20230926_36-38 Duke St_Information_Request_Response (MCU23-0070)

Page 2

.




        Increase the waste storage area

In response to Council’s information request items our response is provided below:

ISSUE 1 – PROPOSAL PLANS
The proposal plans provided with the application material require further information and/or clarification, including:
     The gross floor area of the Food and Drink Outlet tenancies is unclear.
     Evidence that the proposal will not result in overlooking of adjoining properties.
     The application material has only provided north/south section plans. Additional section plans showing the
        east/west sections are required.

Information Required
    1. Provide amended proposal plans clearly indicating the ‘use area’ and kitchen areas of each of the Food and Drink
       Outlet tenancies. It is noted that toilets provided within the development for the use of patrons only are not
       considered ‘public toilets’.
    2. Provide View Line plans that clearly identify any potential overlooking into the private open space areas of the
       adjoining property to the west. Mitigation measure must also be proposed / provided for any potential
       overlooking.
    3. Provide east/west section plans for the below areas of the development:




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 2

Page 3

.




Response
   1. Amended plans have been prepared and are included as Attachment A. The revised plans clearly articulate the
       total GFA of the commercial tenancies as being 158m2, comprising 135m2 of commercial lease area and shared
       public toilet of 22.7m2 (refer to dwg no. 7252 DA10). The plans also include a separate plan which illustrates the
       front of house dining areas ‘use areas’ which excludes any kitchen and storage areas and shared public toilets,
       which are omitted from the car parking calculations. The total GFA of the ground floor commercial tenancies is
       158m2, comprising 80.0m2 of front of house dining area (use areas), 55.3m2 of kitchen and storage and 22.7m2 of
       shared public toilets (refer to sheet no. DA13).

    2. View line plans have been prepared and are included in the revised architectural plans prepared by Blackburne
       Jackson Design (refer to Attachment A). The view lines have been prepared and incorporated into the proposal
       plans. The view lines have been added to the floor plans on sheet DA07 with reference to the perspective views
       provided on new sheets DA24 & DA25.

         Blackburne Jackson Design have also provided the following commentary to assist with this response:

                  A review of potential overlooking into the adjoining property to the West has resulted in the addition of
                  screening elements to both Level 2 and Level 3, to mitigate any overlooking issues. The proposed screen to
                  Level 2 incorporates a tight spaced vertical batten with the potential for increased screening via the
                  landscaped planter to the boundary edge. Screening to level 3 includes a similar tight spaced vertical
                  batten located to the edge of the balconies. These additions effectively remove the potential for
                  overlooking of the neighbouring open space areas.
                  A review of potential overlooking into the adjoining property to the East has revealed that due the largely
                  blank neighbouring boundary walls there will be zero overlooking issues.

         Following a meeting with Council officers (to brief them on the proposed changes), view lines/ visual impressions
         have also been prepared to demonstrate the how the proposal will be perceived by the adjoining premises to the
         west 28-34 Duke St. These visual impressions have been prepared for both the second storey and third storey
         from the nearest balconies, as shown on sheets DA 26 & 27 (refer to Attachment A). From these impressions it is
         clear that the proposed building does not significantly impact their existing views from either level.

         The built form includes a compliant zero setback up until the 2nd storey of the building. This façade will be
         suitably softened by existing landscaping located along the eastern boundary and south east corner of 28—34
         Duke St.

         It is noted that units 6 & 10 on 34 Duke Street predominantly face South East in parallel to the subject site i.e. the
         proposed building will only be evident when viewed from balcony (refer Figure 1 below




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                    Page 3

Page 4

.




                  Figure 1 – Internal view from Unit 10, 34 Duke St Sunshine Beach (Source – realestate.com.au)

    3. East west sections have been prepared as requested and are included in Attachment A (refer to sheet DA23).

ISSUE 4 – BUILDING HEIGHT
Performance Outcome PO9 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code requires development in Sunshine Beach to be a
maximum of three (3) storeys.

Performance Outcome PO9 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code requires development to be of a scale compatible
with surrounding development and does not present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in
the vicinity of the site.

The proposal appears as four (4) storeys when viewed from the Duke St frontage and includes portions of the building that
are four (4) storeys in height. The proposal in its current format is not considered consistent with the predominate scale of
development in the area. Any proposal over three (3) storeys in height is not supported.

Information Required
    4. Provide amended proposal plans with a maximum building height of three (3) storeys and consistent with the
       scale of development surrounding the site.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 4

Page 5

.




Response
In relation to building height, no change is proposed, as the proposed development complies with the acceptable
outcome AO9.1 which nominates a preferred building height of 12m. Compliance is clearly articulated in the
architectural plans and height plane projection (included in Attachment A), which illustrates that the building height does
not exceed 12m above natural ground level. As such, the proposal is deemed to comply the relevant corresponding
performance outcome (PO9).

