Response to Outstanding Issues - 25-27 Toolar St · MCU21/0083

Page 2

Our Ref: P20.52-001

18th March 2022

The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
9 Pelican Street
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Via email: [email protected]

Attention : Patrick Murphy



Dear Patrick,

RESPONSE TO OUTSTANDING ISSUES – MCU21/0083 AT 25 & 27 TOOLAR STREET, TEWANTIN,
QLD 4565

On behalf of the applicant, Riverport Properties Pty Ltd, I submit herewith the applicants’ response to
Council’s outstanding issues communicated via email on 17 th January 2022. These issues have been
articulated by Council as areas of non-compliance as follows:


      1. As you are likely to be aware we are not supportive of the additional site cover and
         GFA/Plot ratio



      2. We are also not supportive of the intrusion into the front setback noting there it is an
         intrusion at a significant height which is exacerbated by the fill to the front of the site.
         Furthermore, the fill to the front of the site is inconsistent with the development pattern
         within the street



      3. It is also considered that landscaping should be provided in the driveway



The applicant has elected to provide further response to the matters listed above. The following
submission further demonstrates why we believe that Council has sufficient evidence to justify and
exercise their power to recommend approval for the development despite the inconsistencies with the
code in accordance with s.60 of the Planning Act 2016.

For further clarity in this regard, the following has been transcribed from pages 73 and 74 the explanatory
notes to the Planning Bill 2015 which explains the policy objectives and reasons for the, now, Planning
Act 2016:

       ‘Code Assessment.        The assessment manager must decide to give approval to an
       application for which code assessment is required if the application complies with the
       assessment benchmarks for the development.

       The application may only be refused if it does not comply with the assessment benchmarks


Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                           1

Page 3

       and compliance cannot be achieved by imposing development conditions, which, under
       clause 65(1) must be relevant and reasonable.’

       ‘…This is not to imply that, if the assessment of an application requiring code assessment
       concludes that the development does not comply with any or all of the benchmarks for the
       development, and compliance cannot be achieved through development conditions, an
       applicant could not, change the development application under clause 52 in a way that
       would achieve compliance.

       Also, this clause clarifies that nothing stops a development application requiring
       code assessment being approved, even if the development does not comply with
       some or all the assessment benchmarks. Two examples are provided in the Bill of
       circumstances where “balancing” or “trading off” of conflicting benchmarks and other
       matters such as referral agency responses.’

       ‘…For both code assessment and impact assessment, it is intended the new assessment
       and decision rules should lead to a renewed emphasis on the quality, rigour,
       legibility and consistency of policies in planning instruments, and their primacy in
       determining the outcome of performance-based development assessment.’

Emphasis has been added to the above extract to illustrate the point that the Planning Act is intended
to allow, through a performance-based assessment, development to occur where such development
may not have been forecast or envisaged by the authors of the planning scheme at the time if its
creation.

This is in fact the case in this instance. Where the needs of community are great and the ability to
deliver is challenging when availability of land that meets 100% of the parameters that would render it
ideal in a perfect world are limited, some level of compromise needs to be considered. Weight of
assessment needs to be considerate of the depth of adverse conditions and effect to the community
where the development does not comply versus the effect if it were fully compliant.

The following addresses the areas of non-compliance identified by the Council in these terms to
demonstrate that the minor areas of non-compliance in this instance are supportable.

Site Cover and GFA/ Plot Ratio

  1. As you are likely to be aware we are not supportive of the additional site cover and GFA/Plot
      ratio

1. Site cover of the proposed development was initially 39%. The applicant responded to Council’s
     insistence that each 3-bedroom dwelling had 2 covered car spaces despite that the proposed
     alternative solution met the performance criteria of the code. This has increased the site cover by
     67m2 to 42.3%.

     The grounds for Council’s insistence that 2 covered spaces are provided makes little sense and is
     loosely based on the assumption that Council would be inundated with up to 8 future applications

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        2

Page 4

     seeking approval to cover the second car space in the future. This is not a valid planning argument
     or justification for requiring compliance with an accepted solution.

