ASTP-Resp_To_IR

Page 2

RESPONSE
Please refer to the accompanying amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Appendix 1), as
show on Drawings DD-02 & DD-04, the design has been revised to provide a compliant site cover of 40% and
compliant plot ratio of 0.4.



            ITEM 2:
            Eastern elevations have not been provided for the proposed deck extension to Unit 1.

            2.    Provide elevations inclusive of the proposed changes to Unit 1 to allow an assessment
                  against the relevant overlooking and privacy provisions.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the supporting amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Appendix 1), which
provide an Eastern Elevation (Drawing No. DD-17) and an Eastern Perspective (Drawing No. DD-13).

The Eastern Elevation demonstrates that the proposed re-development of Unit 2, will have no further impact to
the residents of the unit development located at #2 Martin Street, given that the interface between Unit 1 of
the development and the adjoining development has not been modified. For clarity, the proposed garage roof
pergola for Unit 2 is located ~19m from the adjoining property, which exceeds the privacy criteria contained
within AO6.4 and AO6.5 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code.



            ITEMS 3 & 4:
            3. Provide amended plans showing a minimum the building setback of 1.5 metres from the
                northern property boundary and demonstrate how the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ will not
                compromise the amenity and privacy of the occupants of the adjoining premises.
            4. Reduce the overall height and dominance of the wall/fence. This may be achieved by
                providing soft landscaping, off-setting the fence and introducing landscaping.

RESPONSE
Within the ‘Issue’ section of Information Request Items 3 and 4, Council details that in their opinion, the
proposed development does not satisfy Performance Outcome PO2 of the Medium Density Residential Zone,
on the following basis:
     •     Impact of the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ on the adjoining northern property;
     •     The built to boundary garage will cause adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property and does
           not provide a high level of amenity to users of the adjoining premises;
     •     The setback does not allow for planting between the building and northern property boundary; and,
     •     The proposal is not consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape.

These points will be separately addressed below. In considering the response provided, it is important to note
that the design of the Unit 2 interface to the north has been slightly modified to provide a 1.5m setback to the
pergola structure located on top of the garage (refer to the amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design
& Drafting (Attachment 1). By satisfying the minimum setback requirements for the height of the structure (up
to 4.5m) the ‘Garage Roof Deck’ is compliant with AO12.1 and further commentary in relation to this has not
been provided.



                                                                                                          Page 2 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 3

     •     The built to boundary will cause adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining property and does not
           provide a high level of amenity to users of the adjoining premises.

In response to this point, reference is made Drawing DD-15 (Attachment 1), which demonstrates that the built
to boundary garage wall is cut into the site at the boundary, with only a height of the garage wall at the
neighbour’s side, being 2.03m, located above the existing natural ground at this point. Acknowledging the
existing 1.8 metre fence at this location, the development will only result in an exceedance to the height of a
structure at this location by 230mm, which is extremely minor.

It is also noted that Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code, as well as the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code do not contain Assessment Benchmarks for side boundary fencing. As such, the provisions contained
within QDCMP1.3 are relevant to the proposal. Under A1(d)(ii) of QDCMP1.3, fences can have a height of 2m.
When considering the permitted fence height, the development only exceeds this accepted development
outcome by 30mm, which will be indiscernible from the adjoining property. On this basis it cannot be argued
that the development will result in impacts upon amenity or overshadowing (structure located on the southern
side of dwelling at 27 Avocet Parade).




Figure 1 Extract of Northern Elevation (Source: DCM Design & Drafting 2022)

     •     The setback does not allow for planting between the building and northern property boundary.

With respect to Council’s comments in relation to the inability for the development to provide planting
between the building and the northern (side) boundary we note that there are no Acceptable Outcomes that
require plating alongside boundaries under the code. Based on a review of the code, there are only Acceptable
Outcomes that relate to planting along site frontages (i.e. AO17.4). It is noted that PO12 of the code is intended
to capture setback variations to the frontage and side boundaries.

It is our view that provision under PO12(e) is intended to relate to where front boundary setback variations are
sought, given the lack of specific landscaping benchmarks alongside boundaries. Irrespective of this, the
development only results in a built to boundary element equating to 7.1 metres of an entire boundary length
of 32 metres, with the balance of the boundary containing an element of landscaping, which in our view
satisfies the intent of PO12(e).