While the performance outcome (PO9) refers to a number of storeys, this is not relevant as the acceptable outcome has
been achieved. This is explicitly detailed in the planning scheme and the relevant zone code (Tourist accommodation
code) which stipulates the following in the introductory section of code:

         Acceptable outcomes are provided for some, but not all, performance outcomes, and identify ways in which
         performance outcomes can be met. Compliance with the performance outcome should be demonstrated and the
         acceptable outcomes are considered as one way to satisfy the corresponding performance outcome.

The Noosa Plan 2020 User guide also reinforces this position by noting that the planning scheme is a performance based
planning scheme and includes the following commentary to this effect:

         The Planning Scheme is a performance-based scheme, which means assessable development is required to
         demonstrate how it can achieve the specified performance outcomes. The performance outcomes are considered
         to be the qualitative outcome that must be achieved whilst the acceptable outcomes are prescriptive, measurable
         criteria for development and represent the preferred way of achieving the performance outcomes. Assessable
         development is deemed to comply with the performance outcome if:
               the acceptable outcomes to the performance outcomes are complied with, or
               sufficient information is provided to demonstrate the criterion has been met through an alternative
                   solution.

Therefore, since the proposal complies with the AO9.1 this is deemed to comply with the corresponding performance
outcome PO9 of the tourist accommodation zone. No further amendments are considered necessary or appropriate.

ISSUE 5 – SITE COVER
The site cover calculations provided with the application material do not accurately calculate site cover in accordance with
the Noosa Plan 2020 definition. Performance Outcome PO11 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code requires
development, where a mixed-use precinct fronting Duke St, Sunshine Beach, to have a maximum site cover of 45%. Council
calculates that the proposed development includes a site cover of approximately 75%, which is substantially over the 45%
site cover requirement under Performance Outcome PO11 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code and is not supported.

Information Required
5. Provide amended plans reducing site cover to 40% (as calculated in accordance with the Noosa Plan 2020 definition).

Response
This issue is highlighted in the introductory summary above and was extensively addressed as part of the original planning
report which accompanied this application. The original architectural plans prepared by BJD Architects included a site




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                 Page 5

Page 6

.




context analysis which demonstrates a proposed site cover of 70.7%. The site cover exceeds 45% but is substantially less
than both adjoining premises, which have site cover calculations of 92% and 75% respectively. Similarly, 44 Duke St
another small lot, based on our estimates has a site cover of approximately 85%. Hence, we contend that the prescriptive
performance outcome of 45% is inconsistent with the prevailing development occurring along the Duke Street tourist
precinct and undermines the ability to redevelop the site and other sites within the tourist accommodation precinct.

An extract of the relevant performance outcome (PO11) under the Tourist accommodation zone code is provided below:
        PO11
        The maximum site cover does not exceed:
            a) 45% in the Hastings Street mixed use precinct; or
            b) 45% where a mixed use development incorporating non-residential uses with frontage to:
                  i.   185-207 Gympie Terrace or, 235-257 Gympie Terrace, Noosaville; or
                 ii.   Thomas St, Noosaville; or
                iii.   Duke Street, Sunshine Beach; or
            c) 40% where not listed above.

There is no corresponding relevant acceptable outcome AO11 for mixed use development. Since the proposed
development is for a mixed-use development (incorporating commercial development) the appliable assessment
benchmark is 45% site cover. This is contrary to item 5 of the information request, which request that the proposal plans
be amended to 40% site cover, which is not applicable to the subject mixed-use development and is therefore considered
to be an oversight.

As mentioned throughout the lodgement material and illustrated in the accompanying plans, strict compliance with the
45% site cover requirement does not permit the site to be redeveloped in any commercially viable manner. As such, our
client is endeavouring to redevelop the site in a manner that is consistent with the existing built form occurring on
adjoining sites and the balance of the streetscape. Therefore, we are seeking a measured performance based solution,
which is consistent with the higher order planning intent for the zone, as outlined in the purpose and overall outcomes of
the Tourist accommodation zone code. Refer to the discussion of the overall outcomes below.

The proposed 72.1% site cover is generally consistent with the allowable site cover within ordinary centre zonings which
permit commercial on ground and residential above (mixed use development). For example, the neighbourhood and local
centre zones under the Noosa Plan, do not include any site cover requirements. Importantly, these small scale centre
precincts are characterised by a similar mixed use built form as that is permitted and established on Duke St as visitor
centre.

