Information Request Response

Page 2

Issue – Plans
The plans are not clear with regard to natural and finished ground levels.


Information Required
1. Submit amended plans that clearly show existing and finished ground RL levels with respect to building height. Show all
RL’s to the highest part of the building.


Response
Please refer to the attached Revised Proposal Plans which have clearly defined and notated all existing and proposed
finished ground levels with respect to building height. RL’s of the proposed highest points are also reflected clearly.


Issue – Building height and design
It is noted that substantial landform changes will occur as a result of this proposal and that the existing embankment
facing Holts Road will be substantially removed. This results in a higher building facing Holts Rd. Acceptable outcome
AO9.1 seeks that buildings do not exceed 10 metres in height. Corresponding Performance outcome PO9 (c) seeks that
buildings do not visually dominate the street or surrounding spaces. It is noted that the building in part exceeds the
maximum height limit and where it exceeds the height limit, that part of the building is located on a prominent corner of
the site, where it is highly visible to Holts Rd and the Bruce
Highway.


Further the entire façade facing Holts Rd presents as a long blank wall facing Holts Rd and the Bruce Highway.
Performance outcome PO20 of the Low Impact Industry zone code seeks that ‘Visual amenity and character surrounding
the major road network is protected and enhanced by providing an interesting built form, appropriate landscaping, safe
and efficient pedestrian movement and minimal advertising signage’.


It is also noted that the proposed buildings are predominately light in colour (particularly where viewed externally) and it
is considered the buildings will not blend into the surrounding landscape or existing buildings. Buildings should consist of
muted/natural colours and textures that blend into the surrounding landscape.


Information Required
2. Provide justification for removing a large section of the embankment (with existing landscaping) that potentially
provides screening to the building where viewed from Holts Rd and the Bruce Highway.
3. Provide amended plans of a building that addresses the above concerns, in particular the façade to Holts Rd.

Page 3

Response
The attached Revised Proposal Plans have included additional RLs for the building and notated the existing natural
ground and proposed finished ground level for the building. The proposed building does not remove large portions of
the existing embankment. A cut of the edge of the embankment is necessary to assist in achieving the required
finished surface levels for the overall development site. Please refer to Figure 3 image of the embankment noting the
black marker in ground is approximate line of retaining wall. Figure 4 image depicts the approved landscape which is
positioned on the Holts Road side of the embankment below the canopy of the existing trees along the fence line. This
are will not be disturbed and tree clearances will be established during construction.


The building design has been amended so as to ensure no part of the building, particularly at the north-eastern aspect
of the site is greater than 10m from ground level as was previously proposed. Figure 1 below depicts the original north
elevation of the site, Figure 2, conversely depicts the revised design outcome. As evident the levels are clearly defined
and overall heights are less than 10m.




Figure 1 - Proposed northern elevation, Building Suncoast Green 2021




Figure 2 - Proposed Revised Building Design for northern elevation, Building Suncoast Green 2022

As per pictures below the existing embankment exhibits small landscape clumping’s of Callistemon and Lomandra
which have not been maintained and growth has been hindered. Thus the proposal has adopted a considerable
portion of new landscape to the base of the building along the northern boundary where the embankment is at its
highest point. This will assist in buffering the lower portion of the proposed development. Additionally, the existing

Page 4

mature trees positioned along the sites boundary, set behind the chain wire fence long Holts Road will be kept and
have considerable heights and spread to assist in off-setting the upper parts of the development (Please refer to
the site plan which has provided height and spread dimensions of each existing mature tree).

Page 5

Figure 3 - Site image showing embankment and marker of approximate line of retaining wall, Building Suncoast Green 2022

Page 6

Figure 4 - Existing approved landscape situated at lower portion of embankment behind fence line, Building Suncoast Green 2022

Page 7

Issue – Caretaker’s Accommodation
Overall outcome (2) (l) and Performance outcome PO7 (b) of the Low Impact Industry zone code seeks that Caretaker’s
Accommodation only occurs on site where there is a demonstrated need for full-time caretaking. Given it is not known
what uses are proposed, the need cannot be demonstrated.
Please also note that this space does not comply with AO6.3 of the Caretaker’s Accommodation, Dwelling Unit and Rural
Worker’s Accommodation Code.


Information Required
4. Remove the Caretaker Accommodation Use from the proposal. Please note that once the uses are established on site
and it can be applied for at that time.


