ASTP-Resp_To_IR

Page 2

Figure 1 North Elevation (Source: MRA Design 2026)

As confirmed by Tiani Bird on 19 November 2025, the submitted elevations provide sufficient evidence of
compliance. No further change to building height is considered necessary. The requested reduction to two
storeys is not applicable to AO8.1 or AO8.2, which regulate height in metres rather than storeys.



ITEM 3-4: SETBACKS
    3. Remove pergola structures (unroofed shade awning) from the rear 6m setback.

     4.   Revise plans and provide further information relating to:

                  (a) The proposed construction methodology of the basement and detail associated infrastructure,
                      ensuring all structures are clear of boundary setbacks.

                  (b) Detail BOW and TOW retaining wall heights, particularly along the driveway and suspended
                      gardens.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the updated building plans prepared by MRA Design in Attachment 1 and the Response to
Information Request prepared by Ingeniir in Attachment 2.

The unroofed shade awning located within the rear setback is a lightweight open structure intended to provide
shade for residents adjacent to the pool. It does not intrude into proposed landscaping areas and does not
contribute to bulk. The structure provides functional outdoor amenity and contributes to architectural variation
along the rear elevation without altering the proposed site coverage (refer to Figure 2 below).




                                                                                                       Page 2 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 3

Figure 2 Rear Perspective (Source: MRA Design 2026)

Further, there is approximately 12m of existing vegetation within the David Low Way road reserve. Combined
with the proposed 5.222m setback from the rear boundary, the total separation to the roadway is more than
17m. As a result, the awning has no negative visual impact on David Low Way and does not create any perception
of bulk when viewed from the road corridor.

All other built elements are located outside of the prescribed 6m rear setback. The awning is consistent with
contemporary subtropical design principles that encourage shaded outdoor living spaces. The awning satisfies
PO12 for the following reasons:
     •    It provides shade and residential amenity adjacent to the pool;
     •    It does not obstruct views or cause overlooking of adjoining private open space or habitable rooms;
     •    It complies with side setbacks;
     •    It does not reduce the ability to provide landscaping at ground level;
     •    It integrates with the contemporary architectural form of the dwelling;
     •    It has no visual impact on David Low Way; and
     •    It does not affect ecologically important areas.

As such, the removal of the unroofed awning is not necessary to achieve compliance with PO12.

In relation to the basement construction, and as outlined in the engineer’s comments (Attachment 2), there are
no foreseeable issues that would require construction extents to extend beyond the allotment boundaries. The
proposed basement excavation is inset approximately 1.6m from both side boundaries, and the deepest
excavation is approximately 2m toward the front of the site. The basement remains entirely within the site and
does not intrude into boundary setbacks.

Given the change in levels required to form the basement and the driveway ramp, retaining walls are necessary
on both sides of the driveway to stabilise the excavation, ensure constructability, and maintain all works within
the site boundaries. The retaining walls also support the formation of the forecourt areas, which incorporates
soft landscaping at a higher level ensuring a positive landscaped design to the Ventura Street frontage.


                                                                                                       Page 3 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 4

The retaining structures on either side of the driveway continue the form of the front retaining wall, which
comprises a 1.2 metre solid element with white battens above to a height of 1.8m. As the driveway alignment
curves toward the basement, the retaining steps down to approximately 1m and then increases to
approximately 2.9 metres near the basement entry. Where any portion of the retaining structure directly faces
the street, it is screened by a 1m landscape strip that softens the appearance of the wall and avoids any
perception of bulk (refer to Figure 3).




Figure 3 West Elevation (Source: MRA Design 2026)




ITEM 5: ROOFTOP TERRACES
Remove the proposed rooftop terraces as they are not complimentary to the localities existing character.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the updated building plans prepared by MRA design in Attachment 1. The proposed rooftop
terraces have been designed so that they sit comfortably within the roof form and do not alter the overall
presentation of the dwelling. Each terrace is modest in size at 18.38m2 and is positioned away from the building
edges so that it remains visually recessive. This ensures the terraces do not create bulk or increase the
perceived height of the building.

The design responds appropriately to the character of Ventura Street, which is shaped by sloping topography
and dwellings with articulated and varied rooflines. Within this context, the terraces are integrated into the
built form rather than appearing as a separate or visually dominant element. From the street frontage, the
separation distance of approximately 10.5m from the front boundary and the transparent glass balustrading
ensures that the terraces are not visible. The rooftop landscaping also sits along the edge of the terraces, which
softens the building, screens the terrace areas and filters any outward views. Along the side boundary, the
3.9m setback to the terraces and the proposed planting prevents direct views into adjoining private open
spaces or habitable rooms. Additional landscaping at the terrace edges filters outward views and ensures the
terraces do not create bulk or visual prominence when viewed from Ventura Street. The elevation plans (refer
Attachment 1) clearly illustrate that the rooftop terraces have negligible visual impact, appearing scarcely
evident within the development’s external presentation.