The primary purpose of site cover is to prevent excessive bulk and scale and ensures that adequate outdoor space is
provided or alternatively it is a means to contain the perception of the built form on the land (Plans in motion, 2020).
This matter is suitably addressed in part of PO10 of the zone code, an extract of which is provided below:

    PO10 Development:
        a) is of a scale compatible with surrounding development and the particular circumstances of the site; and
        b) does not present an appearance of bulk to adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                               Page 6

Page 7

.




The development complies with PO10 (building scale and bulk) through the following built form traits:
     The development is of a scale compatible with surrounding development and the specific circumstances of the
       site i.e. consistent building height (12m) with comparable setbacks.
     The proposal does not present an appearance of bulk to adjoining properties because it maintains a similar
       building height, permits views through either side of the building and is generously setback from Douglas Street
       (rear lane) and incorporates generous landscaping throughout the building.

Refer to revised proposal plans included in Attachment A, which clearly demonstrate how the building fits into the
existing streetscape in terms of having a compatible scale and does not present an appearance of bulk to adjoining areas.

Overall outcomes sought by the Tourist accommodation zone code
The proposed development over the site includes consistent uses being short term accommodation and food and drink
outlets as anticipated for the Tourist accommodation zone. The Tourist accommodation zone code includes the
following overall outcomes, which is the higher order planning intent for the tourism accommodation zone:

         The overall outcomes sought for the Tourist accommodation zone are as follows:
         a)      Development provides for a mix of medium to high density visitor accommodation in the form of resorts, hotels and short-term
                 accommodation such as hostels and self-contained holiday units.
         b)      Visitor accommodation in the urban areas is supported by a mix of business activities which create a vibrant atmosphere and
                 complement and enhance the function and attractiveness of the area as a visitor destination. Cafes, restaurants, entertainment,
                 function facilities and complementary shopping and personal services cater to the needs of visitors as well as Noosa Shire residents
                 enjoying these areas.
         c)      Business activities are ancillary to visitor accommodation and should be of a nature and scale compatible with the mixed-use
                 character and coastal amenity of the area and not compromise the viability of the Noosa Shire centres hierarchy by introducing
                 activities at a scale that should be accommodated within a centre. No business uses are appropriate on 215 David Low Way,
                 Peregian Beach.
         d)      Development contributes to the economy of the Shire through the tourism and hospitality sectors and integrates with nearby
                 public recreation and open space, promoting low impact nature and water-based recreation activities.
         e)      In urban areas development incorporates a high standard of urban and landscape design that creates attractive, functional
                 buildings and places with active or landscaped streetscapes whilst maintaining a human scale at street level.
         f)      For the Noosa North Shore, development is low impact, low density and of a domestic scale within densely landscaped settings
                 reflecting the seclusion and values of Noosa North Shore. Buildings are designed to be in character with the natural bushland
                 setting of the locality with lightweight materials or colours that blend with the environment. Any business activities established in
                 the zone servicing tourists have low environmental impacts and are related to recreational experiences offered in the locality such
                 as nature-based tourism.
         g)      Development incorporates a high level of residential amenity and safety and ensures that there is no unreasonable loss of amenity
                 to surrounding premises.
         h)      The design of development ensures car parking does not visually dominate street frontages and promotes and facilitates safe and
                 accessible walking, cycling and public transport use where relevant.
         i)      Development enhances the experience of the specific features and values that attract tourists to the locality including the Noosa
                 River, beaches and national parks.
         j)      Land adjacent to or in close proximity to Gympie Terrace, Noosaville offers ready access to the recreation opportunities of the
                 Noosa River and vistas across the waterway.
         k)      Native vegetation between buildings and in the public realm enhances the amenity and supports local wildlife.
         l)      Development is supported by appropriate infrastructure and essential services and does not adversely impact on the continued
                 operation, viability and maintenance of existing infrastructure or compromise future provision of planned infrastructure.
         m)      Development sensitively responds to land constraints including topography, bushfire, flooding and storm surge where applicable.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                                         Page 7

Page 8

.




         n)       Development is designed to respond to the sub-tropical climate of Noosa Shire and maximise energy efficiency and water
                  conservation and be resilient to future impacts of climate change.


Despite exceeding Council’s 45% site cover requirements, it is considered that the proposal which includes 72.1% site
cover complies with the above overall outcomes of the code because:
     It results in a mix of medium to high density visitor accommodation in the form of a boutique self-contained
        visitor accommodation
     It is supported by business activities in the form of food and drink outlets, which facilitate the creation of a
        vibrant atmosphere and aims improve the attractiveness of the area as a tourist destination
     It limits business activities to food and drink premises and ensures that the premises maintain a scale compatible
        with the existing precinct.
     It contributes to the economy through supporting the tourism and hospitality industries and integrates well with
        adjoining and nearby public realm and open space areas.
     It incorporates a high standard of urban and landscape design, which provides a positive enhancement to the
        existing streetscape and built form in the area
     Car parking does not visually dominate the streetscape
     It is supported by infrastructure and essential services
     It suitably responds to the site’s constraints and
     It is designed to embrace sub-tropical climate, and maximises energy efficiency and water conservation.

