PR22001.InformationResponse.January2023

Page 2

      •   AO19.1 (eaves to 75% of the building) & PO19 & AO20.5 (front balcony) of the
          Medium Density Residential Zone Code;
      •   AO14.1 (d) & AO14.3 (a) of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code and
          corresponding Performance outcome PO14;
      Points to note in this regard:
      •   The street elevation is very heavy in appearance (not lightweight) and has a boxy
          appearance on the upper level. It has a parapet appearance, with no roof pitch visible
          from the street.
      •   There are no roof overhangs to the walls of the building. Noosa Plan requires eaves
          to 75% of the perimeter of the building. Eaves are considered to be edges of a roof
          that overhang the face of the wall. The proposed sunshades are not considered to
          meet the intent of an eave on a building. Further, although the sunshades along the
          walls of the building articulate the building there is significant encroachment into the
          allowable setbacks.
      •   The street façade lacks a variety of finishes, texture and detailing to break up the
          upper storey bulk.
      •   The balcony to the street is not open and is very much enclosed – completely on the
          sides. The sunshade further encloses the balcony.
      •   The wall length is over 15 metres.

Information Required
1.    It is noted that these points were raised in the pre-lodgement notes dated 6 July 2022
      and have been raised prior to the issue of this information request. The existing design is
      not supported. Provide amended plans that comply with the design requirements in
      Noosa Plan.


RESPONSE
Please refer to the amended Architectural Plans prepared by Sparks Architects and provided
as Attachment 1 to this response.

The design approach has been reviewed in line with Council’s key concerns and now adopts a
traditional eave scenario where 600mm deep eaves are proposed along the length of the
eastern and western boundary, together with deeper eves extending over outdoor balconies to
the north and south. Eaves present as lightweight structures with white facia and timber soffit
which will be visible from both primary frontages. To provide privacy for residents and for
additional climatic response the building has retained its fixed sunshade sails ensuring the
overall character intent of the building is maintained. Sunshade sails provide additional
articulation to side elevations and in combination with use of variable windows, landscaping
and alternate materials pallet will present an interesting and articulated elevation to each side
boundary.

We consider the street elevation to present an open, lightweight appearance with any perceived
bulk of the first floor removed, together with any consideration of boxiness.




                                                                                         Page 2 of 13

Page 3

The roof pitch is unchanged at 5 degrees and the range of material finishes addressing each
of the sites frontages retained. These include weatherboard, perforated aluminium balustrades,
white outriggers and semi-transparent sun-shades, now complemented by the white fascia and
a light timber soffit.

The balcony addressing Gympie Terrace is entirely open with the extended eave and sun
shades providing a lightweight beachy character typical of the local vernacular.

We consider the changes have delivered the character elements sought by Council whilst
maintaining the development’s individualistic design intent.




The proposal exceeds the required site cover of 40% in the Medium Density Residential Zone
code. The ground level pool and decks are over 1 metre from existing ground level and are to
be included in site cover.

Information Required
2.   Provide amended plans that comply with 40% site cover.


RESPONSE
In accordance with the below plan extract the site cover has been calculated at 40% of the
overall development site, delivering a compliant built form outcome on the site. hough noting
this calculation excludes the pool and deck located at the rear of the property at ground level.




                                                                                       Page 3 of 13

Page 4

The above site cover calculation specifically excludes the rear deck and pool areas and in
accordance with detailed discussions with Council, this approach is considered to be
appropriate in this sitiuation due to the following:
   a) In accordance with The Noosa Planning Scheme the site cover is defined as the portion
      of the site, expressed as a percentage, that will be covered by a building or structure,
      measured to its outermost projection, after the development is carried out, other than a
      building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is—
        1. in a landscaped or open space area, including, for example a gazebo or shade
           structure or;
        2. a basement that is completely below ground level and used for car parking; or
        3. the eaves of a building; or
        4. a sun shade.
       The rear pool and deck is located within the landscaped primary private open space
       area of Unit 01 at ground level. We consider the pool and deck to fit within the exemption
       outlined above as it clearly represents ‘a building or structure in a landscaped or open
       space area’ of the site, and is entirely separate to the building itself.
   b) The Flood Hazard Overlay Code requires the minimum floor level to meet the minimum
      design level specified for the site, which for this site is 2.7m AHD. This has created a
      situation where the primary living area at ground level is entirely open and visible to the
      public park at the rear of the site, with any fencing providing little benefit due to the
      differentiation between existing ground level and finished floor level. To assist in
      addressing these concerns the architect has designed the rear deck and pool at a level
      that will maintain visual and physical connection to the Unit 01 living area whilst also
      providing additional privacy and separation between the public park and the unit’s
      primary living area. In this respect the pool and deck is approximately 450mm above
      the minimum design level of the site in order to assist in maxising resident privacy of
      internal living areas. Whilst it is noted this results in a situation where the pool is over
      1.0m above ‘existing ground level’, the height of the pool is not discernible from external




