustrates the use of white and greys applied through textured materials in horizontal and vertical formats, which assists
in increasing the depth of shade and light. The artist impression also demonstrates the use of timber cladding and
textured concrete finishes throughout the ground floor to enhance the human scale and ease of maintenance.
Figure 1 – Material and Finishes Palette (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)
Page 6
Figure 2 – Artist impression (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Accordingly, these proposed changes to the development proposal’s colour and materials are consistent with AO7.5 (e) of the Noosaville Local Plan Code, which seeks the use of understated colours and low-reflective roofing and cladding materials. Item ii) – Eaves on the western side of Buildings 1 and 3 Eaves have been introduced to the western elevations of buildings 1 and 3 in the form of window awnings / overhangs (refer to Figure 3 below). The revised design also includes deep eaves to the northern and southern elevations. The inclusion of the eaves / awning overhangs and additional horizontal screening to the western elevation of Buildings 1 & 3 provides greater solar protection and shading, while also providing additional articulation and visual interest when viewed from the street (refer to Figure 2 above). Figure 3 – “Eaves” to the western elevations (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)
Page 7
Item iii) - Create a separation within Buildings 1 and 2 No physical separation has been applied to either Buildings 1 and 2. It is understood the purpose of this provision is to ensure that “development takes the form of small separate buildings, rather than a large single bulky development” as sought by PO14(e) of the Medium Density Residential Code (MDR Code). Therefore, to address this PO and the corresponding acceptable outcome (AO14.1), the following amendments have been made to Buildings 1 and 2. Firstly, the Building 1 has reduced the number of dwellings in the horizontal plane from 8 to 6. This ensures that the development is compliant with AO 14.3 (MDR Code) for the allowable dwellings in a plane. Further, the configuration of Building 1 has been amended from a townhouse configuration to an apartment configuration, similar to Building 2. This alters the second storey configuration to create the sense of separate dwellings and breaking up the built form through increased articulation, particularly when viewed from the street. This stepped in plan effect is illustrated in Figure 4 and further demonstrated in the elevation shown in Figure 5 below. ” Step downs” within the floor plate have been introduced to Building 2 and 4 to further mitigate any impacts on adjoining properties. In light of these changes the revised development is compliant with A014.1 and AO14.3 of the MDR Code. Figure 4 – Building 1 - Street view (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects)
Page 8
Figure 5 – Building 1 elevation (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Item iv) - Variation of the roof form and horizontal planes The revised building design has incorporated greater variation in the roof lines. The development achieves this by providing sloping roof systems, slope in opposing directions (Refer to Figure 10), which have the effect of breaking up the building mass and enhancing visual interest when viewed from the street and adjoining properties. Additional design articulation has been applied to Building 4 which directly fronts Eumundi Noosa Rd. The elevation of Building 4 in Figure 9 clearly depicts the revised roof line and step down in the horizontal plane. In addition, as requested, some “stepping” has been introduced to the horizontal planes of Buildings 2 and 4. Figure 6 - Building 2 – As lodged (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Figure 7 - Building 2 – Revised (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Figures 6 & 7 show a comparison of relevant elevation plans (as lodged) with the revised plans.
Page 9
Figure 8 – Building 4 – As lodged (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Figure 9 – Building 4 revised elevation (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) Figures 8 & 9 show a comparision between the as lodged and revised plans, which demonstrates the reduce building massing, varied roof line and horizontal step down. Figure 10 – Building 1 - Western elevation – illustrating the varied roof line (Prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects) According, the revised plans are considered to demonstrate compliance with AO7.5 of the Noosaville Local Plan Code, which seeks articulated roof forms, which are visible from the street. Item v) - Increased landscaping within the site, including landscaping which is visible when viewed from the Eumundi- Noosa Road access The revised landscape plans propose to landscape 2,325m2 (or 42% of the site area). The total landscape area includes 1,726m2 (or 31% of the site area) as soft landscaping. Acceptable outcome (AO10) of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code seeks a minimum 35% (or 1,920m2) of the site area be provided as landscaping with 60% (or 1,152m2) of the total for soft landscaping. Accordingly, we calculate that the revised development layout now exceeds the required
Page 10
amount of soft landscaping by 574m2. This additional landscaping (refer to Figure 2 & 4 above) assists in softening the
built form, breaks up the appearance of building mass and provides additional visual appeal when viewed from street and
adjoining properties.
Item vi) - Compliance with the maximum plot ratio of 0.5:1
The initial proposal involved a plot ratio of 0.51:1, which was slightly above the requirement in the performance outcome
(PO11 of the MDR Code) of 0.5:1. The revised development layout (Refer to Attachment C) has been amended to reduce
the plot ratio to 0.5:1. Accordingly, the revised development layout complies with the applicable plot ratio PO11 for
developments that involve small dwellings.
