Original source · versioned page text
ASTP-Resp_To_IR.pdf
Our ref: 241021
Council Ref: MCU24/0155
15 May 2025
The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin QLD 4565
Attention: Development Assessment – Cameron Smith
Via Email: [email protected]
Dear Cameron,
Re: Response to Council’s Information Request
Development Permit for Material Change of Use to establish a Dwelling House
18 Shearwater Street, Peregian Beach
Lot 424 on P93116
Council ref: MCU24/0155
I refer to Council’s Information Request, dated 14 January 2025 in relation to the abovementioned development.
On behalf of the applicant, PermaBuild, and in accordance with Section 13 of the DA Rules, we provide a
response to all the issues raised. A response to the item(s) raised in Councils Information Request is outlined
below:
ITEM – BUILDING HEIGHT (STOREYS)
The proposed development includes a dwelling house with three separate levels, the
application material states that the dwelling house will comply with building height
provisions by being under 8 metres in height and not exceeding 2 storeys. It is council's
opinion that the proposed design reflects a three-storey design due to the ground level
projection as it does not meet any of the exemptions covered in the storey and basement
definitions of the Noosa Plan 2020.
The ground level projection in question cannot be considered a basement because this space
does not meet the definition in that parts of the projection exceed one metre above the
ground level with ground level being the level of natural ground which was lawfully changed.
This means that the entirety of the ground level projection constitutes a storey.
Similarly, the application material suggests that no part of the design results in three stories
being stacked above or below one another, however based on the layout plans (Dwg. DD-
2.01 Rev.3, DD-2.02 Rev.3 & DD-2.03 Rev.3) and Section 01 of the Sections 1 Plan (Dwg.
DD-4.01 Rev.3) it is indicated that 3 stories may potentially be stacked upon another (small
void spaces do not excuse the level from being constituted as a storey).
Page 1 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Preview the original
The page text is free to read. Previews and downloads of original files need an account.
Log in to previewLog in to download the original (ASTP-Resp_To_IR.pdf)
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 8 pages
Page 2
Information Required
1. Provide amended plans which limits the build form to 2 storeys as defined in the
Noosa Plan 2020; or
2. Provide further justification for how the proposal can comply with all the relevant
provisions and definitions.
RESPONSE
Please refer to the enclosed amended design plans prepared by DCM in Attachment 1. Further consideration
has been given to the design, the overall height and the nature and positioning of the stacked levels. DCM have
provided additional detail in the form of an Elevation Height Section on Sheet DD-4.03 and a Building Storeys
Diagram on Sheet DD-6.02. The design intent has been to provide a split-level design that steps down the slope
of the site, as desired by the planning scheme; however, it is acknowledged that part of the dwelling house does
constitute 3 storeys, as shown on Sheet DD-6.02. This 3-storey element is limited to a central section of the
dwelling house, where some excavation is proposed to achieve the split-level design. Additional filling and
retaining is now proposed which limits this three-storey section further.
The 3-storey section of the dwelling has no consequence in terms of bulk and scale when viewed from
Shearwater Street, the beach or from adjoining properties to the north and south. Further, the privacy and
amenity of adjoining properties are not compromised by the inclusion of this 3-storey element. The proposal
satisfies PO7 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code on the following basis:
• Despite providing a 3-storey element, the design ensures that this element does not create any
additional visual or amenity impacts on the streetscape, the beach or adjoining properties to the north
and south;
• The proposal responds to the existing topography of the site and represents a construction form that
is typical for sites falling away from the site frontage to the rear – this is evident by throughout the
surrounding area and on sites that back onto the coastal reserve;
• The proposal is low-rise and complements the nature, scale and predominant character of residential
development in the surrounding area;
• The proposal complements and does not visually dominate the existing streetscape of Shearwater
Street; and,
• The proposal presents as 2-storeys when viewed from Shearwater Street.
ITEM – BUILDING HEIGHT
The proposed development will contain a substantial cut to accommodate the lower levels,
it is unclear whether the side elevation(s) will exceed the maximum 8.0 metre height for that
part of the dwelling’s externally exposed wall as stated in Acceptable Outcome AO7.2 of the
Low Density Residential Zone Code, namely;
Where excavation is required, the maximum portion of the exposed external façade of the
building cannot exceed 8m in building height.