                                                                                         Page 4 of 13

Page 5

        to the site, nor contributes to any perceived bulk of the building, primarily due to the dual
        purpose outer pool wall which doubles as a privacy fence.
     c) The height of both the pool and deck has been informed by the the site’s minimum
        design level as nominated by Council. Being located immediately adjacent to the
        proposed development’s building footprint would suggest there is little purpose in
        corresponding its height with existing ground level, particularly given the differentiation
        between these levels is in the order of 1.3m in this location. It is also noted the the Flood
        Hazard Overlay code allows for filling to occur to achieve the design level outside of the
        building footprint.
     d) The design approach delivers an outer pool wall that doubles as the rear screen fence,
        set within the site 1250mm to enable landscaping to be established along the outer wall
        to soften its facade. It is expected Council would agree this is a vastly superior outcome
        to a 1.8m block fence located on the boundary, which would not allow landscaping to
        be provided along this rear interface.
        Whether a standalone fence or the 1.8m combined pool wall as proposed, again its
        important to note the pool itself is not visible behind this structure and so does not
        contribute to the development any appearance of bulk. Whether the pool is at its current
        height which serves a range of benefits to the residents of Unit 01, or reduced in height
        so it does not exceed 1.0m from existing ground level, we contend there is no
        discernible difference in the development’s appearance when when viewed from
        outside of the site, or when looking from above.
In accordance with the above representations, we consider the development achieves
compliance with the 40% site cover as requried by the Medium Density Zone and the rear pool
and deck be appropriately excluded from this calculation.


Issue – shade sail structures in side setback

The renderings show sail structures for the entry to the site in the eastern setback. Although
the east elevation shows the height of the structures, there is no other information.

Information Required
3.     Provide setbacks of proposed entry structures in the side setback and the extent of the
       structures.
RESPONSE
Please refer to the revised Architectural Plans Package provided as Attachment 1. Setback to
entry structures has been nominated on the South Elevation (Drawing SD2.3) achieving the
minimum 1.5m to the eastern boundary of the site. Refer below drawing extract.




                                                                                            Page 5 of 13

Page 6

Setbacks are compliant with the Noosa Planning Scheme provisions.


Issue – Landscaping

The concept landscaping plan is in a format that is unable to be measured. The landscape plan
includes many species which are not identified in PSP 2 – Landscaping and not endemic to
Noosa.

Information Required
4.   Provide a landscape concept plan that has site boundaries and hard and soft landscaped
     areas fully labelled, demonstrating compliance with PSP2 Landscaping. Ensure that
     species from PSP2 Landscaping are used, noting that up to 25% of landscaping can be
     exotics provided this is restricted to pool areas.


RESPONSE
Please refer to the revised Landscape Concept Package prepared by Conlon Group forming
Attachment 3 to this response. We note the current Material Change of Use application is
limited to seeking approval for the landscape concept at this point, with further detail to be
resolved as part of the Operational Works application.



Issue – Earthworks

The submitted documentation does not contain sufficient information for Council to assess the
earthworks required to carry out the proposed development.

Council have identified that the proposed development is encumbered by Council’s Acid Sulfate
Soils overlay. The proposed works includes significant excavations below the existing water
table. The submitted documentation does not include an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan.

Information Required
5.   Provide additional detail demonstrating the full extent of earthworks required to carry out
     the proposed development. The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
     person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not
     be limited to:



                                                                                       Page 6 of 13

Page 7

      a. the full extent of cut and fill;
      b. the volume of cut, fill and excess earth; and
      c. demonstrate how the proposed earthworks will not undermine the structural integrity
         of adjoining properties.
6.    Provide a dewatering plan demonstrating how Acid Sulfate affected water encountered
      during excavation will be treated and disposed of. The dewatering plan must be prepared
      by a suitably qualified person.



RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response Package provided as Attachment 4 to this response.
Whilst a detailed geotechnical investigation will be undertaken as part of the operational works
phase, DME Project have provided additional information to assist in Council’s assessment and
conditioning of the project, including updated engineering drawings inclusive of earthworks details.
Importantly, geotechnical conditions are not considered to be an engineering constraint in the
development of the site, with a range of construction methodologies able to be employed in the
excavation of the site.



