Information Request - May 2026 - MCU23 0007 (002)

Page 2

Information Required
1.   Amend plans accordingly to incorporate the relevant detail.
Issue – Assessments against the applicable Codes
The proposed changes to the existing application constitute a substantial change, that has not
been assessed against the applicable Codes. This is particularly relevant given the increase
in the number of dwellings and the alterations to the layout.
Information Required
2.   Provide an assessment of the revised proposal with regard to the
     a)   Dual occupancy and Multi-dwelling Code;
     b)   Community Facilities Code
     c)   Driveways and Parking Code; and
     d)   Cooroy Local Plan Code.
The extent of the change is to be assessed against the provisions of the Noosa Plan 2020 –
dated 25 September 2020 and the scheme amended on 20 March 2026.
Issue – Building Height
The built form located entirely above the eastern car park exceeds 8 metres in height, with a
clearance of 3 metres in height for the under croft parking. We consider there to be scope to
reduce the overall height of the building by reducing the clearance of this parking area.
Information Required
3.   Provide amended plans which reduce the height of the under-croft parking so that the
     development does not exceed 8 metres in this location.




Issue - Car Parking Provision
The proposal seeks a dispensation of 3 parking spaces, 23 parking spaces required vs 20
provided. The application is not supported by a car parking demand assessment or similar
documentation in support of this car parking reduction.
Information Required
4.   Provide further information, prepared by a suitability qualified traffic engineer addressing
     car parking requirements/car parking demand generation.




                                                                                         Page 2 of 9

Page 3

Issue – Roof Design – Response to AO 7.3
AO7.3 of the Cooroy Local Plan Code provides guidance on preferred roof form. From
review of the proposal there may be scope to incorporate decorative gables as shown in
Figure AP3-6B- Heritage Design. These additional design features would be particularly
helpful in improving the design response and reducing the bulk of the roof to Myall Street
and Maple Street, while integrating/responding to the existing built form character of the
precinct.
Information Required
5.   Amend plans to incorporate decorative gables, particularly along the Maple Street and
     Myall Street frontages.
Issue – Maple Street Elevation
The Maple Street interface is of key significance and visibility. The 1.5 metre-wide setback
between the northern-most dwelling and the shared boundary with 3/5 Myall Street does not
meet AO19.1 of the Community Facilities Zone Code (requiring a 3 metre setback), nor does
the concept landscape plan demonstrate the proposal can meet PO11 of the Dual
Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code, specifically seeking landscaping that reduces the
bulk and scale of development. It is unclear whether the entirety of the 1.5 metre setback is
dedicated to landscaping, or whether there is intended to be a footpath or similar, which
would effectively reduce the planting opportunities along this interface.
Further, the sight lines into the site as viewed from Maple Street off the internal accessway
should be given further attention to improve how the development is viewed from the street
and whether meaningful landscaping can be incorporated along this interface to soften the
built form and extensive hard-paved surfacing that dominates the sight lines.




                                                                                       Page 3 of 9

Page 4

Information Required
6.    Clarify extent of northern setback dedicated for landscaping. Consider amending the
      layout to increase the northern setback to provide more meaningful landscape planting
      opportunities to improve the visual presentation of this interface.
7.    Consider amending the plans to improve the visual presentation of the development as
      viewed from Maple Street. This may include:
      a. Alternate colour/material treatment along northern-most wall to avoid single colour
         used on ground and first floor.
      b. Provision of practical feature planting adjacent to internal accessway to screen the
         front of the dwellings.
Issue – Extent of Earthworks
It’s unclear how much cut and fill is proposed, with specific reference to the finished levels for
the internal car park adjacent to the eastern/residential zone interface.
Information Required
8.    Clarify extent of earthworks proposed.
Issue – Stormwater Management
A Stormwater Management Plan has not been submitted as part of the revised design.
An assessment against the Water Quality and Drainage has not been provided.
Information Required
9.    Provide a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP must be prepared by a
      suitably qualified person (RPEQ) and satisfy the requirements under The Noosa Plan
      2020 – Water Quality and Drainage Code and PSP6 – Engineering Design Standards.
      The SWMP must specifically address:
      a.    stormwater quality.
      b.    stormwater quantity.
      c.    how the proposed Lot 1 achieves a lawful point of discharge – noting that Council
            will not sign the plan of survey without an established lawful point of discharge for
            Lot 1
Issue – Roof water Harvesting
The development does not comply with Acceptable Outcome 2.1 of the Sustainable Building
Design Code because each dwelling is not provided with 3,000 litres of rainwater storage that
is refused for non-potable purposes.
Information Required
10.   Provide additional detail demonstrating that each dwelling is provided with 3,000 litres
      of rainwater storage for reusable, non-potable purposes.
Issue – Loss of On-Street Parking
RECOR’s Existing Layout Plan (C003, Rev. A) details the removal of nine on street carparks
along the Maple Street frontage.
Additionally, Council suggests that the location of the proposed new crossover would
compromise a 10th carpark by failing to achieve a minimum 1.0 metre separation between the
carpark and the driveway crossover.
The plans provided by RECOR and PUSH propose eight on street carparks which would result
in a net loss of 1 (likely 2) on-street carparks.




                                                                                          Page 4 of 9

Page 5

Council is unsupportive of any loss of on-street parking pursuant to the Driveways and Parking
Code and Transport Codes.
Information Required
11.   Provide a revised layout that achieves a zero-net loss of on-street parking.


Issue – Proposed Vehicle Crossover (Lot 1)
The proposed vehicle crossover to Lot 1:
•     extends beyond the prolongations of the property boundary
•     relies on adjustments to existing services (power pole, Telstra pit, water meters, etc)
•     fails to achieve a minimum separation to the existing on-street carpark to the south
      along Maple Street.