Information Required
3. Provide additional information and/or detail which confirms the exposed facades
of the building do not exceed 8m in building height; and
4. Provide additional fully dimensioned levels/details which demonstrate how the
proposed excavations will interface with the adjoining premises to the North and
South.
Page 2 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 3
RESPONSE
Refer to the enclosed amended plans prepared by DCM (Attachment 1) which provide additional information in
relation to the height of the exposed facades on the north and south elevations – refer to sheets DD-3.03 and
DD-3.04. Importantly, the proposed dwelling does not exceed 8m from the natural ground level and the extent
of excavation proposed as part of the dwelling construction is appropriate and consistent with development
throughout the surrounding area. Given the slope of the site from front to back and the desire to provide
benched (stepped) levels, there are sections of the dwelling’s northern and southern facades that exceed 8m
from the new finished ground level. On the north elevation, the tallest exposed façade is 8.502m from finished
level. This section of the north façade greater than 8m is limited to approximately 10% of the entire length of
the northern façade. Further, the tallest section comprises the screened upper-level terrace, which provides
visual permeability at the upper level and does not represent excessive bulk or scale at this highest point of the
dwelling. Refer to Figure 1 below. Overall, this exceedance in the preferred maximum façade height of 502mm
is minor and does not represent unnecessary or inappropriate bulk or scale when viewed from the neighbouring
site.
Section of the
northern façade
exceeding 8m
from finished
level
Figure 1 Minor Height Exceedance - North Elevation
Section of the
southern façade
exceeding 8m from
finished level
Figure 2 Minor Height Exceedance - South Elevation
On the south elevation, the tallest part of the dwelling is 8.950m from finished level; however, this is limited to
one section of the upper-level roof. The tallest, exposed façade is 8.461m from finished level and is highlighted
in Figure 2 above. This section represents approximately 22% of the total length of the south façade and again,
is considered minor and inconsequential. The proposed height exceedance from the finished level does not
represent unnecessary or inappropriate bulk or scale when viewed from the neighbouring site.
Page 3 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 4
ITEM – ROOFTOP TERRACE
The proposed development includes a rooftop terrace component as part of outdoor living
areas on the uppermost storey. No assessment has been undertaken with regards to this
non-compliance with Acceptable Outcome AO16.3 which states that;
Development does not include rooftop terraces.
With reference to the current design specifically, the rooftop terrace proposed is 14.0 metres
x 4.5 metres in footprint size and has a pergola over the majority of this footprint. Council
considers this rooftop terrace to be far in excess of the intent of a roof terrace and presents
more similarly to a full width outdoor balcony.
Information Required
5. Provide amended plans which reduce the overall size of the roof terrace including
relocating the terrace back from the edge of building lines on both the north and
southern faces to reduce any potential opportunities to impact on the amenity and
privacy enjoyed by users of adjoining or nearby premises. A sightlines assessment
to identify any overlooking into adjoining private open space areas will be required.
In addition, remove all parts of the pergola structure; and
6. Provide a planning justification against the relevant Performance Outcome; or
7. Provide amended plans which remove the rooftop terrace from the proposed
design.
RESPONSE
The proposed “roof terrace” has been revised to pull the sides in from the edge of the building on the north
and south faces. Full height screening has been introduced to both sides to provide additional privacy and to
limit any potential overlooking opportunities. The proposed roof terrace is not a “roof top terrace” as typical
described or designed. The proposed roof terrace is an external open space area that is not located on the roof
of the building and is simply an extension of external open space from the upper-level living areas and
bedrooms. This area is no different to that of a patio, deck or verandah and does not constitute what is typically
considered a “roof top terrace”. Accordingly, given the positioning of this area directly off and adjacent to
internal living spaces, it is proposed to maintain the proposed pergola structure. Importantly, the pergola
structure remains under the preferred 8m maximum building height from natural ground level and does not
contribute to inappropriate bulk or scale.
PO16 of the Low Density Residential Zone Code relates to “roof design”. The proposed dwelling house design
satisfies PO16 based on the following:
• The proposed development will enhance the streetscape by incorporating design elements that reflect
the local architectural style and character. This includes the use of materials, colours, and landscaping
that are consistent with surrounding properties.
• The design includes roof overhangs to provide shade and protection from the elements. These
features not only improve the aesthetic appeal of the dwelling but also contribute to the energy
efficiency of the building.
• The front facade features varied elevations and architectural details to avoid a boxy appearance.