Additional plan amendments to address Council’s information request are outlined in the table below, which outlines and
addresses the relevant benchmark of the planning scheme.
Noosaville Local Plan
Performance outcome Acceptable outcome Comment
PO4 The visual amenity and character AO4 Development adjacent to the major Complies - The revised proposal plans
surrounding the major road network and road network, particularly Eumundi Noosa
includes extensive landscaping to the
entrance roads, including Eumundi Noosa Road, Beckmans Road, Eenie Creek
Road, Beckmans Road, Eenie Creek Road, Walter Hay Drive, Gympie Terrace,
site’s frontage. As outlined in this
Road, Walter Hay Drive, Gympie Terrace, Noosa Parade and Weyba Road response, the proposed landscape
Noosa Parade and Weyba Road is incorporates landscaping that outcomes exceed Council’s minimum
protected and enhanced. complements the natural species requirements for soft landscaping as
occurring in the local area, protects
existing vegetation within the road outlined in the Dual Occupancy and
reserve and incorporates design elements Multiple Dwelling Code.
that add visual interest to the streetscape.
The landscape treatments include
endemic species to complement the
existing landscaping in the locality.
The proposed landscaping outcome
seeks to compliment the proposed
built form to provide an attractive
and visually appealing streetscape.
PO7 Buildings, structures and AO7.1 Development takes the form of Complies – The revised development
landscaping are integrated with the small separate buildings rather than large
natural landscape and reflect the riverside single bulky buildings and does not
has been amended to reduce
character and setting of the local plan visually dominate the street, riverfront, Buildings 1,2 and 4, terms of the
area in terms of form, composition and adjacent properties, surrounding spaces number of dwellings in a plane.
protection of neighbourhood amenity. or the existing skyline. Changes to roof lines, built form and
improved landscape treatments assist
in making these dwellings appear as
separate dwellings when viewed from
the street and adjoining premises.
The revised development also
includes stepping in the horizontal
plane and interesting roof forms,
which when integrated with
landscaping ensures the development
Page 11
does not visually dominate the street
or adjoining premises.
It should also be noted that the
proposed built form is generally
compliant with the medium density
zoning planning intent in terms of
building height, setbacks, site cover/
plot ratio and landscaping.
AO7.2 Buildings and structures have a Complies – Generally, the
scale and building height consistent with
development on adjoining and
development is consistent with the
surrounding land scale and building height of other
developments in the surrounding
area. A number of larger scaled 2-3
storey commercial buildings are
situated 100m south on the corner of
Goodchap St and Eumundi Rd Noosa
Rd. Numerous two storey residences
are located on nearby properties to
the east, fronting Regatta Cct and
Treasure Cove.
The proposed development is also
considered to be consistent in
keeping with scale of the commercial
development existing on 95 Eumundi
Noosa Rd.
It should be noted the area will
continue to transition to medium
density development, and as such,
the development is consistent with
the low-rise medium density intent
anticipated for the immediate area.
AO7.3 Buildings and structures preserve Complies – The development has
the amenity of adjoining land including
sunlight to neighbouring properties.
been designed to preserve the
amenity of neighbouring properties
by incorporating building setbacks
and building heights which minimise
overshadowing or impacts on solar
access.
AO7.4 Development respects the scale of Complies – The development respects
surrounding vegetation and maximises
the opportunity for retention of
the scale of adjoining vegetation and
existing vegetation and incorporates soft includes generous soft landscaping
landscaping between buildings. treatments between buildings and
Page 12
throughout the development (refer to
the landscape plan in Attachment C).
AO7.5 Complies –
Buildings and structures:
1. incorporate articulated roof
i. the development includes
forms which are visible articulated roof forms,
from the street and have a through opposing sloping
pitch of no less than 5 roofs and step ups (refer to
degrees;
2. incorporate a mix of Figures 2, 9 & 10 above). All
lightweight and textured rooflines exceed 5 degrees
external building materials slope.
or materials that reflect the
natural environment such
ii. the development includes a
as timber and rock face; mix of light weight and
3. provide variation through textured treatments (refer to
articulation, texture and Figures 1 & 2 above)
detailing;
4. incorporate verandahs,
iii. as above
open balconies or shaded iv. balconies and outdoor living
patios for outdoor living, spaces are provided
with open, transparent or
throughout the development.
semi-open balustrades;
5. use understated colour v. The development includes
schemes and low-reflective understated colours including
roofing and cladding off whites and greys (refer to
materials.
Figures 1 & 2 above).