     By this assessment, one would be lead to believe that, in Council’s opinion, 2 covered car spaces
     are:

•    of far greater importance to Council than maintaining 40% site cover;

•    of greater importance than having the opportunity to accommodate additional, potentially visitor,
     parking spaces on site than what will now be provided.

•    a necessary component of sensible, liveable and accessible design;

•    vital to accommodate the expected demand for 2 car accommodation which comprises just 34.5%
     of households in Tewantin; and

•    essential to provide residents with means to accommodate multiple vehicles required for travel
     when the site is so well serviced by public transport and alternative transport options;

Council’s updated Housing Needs Assessment 2021 endorsed on 16 December 2021 for the purposes
of informing a Housing Strategy for Noosa Shire found that,

       ‘The 2020 scheme now requires two covered spaces for a house not including a secondary
       dwelling, and for a house including a secondary dwelling it requires 2 covered spaces plus
       one additional space.

       ‘This places quite a burden on a property owner who seeks to add a secondary dwelling to
       an existing older house with no or only one existing carparking space. They have the cost
       of building covered carparking as well as the secondary dwelling itself. Indeed any building
       additions or extensions to an older house is triggering the need for two covered carparking
       spaces and sometimes this cannot be constructed without encroaching into a boundary
       setback.

       ‘Providing residential development includes sufficient space for on-site carparking, it should
       not be the role of the planning scheme to dictate it is covered.’

Further, the Housing Needs Assessment 2021 also indicates that,

       ‘While there continues to be an over-reliance on private cars in Noosa Shire, the cost of
       land combined with the limitations on building height make the provision of car parks quite
       expensive within a development. The cost of this car accommodation has to be embedded
       in the cost of the dwelling (purchase price and rent). The purchaser or tenant of a dwelling
       that comes with one or more dedicated parking spaces should appreciate that a portion of
       housing cost is actually the cost of owning and running a car.’

The applicant has responded to Council’s desire for smaller dwellings by deleting 1 bedroom from 4 of
the proposed dwellings, thus reducing the number of parking spaces required by the planning scheme.

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                         3

Page 5

While this might increase the diversity of product on the site, it does not encourage the applicant to
further reduce the size of dwellings as the intent in this instance is to provide dwellings which can cater
to those households who require assistance either temporarily or permanently. Permanent, or even
temporary, disability can sometimes mean an additional bedroom may be required for a carer or the
household structure is such that a 3rd bedroom is necessary.           Once again, the Housing Needs
Assessment 2021 reiterates this with the statement,

‘Currently the planning scheme requires that for multiple dwellings consisting of small dwellings in a
centre zone, one covered space be provided per unit up to two bedrooms and two covered spaces be
provided per three-bedroom unit. This does not necessarily encourage a greater number of smaller
units.’

  Nevertheless, the exceedance of site cover can be easily fixed by returning the design to include just
  1 covered car parking space and 1 open car parking space for each 3-bedroom unit.




  QUICK FACTS

  Geoscience Australia national exposure report generated 16/2/2022 indicates that 12.5% of
  dwellings in the Tewantin postcode area accommodate residents in need of assistance for self-care
  activities and 5.2% of all dwellings do not have access to a motor vehicle.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                            4

Page 6

 ABS Census Data Quick Stats (released 23/10/2017), 34.5% of households in Tewantin had 2
 registered motor vehicles on census night 2016 and 6% had none. The greatest proportion of
 households in Tewantin (39.4%) accommodate only 1 motor vehicle at the premises.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                               5

Page 7

PO10 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code allows increased site cover to 45% where small
dwellings are provided at a ratio of at least 3:1. It is understood that this performance criteria is intended
to encourage smaller dwellings to address affordable housing needs. It is also understood that this
intent is not being realised with small dwellings in the range of 68-85m2 are still selling in the $500-
800,000 range as a result of market conditions.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                             6

Page 8

The applicant has previously responded to the Council’s concerns for small dwellings and amended the
plans to provide 50% of the proposed dwellings as small dwellings with GFA of 94.95m2 each. The
small dwellings that have been provided are still designed to be accessible and meet the liveable
housing standards.