Issue – Access

There is insufficient information on the internal driveway and to demonstrate how the internal
driveway will function when a vehicle is entering and another is existing the internal driveway.

Information Required
7.    Provide additional detail on the proposed driveway and access. The detail must be
      prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
      Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
      a. levels and grade of the access driveway;
      b. a longitudinal section extending from the centre of the formation along Mill Street to
         the beginning of the downward slope of the basement ramp; and
      c. demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not scrape or bottom out while entering or exiting
         the access driveway.
      d. demonstrates how the internal driveway will function in the event a B99 vehicle is
         entering while another is exiting


RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response Package prepared by DME Projects forming
Attachment 4 to this response. DME Projects have included detailed commentary confirming the
development achieves compliance with AS2890.1 Section 2.6 and Appendix B for residential
development.




                                                                                           Page 7 of 13

Page 8

Issue – Variation in Flood Gate between Plans
The location of the proposed flood gate is shown along the west boundary in DME Projects’
Stormwater Details (220508-05), while it is shown at the peak of the downward slope of the
driveway in Sparks Architects’ Driveway (DD 1.4).




Information Required
8.    Clarify the proposed location of the proposed flood gate.
9.    Provide comment discussing why the proposed location is the most suitable for the
      proposed flood gate. Noting that the proposed development must not adversely affect the
      existing drainage conditions of the subject site and neighbouring properties.


RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response prepared by DME Projects forming Attachment 4 to
this response. Engineering drawings have been revised to include the flood gate in the location
identified on the Architectural Plans, with commentary confirming no external drainage catchments
will be affected by the proposed development.


Issue – Flooding
The subject site is located in Council’s Flood Hazard overlay and is adjacent to the Noosa River
and Canal. Council are concerned regarding the functionality of the proposed stormwater
system and associated infrastructure during, up to and including, 1% AEP events and at the
end of the development’s lifespan. Council predict that the yearly average rainfall will increase
approximately 20% towards the end of the development’s life span (2100).
Information Required
10.   Provide additional detail and comment demonstrating how the proposed stormwater
      system and associated infrastructure will function during, up to and including, 1% AEP
      events and when experiencing an average annual rainfall increase of 20% by the year
      2100. The additional detail and comment must be prepared by a suitably qualified person
      (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be
      limited to:
      a. the functionality of the proposed kerb outlet during a flood event in which the outlet is
         submerged


RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response prepared by DME Projects forming Attachment 4 to
this response. DME Projects have examined the functionality of the proposed kerb outlet during a
flood event and advised the site is free draining up to and including the 1% AEP. It is also
confirmed that an increase in average annual rainfall will not impact on the performance of the
overland flow paths which enable flood waters to discharge to Noosa River.




                                                                                         Page 8 of 13

Page 9

Issue – Stormwater Management

The submitted documentation does not include sufficient information for Council to assess how the
proposed development will collect and release stormwater. The submitted documentation indicates that
a stormwater pump will be used to discharge rainwater collected in the proposed northern strip drain to
the proposed drainage outlet along Gympie Terrace. Council is unlikely to support the use of stormwater
pumps.

Information Required
11.   Provide additional detail demonstrating how the rainwater collected on-site will be
      controlled, collected and released without causing scour damage to neighbouring
      properties and without the use of a stormwater pump. The additional detail must be
      prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
      Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
       a. demonstrate that all other means of basement drainage have been exhausted;
       b. demonstrate how the basement will drain any incidental rainwater and rainwater
          captured from the strip drain during a power failure;
       c. provide additional detail on the proposed basement sump and automatic pump;
       d. demonstrate how the proposed basement sump and automatic pump will discharge
          to the street; and
       e. demonstrate the proposed southern-most strip drain can achieve the required
          minimum grade (1:200).


RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response prepared by DME Projects forming Attachment 4 to
this response, providing a detailed commentary around the site drainage regime including
basement pump out system.


I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however should you require any further
details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Ben Walsh by telephone on 0430 011 617.
Yours faithfully




Ben Walsh
Director | Principal Planner




                                                                                              Page 9 of 13

Page 10

Mallee

Town Planning | Development

Attachment 1

Architectural Plans
Prepared by Sparks Architects

 

Page 10 of 13

Page 11

Mallee

Town Planning | Development

Attachment 2

Architectural Statement
Prepared by Sparks Architects

 

Page || of 13

Page 12

Mallee

Town Planning | Development

Attachment 3

Landscape Concept Package
Prepared by Conlon Group

 

Page 12 of 13

Page 13

Mallee

Town Planning | Development

Attachment 4

Engineering Response Package
Prepared by DME Projects

 

Page 13 of 13