Response
The Caretaker’s Accommodation was deemed appropriate. However, in light of the above and Councils position the
Caretaker’s Accommodation has been removed.


Issue – Sustainable Building design
The application has not addressed the Sustainable Building Design Code in Noosa Plan, in particular AO8.1 and PO8 of the
code.


Information Required
5. Provide an assessment of the proposal against PO8 of the Sustainable Building Design Code.


Response
Please refer to the attached Sustainable Building Design Code response.

Page 8

Issue – Loading Bay
The submitted Signage and Line marking Plan (as prepared by Empire Engineering) does not include the articulated
vehicle loading bay as per the Site Plan prepared by Building Suncoast Green and as required by the Driveway and
Parking Code.


Information Required
6. Amend the Signage and Line marking Plan (prepared by Empire Engineering) to include the loading bay as per the Site
Plan (prepared by Building Suncoast Green).


Response
Please refer updated signs and line marking plan to show the loading bay (was being shown on C021, now reflected on
C040).


Issue – Retaining Wall Fall Protection
The 12.15m long portion of the proposed retaining wall adjacent the car parking/manoeuvring area on the north-western
boundary appears to be 1.0m to 1.3m in height without any fall protection proposed.


Information Required
7. With this section of retaining wall exceeding 1.0m in height and potentially being accessible by the public, please
include appropriate fall protection along the top of the wall for this section.


Response
Please refer to the attached Revised Proposal Plans and Civil Plans which have a 1.8m chain wire fence atop retaining
wall for fall protection added.


Issue – Earthworks Detail
The submitted engineering plans lack detail around the proposed earthworks to be undertaken on the site, in particular
on the north-eastern side of the development where the works extend down the existing embankment.
In addition, the retaining wall that runs along the north-eastern boundary does not extend past Tenancy 9. Tenancy 10 to
13 and 14 to 16 does not appear to have any retaining structure/s at the rear which conflicts with the elevation plans
prepared by Building Suncoast Green.

Page 9

Information Required
8. Submit a plan, prepared by an RPEQ that details the earthworks required for the development including but not
limited to the following details:
   a. Clarification of the extent of retaining structures required for the development (in particular at the rear of Tenancies
   10 to 13 and 14 to 16);
   b. Extent and grade of any batters;
   c. Approximate volumes of cut and or fill required; and
   d. Sectional plans of proposed earthworks.


Response
Please refer the attached Revised Civil Plans, specifically plan C006 for bulk earthworks plan, C007 sections & C009 for
retaining walls.


Issue
The Noosa Plan 2020 Landscaping Code outcomes include; ensuring the amenity and distinct vegetated character of
Noosa Shire and ensuring the building and structures sit within the landscape rather than dominating it. The full frontage
(10m wide buffer) of the site facing Holts Road and also the south-easterly boundary adjoining Lot 7 SP237587 is highly
visible from both Holts Road and the Bruce Highway. The existing vegetation and initial landscaping (RAL20/0017 and
OPW20/0144) does not provide an adequate vegetated buffer considering the proposed developments height, design
and dominating character.


Information Required
9. Update the Landscape Plan to include extensive landscaping to provide a dense buffer designed so that 80% of the
fencing will be screened at maturity (with adequate height vegetation) along both the full frontage (10m wide buffer) of
the site facing Holts Road and the south-easterly boundary adjoining Lot 7 SP237587.


Response
As discussed in response to item 2 of this IR the existing embankment, mature height trees and approved landscaping
(designed by Place Design Group) will not be removed or taken away by this proposal. The Revised Proposal Plans
have included an addiotnal planting buffer which will occupy the full extent of the embankments crest without taking
away from existing landscaping. This proposal will assist in softening the built form noting a mix of plant species has
been adopted to coincide with similar species already planted on-site and considered endemic and compatible with

Page 10

the environment. The south-easterly boundary of the site is well planted. The proposed south-easterly portion of the
building will sit inside the existing turfed channel as depicted in Figure 5 image below (note white pipe in background
of image denotes approximate location of rear wall of building). It is therefore reasonable to accept a development
condition to re-instate this turf at the completion of the development along with rectify any loss in landscaping within
the existing landscape buffer set behind the chain wire fence.