 Performance Outcomes                                      Acceptable Solutions
 Built Form
 Site Cover                                                AO10
 PO10                                                      For a dwelling house, site cover does not exceed 40%
 Site cover of development:                                of the site area.

  a)   does not exceed 40% of the site area; or            Alternative provision to the QDC
  b)   for small dwellings or for development which
       provides a ratio of at least three small
       dwellings to one other dwelling, does not
       exceed 45% of the site area.


The applicant has undertaken an analysis of the space required to facilitate compliance with Liveable
Housing design standards. Attachment A includes an analysis of the floor area for standard dwellings
versus a dwelling designed to meet the requirements of a Gold Standard Liveable Housing dwelling
type, and demonstrates the space needed to ensure that people requiring assistance with mobility can
live comfortably in their home.

It can quite easily be said that the houses could be made smaller by deleting additional bedrooms or
living spaces, however the quality of life for resident’s is the key driver for this development and to
compromise on size is a compromise on resident amenity and comfort and ability to manoeuvre when
they need assistance for mobility.


 Performance Outcomes                                      Acceptable Solutions
 Built Form
 Plot Ratio                                                AO11
 PO11                                                      For a dwelling house, plot ratio of development does
 Plot ratio of development:                                not exceed 0.4:1

  a)   does not exceed 0.4:1; or
  b)   for small dwellings or for development which
       provides a ratio of at least three small
       dwellings to one other dwelling, does not
       exceed 0.5:1.


PO10 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code allows plot ratio of 0.4:1 or 0.5:1 where the
small dwelling ratio of 3:1 is achieved. With the double covered car spaces provided, the site plot ratio
is currently 0.43:1 which equates to 66.76m2 more floor area across the whole site – being about 3% of
the site or approximately 1 double garage + 1.5 carports.

This is not even the area of one of the smaller units proposed.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                                   7

Page 9

It equates to 8.345m2 in each of the units.

Council has suggested the simplest way of complying with the 0.4:1 plot ratio is to remove some floor
area from each unit approximately the size of a small bedroom (3m x 2.87m).

It is understood that the intention of the plot ratio parameter is to control the bulk and scale of the built
form. The use of this metric is flawed as demonstrated below.

Figure 1 illustrates the bulk and scale of the building at the plot ratio of 0.43:1. Figure 2 demonstrates
the difference in bulk and scale if the buildings were altered to achieve a plot ratio of 0.4:1.




Figure 1     Toolar Street elevation with Plot Ratio 0.43:1

Source: Robyn Spencer Architects




Figure 2     Toolar Street elevation with Plot Ratio 0.4:1

Source: Robyn Spencer Architects



The actual changes that are required to make the building plot ratio compliant are illustrated in Figure
3 below.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                             8

Page 10

Figure 3    GFA reduction required to each unit to achieve Plot Ratio 0.4:1

The plot ratio of 0.4:1 can be achieved by increasing the void area over the downstairs dining space.
This results in a much grander, open feeling that improves the sense of space in the dwelling. It also
results in the second living space in the upper level becoming less usable. The physical result of the
bulk and scale of the building has not changed and the building appearance from outside also
has not changed but the building plot ratio would be compliant.

The applicant’s underlying intent for these dwellings is to make them comfortable for users to live in.
There is little advantage in increasing the area of the void just to make these buildings compliant with
the code. The result is ultimately a negative impact on the liveability of the dwellings which the applicant
is trying to go above and beyond to deliver accessible housing that can be used by people who require
assistance, particularly those with mobility issues. The applicant has received several letters of support
from agencies, advocacy groups, and industry professionals applauding the design and intent of the
proposed development (refer Attachment B). Supporters of the project reiterate the need for liveable
housing based on firsthand experience as either people requiring assistance themselves, as someone
living with another person requiring assistance in the home, or as professionals providing services to
people requiring assistance to live independently in their own homes.

