Original source · versioned page text
2018-10-15 General Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 15 OCTOBER 2018
Built form, Privacy and overlooking
The ground floor of the building on the western side has a wall length of 19 metres. The probable
solution requires a maximum of 15 metres. The ground floor includes some vertical elements
such as doors and windows that break up the elevation into three distinct sections that are just
over 6 metres long. It should also be noted that this elevation addresses the rear boundary and
will therefore have no impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, as the building is setback more
than 6 metres from the rear boundary it is considered this will not have an adverse impact on the
adjoining property.
The proposal will be conditioned that the upper level windows are at a minimum height of 1.5
metres, or suitably screened to minimise overlooking opportunities to the private open space of
the property adjoining to the west.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community
The application was publicly notified for 15 business days in accordance with the Planning Act
2016. 1 properly made submission was received. The following table provides a summary and
assessment of the issues raised the submitter.
Matters Raised Comments
Concerns with a new boundary fence that will A property owner can legally erect a fence on their
immediately adjoin an existing shed (on boundary at any time, regardless of what use occurs
neighbouring property) which will limit access on the site. When this site is developed, the applicant
to the back of the shed for maintenance. The intends to put a retaining wall (<1 metre) and fence
fence will also block out natural light to the above on this boundary at a total height of 1.8 metres.
workroom area of the shed and will devalue
the property. Concerned with the disturbance
of the soil and impact on the sheds foundations
during construction.
Location of driveway and crossover on Wattle The applicant was previously advised by Council
St does not comply with regulation (opposite officers that access should be from Wattle Street,
Wimmers Lane) and results in an excessive rather than from Garnet Street, being the lower order
amount of concrete which will have a negative road. Garnet St is identified as a heavy vehicle
impact on the streetscape. Wattle Street is bypass. The access needs to have adequate
very busy. Prefer that access by gained from separation from the intersection with Garnet St and
Garnet Street. the proposed access location is considered logical
and the most appropriate access to the site.
Concerns with the loss of the existing mango Although the mango tree has been on site for a
tree – it is a character tree and provides considerable period of time, it is not a native tree. The
screening to the existing backyard and private Mango tree can be removed at any time without
open space. Council approval. Given the location of the tree on the
property boundary, its proximity to the proposed
driveway, it is considered unlikely that the tree can
practically be retained. The proposal will necessitate
the removal of this tree and planting of native species
is required as part of the development, meeting the
acceptable outcome in Noosa Plan.
The new boundary fence will be aesthetically pleasing
and provide privacy to the submitter’s private open
space.
Page 32 of 55
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.