                                                                                                          Page 3 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 4

     •     The proposal is not consistent with the predominant character of the streetscape.

Attendance to the site and surrounding areas has confirmed that there are many examples of built to boundary
garage structures, within proximity to the site. In particular, the following sites contain built to boundary garage
structures, which are on the same road as the proposed development.

                 2 Avocet Parade
                 7 Avocet Parade
                 13 Avocet Parade

As such, we believe that Council’s statement that the development is not consistent with the character of the
streetscape is incorrect, with it being our view that the streetscape contains a variety of garage setbacks and
interfaces, with there being no ‘consistent’ streetscape character.

In summary, it is our view that the development entirely addresses the points raised by Council within the
‘Issue’ section of Information Request Item 3 and the development complies with Performance Outcome PO12
of the Medium Density Residential Code, based on the following
     a) The development provides a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and will not impact upon
          the adjoining premises, with the proposed garage not resulting in overlooking, overshadowing or
          further noise impacts upon surrounding development;
     b) The proposed garage element (no openings) only marginally exceeds (30mm) the height of a compliant
          fence under QDCMP1.3. Further, the rooftop pergola entirely complies with the required setbacks up
          to 4.5m in height. Therefore, the development does not result in any overlooking impacts to the
          adjoining property to the north. It is further noted that the adjoining sites do not contain any views
          that would be obstructed by the development;
     c) Given the low scale of the development and in excess of the required setbacks for the majority of the
          built form on both the ground and upper levels, the development provides ‘adequate’ distance from
          adjoining land uses;
     d) The development ensures the delivery of deep-rooted front landscaping, as well as side boundary
          landscaping (excluding garage elements) that will buffer the development and reduce any appearance
          of bulk;
     e) The development maintains a compliant landscaping and private open space outcome, such that the
          proposal maintains the well landscaped aesthetic that is consistent with the surrounding locality; and,
     f) The development does not impact ecologically important areas.

With respect to the above, it is clear that the development complies with Performance Outcome PO12, and the
proposed outcome should be supported.




                                                                                                           Page 4 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 5

            ITEM 5:
            5. Reduce the fence height and incorporate landscaping between the fence and front
                boundary setback reflective of the Acceptable and Performance outcomes.

RESPONSE
As demonstrated in the Site Plan (DD-02) the entire development provides front fencing that largely is setback
form the site frontage by a 1 metre landscaping strip, with the exception of the areas shown in Figure 2 below.




Figure 2 Front Fencing Alignment (Source: DCM Design & Drafting 2022)

It is noted that AO17.1 permits front fencing within the 1m setback, subject to the fencing outcome being
stepped at 5m intervals and being setback an average of 1m. When considering the entire site, the development
achieves this outcome, with both units resulting in a total built to frontage fencing extent of only 10.5 metres of
a total 56.8 metre frontage. It is noted that save to the built to frontage landscaping outcome proposed for Unit
2, the balance of the development provides either a compliant, or in excess of a compliant landscaping outcome
(Unit 1) and on average, exceeds the requirement for the fencing to be setback 1m. Therefore, it is our view that
the proposed outcome is entirely compliant with AO17.1 of the code.

With respect to AO17.2, the proposed fencing for Unit 2 contains three (3) types, being a solid blockwork up to
1.2 metres, with breeze blocks on top, spaced timber batten fencing (provided on the truncated corner and
adjacent to the gatehouse) and a small section of 1.8m high blockwork fencing associated with the front gate. It



                                                                                                         Page 5 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 6

is noted that the spaced timber batten fencing will be 50% transparent, thus achieving compliance with AO17.2.
With respect to the blockwork with breezeblock fencing type, these sections are setback behind a 1m
landscaping strip and comprise of a 1.2 solid wall, with 600mm of breezeblocks on top. This outcome is
demonstrated in Figure 3 below. Whilst this outcome only provides partial transparency for a third of the overall
fence height, it is our view that this outcome is visually permeable and attractive, and provides an opportunity
for privacy of users, given that the primary private open space for Unit 2 is located between the building and the
street frontage.




Figure 3 Blockwork/Breezeblock Fencing Type (Source: DCM Design + Drafting 2022)

The third fencing type is a small section of solid 1.8m blockwork, which is beside the front fence (see Figure 4).
This fencing is required to screen the retractable gate when open and ensure that the development provides an
attractive overall outcome. It is noted that this portion of the fence is only 2.8m long, which equates to 4.91%
of the entire frontage.




