PR22001.InformationResponse.January2023

        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