Information Required
12.   Provide a revised driveway crossover that is wholly contained within the prolongations
      of the subject site and maintains a minimum 1.0m from adjacent on-street carparks. The
      revised plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ).
13.   Provide confirmation from the relevant service providers that the relocation of the
      existing services to accommodate the driveway crossover is supportable.
Issue – Footpath Alignment
The proposed footpath along Maple Street south of the proposed vehicle crossover (Lot 2)
does not align with the existing footpath to the north and creates an unsafe environment for
pedestrians and cyclists.




                                                                                        Page 5 of 9

Page 6

Information Required
14.   Provide a revised footpath layout that includes a footpath that matches the existing
      alignment along Maple Street. The revised plans must be prepared by a suitably
      qualified person (RPEQ).
Issue – Footpath Width (Myall Street)
Myall Street is classified by Council as a Distributor and is required to be provided with a
minimum 2.0m wide footpath pursuant to Planning Scheme Policy 6 – Engineering Design
Standards.
The proposal does not seek to upgrade the existing ~1.5m footpath along Myall Street.
It is considered reasonable that the development upgrades the existing footpath along Myall
Street due to the densification of the site.
Information Required
15.   Provide amended plans to include the construction of a 2.0m wide footpath for the full
      frontage to Myall Street.
Issue – Internal Aisle Widths & Vehicle Manoeuvrability
The development layout proposes to support two-way traffic via 2.4m-wide lanes, 90 degree
turns and blind corners for both incoming and outgoing vehicles.
No vehicle swept paths have been provided demonstrating two B85 vehicles can pass each
other in this area without colliding with each other or other areas of the development.




                                                                                    Page 6 of 9

Page 7

Information Required
16.   Provide additional detail demonstrating how the internal driveway between the two
      buildings will operate without vehicle collisions. The additional detail must be prepared
      by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ) and include, but not be limited to:
      a.    Provide Turning Paths demonstrating that two B85 vehicles can simultaneously
            manoeuvre the internal driveway between the two buildings (as shown) without
            colliding with each other or any part of the development.
      b.    If vehicles must cross the centreline of the proposed internal driveway while
            manoeuvring through the site and/or cannot simultaneously manoeuvre the
            internal driveway, provide comment on what controls are proposed to indicate
            what driver has ‘right of way’ to avoid collisions.
Issue – Waste Management
Council’s Waste Contractor will not enter or exit the site in reverse. The proposed strategy to
service on-site and reverse out onto Maple Street is not supported.
Council has previously agreed for Units 12 – 14 to be serviced via Myall Street with 1 x 360L
refuse bin rather than 2 x 240L. The additional bin (two on recycling weeks) increases the
servicing time from Myall Street which is currently undesirable due to the traffic implications
on the Myall-Elm intersection.
Information Required
17.   Provide a revised on-street Waste Servicing strategy for Units 12 – 14. The revised
      strategy must utilise 360L bins and include the provision of two concrete bin pads located
      on the northern side of the Myall Street frontage.
18.   Provide a revised on-site Waste Servicing strategy for Units 1 – 11 and 15 – 17. On-site
      servicing must allow for Council’s Waste Collection Vehicle (WCV) to enter the site in a
      forward gear, service the bulk bins, and exit the site in a forward gear.




                                                                                        Page 7 of 9

Page 8

Issue – Plan Conflicts
PUSH’s Proposed Site Plan (1001, Rev. A) details a tree in the internal driveway fronting Unit
4, reducing the combined carriageway width shown on RECOR’s plans from 6.0m to 5.1m. It
is unclear what impact this landscaping will have on the function of the internal driveway and
how this will be managed.




Information Required
19.        Provide additional detail demonstrating how the proposed landscaping in front of
           proposed Unit 4 impacts the functionality of the internal driveway.
Issue – Landscaping
The Noosa Plan Community Facilities Zone Code (PO28) requires:
Landscaped areas are provided to:
      a) reduce the impervious area and enhance the visual amenity and natural landscape
         character of the area, streetscape and local area;
      b) retain existing native vegetation and enhance buffer areas around property
         boundaries;
      c) suit the relative size and nature of the development and its setting;
      d) reduce the visual impact of large or bulky structures and fencing along watercourses;
      e) conceal service, car parking, loading and service areas of developments;
      f)    contribute to pedestrian comfort through shade; and
      g) screen incompatible land uses.
In accordance with acceptable outcome (AO28.1):
The minimum area required for landscaping is no less than 15% of the site area with the
following minimum dimensions:
      a) Frontage— average width of 2 metres; and
      b) Side boundaries—3 metres width along all boundaries that adjoin land in a residential
         zone
The Landscape Plan submitted does not provide dimensions to the southern boundary
adjoining residential zoned land and the information provided does not address how the
proposal meets the minimum landscaping dimensions required by the Community Facilities
Zone Code.




                                                                                       Page 8 of 9

Page 9

Information Required
20.   Provide an updated landscape plan, with dimensions to the southern boundary and
      provide information to demonstrate the proposal meets the minimum landscaping
      dimensions required by the Community Facilities Zone Code (AO28.1).


Advisory Note – Timing of the Plan Seal
You are advised that Council is unable to sign the plan seal to create Lot 1 without the
proposed Lot being provided with vehicular access and a lawful point of discharge.


3.    DUE DATE FOR RESPONSE TO FURTHER ADVICE

A response to the further advice is required by 25 August 2026. Email your response to
[email protected].    OTHER DETAILS

Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me on the number above.
Yours faithfully,



Ben Micallef
Coordinator Planning




                                                                                       Page 9 of 9