 The applicant will accept a condition requiring the plot ratio to be reduced to 0.4:1 if this means the
 application will be recommended for approval as this solution illustrated above can achieve
 compliance despite the ridiculous way it is achieved. This may result in the units being unable to
 be certified Gold Standard Livable Housing Dwellings.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                            9

Page 11

Front setbacks, Fill and Development Pattern

 2.    We are also not supportive of the intrusion into the front setback noting there it is an intrusion
       at a significant height which is exacerbated by the fill to the front of the site. Furthermore, the fill
       to the front of the site is inconsistent with the development pattern within the street

2. The setback to the front wall of the buildings is proposed at 6.5m.

      The setback to the roof overhang on the upper level is 3.545m.

      The setback to the balconies on the upper level is 4.79m.

      The setback to the existing buildings are 4.6m and 4.8m.

      The overall visual impact of the buildings is unlikely to be significantly different from the existing
      dwellings.

      The dominant portion of the building is setback 6.5m from the road boundary. The inclusion of
      balconies and overhangs creates areas of negative space that increase the articulation of the
      façade and softens the form of the building with areas of light and shade. The elements of the
      building which extend into the setback are lightweight, and open. The wider overhang also assists
      in protecting the interior of the building from excessive summer sunlight which improves the internal
      comfort of the dwellings in the sub-tropical climate. Figure 4 below illustrates the minor building
      elements that sit forward of the 6m setback.




Figure 4    Building components within 6m setback highlighted in yellow

Compliance can be achieved by reducing the depth of the upper-level balconies and the roof overhang.
While this would comply, it results in three things:




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                               10

Page 12

    •      The protection of interior spaces from sun and rain is diminished and would require the need
           for further mechanical cooling to achieve the same climatic comfort;

    •      The front façade will be substantially flat with little articulation or interest; and

    •      The upper-level balconies will become substantially unusable with a depth of 1.4m being barely
           wide enough to accommodate an abled bodied person seated along one side of a small table
           and have the appearance of being a ‘token’ outdoor space rather than a usable, comfortable
           space for residents to enjoy. The balconies at this size would not accommodate persons with a
           disability or who rely on a mobility aid.




Figure 5      Building components removed from 6m setback


 The applicant has demonstrated the intent for this development is to provide dwellings with user
 comfort and amenity in mind and maintains that a condition to remove the minor building elements
 within the standard setback would achieve compliance but degrade the good design elements
 employed throughout the proposal.




Development Pattern

The existing streetscape has only recently begun to be redeveloped in a way that is consistent with the
density intended by the medium density residential zone.

There is currently, very little development that can be considered to be “the development pattern” of the
medium density residential zone in this street.

The applicant has undertaken a streetscape analysis and developed a render that places the proposed
development into the actual streetscape (refer Attachment C). A character analysis demonstrates that
the character of the proposed development is consistent with the character of the existing street. The
main difference that can be observed in the streetscapes is the dominant colour of the existing buildings

Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        11

Page 13

on the site. The proposed development intends to utilise colours and tones that are compatible with the
natural coastal environment and allows the buildings to settle into the landscape rather than dominate
with bright, white colours and tones. The improvement in streetscape from the existing to proposed is
clearly apparent in Figures 6 & 7 below:




Figure 6    Existing Streetscape




Figure 7    Streetscape with proposed development

The overall outcomes of the Tewantin Local Plan Code seek to provide diversity of housing that can
accommodate permanent residents which take a form that is generally low key, low rise and maintain
the character of Tewantin. Specifically, Overall Outcomes (a), (b), (d), (n) and (q) are most relevant to
the proposal as follows:

        a) Tewantin is a vibrant yet traditional town strongly influenced by its heritage and its
            riverside setting. Framed by national park and waterways, its character and identity
            reflect its location and heritage as a gateway to the Noosa River, the hinterland,
            Noosa North Shore and the Great Sandy Region.

        b) Development within the Tewantin local plan area is limited to land within the urban
            boundary, so as to provide a defined edge to the town to protect and reinforce the
            character and identity of Tewantin, provide efficient provision of infrastructure and
            services, avoid constrained land and protect the surrounding ecologically important
            areas.


Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        12

Page 14

        d) The form and scale of development is generally low key with buildings that are low
            rise and cover a comparatively small area of the site leaving significant areas for
            landscaping and private open space.

        n) Residential development maintains good access to activity centres, community
            facilities, sport and recreation facilities and open space.

        q) Development in the Medium Density zones accommodates a diversity in housing
            types for permanent residents including dual occupancies, multiple dwellings,
            retirement facilities and relocatable home parks.

SC6.8.5 in PSP7 Framework and Character Plans provides little guidance on interpreting the urban
design and character outcomes for this residential sector of Tewantin as it is largely focussed on the
Tewantin town centre and Local Centre Zone.

Key components built into the current design solution of the proposed development which are all
elements drawn from SC6.8.5 include:

 SC6.8.5 (1) (f)                                           All car parking is hidden from view of the streetscape.
                                                           A dedicated, marked pedestrian pathway along the
 Provision of car parking to the rear of buildings so      internal driveway provides pedestrian access to the
 as not to interfere with the pedestrian streetscape;      street without interfering with internal or external
                                                           traffic.

 SC6.8.5 (1) (h)                                           The proposed development is designed with comfort
                                                           and accessibility in mind. The proposal provides step
 Ensuring built form and public realm offer high           free access and internal manoeuvrability that provides
 standards of pedestrian accessibility and comfort;
                                                           housing that can cater to the needs of people with
                                                           mobility issues. The connectivity of the built form to
                                                           the street, framed by lightweight, low fencing and soft
                                                           landscaping is typical of the existing streetscape and
                                                           Tewantin in general.

 SC6.8.5 (1) (i)                                           The site has direct connection to existing pedestrian
                                                           pathway networks as well as shared pathways for
 Improved pedestrian accessibility with a connected
                                                           active transport such as bikeways. The proposed
 network of share pathways linking residential             development is in an ideal location which is well
 neighbourhoods to the business centre and local           serviced by these networks that promotes alternative
 shops;                                                    transport methods and active transport which is
                                                           consistent with the underlying principles of sustainable
                                                           development in the Noosa Shire.

 SC6.8.5 (3) (b)                                           The density of proposed planting is consistent with the
                                                           existing dense planting forward of buildings in the
 Maintaining localised views and arrival views.
                                                           streetscape of newer developments in the Tewantin
                                                           area. It is also reflective of the existing dense
                                                           landscaping forward of the existing dwelling on 25
                                                           Toolar Street The streetscape view along Toolar
                                                           street from both east and west are unlikely to result in
                                                           adverse visual amenity as the proposed planting and
                                                           location of courtyards forward of the buildings provide
                                                           a green buffer that is characteristic of the Noosa Shire
                                                           streetscape where vegetation dominates streetscape
                                                           in preference to built form.

All of the above character attributes contribute to the proposal’s compliance with PO3 of the Tewantin
Local Plan Code.


Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                                   13

Page 15

Streetscape Character Analysis

An assessment of the character typifying the Tewantin locality and more specifically Toolar Street,
demonstrates the following key characteristics can be readily identified:

    •    Varied setbacks to the street frontage between 2.4m and 10.3m
    •    Varying lot frontages ranging from 15 metres to 45 metres
    •    Varied roof forms with 5-25 degree slopes
    •    A sense of safety with natural surveillance opportunities between buildings and the street
    •    Large areas of negative space in building facades created by verandahs, balconies and
         overhangs
    •    Stepping of buildings down the slope of Toolar Street
    •    Vegetated spaces visible along common boundaries
    •    Predominantly low, open or no fencing
    •    Low vegetation and few large trees
    •    Low set varied roof lines
    •    Building designs that maximise shade to internal spaces and sea breezes
    •    Moderately sized building envelopes
    •    A mixture of modern and traditional Queenslander building styles
    •    Varied building colours usually in lighter hues or natural tones
    •    Varied lightweight building materials including weatherboard, fc sheeting, render and face brick
    •    Mixture of single storey, low and high set dwellings and two storey dwellings
    •    A mixture of building designs that are highset and slab -on-ground
    •    Vegetation forward of buildings
    •    Landscaping that maximises dominance of vegetation in the streetscape over buildings



