ASTP-Response_To_Further_Advice_Request

Page 2

accepted by Council (via approval). Given the approval of the dwelling under MCU19/0008, it is considered that
the previously applied levels reflect ‘natural ground’ for the development.



            ITEM 2
            2. Clearly identify the sections of the building which exceed 8 metres from natural and
                finished ground levels.

OUR COMMENTS
Please refer to the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1). In particular, Drawing No.
DA-21, which demonstrates that the development does not exceed 8 metres above Natural Ground Level (refer
to Figures 1 and 2 below).




Figure 1 Building Height from Natural Ground (Source: Clare Design Group)




Figure 2 Building Height from Natural Ground (Source: Clare Design Group)



                                                                                                      Page 2 of 6
Our ref: 220202

Page 3

In relation to the building height from Finished Ground Level, Figure 3 and 4 below, demonstrates the
development building height from Finished Ground Level. As demonstrated in the below figure the dwelling is
largely under 8 metres from Finished Ground Level, with the exception of the rear roof form, which slightly
exceeds Council’s preferred outcome of 8 metres from Finished Ground Level. Drawing DA-19 provides further
detail in relation to this. It is noted that the protrusion is a result of the semi-basement level, which is
indiscernible from the rear of the site.

In terms of the proposed outcome, it is important to note that the external façade does not exceed 8 metres
and the overall building height (from NGL) does not exceed 8 metres. With acknowledgement of this, the
proposed development complies with Performance Outcome PO7, as the development:
     •    Is a low rise building that is consistent with buildings on adjacent properties (Attachment 1 - DA-19);
     •    Provides a visually interesting built form, with the minor protrusion not being visible from the street
          and not being recognisable from adjoining properties;
     •    Does not dominate the street and surrounding area and does not impact upon vegetation or a
          vegetated skyline;
     •    Does not obscure views and will not result in overshadowing; and
     •    Contains the same number of storeys as that approved under MCU19/0008.




Figure 3 Building Height from Finished Ground (Source: Clare Design Group)




Figure 4 Building Height from Finished Ground (Source: Clare Design Group)



                                                                                                         Page 3 of 6
Our ref: 220202

Page 4

            ITEM 3
            The elevations suggest that there are sections of the proposed fencing and retaining walls
            along the property boundaries which exceeds 3 metres in height. The proposal does not
            allow for casual surveillance of the adjoining footpath along the northern boundary. The
            development does not comply with Acceptable Outcome 17, or corresponding Performance
            Outcome. The proposed retaining walls on the property boundaries does not achieve
            compliance with the required building setbacks or Performance Outcome 9.

            Reduce the overall height of the proposed fencing and retaining walls along the side
            boundaries. The reduction in height is to reduce the dominance of the structure/s and
            is to allow casual surveillance of the property to the adjoining pathway to uphold the
            safety and amenity of pedestrians.

OUR COMMENTS
Please refer to the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1). It is critical to
contextualise the development and its sitting to understand the outcomes sought. The subject site has a 12.3
metre frontage, to deliver a compliant side setback on both boundaries the development would only provide a
9.3-metre-wide development. This is an undesirable outcome and in order to achieve a viable level of amenity
the development proposes a built to boundary solution where the site does not directly adjoin another private
or habitable space. In noting that AO9.4 of the Low-Density Residential Code exempts swimming pools and
garages from providing the desired setbacks, a marginal degree of development is non-compliantly setback from
the northern boundary.

Understanding the concern identified by council, a modified interface is propose that incorporates battened
screening along the ground level interface (refer to Figure 5). Additionally, the extent of retaining walls has been
reduced as far as practical, whilst maintaining compliance with the recommendations with the accompanying
Geotechnical Stability Assessment prepared by Pacific Geotech (Attachment 2). It is understood through the
comments made by the assessment officer that the development is compliant against Performance Outcome
PO9, where compliance against PO17 can be justified.

As detailed by the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1), the development has
amended the proposed northern boundary wall to instead provide battened screening, so to provide casual
surveillance of the adjoining public access path. In providing this amended boundary treatment outcome the
development is compliant against Performance Outcome PO17 in achieving the following:

Safety and Security
Please refer to the Passive Surveillance Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1) which demonstrates that
the proposal provides a large degree of overlook to the ‘Public Access Path’ that adjoins the development’s
northern boundary. The dwelling as illustrated provides 50% transparent battening and an additional window
within the garage’s northern wall, which significantly increases the potential for casual surveillance to occur
(refer to Figure 5). In providing a design solution that allows for casual surveillance throughout the dwelling,
within multiple locations across all levels, the proposal provides a high degree of security and safety for users of
the public access path, as illustrated in Figure 6. In highlighting that the property to the north of the access path
has no overlooking to the public walkway, the proposed development is not to provide overlook opportunities
of the dwelling and thus does not adversely impact privacy.


                                                                                                           Page 4 of 6
Our ref: 220202

Page 5

Climactic Amenity
In positioning the built to boundary parts on the northern boundary the identified non-compliance in no way
results in an adverse shading/solar access outcome. With noosa and the subject site being positioned within the
Sothern hemisphere the sun is positioned to the north throughout the entirety of the year, as such the proposed
development and proposed built to boundary solution in no way impacts 24 Arakoon Crescent’s provision to
solar access nor results in any overshadowing. Peregian Beach historically provides South Easterly winds with
very limited North Easterly and Easterly winds, being generally described as rare for the locality. With this
understanding the proposed development and its northern boundary treatment will have minimal impact on
the Public Access Path and 24 Arakoon Crescent’s provision of air and climactic cooling.

Further with the development does not encroaching outside of the subject site nor proposing any change in
treatment of the Public Access Path, it can be deemed the proposal to maintain the existing accessibility and
amenity conditions of both the path and 24 Arakoon Crescent.

It is in achieving these desired outcomes that the proposal delivers a compliant privacy and amenity solution, as
desired under Performance Outcome PO17. Further, in achieving such an outcome it has been demonstrated
that the proposed dwelling house is complaint against Performance Outcome PO9 in maintaining positive
outcomes within proximity to the site’s northern boundary.




 Proposed built to boundary treatment                       Amended built to boundary treatment
Figure 5 Depiction of amended boundary treatment (Source: Clare Design 2022)




Figure 6 Amended passive surveillance outcome (Source: Clare Design 2022)



                                                                                                       Page 5 of 6
Our ref: 220202

Page 6

            ITEM 4
            The Building Renders and Street Elevations do not include the second vehicle crossover.

            Provide revised plans to reflect the second crossover, and revise landscaping as necessary.

OUR COMMENTS
Please refer to the Amended Proposal Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1) which depict that a single
driveway crossover is provide over the full extent of the proposed frontage, a consistent outcome within small
frontage Sunshine Beach lots that slope away from the road.



            ITEM 5
            The development application does not include a revised Geotechnical Stability Assessment.

            Provide an addendum to the approved Geotechnical Stability Assessment relative of the new
            proposal.

OUR COMMENTS
Please refer to the Geotechnical Stability Assessment prepared by Pacific Geotech (Attachment 3). This provides
geotechnical assessment and detail specifically in regard to the new proposal.



This response represents our complete response to the Further Advice Notice issued by Council, and we look
forward to the Decision Notice being issued by Council 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




Michael Lyell
SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

Encl:       Amended Proposal Plans prepared by Clare Design (Attachment 1)
            Geotechnical Stability Assessment prepared by Pacific Geotech (Attachment 2)




                                                                                                          Page 6 of 6
Our ref: 220202