Medium Density Residential Code
PO9 Development: No acceptable outcome Complies – As outlined in response
AO7.1 and 7.2 of the Noosaville Local
1. is of a scale compatible with
Plan Code above. The development
surrounding development and the
particular circumstances of the site; has been specifically designed to
and present as a low scale medium
2. does not present an appearance of density residential development. The
bulk to adjacent properties, roads or
other areas in the vicinity of the site. development is compatible with
surrounding development and the
unique circumstances applying to the
site, including that the area will
continue to transition to medium
density residential housing forms.
As outlined in this response and
AO14.3 below, the proposal has been
amended to mitigate the appearance
of bulk to adjoining properties and
roads.
PO14: AO 14.1 Development provides visual Complies – The revised plans have
Development: interest to the street and surrounding
1. contributes positively to the locality; areas through:
been amended to provide additional
2. addresses and enhances the visual interest to the street by:
streetscape by incorporating 1. highlighting individual dwellings highlighting individual dwellings
articulation and individual design and land uses; through building articulation
elements that add visual interest to
the development;
2. an asymmetrical design and varied roof forms;
presentation to the street;
Page 13
3. has a form and architectural 3. offsetting or staggering dwellings to breaking up and offsetting the
scale that does not dominate the provide variation in the frontage;
streetscape or the surrounding
roof lines;
4. varying the roof form
properties; separate treatments and
4. does not detract from the visual articulation have been applied
amenity of adjoining properties to the external facades of
through the impact on
views, access to sunlight or Buildings 1 and 3 to increase
overlooking; asymmetrical appearance of
5. takes the form of small separate the development;
buildings, rather than large single various design elements and
bulky development; and
6. sits within a landscaped setting. textured materials are utilised;
integrated and complimentary
landscaping is proposed.
AO14.2 Buildings have the main entrance Complies – The development includes
easily recognisable from the street and
include design elements in the front
a landscaped Arbor at the site’s
façade such as verandahs, external pedestrian entry (Refer to Impression
stairs, awning or shade structures and 4 in Attachment C). Individual arbor’s
window openings and front doors are provided
internally.
AO 14.3 Buildings and structures are Complies –
designed to:
i. all walls are less than 15m and
include at least one design
1. have a maximum wall length of 15
metres and external walls element, such as vertical
incorporate at least one design screening, to add visual interest
element to add visual interest and ii. includes landscape treatments
amenity;
2. allow for landscape treatments to to soften the built form
soften the development; iii. all buildings avoid more than six
3. avoid more than six dwellings buildings in the one plane
attached in any one plane; and iv. no more than three dwellings
4. have no more than four dwellings
are attached along a street frontage. are attached along a street
frontage.
Council Issue 8 – Elevations
Elevation plans to include:
a. RL of maximum height of each building
b. Details of colours and materials
Response
The proposal’s elevations have been amended to incorporate the RL of maximum height of each building (Refer to
Attachment C). Further details of the colours are provided on the elevations and a Material and Finishes Palette (refer to
Figure 1) is provided as part of the revised set of plans. In addition, the revised set of plans includes an artist impression,
which clearly illustrates the use of colours and materials throughout the development.
Council Issue 9 – Earthworks and retaining walls
The extent of earthworks and resulting retaining walls, with fences situated on top, is excessive and will result in
detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties. This is particularly relevant in the south eastern
area of the site where a retaining wall of approximately 2.0 metres is proposed.
Page 14
Information required
The extent of earthworks to be reduced and the inclusion of batters to ensure that the amenity of adjoining properties is
preserved.
Response
A revised concept earthworks plans has been prepared by Morgan Consultant Engineers (Refer to Attachment D). The
concept bulk earthworks plan has been updated to suit the latest proposed site levels, including the amended basin
layout, 250mm step downs provided to Buildings 2 and 4 and the batters to reduce the retaining wall heights along the
boundaries. The revised version of the proposal plans prepared by Blackburne Jackson Architects (refer to Attachment C)
which shows the revised retaining wall heights when viewed from adjoining properties.
Council Issue 10 – Bedroom location
Acceptable Outcome AO5 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code seeks that bedroom windows are at least 3
metres away from shared driveways, car parking areas, mechanical plant, refuse and recycling areas, vents and exhausts.
The upstairs bedrooms within building 1 are located within 3 metres of the internal driveway.
Information Required
The location of the bedrooms amended so as to comply with Acceptable Outcome AO5 of the Dual Occupancy and
Multiple Dwelling Code.
Response.
The proposal plans have been amended to relocate bedrooms in Building 1 further away from the shared access
driveway. All bedrooms are located over 3 metres from the internal driveway (Refer to Attachment C).
Council Issue 11 – Pool and communal area location
Acceptable Outcome AO21.1 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code seeks that communal outdoor recreational
facilities including swimming pools, spas and sports courts
are:
a. setback at least 12 metres from the boundary of land in a residential zone and screened by a 5 metre wide buffer
densely planted with trees and shrubs including species from 1 metre to 8 metres in height; or
b. located internally to the arrangement of buildings on the site; and
c. not used between the hours of 9:00pm and 6:30am the following day.