The character of this part of Tewantin is largely influenced by the reduced frontage setbacks offset by
vegetation in front of and between buildings. Single access driveways minimise vehicle impacts on the
streetscape and where multiple dwellings have been developed to date, these are generally located
behind the building line with some exceptions, particularly at the eastern end of the street. The gentle
slope of Toolar Street has resulted in dwellings being either elevated to accommodate the slope of the
land or stepped down the slope. A notable aspect of the public realm of the streetscape is that there
are few street trees creating shade and further softening of the street which is highly regarded
throughout the rest of Noosa Shire. Low, or no, fences are typical of the street and many of these are
open or partially open fencing.

Dwellings are 1 and 2 storeys with a mixture of slab and highset construction. Most buildings are
lightweight construction with metal roofs. Some brick and tile construction are also apparent. Older
buildings are typical of the Queenslander vernacular style. Balconies, verandahs and eaves are typical
of the location.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        14

Page 16

The eastern end of Toolar Street features a noticeable amount of hardstand, concrete areas. Much of
this is attributed to the parking areas of the existing multiple dwellings and some are resulting from new
dwellings with extensive concreted driveway areas.

The development pattern of the area is a moving target with ongoing changes in the streetscape from
demolition of existing older buildings which are being replaced with new structures and dwellings. To
demonstrate the development pattern, the proposal is compared to the recently approved multiple
dwellings “Ebbtide” at 24 Moorindil Street (37 Toolar Street). The two are not inconsistent.

The two developments are both 2 storey unit developments which both include earthworks that step the
buildings down the slope. Fill is required up to 1.4m on the Ebbtide project as indicated on the approved
plans which is comparable to the 1.5-1.6m fill at the highest point of 25-27 Toolar Street which, ultimately
will be densely vegetated as per the existing site frontage and will not be noticeable in the streetscape.
Both projects are lightweight construction with weatherboard style cladding and metal roofing. Both
provide large areas of negative space and balconies that face the street; both also feature window hoods
to shade windows. A single, central driveway is provided to both sites with no significant vegetation
between the building and the driveway edge along the central spine. Landscaping at the end of the
driveway on both sites offer a softening vista at the end of the access.




Figure 8     Central driveway landscaping at ‘Ebbtide’ 24 Moorindil Street compared to 25-27 Toolar Street
proposed landscaping

The key differences between Ebbtide and 25-27 Toolar Street are:

25-27 Toolar Street provides:

     •     a mix of 2- and 3-bedroom dwellings;
     •     low open fencing dominated by soft landscaping;
     •     dwellings that are specifically designed to cater for the needs of residents who may require
           assistance with mobility or other permanent or temporary disability; and
     •     the design raises the bar in terms of liveable housing standards providing Gold Standard design
           that is consistent with Universal Building Design Principles and Liveable Housing Design
           Elements in PSP5 of the Planning Scheme.



Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                          15

Page 17

Figure 9    Moorindil Street frontage of ‘Ebbtide’ dominated by fences




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467          16

Page 18

Figure 10   Toolar Street frontage of ‘Ebbtide’ dominated by fences




 The Streetscape and Character analysis summarised above and included at Attachment C
 demonstrates that the proposed development is consistent with the character of the streetscape and
 locality and demonstrates consistencies with the current development pattern of the area as well as
 an improved visual amenity to the current streetscape.




