Information Request Response_190521

Page 2

        consistent with structures on adjoining and surrounding premises and will visually dominate the
        street and surrounding area.

        Information Required:
        2. Provide updated proposal plans complying with the building height requirements under the
            High Density Residential Zone Code”.

Applicant’s Response:
Refer to the attached architectural plans which have been amended to propose a more compliant
building height in relation to finished ground level. This has been achieved in a number of ways including
altering the roof profile, lowering the basement and removing the pergola structure from the front of
the upper floor unit. As result the proposal complies with the maximum 12m building height from natural
and finished ground levels. Refer to the revised section shown in the figure below. As a result of these
changes, the proposal is considered to comply with AO5.2 and Performance Outcome PO5 of the High
Density Code and to provide a building that is consistent with the size and scale of buildings now sought
by Council within this emerging high density area.




                      Figure 1 – Revised Building Section (Source: K Architecture)

Council Issue – Building Scale and Bulk

        “The proposal is considered to not comply with Performance Outcome PO6 of the High Density
        Residential Zone Code, as the building is not of a scale compatible with surrounding
        development and the particular circumstances of the site and presents an appearance of bulk
        to adjacent properties and roads. The current design is considered to be an over development
        of the site and is out of character with surrounding development.

        Information Required:
        3. Provide updated plans complying with Performance Outcome PO6 of the High Density
            Residential Zone Code.”

Applicant’s Response:
Following discussions with Council Officers, the applicant has made a series of changes to the design
and landscape outcomes at the front of the site. The intent of these changes has been to screen the

Page 3

basement level as far as practical from the street. This has been achieved in the number of different ways
including relocating the pool to provide a greater setback to the front boundary and removing the visitor
parking space and turning bay from the front of the building.

These design changes have created additional space for landscaping at the front of the building and by
tiering the landscaping, both the pool and the basement are now screened from the street. As a result,
the amended design ensures that the visual impact of the basement from the street is minimised and
will no longer contribute to the scale and bulk of the building from Bottlebrush Avenue. It is considered
that the amended design outcome is both consistent with the Council’s expectations for the scale of
development within this emerging high density area and will create a building that will set a precedent
for future development along the street. On this basis, the proposal is considered to comply with
Performance Outcome PO6 of the High density residential code.

Council Issue – Plot Ratio

        “It is noted that large portions of the balconies are walled, and as such are not considered to be
        ‘unenclosed private balconies’ as per the gross floor area definition under Noosa Plan 2020. As
        such, the proposal does not comply with plot ratio requirements.

        Information Required:
        4. Provide updated plans complying with plot ratio requirements”.

Applicant’s Response:
As shown in extract below, the revised architectural plans have been amended to remove the relevant
walls from the balconies and replace them with lightweight timber batten screens. These changes reduce
the bulk of the building, ensure that the balconies are entirely unenclosed and as such, the plot ratio
does not need to be amended.




                         Figure 2 – Revised Elevation (Source: K Architecture)

Council Issues - Setbacks

        “The proposal does not comply with the following setback requirements of the High Density
        Residential Zone Code:

Page 4

Front setback
    o The setback to the deck on Level 3 Floor Plan and the Roof (pergola) on the Roof Plan;
        and
    o The swimming pool protruding more than 1 metre above the ground level on the
        Ground / Semi Basement Floor Plan.
Side setbacks
    o North western side boundary setback to the basement on Ground / Semi Basement
        Floor Plan and ‘planter’ on Level 1 Floor Plan; and
    o South eastern side boundary setback to the pedestrian pathway / entry arbour on
        Ground / Semi Basement Floor Plan and Level 1 Floor Plan.
Rear setback
    o The setback to the decks on Level 3 Floor Plan and the Roof (pergolas) on the Roof Plan.

The proposal also does not comply with corresponding Performance Outcome PO9 of the
High Density Residential Zone Code, including (but not limited to) the development is not
consistent with the predominant character of the surrounding area and does not allow for
adequate area at ground level for landscaping to be provided within the front 6 metres of the
property or between buildings.

Information Required:
5. Provide updated plans complying with setback requirements of the High Density Residential
    Zone Code;

Applicant’s Response:
The following changes have been made to the proposed setbacks:

    •   the pergola roof has been removed from level 3;

    •   the swimming pool has been setback further from the street and it height relative to
        natural ground level has been reduced;

    •   along the north western side of the building, the setback of the front portion of the
        basement and the planter on level 1 have been increased to 1.58m; and

    •   the footpath and arbor along the southern eastern side of the building has been
        removed and a 1.5m setback to the boundary is now achieved except for the fire stairs
        from the basement at the rear of the building.