  Figure 5 - Existing landscape buffer along south-eastern property boundary, Building Suncoast Green 2022

Page 11

Issue
The plans (Sheet no. 03 of 07) provided with the application appears to show that the bund/buffer area on the corner of
Holts Road and Lot 7 SP237587 that was developed as part of RAL20/0017 and OPW20/0144 is to lowered/cut into. Will
earthworks impact the vegetation buffer planting that was completed as part of RAL20/0017 and OPW20/0144?


Information Required
10. Provide details on how these earthworks impact the existing landscaping/vegetation.
11. Ensure the required Landscaping Plan includes appropriate buffer planting to screen the additional height of the
structures indicated within the plans for this corner (as per IR1).


Response
As discussed in detail on above items, the embankment will be cut into but existing landscape along Holts Road
(mature trees) and small landscape groupings and the well vegetated buffer along the south-east boundary will not be
removed or disturbed. Additional landscape is proposed along the buildings Holts Road frontage in lieu of what is
currently turf. Overall height of the building has been reduced to ensure no parts exceed 10m.


Issue
The extent of the development (Tenancy 4-13) appears to be located adjacent to the 10m buffer along the full frontage
(10m wide buffer) of the site facing Holts Road. It appears that a portion of the buffer/bund developed as part of
RAL20/0017 and OPW20/0144 is to be lowered/cut away. Will the earthworks to lower/cut into this bund impact the
large existing trees that are located on the boundary?


Information Required
12. Provide an Arborist Report completed by a qualified person* identifying if the proposed earthworks will impact on
the existing trees.
*For the purpose of preparing an Arborist Report, a qualified person is considered to be a person with either:
           a. ISA certification; or
           b. a Diploma of Arboriculture in addition to a minimum of 3 years current experience in the field of
           arboriculture.
13. If an impact is identified provide detail on how these impacts will be mitigated.

Page 12

Response
An Arborist Report prepared by Tree Solutions has been attached to this document in response to this item. In
summary, the existing mature vegetation is more than 7m from the site cut (measured to trunk of tree) for the
proposed retaining walls. The trees inspected are observed to require a 5-6m clearance based on the height and
canopy spread which will be achieved by this proposal. Root systems are considered to be contained to within the
observed spread which is also at a lower ground height than what will excavated to for the proposal.


Issue
Some of the plant species selected within the Landscape Plan are more suited for a coastal community. Cooroy being a
hinterland township requires the plants selected to be suitable for the area and reflect the character of the local
vegetation.


Information Required
14. Review the species selected within the Landscape Plan and update to change any non-appropriate species to suit the
hinterland location for example Banksia integrifolia Coastal Banksia.


Response
An on-site inspection confirms a heavy use of plant stock that is considered suitable for coastal environments also
(Callistemon, Grevillea, Melaleuca etc). The revised landscape plans have maintained use of the Coastal Banskia in
addition to implementing plant stock which has been approved by higher order approval for the site. Having reviewed
the Planning Scheme policy for Landscaping within Schedule 6 of the Noosa Plan we have determined the soil type at
the subject site to be; 2 Average topsoil, reasonable drainage, and some moisture retention and 3 Boggy soil, heavy
clay, wet for part of the year. Having regard for this the Coastal banksia is noted as a suitable plant species for this soil
type and is referred to in Table SC6.3.4.2 Woodland/ Open Forest Area Species.

Page 13

Issue
The Landscape Plan identifies three plant species for inclusion within the Bio-retention Basin with two at 8/m2 and one
at 4/m2. Council requires a more diverse planting selection within the
Bio-retention Basin with a mix of at least five species. In addition, the planting density to be minimum 8 plants/m2.


Information Required
15. Update the Landscape Plan to include an additional two species types to the Bioretention basin. For example, the
addition of Dianella brevipendunculata and Melaleucav thymifolia.
16. Update the Landscape Plan to ensure the bio-retention basin plant density is a minimum
8 plants/m2.


Response
Please refer to the attached Revised Proposal Plans, specifically Sheet 7 for a revised bio-basin planting pallet and
density in accordance with this request.


Issue
The Sections on Empire drawing C025 for the extended detention depth and filter media depth don’t match the model
assumptions shown in drawing C050.


Information Request
Update drawing C025 to match the model assumptions.


Response
Please refer to the Revised Proposal Plans, Sheet C025 refers to an extended depth of 300mm which is correctly
referred to in the Music Model Inputs as .30m on Sheet C050 as requested.


End of Applicants response.