ISSUE 6 – PLOT RATIO
Performance Outcome PO11 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code requires a plot ratio of 0.8:1 for this site, which
equates to a total gross floor area (GFA) of 388.25m2.

The plot ratio calculations provided with the application material do not accurately calculate plot ratio in accordance with
the Noosa Plan 2020 definition. Council does not agree with the statement in the application material that the ground
floor bathroom is not included in the GFA calculation as the ‘space within a building between 2 floor levels’ is considered to
include the whole of the Ground Floor as a ‘storey’ and as such the shared public bathroom is not exempt as per the storey
definition which states ‘a space containing only a bathroom, shower room, laundry, toilet or other sanitary compartment’
as the storey is considered as the whole of the Ground Floor. In addition, Council does not agree that the ‘ground floor
public lobby’ is excluded from GFA calculations. This area is not considered ‘public’ as it is only accessible to guests utilising
the accommodation on site. In addition, the lobby’s on the upper levels have also incorrectly been excluded from the GFA
calculations.

Any plot ratio in excess of the requirement under Performance Outcome PO11 of the Medium Density Residential Zone
Code is not supported.

Information Required
    6. Provide amended plans reducing plot ratio to 0.8:1 (as calculated in accordance with the gross floor area and plot
       ratio Noosa Plan 2020 definitions).




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                                     Page 8

Page 9

.




Response
The revised plans demonstrate a compliant plot ratio of 0.8/1 as calculated in accordance with gross floor area and plot
ratio definitions included within the Noosa Plan.

The Noosa Plan 2020 planning scheme defines “plot ratio” and “gross floor area” as follows:

         plot ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of a building on a site to the area of the site.

         gross floor area for a building, means the total floor area of all storeys of the building, measured from the outside
         of the external walls and the centre of any common walls of the building, other than areas used for—
               building services, plant or equipment; or
               access between levels; or
               a ground floor public lobby; or
               a mall; or
               parking, loading or manoeuvring vehicles; or
               unenclosed private balconies, whether roofed or not.

Ground Floor Public Lobby
It is noted that that “public lobby” is not defined in Noosa Plan 2020 or the Planning Regulation 2017.

Council contends that the proposed lobby on the ground floor which provides access to the development’s stairwell and
lift is not a public lobby and therefore constitutes GFA, as it is will only be used by guests of the premises. It is asserted
that most, if not all, ground floor lobbies for lettable residential or resort accommodation are primarily for the exclusive
use of their guests and not the public per se. Yet, they are still referred to as public lobbies as they also cater for visitors
of the guest who are free to attend the premises.

Notwithstanding this, because of the revised changes to the development layout in response to Council’s information
request, it is considered that the ground floor access between the internal carpark and Duke St tenancies is properly
regarded as a “public” lobby. Specifically, the additional car spaces provided to the car park (on level 1) are allocated for
the commercial tenancies and will now be fully accessible (along with the bicycle and motorcycle spaces) to the public
during the hours of operation. Accordingly, the lobby which provides access between the car park and ground floor
commercial tenancies is now deemed to be a public lobby and exempt from the buildings GFA calculations.

Ground floor toilets
The ground floor toilets have now been amended and are now included within the overall GFA calculations to determine
plot ratio. Notwithstanding this, it is contended that the proposed toilets constitute public toilets on the basis that they
will be always available to the public whilst the commercial premises are open.

Upper level lobbies
Council has identified that the lift lobbies on the upper levels should constitute additional GFA. A close inspection of the
proposal plans indicates that these lobby areas are not enclosed and whilst roofed are exposed outdoor areas




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                      Page 9

Page 10

.




incorporating a balustrade. Accordingly, these outdoor lobby areas do not constitute GFA in accordance with the Noosa
Plan definition, which only applies to areas enclosed by walls.

In light of the above, the plot ratio for the development has been calculated in accordance with the Noosa Plan 2020 plot
ratio definition. The resultant plot ratio is 0.8/1.0 and complies with PO12 of the Tourist accommodation zone code.



ISSUE 7 – SETBACKS
Acceptable Outcome PO13.1 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code requires setbacks for the Duke Street the third
storey to be setback a minimum of 6m from the front boundary, 1m from the side boundaries and 10m from the rear
boundary. The proposal does not comply with these setback requirements for Level 2 & Level 3 (noting the above item
regarding the four storey component not being supported). It is noted that the pools and planters built to the side
boundary on Level 3 is not supported. The proposed setbacks on the upper levels are not consistent with the predominant
character in the area and does not maintain the visual continuity and pattern of buildings within Duke and Douglas Streets
and is not supported.