The proposed swimming pool is not setback 12 metres from the boundary of the adjoining
land in a residential zone nor located internally to the arrangement of buildings on the site.
Information required
The location of the pool amended so as to comply with Acceptable Outcome AO21.1 of the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code.
Response.
The requirement for swimming pools to be located centrally or setback 12m from the boundary is an Acceptable
Outcome only of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code. The proposal involves a swimming pool and deck area
setback 5.8m from the south east property boundary. In order to address the relevant corresponding performance
outcome PO21, an Acoustic Report has been prepared by Decibell Consulting (Refer to Attachment E). This report
identifies the potential impact on adjoining residential use and provides recommendations that will ensure the acoustic
Page 15
amenity of adjoining residents is maintained as a result of the development. The recommendations include the
construction of a 1.8m high acoustic fence and limiting the communal areas hours of operation (from 7am to 9pm) to
ensure compliance with PO21 of Medium Density Residential code.
Council Issue 12 – Landscaping area
It is unclear why the terrace areas have been included in the calculation of landscaping. Accordingly, it appears that
insufficient landscaping has been provided.
Information required
A review of the extent of landscaping in light of the planning scheme’s definition of landscaping and soft landscaping with
plans amended as required to ensure compliance with the landscaping requirements within the Dual Occupancy and
Multiple Dwelling Code.
Response.
We do not agree with Council’s interpretation of the Landscape Area definition. The definition does not specifically
exclude ‘terrace areas’ and we are not of the view that terrace areas resemble or should be treated like trafficable areas,
carparks or bin areas referenced in the definition. We also note that impervious use areas are also permissible as hard
landscape areas.
Notwithstanding the above, the revised development layout includes a total landscape area of 2,325m2 (or 42% of the
site area), including 1,726m2 (or 31% of the site area) as soft landscaping. The relevant Acceptable Outcomes AO10.2 of
the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code requires a minimum 35% (or 1,920m2) of landscaping, including 60% (or
1152m2) of soft landscaping. The revised development layout now exceeds the total required soft landscaping by 576m2.
In light of this, we consider that the development complies with PO10 by providing landscape treatments which:
enhance liveability
contribute to visual amenity and natural landscape character of the area
facilitates privacy between uses
soften the built form: and
conceals services and carparking areas from public view.
Refer to revised Landscape design plans and impression drawings in Attachment C.
Council Issue 13 – Sustainable design
It is noted that a response to the Sustainable Design Works Code has been submitted. The response does not address as
to whether a minimum of two openings have been provided to each habitable room.
Information Required
Clarification as to how the proposal complies with this aspect of Performance Outcome PO8.
Response.
The proposal plans have been revised to ensure compliance with PO8 of the Sustainable Design code (Refer to
Attachment C). All habitable rooms have been amended to ensure each room has two openings, and should there be
instances where two windows are not possible, louvres have been provided above the entrance door. This requirement
can be further enforced through a reasonable and relevant condition of approval.
Page 16
Council Issue 14 – Acoustic Amenity The site abuts a property which includes an access point and storage area for a commercial activity which are located within close proximity of the proposed dwellings. It is likely that this existing land use will detrimentally impact on the acoustic amenity and privacy of occupants of the proposed development. Information Required Clarification as to how the proposed building design ameliorates the potential amenity impacts of the adjoining commercial business. Response. In response to this matter, an Acoustic report has been prepared by Decibell Consulting (Refer to Attachment E). The report assesses the potential impacts and provides recommendations that ensure that any potential amenity impacts on the development are ameliorated. These building treatments include acoustic glazing treatments to dwellings’ windows and sliding doors as outlined within the report. This correspondence and attachments represent a response to all the information requested, in accordance with s13.2 of the Development Assessment Rules. We trust the above and enclosed information satisfactorily addresses Council’s Information Request requirements. Yours faithfully, TIMOTHY BALCOMBE SENIOR URBAN PLANNER JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS CC: Altum Property Group Attachment A – Hydraulic Services Attachment B – Traffic Engineering Report Attachment C – Proposal Plans, Elevations and Landscape Plans Attachment D – Civil construction and earthworks Attachment E – Acoustic assessment Attachment F – Hydraulic Services Plan Attachment G – Music Model
Page 17
com Me
AU
URBANCONSULTANTS
TOWN PLANNING
SaaS ade LN Le
CUT g emai WaT Vans ath (el
Ma ea aati {SO 4
DRCAPE ARCHITECTURE ECOLOGY + ORICULTURE www.jfp.com.au