                                                                                                        Page 4 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 5

The terrace design prevents overlooking by combining building separation, landscape screening, and being
located in a recessed position on the roof. These measures ensure compliance with PO19(d) by avoiding
opportunities to overlook private open space or internal areas of neighbouring properties. The terraces also
satisfy the remaining elements of PO19, as the roof form contributes positively to the local skyline,
complements the character of the locality and the topography of the site, provides landscaping to soften the
roof edges, and ensures suitable amenity outcomes for nearby residential properties.

The design demonstrates that the rooftop terraces are modest in scale, well recessed within the roof form, and
appropriately separated from boundaries to avoid overlooking (refer to Figure 4). The combination of building
setbacks, frontage planting, landscape screening, and the integrated roof design ensures that the terraces do
not create bulk, do not affect the character of Ventura Street, and do not alter the perceived building height or
negatively impact on the skyline. On this basis, the proposal satisfies Performance Outcome PO19, and the
retention of the rooftop terraces is entirely appropriate.




Figure 4 Front Section (Source: MRA Design 2026)




ITEM 6: SITE COVER
Provide revised plans which demonstrate the dual occupancy achieves 40% site cover at each level and is
calculated in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Noosa Plan 2020.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the updated plans prepared by MRA Design in Attachment 1. Site cover has been calculated in
accordance with the definition in Schedule 1 of the Noosa Plan 2020, which excludes structures in landscaped
or open space areas, eaves, sunshades, and below-ground level basements used for car parking.

The raised garden element on the upper-level functions as an architectural eave and shading device within the
landscaped interface of the building. As illustrated in Figure 5 below, this green eave projects forward in the
same manner as an eave or sunshade. It provides passive shading to the level below, cerate variation in the
façade, and introduces landscaping to the frontage. It does not create usable floor area or enclosed building
space and therefore falls within the exclusions listed above.




                                                                                                        Page 5 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 6

Figure 5 Front Perspective (Source: MRA Design 2026)

This treatment is consistent with the intent of the site cover definition, which measures building footprint and
enclosed mass rather than lightweight architectural projections designed for shading, articulation, and improved
streetscape outcomes. The approach also aligns with how similar elements have been interpreted in comparable
approvals. For example, the approved dual occupancy at 23 Edward Street, Noosaville (Council reference
MCU22/0174) included green roof projections extending around the building envelope, which were not included
in the site cover calculation due to their shading and eave‑like function. As such, when the applicable exclusions
for eaves and shading elements are correctly applied, the proposed dual occupancy achieves a compliant site
cover percentage of 40%.



ITEM 7: PLOT RATIO
Provide revised plans that achieve a plot ratio of 0.4:1.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the updated plans prepared by MRA Design in Attachment 1. The plot ratio has been calculated
using the planning scheme definition of gross floor area (GFA), which excludes areas used for access between
levels. The landing evidently provides access between levels. From the ground floor a step up to the landing is
required and forms the first step of the staircase which provides access to the outside portico and subsequently
to the upper floor, as shown in Figure 6 below.




                                                                                                       Page 6 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 7

Figure 6 Landing, platform and staircase perspective (Source: MRA Design 2026)

This interpretation is consistent with other recent dual occupancy approvals where landings and stair circulation
areas were not counted as gross floor area when they were demonstrated to operate as part of the stair system
rather than as general floor space. Examples include:
     •    18 Attunga Heights, Noosa Heads (Council Ref: MCU24/0114)
     •    23 Edward Street, Noosaville (Council Ref: MCU22/0174)

In these approvals, intermediate landings and stair platforms were excluded from gross floor area because they
were separate from the main floor plates and served solely as transitional circulation between levels. With these
clarifications now clearly demonstrated, it is evident that the development achieves compliance with Acceptable
Outcome AO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code.



ITEM 8: ASYMMETRICAL DESIGN
Provide additional information to demonstrate how Performance Outcome PO14 of the Medium Density
Residential Zone Code is achieved. This should include:

     (a) Revised plans that provide greater variation to the street elevation, for example, incorporate varying
         materials, roof form, recessed/projected elements.

     (b) Additional assessment outlining the variations proposed that assist in achieving the Performance
         Outcome PO14.




                                                                                                       Page 7 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 8

RESPONSE
From a design perspective, the preference is for a cohesive and continuous facade expression, rather than the
introduction of differing materials or elements solely to create the appearance of asymmetry. The design team
considers that superficial variations can result in a busier and less resolved facade without delivering any
meaningful improvement to the architectural quality of the development.