Information Required
7. Provide amended plans complying with setback requirements for the third storey.

Response
This item is requesting compliance with the relevant acceptable outcome AO13. As discussed in the original lodgement
material the proposed development is seeking a performance based solution regarding the upper level rear setbacks. As
discussed in our response to Issue 4, the Noosa Plan 2020 is a performance based planning scheme, and as such, an
alternative solution is permissible where compliance with the relevant performance outcome PO13 (refer to extract
below) can be suitably demonstrated.

It is acknowledged that the development involves a minor intrusion into to the preferred side setback above level 2 to
accommodate a 1.1m glass pool fence, pool side screening wall and landscape planter box to the edge of the building.
Importantly all structural elements (or outer most projection points) above the glass fence on the 3rd storey and above
include compliant 1m side setbacks. A larger 2m setback is provided to the eastern boundary to offset the reduced
setback to the western boundary. The extent of the side setbacks and minor encroachment is illustrated in Figure 2
below. The glass fence and internal landscape treatments provide an important contribution to the visual aesthetic to
the building. The pool is below the 3rd storey floor level and therefore does not impact the side boundary requirements
(i.e. outer most projection) above the 3rd storey, except for the pool’s side screen wall.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                               Page 10

Page 11

.




                                              Figure 2 – Extent of side setback

The third storey building footprint complies with Council’s preferred 6m front setback requirement except for a minor
encroachment comprising the privacy wall between units 1 and 2, the pools side screening wall and the 1.1m high glass
pool fence for units 1 and 2 (refer to Figure 3)

Council’s preferred rear boundary setbacks are 6m (AO13) for the first two storeys and 10m for the third storey. The
proposed rear setback is 7m from the Douglas Lane for Levels 2 & 3 above the car park level. However, it is considered
that Council’s rear setback provisions do not apply in this case because the site has two street frontages i.e. the site has
no rear setback, as Douglas Lane is also technically a street frontage.




                                         Figure 3 – Extent of front and rear setback

Notwithstanding this, the preferred setbacks outlined above are only acceptable outcomes, and any non-compliance with
an acceptable outcome is required to be assessed against the relevant performance outcome (PO13), an extract of which
is provided below:




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 11

Page 12

.




       PO13
       Buildings and other structures are designed and sited to:

           1.     provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises, including provision of visual and
                  acoustic privacy;
           2.     not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable areas of adjoining premises;
           3.     provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
           4.     preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
           5.     allow for space and landscaping to be provided between buildings including adequate area at ground level for
                  landscaping with trees, shrubs, outdoor living and utilities;
           6.     be consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area, maintaining the visual continuity and pattern of
                  buildings and landscape elements within the street; and
           7.     protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such as the beach, Noosa
                  River, national parks and other parklands.

As demonstrated in Figures 2 & 3 above the proposed encroachments are minor and comply with PO13 as the
development:
     Provides high level of residential amenity for the proposed occupants and adjoining residents.
     Does not unreasonably obstruct views from adjoining premises as the proposal is of a similar height, setback and
       provides adequate spacing between adjoining development generally in accordance with or greater than the
       preferred side set back provisions.
     Ensures that the impact on views from adjoining premises is minimal as the neighbouring buildings views are
       predominantly to the south south-east. In addition, the building at 40 Duke St includes blank side boundary walls
       and is oriented away from the subject development. In respect to 28-34 Duke, BJD architects have prepared a
       view analysis and visual impressions which clearly illustrate the minimal visual impact the development will have
       when viewed from the adjoining balconies. This is demonstrated on sheets 26 and 27 of the architectural plan
       package (refer to Attachment A).
     Does not result in overlooking of private open space or habitable areas of adjoining premises as demonstrated in
       response to Item 2 above. Any potential overlooking opportunities have been identified and structural elements
       have been incorporated in the building design to remedy any potential overlooking impacts.
     Provides suitable separation to adjoining premises.
     Includes landscaping provision in excess of the minimum requirements outlined the applicable use code,
       including deep landscaping provided at the rear of the site. Further landscaping is proposed in the form of raised
       planter beds which soften the built form and provide improved visual amenity for the proposed tenants and
       surrounding premises.
     Is consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area, maintains visual continuity of the
       streetscape and the pattern of buildings. The development maintains visual continuity particularly when viewed
       from Duke St as the building provides a seamless transition between the higher building to the west and adjoining
       premises to the east. It also provides its own expression by incorporating modern design elements and
       articulation to create a contemporary and visually appealing addition to the streetscape.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                            Page 12

Page 13

.