• The building's massing and scale have been carefully considered to ensure it does not appear
excessively bulky. This is achieved by stepped-back upper levels, varied rooflines, and strategic
placement of windows and other architectural features.
Page 4 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 5
• Privacy measures have been incorporated into the design to prevent overlooking. This includes the
use of privacy screens, generous sill heights and landscaping to ensure that direct views into the
private open spaces or habitable rooms of neighboring properties are minimised.
ITEM – SITE COVER
The proposed development includes 3 individual levels, however based on the bottom storey
not meeting the definition of a basement, this ground level contributes to additional site
cover calculations. This results in site cover calculations of 194m2 or 36% for the ground
level, 273m2 or 51% for Level 1 and 154m2 or 28% for Level 2. Therefore, the proposed
design cannot comply with site cover provisions AO8.1 of the low density residential zone
code. Likewise, due to Level 1 site cover contributions, the proposed design cannot comply
with a Birds Eye combined site cover of no more than 40%.
Information Required
8. Provide amended plans which achieve a built form site cover of 30/50/30 or 40%
(birds eye) overall; or
9. Provide additional detail which justifies the current site cover built-form provisions.
RESPONSE
Refer to the enclosed amended plans prepared by DCM (Attachment 1) which provide additional information in
relation to the proposed site coverage. The site coverage of each level can be summarised as follows:
Ground Floor 33%
Level 1 50%
Level 2 19% (excluding roof terrace and garden)
Despite the not meeting AO8.1, the proposal is compliant with PO8 on the following basis:
• The Ground Floor is not visible from the street and therefore, the proposal presents as 2-storeys from
the street, consistent with that of surrounding development;
• Only a minor section of the dwelling presents as 3-storeys on the north and south elevations and this
does not result in any adverse impacts in terms of bulk and scale; and,
• The proposal includes 270m2 (49% of the site area) as landscaping, including a raised planter on the
front elevation and a raised garden area towards the rear of Level 2. This landscape provision greatly
exceeds the preferred minimum of 20%.
It should also be noted that the proposed gross floor area (GFA) of the dwelling is less than 500m2, as preferred
by AO8.2. The total floor areas shown on the DCM plans include the garage, stairs, lift, ground floor alfresco,
level 1 balcony, front porch, roof terrace and garden. Each of these areas are excluding from GFA, resulting in a
GFA of ~380m2.
ITEM – SETBACKS (SIDE BOUNDARY)
The proposed development includes a built to boundary component to a storage room on
the ground floor plan. As this room on the ground level does not constitute a class 10a
building (or part of) it is not subject to provisions within A2 of the Queensland Development
Page 5 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 6
Code (the ‘QDC’) MP1.2, this is further stated in accepted outcome AO9.4, which provides
similar requirements for lesser building setbacks to side and rear boundaries.
Information Required
10. Provide amended plans which only include built to boundary setbacks where such
setbacks can meet the requirements prescribed in QDC MP1.2.
RESPONSE
Refer to the enclosed amended plans prepared by DCM (Attachment 1). The Ground Floor has been revised to
ensure the southern external wall is setback 2.0m from the side boundary. The proposed maximum height, mean
height and total length of the built to boundary wall is compliant with QDC MP1.2.
ITEM – COASTAL PROTECTION SETBACK (REAR BOUNDARY)
The proposed development includes a swimming pool (structure) which is primarily within
the rear 6m setback. Performance Outcome PO4 states.
Where a coastal building line does not exist on a lot fronting the beachfront or a reserve
adjoining the beachfront, new buildings and structures are setback no less than 6 metres
from the seaward boundary of the site.
The application material only references the ‘building’ in its response to PO4.
Information Required
11. Provide amended plans which relocate the proposed swimming pool outside of the
6 metre setback from the seaward (rear) boundary to comply with PO4.
RESPONSE
It is acknowledged that the proposed pool is considered a “structure” and therefore technically PO4
of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code is not met. Despite this, it is evident that
the siting and design of the pool will have no adverse effect on the overall outcomes sought by the
Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code. It is relevant to consider that the subject site
currently includes above-ground built structures within the 6m rear setback and removal of these
structures could be considered an improved outcome. Further, most of the residential developments
along the eastern side of Shearwater Steet and nearby Lorikeet Drive and Plover Street include above-
ground built structures within this preferred 6m setback.
The overall outcomes sought by the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code are:
(a) Development allows for natural processes of erosion and accretion to occur naturally,
including as a result of sea level rise.
