Second Report · 131999.982632.1

Page 2

 

 

 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Po 1

m

 

4! 1

‘
Disclaimer: This Plan reflects information
currently held in Council's records.
Accurate representations of boundaries ove!
individual allotments cannot be guaranteed.
Locations of entities shown on the plan are
indicative only. Do not attempt to scale!

   

Rural Preservation

Rural Rendental

(earns [] remcnne t
d ocustey 0 ‘Non Urban

__ | Soret use oO Special Factties

[FE] Oven Soace & Special Ressdentat

a |

3 Jun 1999 |

    

er) |
NOOSA COUNCIL|

 

Page 3

 

€ (1104 20 )

STUDIO NOOSA Pty Ltd co
ACN 072 551 421 Seam
P.O. Box 14800 _—_—4
NOOSA HEADS 4567 \

Phone/Fax: 5474 2424 —
Mobile: 0413 103 433 .

The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council

Pelican Street

TEWANTIN 4566

7 July 1999

Dear Sir,

 

RE: PROPOSED DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT - 11 MITTI STREET, NOOSA HEADS
16297DA

Further to submissions to Council for the abovementioned application, and following
Council's decision to impose a condition denying the rooftop terrace, I am writing to
make representation in the support of such terrace for this project.

This letter attends to items within the Planning Officer's Report, and follows a
meeting with Council's Town Planning Department on 2 July 1999.

PLANNING OFFICER'S REPORT

Item 3.1: I note that the roof level does not exceed the 8 metre limit, as is later
confirmed in Item 4, but with regard to balustrading I was informed by
former planning officer, Nadine Gorton, that the balustrade (as Tong as
it was light and not solid construction) was not an issue of concern.

Planning's comment re ‘optimization of views' speaks for itself. It is
obvious and logical to obtain views of Noosa's beaches and surrounding
areas - to ignore them would be bizarre in the least.

This item also identifies that 'loss of view' and ‘overshadowing' are not
concerns.

 

 

Page 4

NB

There are a number of issues regarding neighbours' privacy:

While the proposed terrace is on the western end of the
development, Duplex 2 is setback some 6 metres and Duplex 1
some 7 metres from the shared boundary and the roof terrace
balustrade a futher 1 metre. A building legally sited closer to the
boundary ~ for example in a unit or single dwelling development -—
would present a substantially greater problem.

Arguably, most rooftop terraces will result in some invasion of
privacy.

Additionally, any platform elevated above ground level on this
site will provide views into neighbouring backyards - the view
from the master bedrooms and balconies could be considered more
invasive than the rooftop due to a lower angle of sight. For this
reason, screening has been proposed.

The Master Bedroom spaces could have been designed for active
use e.g. Living Room - gaining limited coastal views - which would
aggravate any privacy concerns. Instead the active areas have
been intentionally contained on the ground floor - where the
majority of occupants would naturally congregate.

The view into the north-west properties from adjacent units to
either side of this proposed development, particularly to the
south-west, is not evaluated in the report.

Arguably, the loss of privacy caused by Naoussa's units
and balconies has greater impact - there are many more
units and occupants; the occupants are short term and
therefore more likely to use the unit balconies than the long
term residents of a duplex.

Use of rooftop terraces, particularly in along term
residential situation, is notoriously infrequent (however,
considered vital to this proposal).

Additionally, the design of the rear units does not attend to
screening of ablution areas which presents a modesty
consideration for all parties. The solution is not the responsibilty
of this proposal.

It is not clear what is intended by ‘amenity terms' in the last sentence
conjoined to the reference to ‘likely height of the building’.

It bears mentioning that the owners of 11 Mitti Street did not oppose the

development proposal - now translated into built form - for the property
to the rear, although their view was to be, and is, severely restricted.

11 MITTI STREET / M & J WILSCHE

Page 5

(are

Item 3.2: Apart from the eartier discussed balustrading, the building's height will
have no arguable impact on a neighbour (an infrequent resident) in the
middle unit of a block of 3 directly to the north-east. The proposed
spine wall would be only partially visible from the rear of that
neighbour's property , and splays down to roof height.

(Loss of that neighbour's daylight is an eroneous suggestion. )

Item 4: I presume the word 'balcony' is intended to read 'balustrading' (page
78).