The intent of the Medium Density Residential Zone Code is acknowledged, and the design incorporates a range
of measures that directly address the outcomes sought under Performance Outcome PO14. This includes
extensive greenery, raised garden beds, articulation through recesses and projections, and protection of the
amenity of residents and adjoining properties (refer to Figure 7 below). The development clearly does not
present as a bulky structure. Further, Performance Outcome PO14 does not mandate variation in internal
layouts or external treatments beyond what is necessary to achieve an articulated and visually balanced form.




Figure 7 Street Perspective (Source: MRA Design 2026)

The building presents as appropriately scaled, visually balanced, and consistent with the character of the
surrounding area. On this basis, the design is considered to satisfy the intent and requirements of Performance
Outcome PO14.



ITEM 9: LANDSCAPED SETBACK & FENCING TREATMENTS
Provide revised plans to illustrate a 2 metre landscaping setback and incorporate fencing treatments are required
by Acceptable Outcomes AO9.2 and AO13 of the Zone.

RESPONSE
Council has advised that the incorrect Acceptable Outcomes were referenced in the original information request.
The relevant provisions are Acceptable Outcomes AO17.1, AO17.2 and AO12.2 of the Medium Density
Residential Zone Code. These provisions have been reviewed against the proposal.

The proposal complies with the fencing outcomes sought under AO17.1 and AO17.2:
     •    AO17.1 requires front fences or walls to be set back an average of 1m and to be articulated by stepping
          the design at intervals of no more than 5 metres. The proposed front fence/wall is located 1m off the
          boundary and steps down at approximately 4.5 metres, which meets this articulation requirement. It is



                                                                                                       Page 8 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 9

          further noted that the sections of front fence/wall that directly face the street are less than 5m in length
          and are therefore exempt form the stepping requirement of AO17.1.
     •    AO17.2 requires:
             (a) solid portions of front fences or walls on the boundary to be no more than 1.2m high, or
             (b) fences above this height to be at least 50% transparent and no higher than 1.8m. The design
                  complies. The front wall is solid only up to 1.2 metres, with white vertical battens above,
                  providing transparency up to a height of 1.8 metres.

Council has noted that the front setback is to be assessed under AO12.2, which requires the front 6 metres of
the site to be landscaped open space, except where visitor parking or pools (less than 1 metre above ground
level) are proposed within this area. The design meets this requirement given the following:
     •    The front 6 metres of the site is landscaped, excluding the driveway necessary for access.
     •    No uncovered visitor parking or swimming pools are located within the front setback.
     •    AO12.2 does not require a 2 metre minimum landscaping setback. It requires the front 6 metres to
          function as landscaped open space, which the proposal provides.

The revised plans demonstrate clear compliance with AO17.1, AO17.2 and AO12.2. The front fence is articulated,
appropriately stepped, visually permeable, and integrated with landscaping. The front setback provides
meaningful soft landscaping that enhances the streetscape and meets the intent of the Medium Density
Residential Zone Code.



ITEM 10: LANDSCAPED AREAS
Provide additional information to demonstrate how Performance Outcome PO10 of the Dual Occupancy and
Multiple Dwelling Code is achieved. This should include:

     (a) Submit revised plans that demonstrate the total landscaped areas are in accordance with Schedule 1 of
         the Noosa Plan 2020 and achieve 40% of the total of the site and 60% of this as soft landscaping.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the updated plans prepared by MRA Design in Attachment 1. The development meets the
landscaping requirements as follows:
     •    Landscaping required (40% of site area) = 243.55 m²
          Landscaping provided= 295.38m² (exceeds requirement)
     •  Soft landscaping required (60% of required landscaping) = 146.13 m²
        Soft landscaping provided= 153.90m² (exceeds requirement)
The proposal complies with Acceptable Outcome AO10.1.



ITEM 11: STORMWATER DISPOSAL
Provide confirmation from the Geotechnical Engineer (REPQ) that the proposed stormwater disposal method will
result in a low risk of landslide.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Response to Information Request (Attachment 2) and the Amended Engineering Plans
(Attachment 3) prepared by Ingeniir.




                                                                                                           Page 9 of 10
Our ref: 241122

Page 10

ITEM 12: ACCESS
Confirm the driveway dimensions.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Response to Information Request (Attachment 2) and the Amended Engineering Plans
(Attachment 3) prepared by Ingeniir.



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




Emma Ialeggio
TOWN PLANNER

Encl:       Updated Building Design Plans (Attachment 1)
            Engineering Response to IR (Attachment 2)
            Amended Engineering Plans (Attachment 3)




                                                                                                      Page 10 of 10
Our ref: 241122