ISSUE 8 – CARPARKING
The Short-term Accommodation component of the development requires a minimum of six (6) covered carparks.
Noting the above item requesting amended proposal plans clearly indicating the ‘use area’ of each of the Food and Drink
Outlet tenancies in accordance with relevant planning scheme definitions, the proposed GFA for the Food and drink outlet
component is currently unclear, however the proposal does not provide any parking for the commercial component of the
development.

As previously advised, Council may consider contributions in lieu of car parking for this site on the basis:
        • That, except for car parking, the proposal complies with the planning scheme - including but not limited to
        height, storeys, site cover and plot ratio
        • The extent of contributions required is less than what was identified in the pre-lodgement meeting – in this
        regard a car park must be provided for each unit with associated visitor parking and some parking for the
        commercial component of the development.

The application as lodged does not comply with the relevant planning scheme provisions, nor provide sufficient carparking
for each unit, visitor parking and a portion of the commercial carparking required. As such, an Infrastructure Agreement
for contributions in lieu of carparking may not be supported.

Information Required
8. Provide amended plans either reducing the carparking requirements or providing additional carparking (including one
carpark per unit, 2 visitor parks and additional parking for the commercial component).

Response
In response to the information request, a unit has been removed from level 1 resulting in the number of units reducing
from 5 to 4. This allows four additional car spaces for the exclusive use of the commercial tenancies of the development.
These additional car spaces now ensure the development complies with Council’s car parking requirements as provided in
Driveways and Parking Code and a monetary contribution in lieu of carparking is no longer requested.

The resultant 9 onsite carparks provide a notable improvement to the provision of car parking in the area, as the existing
mixed use development occurring on the site does not include any formal onsite carparking.

TTM traffic consultants have reviewed the revised layout and have prepared a supplementary report (Refer to
Attachment C) that demonstrates the revised proposal complies with the requirements of Noosa Plan 2020 and aligns
with the relevant Australian Standards. This includes ensuring that the proposed development can suitably accommodate
B99 vehicles and their onsite manoeuvring.

In addition to the above, a detailed assessment of the car parking requirements for the commercial component is
provided below in response to Council’s opinion as detailed in Item 1 that the toilets within the development are not
considered “public toilets”.

The commercial tenancy and use areas are made up of the following areas:




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                Page 13

Page 14

.




        Commercial – total front of house – 80m2
        Commercial – back of house (kitchen and storage areas) – 55.3m2
        Shared public toilets – 22.7m2

The Driveways and parking code’s car parking requirements for a Food and drink outlet are provided below:

    Food and drink
         a) one space per 20m² of use area and outdoor business area, excluding kitchen and food storage areas; and
         b) if including a drive-through, queuing room for 10 vehicles

    Editor’s Note— an outdoor business area within the road reserve is not included in the car parking calculation.
    However, the use of the road reserve requires a separate written approval from Council.

It is clear from the above definition that the back of house areas (kitchen and food storage areas) of the commercial
tenancies are excluded from car parking requirements.

The term ‘use area’ is defined in Schedule 1 of the Noosa Plan 2020 and is reproduced below:

    Use area
    Use area means the sum of the area of the premises (exclusive of all walls and columns),
    including all storeys, used or intended for use for a particular purpose. The term excludes—
          the areas (inclusive of all walls and columns) of any lift rooms, motor rooms, air
            conditioning or other mechanical or electrical plant or equipment rooms located at any topmost storey;
          the areas of any staircases or lifts wells;
          the areas of any common foyer or arcade;
          the areas of any public toilets; and
          the areas used for the access, parking and associated manoeuvring of motor vehicles.

As noted in the above definition, public toilets are excluded from “use area” and therefore excluded from the carparking
calculations.


Public toilets are not defined under the planning scheme or the Planning Regulations 2017. However, the Planning
Regulations define a commercial use as:

         the use of premises for selling goods or providing a service to the public.
         Examples of a commercial use— food and drink outlet, health care service, office, shop

Based on the above, the proposed food and drink outlet is a commercial use which provides services to the public who
attended the premises. The proposed toilets will be shared between the tenancies and managed through the
development’s body corporate. The toilets will be accessible via a separate side entrance for use by members of the
public patronising the tenancies during normal business hours (7am to 9pm) and from time to time, they may also be
attended by passers-by.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                Page 14

Page 15

.




As such, we consider the proposed shared toilets are public in nature, whereby they service the public attending the
premises, and as such, are excluded from the “use area” and should not trigger the requirement for any additional car
parking spaces.

It is recognised that the toilets constitute GFA and have therefore been included as GFA for the purposes of calculating
plot ratio.