Figure 4 Blockwork Fencing Type (Source: DCM Design + Drafting 2022)


Where the development delivers just a minor extent of non-compliant front fencing the proposal demonstrates
clear compliance against Performance Outcome PO17 as a result of the following:
     •    Providing an attractive and visually interesting front fencing solution, with a number of fencing
          treatments, which contain a range of landscaping and stepped fencing arrangements that provides a
          positive streetscape outcome;




                                                                                                        Page 6 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 7

     •    The proposed 1.8 solid fence type is consistent with the fencing types of dwellings/units on surrounding
          land parcels and therefore is consistent with the existing character of the area;
     •    Ensures that the front fencing allows for a large degree of ‘look through’ as a result of transparent
          fencing treatments and in doing so deliver a high-quality casual surveillance solution for the security
          benefit of both residents and users of the road reserve;
     •    Implementing landscaping and frontage treatments do not impact the safety or efficiency of the road
          reserve; and,
     •    The fencing does not impact stormwater.

As demonstrated above and supported by the amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting
(Attachment 1) the proposed development delivers a positive front fencing implementation that is compliant
against all elements of Performance Outcome PO17.



            ITEM 6:
            There is insufficient information for Council to assess the proposed driveway and
            manoeuvring area in Avocet Parade.

            6.    Provide an amended plan of the proposed access driveway and manoeuvring area. The
                  amended plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
                  Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
                  a) a design that is generally in accordance with Council’s standard drawing RS-049,
                      RS-050 and any associated addendum;
                  b) levels and grades of the access driveway;
                  c) a longitudinal section extending from the centre of Avocet Parade to the garage
                      pad;
                  d) demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not bottom out or scrape while entering/exiting
                      the driveway; and
                  e) demonstrate the full extent of the transition to the adjoining areas of verge to
                      eliminate the potential creation of trip hazards within the road reserve.

                      Please note that Council are unlikely to support privately owned retaining
                      structures in the road reserve.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the supporting Civil Engineering Plans prepared by RECOR Consulting (Attachment 2). In
accordance with Council’s requirements the plans demonstrate:
     •    The proposed Avocet Parade driveway is designed generally in accordance with Council’s standard
          drawings RS-049 and RS-050;
     •    The levels and grades for the proposed driveway;
     •    That a B99 vehicle will not bottom out or scrape while maneuvering or accessing the site via the
          driveway, displayed, and demonstrated by a longitudinal section plan of the proposed driveway; and
     •    The proposed land transition to the verge within the road reserve.




                                                                                                           Page 7 of 8
Our ref: 220311

Page 8

            ITEM 7:
            It is unclear from the submitted documentation what section of the existing driveway in Martin
            Street is to be removed and altered.

            7.    Provide additional information demonstrating what section of the existing driveway in Martin
                  Street is to be removed and details of the proposed altered works.

RESPONSE
Please refer to Drawing No. DD-07 with the amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting
(Appendix 1) that details the extent of driveway that is to be removed/demolished. In aid of identifying the
proposed Martin Street driveway refer to the Civil Engineering Plans prepared by RECOR Consulting (Attachment
2), which illustrates the proposed Unit 2 (existing) driveway to remain.



            ITEM 8:
            The proposed works indicate a significant increase in hardstand (impervious) areas. Council
            are concerned how this increase in hardstand areas will affect the subject site’s existing
            stormwater drainage conditions.

            8.    Provide a preliminary Stormwater Management Plan that includes, but not limited to, details of
                  how rainwater on landscaped and impervious areas will be collected and released from the site.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the accompanying Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RECOR Consulting (Attachment
3), this details the full extent of the site’s stormwater management and demonstrates that run-off from the site
is to be managed to comply with the relevant requirements and minimises any adverse impacts to the
downstream catchments.



This represents our complete response to the Information Request issued by Council, and we look forward to
the Decision Notice being issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning Act 2016.

As always, please feel free to contact me direct should you require any additional information or clarification.

Yours faithfully,
ADAMS + SPARKES




Michael Lyell
SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

Encl:       Amended Proposal Plans prepared by DCM Design & Drafting (Attachment 1)
            Civil Engineering Plans prepared by RECOR Consulting (Attachment 2)
            Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RECOR Consulting (Attachment 3)




                                                                                                          Page 8 of 8
Our ref: 220311