I note that the current spine wall is documented at a height of 1.2 metres
above the rooftop, averaging some 767mm above the 8 metre height limit.
The speculation of an addition of 600mm to a height 1.8 metres would fall
short of the 10 metre mark by some 633mm.

The staircase was intended to be enclosed below roof access flights -
and with a glazed wall and door at the landing at Master Bedroom level.
This issue is dealt with later in this submission.

There was no suggestion in the application for enclosure of the rooftop
access stair, similarly no intention for a rooftop pergola.

It is my opinion that the height of the balustrading now being taken to issue is
inconsistent with previous assessments, and should not be any part of a basis for
refusal.

It is also within Council's discretion to allow the height limit to be exceeded. In this
instance, it is a small portion of the building which would, in reality, only affect the
property to the south-west - and these neighbours have not objected.

I also take issue with Engineering's condition of 'at least 6 covered off-street car
parking spaces' - which, while proposed by the documents, is double the
requirement of the Planning Scheme.

MEETING with TOWN PLANNING:
The meeting was constructive and exposed some of Council's real concerns. Asa
result, a number of areas have been revisited. These have been documented in the
form of revised drawings accompanying this letter.
PRIVACY and HEIGHT It was resolved that this issue should be attended to
in some degree from the aspect of the rear

neighbour.

The proposal now indicates the northwest balcony and spine wall
realigned to some 8.25 metres from the northwest boundary.

11 MITTI STREET / M & J WILSCHE

Page 6

(7D

STAIR ENCLOSURE Concerns with waterproofing the stairwell were
highlighted during the discussion, with similar
previous situations noted as undesirable outcomes.

While I am confident that these concerns are not insurmountable through
good detailing, the proposal now incorporates a compromise position.

It was suggested that there were options available to either establish an
independent stair (probably circular) or to enclose the current stair
proposed - with relaxation of the provision of the Planning Schedule in
this regard.

In pursuing a solution, I have visited both options, but have concern
with the aesthetics of either an external circular stair (the only form
logically available) or a full enclosure of the current stair location -
while the latter is inboard in relation to the overall building, its height
above the current roof proposal results in a very unattractive form
which would be easily visible from the street.

Furthermore, a domestic circular stair (particularly a wet one) presents
a hazard to safety - especially to an older user - and I am reluctant to
employ one in this particular development.

My proposal puts forward a compromise. I have turned the stair to
enhance flow elsewhere within the building. I have also put forward an
option to enclose only the lower flight of the rooftop access with a roof
and glazed walls - surrounding the entire two flights with open external
louvres. This will ensure safe drainage of the topmost flight, with the
landing open on two sides and top flight open to one. The waterproofing
technique for the slab is no different for the flight than for the
trafficable rooftop.

The resultant form of this proposed solution is far less visually intrusive
to neighbours, addresses Council's concerns and is in keeping with the
tenor of the rest of the building.

In summary I contend that the arguments in the report are, to a degree, founded on
conjecture in order to protect Council's community responsibilities, and in light of
the compromise situation achieved and the revisions proposed, I seek to have the
condition denying the rooftop terrace revoked.

Yours Faithfully,

BRUCE RICHARDS
R.A.I.A.
MANAGING DIRECTOR

11 MITTI STREET / M & J WILSCHE

Page 7

 

SNViId YOO

SNVid YOOTS JOOY PUO LNIWISVE

Ne

NYId dOLIOON

 

@ xaldnd

CN
ad

Applicants preferred design,

 

 

L xa1dnd

 

 

set pa] Ald INYY ISL
INSWEOWASO XING LIRLS LLL Tl

 

 

 

 

SY || CPP narra me

NVid LNSWaSYe

 

 

 

Page 8

LNG
Vag

ME

TSE TT PG,

 

SNV1d YOOTS
YOOTd LSUlsd PYS GNNOYSO

3
i

NV1d YOOTS Sud

 

gn.

cred des

 

Applicants prefe

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ PHPY Yi HPP Ig

 

INSWdOTIAIG

WwW
X3IgNG L3EULS WLI TL

       

é xatpna

Pee ee ee tee ee RR BAND ee

NYid YOOTS GNNOYD

° Ons
oy °

é ot
ot

 

 

Page 9

 

 

T_MITTI STREET DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
TELARNI Pty Ltd sw —i_>—i_