ISSUE 9 – DESIGN
The proposal is not considered to sufficiently constitute ‘lightweight’ design. It is recommended the front façade be
lightened up (eg narrowing the depth of the floors/veranda roof, cladding the dividing stone walls in lighter materials).
The western portion of the northern elevation requires greater articulation.

Information Required
9. Provide amended plans with lightening up the Duke St frontage and providing greater articulation to the Douglas St
frontage.

Response
The information request items does not specifically refer to any applicable assessment benchmark. A review of the
planning scheme indicates that the Coastal Communities Local Plan code includes the following assessment benchmark
which we understand Council is referring to:

         AO7.5
         Buildings are designed to:
             a) suit the local subtropical climate
             b) incorporate a mix of lightweight and textured external building materials, including timber finishes with
                 variation provided in texture, detailing and articulation
             c) incorporate verandahs, open balconies with transparent or open balustrades or shaded patios for outdoor
                 living; and
             d) allow for landscape integrated with the buildings on site.

         The corresponding performance outcome PO7 states:

         PO7
         Buildings, structures and landscaping are consistent with and reflect the beachside character of the local plan
         area in terms of form, composition and use of materials

The proposed development predominantly complies with the requirements of AO7.5 by including a broad mix of textured
building materials and finishes which suits the local subtropical climate and incorporates open balconies with transparent
balustrades for outdoor living and integrated landscape treatments throughout the development.

Advice was sought from the project architect (Blackburne Jackson Design) regarding the proposal’s compliance with PO7
of the Coastal Communities Local Plan code. Following is their advice:




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                 Page 15

Page 16

.




         The proposed development comprises multiple building classifications including Class 2, 5 & 7. Therefore, the
         building is required to incorporate fire rated construction for all structural elements. As a result it is not possible to
         utilise ‘lightweight’ construction techniques. Thicknesses of slab edges and walls are determined by a minimum
         cover to the reinforcing steel. All built form edges as proposed are at their minimum dimension. There are no
         proposed stone clad dividing walls contained in the proposed design outcome.

         The design includes numerous ‘lightweight’ elements utilising non-flammable materials (as required) in order to
         provide a finer grain detail and soften the overall built form.

         As referenced on the proposed finishes schedule, the western portion of the Northern elevation is proposed to be
         constructed of timber board formed concrete which will result in a highly textured wall surface displaying great
         depth of shadow. This wall has been further articulated with the addition of horizontal and vertical sunhoods to
         both windows, which shall provide increased shadow and depth to the facade.

As illustrated by the architect, to comply with the building classification requirements for Class 2, 5 & 7 buildings, it is not
possible to strictly comply with the use of lightweight materials as referenced in AO7.5. Therefore to demonstrate
compliance with PO7, the building incorporates a mix of building materials which provide additional texture and visual
interest. In addition, the building incorporates detailed finishes that replicate lightweight natural and timber finishes to
assist in softening the built form, to ensure that the building complements the adjoining premises and is consistent with
the beachside character prevailing in Duke Street.

Hence, the proposal suitably demonstrates compliance with PO7 of the Coastal Communities Local Plan code.

ISSUE 10 – BICYCLE PARKING
It is unclear how the proposed bicycle parking will be accessed when the carparks are occupied.

Information Required
10. Provide amended plans with accessible bicycle parking.

Response
In response to Council’s information request the development has been amended to include additional carparking on
Level 1 of the development (refer to Attachment A). As part of these amendments the revised layout has relocated the
proposed bicycle spaces next to the motorcycle spaces and shared PWD area. TTM traffic consultants have reviewed the
revised layout and confirm that the bicycle spaces are conveniently located for ease of access (refer to Attachment C).

ISSUE 11 & 12 – WASTE STORAGE AREA
It is unclear if the proposed ‘Refuse’ area is of a sufficient size to service the proposed development.

Information Required
11. Provide additional information regarding the proposed waste management requirement for the whole of the
development.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                       Page 16

Page 17

.




Response
In response to Item 11, TTM waste consultants were engaged to review the revised design and prepare a waste strategy
for the development. As such, TTM have prepared a supplementary waste report to demonstrate how the waste
management requirements for the whole development will be managed (Refer to Attachment D).

Information Required
12. If required, amend the proposal plans to include a waste storage area of a sufficient size to service the whole of the
development.

Response
In consultation with TTM waste consultants the waste bin storage size and location has been reviewed and the proposal
plans amended to reflect this advice (Refer to Attachment A).