Landscaping

  3. It is also considered that landscaping should be provided in the driveway.

3. The proposed development includes substantial landscaping that maintains a dense vegetated
     frontage for much of the frontage of the site, similar to the existing dense vegetation forward of the
     buildings and typical of the standard of landscaping normally expected throughout Noosa Shire.
     Low, open fencing is set back into the landscape and does not dominate the streetscape. Both
     elements are not only desired by the codes, but also repeat typical character of the existing
     streetscape and recently approved development in the same street.




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                          17

Page 19

Figure 11   Existing landscaping compared to neighbouring site

The applicant has proposed landscaping in the driveway that results in a vertical garden in contrast to
the traditional low planted garden edge. The applicant believes that given the constraints on the site in
providing product that requires specific dimension to cater for liveable housing standards, the vertical
garden is an improvement to the bare concrete wall to wall such as has been approved in nearby
developments (refer ‘Ebbtide’ at 37 Toolar Street). The landscape concept already includes a shade
tree and low planting at the end of the driveway to create a vista that is not dominated by buildings.
This, together with vertical planting on both sides of the driveway and the dense plantings forward of
the proposed buildings are more than sufficient to deliver an attractive, functional and inviting
environment on the subject site.




Figure 12   Extract from landscape concept plan showing landscape forward of buildings

Source: insiteEMLA




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                        18

Page 20

Figure 13   Landscape concept demonstrates deep planting and street trees to maintain consistency

Source: insiteEMLA




Figures 9 & 10 above are extracted from the applicant’s landscape concept plan. The proposal includes
tree (Melaleuca quinqenervia) and shrub (Callistemon sp., Westringia sp., Banksia robur) and
groundcover plantings within the site as well as street trees to add shade and amenity. Lillypillys are
used for screening between adjacent buildings as well as climbing plants.

Except for the driveway entrance, the view of the proposed development from the street will be
predominantly vegetated. Until the observer is directly in line with the driveway, the development will
be dominated by the greenery of the landscaping. Once mature, this landscape stands to be an
excellent example of landscaping in multiple dwelling developments across Noosa Shire and indeed
Tewantin.

PO1 of the Landscape Code seeks to enhance visual amenity, buffer areas, reduce visual impact of
structures and fences, conceal parking and loading areas and provide privacy between dwellings. The
proposed development and landscape concept illustrate how this will be achieved and meets the
performance criteria.

PO5 seeks to maximise safety and promote casual surveillance, avoid concealment and maintain safe
sight distances between pedestrians and drivers.            The proposed landscaping clearly defines the
pedestrian pathway from the rear of the site to the frontage to assist in safety. The combination of trees,
shrubs and low plantings maintain casual surveillance opportunities. The proposed development is
consistent with the performance criteria. The proposed development meets the performance criteria for
the landscaping code. There is no requirement in the code that mandates soft landscaping must be
located between the buildings and driveways. Despite this, the applicant proposes to include soft
landscaping in the form of vertical gardens to enhance the sense of arrival at the development




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                         19

Page 21

 Should Council consider that landscaped garden beds along the length of the driveway against the
 building walls is of paramount importance given the extensive landscaping already proposed for the
 development, the applicant will accept a condition to this effect on the understanding that Council
 deems that landscaping to be of greater importance than the potential adverse safety conditions
 relating to vehicles entering and exiting the premises.




The above submission demonstrates that the outstanding issues identified by Council’s assessment
officer are either able to be conditioned to comply without substantial change to the proposed
development, or can be accepted by Council as a minor inconsistency with some of the code
requirements in order to deliver a development that is a substantial improvement to the liveable
standards and diversity of housing provided in the region and which addresses a large gap in the
provision of housing that caters to the needs of persons who require assistance with day to day tasks.

The applicant requests that the assessment be continued, and the application be supported despite the
minor inconsistencies or condition the development to comply.

Should you have any further queries please to not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Kind Regards,




Nadine Kirley MPIA
Principal Consultant
Concept Planning and Development Consultants




Concept Planning and Development Consultants ABN 99 789 542 467                                     20