 

 

1200

 

rent foe A 4 te
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDIO NOOSA

 

 

 

 

 

2,
j ¢
Pate Richndocn RAM Ande!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIDE (SOUTH-WEST) ELEVATION

A pplicants preferred
design

STREET ELEVATION

 

 

 

 

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ ae

 

——
T

 

DDA
=p]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ELEVATIONS

qaq-g2.b4e

Page 10

 

SNVi1d YOO
SNVi1d YOO JOOY PUD LNAWASYE

 

 

i
5 nwa ao1s004
( $a\| daa)
, ve do
28 ANats
ous A)
&

 

 

 

ETAT ey

eee pa Ald INYY TEL
INBWAOTSASO KSTENG LIsULS WLUW Ul Ww

 

 

 

 

xy ua eremearag

NYId LNSW3SYS

 

 

 

Page 11

 

SNOILV Ada

parstasd 40

71

NOVARA 132u1S

ynops ) wu sa4Xa

 

NOVARA (LSYJ-HLNOS) LNOUS

 

‘ eae

g

AS oq pw -
yybiou.
pleem >

/ a * NOILWAATS (LSTM—-HLUON) UW3U
fr
you ond

 

    

1°

ry ee
ie

E

ig

INSWdOWAZO XING L3IWLS WLIW WwW ww

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 12

Town Planning Department’s Reports 16/7/1999 - Ordinary Meeting 29/7/1999 18

With regard to the stairwell to the roof top terrace, the applicant has presented an option of
circular external stairs which would fully comply with section 5.3.1.5 of the Planning Scheme
being the relevant clause for roof top terraces on duplexes. However he is seeking Council’s
reconsideration of this matter and in particular a modification to this section of the Planning
Scheme in accordance with the modification provisions of section 5.3.2. The applicant
believes the external circular stair compromises the integrity of the design and is more
visually prominent. He also believes these circular stairs present a safety concern for elderly
residents.

The applicant took issue with suggestions within the Planning Report that the proposed stairs
would eventually become fully enclosed to weather proof the stairwell adding both bulk and
height to the building. The applicant says this is not the intention and there are design
measures to ensure these internal stairs remained drained. However as a means of
demonstrating that there is no intention to fully enclose the stairs, he has modified the plan of
the stairwell by turning the stair 90 degrees and enclosing the lower flight of the stair to the
roof top with an angled roof and glazed walls and surrounding the entire flight with open
external louvres. This ensures safe drainage of the top most flight with the landing open on
two sides and the two flights open on one. The waterproofing technique for the slab is no
different for the flight than for the trafficable roof top.

The applicant suggests this solution is far less visually intrusive to neighbours and it addresses
Council’s concerns about exposing the stairwell to the elements of nature. It also does so
without adding height or bulk to the building.

Conclusion

The applicant has presented one option for a roof top terrace which meets the requirements of
section 5.3.1.5 of the Scheme, however seeks modification to allow for a more preferred
option. His preferred roof top terrace would not appear to have any adverse impact on the
amenity of the neighbourhood. It will be relatively unobtrusive and while the stairs are semi
enclosed these enclosures do not exceed the 8 metre height limit. This representation is
supported and a negotiated decision notice, with an amendments to the: conditions is
recommended.

SMP c:\prod\word\doc\finalrep\99-07-16-ppa.doc 16/07/99

Page 13

Town Planning Department’s Reports 16/7/1999 - Ordinary Meeting 29/7/1999 19

RECOMMENDATION

With regard to the representations concerning conditions of approval of 16297 DA (Studio
Noosa) for a duplex dwelling at 11 Mitti Street, Noosa Heads described as Lot 23 on
RP51935, Parish of Weyba, Council:-

A. Approve a change to Condition 17 to read as follows:-

17. Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally
comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are
prepared by Studio Noosa and dated July 1999 and as may be amended by
these conditions.

B. Delete Condition 19.
Cc. Include an additional condition to read as follows:-

The balustrading on the rooftop terrace is to be of non-climbable panes of glass with
lightweight railings.

D. Issue a new Decision Notice.

Departments Consulted :

 

 

 

 

Administration Finance Engineering ¥ | Town Planning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Health Legal Environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMP c:\prod\word\doc\finalrep\99-07-16-ppa.doc 16/07/99