(b) Development ensures landforms, creeks, dunes, vegetation and biodiversity in coastal
areas are not impacted by development to mitigate coastal hazard risks and to protect
environmental values; and
(c) Development is designed and sited to protect the visual character and scenic amenity of the
Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Area and to integrate with the surrounding natural
landscape and skyline vegetation.
Page 6 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 7
The proposed development, including the proposed proposal, clearly satisfies the above overall
outcomes given:
• The proposed dwelling is setback 6.0m from the rear boundary;
• The proposed pool, associated fencing and surroundings are within the 6.0m rear setback,
yet allow for natural process of erosion and accretion to occur and will not worsening or
hinder such process;
• The proposed design of the dwelling and pool responds to the characteristics of the site,
including its slope and will not adversely impact on the natural landscape nor will it adversely
affect costal processes of hazard risk;
• The proposed location of the pool is completely consistent with that of nearby residential
development; and,
• The proposed location of the pool will have no impact on the visual character and scenic
amenity of the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Area.
Setting the pool back 6m from the rear boundary will provide no benefit and improved outcome in
relation to those overall outcomes sought by the Coastal Protection and Scenic Amenity Overlay Code.
It is therefore requested that the proposed pool location be supported.
ITEM – SECONDARY DWELLING
The proposed development includes two separate self-contained living areas. With a self-
contained component on the ground floor (refer dwg DD-2.01 Rev 3) and a second (primary)
living area for Level’s 1 & 2 (refer dwg. DD-2.02 Rev.3 & dwg. DD-2.03 Rev.3). Noting the
above, Council considers the proposal currently includes an internal secondary dwelling
component.
Note: Council would consider a smaller ‘wet bar’ to the ground level in lieu of a full
kitchenette if the applicant does not wish to propose a secondary dwelling.
Information Required
12. Provide an amended plan which removes the ‘Kitchenette’ detail from Dwg. DD-
2.01 Rev.3; or
13. Provide an amended plan which swaps the ‘Kitchenette’ for a smaller scale ‘Wet
Bar’ on Dwg. DD-2.01 Rev.3; or
14. Incorporate a ‘Secondary Dwelling’ component to the application material ensuring
adequate justification is provided against the relevant outcomes.
RESPONSE
There is no intention to have a secondary dwelling onsite. The previously described kitchenette has been
changed to “wet bar” and will function accordingly. Refer to the enclosed amended plans prepared by DCM
(Attachment 1).
Page 7 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 8
ITEM – STORMWATER
From a site inspection (undertaken by Council Engineering Officers) and the submitted
information, it is not clear how stormwater will be managed, namely the proposed discharge
point.
Information Required
15. Provide a preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for the site, including details
of collection of stormwater runoff from the building and the hardstand areas, and
location and type of proposed stormwater discharge outlet(s).
RESPONSE
Refer to attached Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RECOR (Attachment 2). The site drains naturally
through adjacent bushland to the beach, and analysis shows minimal change in stormwater runoff between the
existing and proposed development. Therefore, no stormwater detention is needed. The attached report
recommends that roof water be directed to the existing open drain via a uPVC roof water pipe and to include an
appropriate headwall and scour protection at the outlet.
ITEM – DRIVEWAY
From the submitted plans it is unclear if the proposed driveway is in accordance with
Council’s standard drawings RS-049 and RS-050.
Information Required
16. Provide engineering plans, prepared by an RPEQ (Registered Professional Engineer
of Queensland), that include the following information:
a. a driveway generally in accordance with council’s standard drawings RS-049
and RS-050;
b. levels and grades of the access driveway;
c. a longitudinal section extending from the centreline of the formation in
Shearwater Street to the proposed garage;
d. demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not bottom out or scrape entering/exiting
the driveway.
RESPONSE
The driveway is to be constructed generally in accordance with IPWEA standard drawings RS-049, RS-050, and
the driveway longitudinal section prepared by RECOR in Attachment 3. The driveway profile is to match the
existing verge levels as shown without kerb and standard verge.
Page 8 of 9
Our ref: 241021
Page 9
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
TO WN P L ANN ING
Pete Sparkes
DIRECTOR
Encl: Amended Plans prepared by DCM (Attachment 1)
Stormwater Management Plan prepared by RECOR (Attachment 2)
Driveway longitudinal section prepared by RECOR (Attachment 3)
Page 9 of 9
Our ref: 241021