ISSUE 13 – STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The submitted documentation does not include sufficient information for Council to assess how stormwater generated by
the development will be controlled, collected, and discharged.
• It is unclear what the proposed structure downstream from the proposed detention tank is and how it will integrate into
the proposed drainage system (indicated by a blue circle).
• It is unclear how the proposed detention tank overflows during events up to, and including, a 1% AEP event (volume,
discharge rate).
• It is unclear how the infiltration outlet of the detention tank will operate. Given the large catchment area of the
detention tank, Council is concerned the soil may become oversaturated and the filtration rate of the soil will reduce which
may adversely affect the overall drainage system and the structural elements of the development.
• It is unclear how the proposed field inlet in catchment D3 will function during a 1% AEP event. Council recognise that this
field inlet serves both the overflow from the detention tank and a small catchment area. Council is concerned that during
events up to, and including, a 1% AEP event this pit may surcharge and direct additional runoff on to the footpath in the
road reserve.
• The discharge rate of the RHS kerb adapter is unclear. Council is unlikely to support a discharge rate higher than 25 l/s
during a 1% AEP event.

Information Required
13. Provide additional detail to address Council’s concerns. The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person (RPEQ).

Note that the detail can be preliminary in nature but must be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the stormwater
system is conceptually functional.

Response
In response to Item 13, JFP Urban Consultants have updated the Site Based Stormwater Management Plan which is
included as Attachment F. An engineering response has been prepared by JFP Urban Consultants (Attachment E) which
provides a summary of the issues raised, which are also addressed in the update stormwater management plan.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 17

Page 18

.




Issue – Driveway Access
The submitted documentation does not contain sufficient information for Council to assess the proposed driveway.

Information Required
14. Provide additional detail on the proposed driveway and crossover. The detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
        a. dimensions, levels and grade of the access driveway; and
        b. demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not scrape or bottom out while entering or exiting the driveway.

Response
Please refer to the updated driveway and crossover detail prepared by JFP Urban Consultants included in Attachment E.
This plan incorporates an updated detailed design to address Council’s concerns and demonstrate that a B99 vehicle can
enter and exit the driveway without scraping or bottoming out.

Issue – Earthworks
An earthworks plan has not been provided and therefore it is unclear the extent of earthworks required to be carried out
for the proposed development.

Information Required
15. Provide an Earthworks Plan demonstrating the extent of the proposed earthworks required to carry out the proposed
works. The additional plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
        a. the extent and volume of cut and fill; and
        b. demonstrate the proposed earthworks will not adversely affect any structures within the adjoining properties;
        and
        c. demonstrate that all retaining structures, both temporary and permanent, both above and below ground, will
        be contained entirely within the subject site.

Response
Please refer to the earthworks plan and engineering response prepared by JFP Urban Consultants to demonstrate the
extent of the required earthworks for the proposed development (refer to Attachment E). Core Consulting have also
updated their Geotechnical report in response to Items 15b and 15c above (refer to Attachment G).

ISSUE 16 – CARPARK TURNAROUND BAY
TTM’s Traffic Engineering Report states that the Parking Aisle Extension, although not compliant with the standard 1
metre extension, meets the performance outcome of its intended use. Insufficient information has been provided
demonstrating a B99 vehicle can manoeuvre the turnaround bay and exit the site in a forward gear.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                               Page 18

Page 19

.




Information Required
16. Provide additional detail demonstrating that the turnaround bay at the end of the aisle is sufficient to allow B99
vehicles to manoeuvre the site and exit in a forward gear. The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified
person (RPEQ) and include, but not be limited to:
         a. assume proposed carparks R2, R3 and R5 are occupied.

Response
In response to Council’s information request, a unit has been removed from Level 1. This provides additional space for
manoeuvring areas on level 1. In consultation with TTM traffic consultants, Blackburne Jackson Design have prepared a
revised parking layout for Level 1 (refer to Attachment A). As part of TTM’s updated traffic assessment (refer to
Attachment C) a swept path analysis was conducted, which demonstrates that a B99 vehicle can turn at the end of the car
park using the parking aisle and turning zone only, assuming all spaces are occupied. This will allow a car to exit in a
forward direction when all parking spaces are full. The swept path analysis also shows manoeuvring for all spaces are
possible with no more than 3 turns for each entry and exit manoeuvre. Accordingly, TTM have concluded that the revised
car parking layout is functional and fit for purpose.

This correspondence and attachments represent a response to all the information requested, in accordance with s13.2 of
the Development Assessment Rules.

We trust the above and enclosed information satisfactorily addresses Council’s Information Request requirements.




Yours faithfully,




TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

CC/ - Cambooya Pty Ltd



Attachment A – Architectural plans
Attachment B – Landscape plans
Attachment C – Traffic response
Attachment D – Waste response
Attachment E – Engineering response
Attachment F – Stormwater management response
Attachment G – Geotechnical response




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                 Page 19