In combination these changes reduce the size and scale of the building as well as its visual
impact from the street. In addition, the changes that have been made to the setbacks along
both sides of the building allow for more extensive landscaping in these areas which will help
to break up and soften the impact of the building on the adjoining properties.

Although some areas of non-compliances remain at the front and rear of the building and along
small sections of the lower levels of the side of the building, it is still considered that these
remain acceptable for the reasons set out in section 7.5.1 of the Development Assessment
Report submitted with the original application.

6. Provide information on any proposed retention of existing established vegetation on site to
   help buffer the development;

Applicant’s Response:
Given the extent of earthworks required to construct the basement and building it is not practical
to retain any existing vegetation on the site.

Page 5

        7. Provide evidence deep landscaping can be achieved within the side setbacks to provide
           screening to the development;

        Applicant’s Response:
        As a mentioned above, the side setbacks have been increased and as such, more extensive deep
        planting can now been provided along both sides of the building. Details of the revised
        landscape design outcome are provided in the amended landscape concept plans submitted
        with this response.

        8. Provide additional Section Plans (including north/south and east/west sections):
               a. taken through the highest most point of the dwelling house when measured from
                   ground level, clearly indicating the ground level and setback requirements at these
                   points; and
               b. taken at any point where setbacks do not comply, clearly indicating the ground level
                   and setback requirements at these points”.

        Applicant’s Response:
        The requested sections have been prepared and are included in the amended Proposal Plans.

Council Issue - Streetscape

        “The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO10.2 of the High Density
        Residential Zone Code or Acceptable Outcome AO8.1 – AO8.3 of the Noosa Heads Local
        Plan Code, as:

            •    the main entrance to the building is not easily recognisable from the street, footpath,
                 visitor car parking areas and driveway; and
            •    the internal path network does not have clear sightlines to the main entry and street
                 access points.

        The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO10.3, as wall lengths exceed 15m
        and the design does not allow for landscape treatments to soften the development.

        The proposal also does not comply with corresponding Performance Outcome PO10 of the
        High Density Residential Zone Code, as including (but not limited to) the development is of a
        form and architectural scale that dominates the streetscape and the surrounding properties, has
        potential to impact on adjoining properties through the impact on views, access to sunlight or
        overlooking, is a large, single bulky development; and does not sit within a landscaped setting.

        Information Required:
        9. Provide updated plans complying with Performance Outcome PO10 of the High Density
            Residential Zone Code and Performance Outcome PO8 of the Noosa Heads Local Plan
            Code.

Applicant’s Response:
The Proposal Plans have been amended to relocate the footpath to a more central position and to
provide a doorway entrance to the building. As a result, the entrance to the building is now clearly visible
from the street. The amended footpath also provides direct access from the doorway and basement
parking to the lift and stairs serving the upper levels.

In addition, as mentioned above, the walls adjoining the BBQ area on each balcony have been removed
and replaced with lightweight timber screens to reduce the length of solid walls along each side of the
building. As a result, the building does not include a singular horizontal section which exceeds 15m in
length.

Page 6

Finally, as a result of the changes to the proposed setbacks, the total landscape area on site has increased
to 43.7% and 68% of this total area is now provided as soft landscaping.

As a result of the changes outlined above, the proposal is considered to comply with Performance
Outcomes PO8 and PO10 of the respective codes.

Council Issue – Basement

        “The proposal plans do not comply with basement requirements under the High Density
        Residential Zone Code, as the basement extends into the setback requirements (as per above
        Issue – Setbacks). In addition, the basement does not comply with Performance Outcome
        PO12 as the basement does not visually integrate with the building, dominates the street and
        building design, is not screened through landscaping and presents as a storey to the street. The
        current design of the basement is not supported.

        Information Required:
        10. Provide updated plans complying with Performance Outcome PO12 of the High Density
            Residential Zone Code.

Applicant’s Response:
As mentioned in response to item 3 above, a number of design changes have been made to reduce the
visual prominence of the basement from the street and the design outcome is shown in Figure 2 below.




                       Figure 3 – Revised West Elevation (Source: K Architecture)

As a result of the design changes, the basement has been successfully integrated into the building and
landscape design and no longer presents as a separate storey from the street. As a result, the revised
design is considered to comply with Performance Outcome PO12.

Council Issue – Materials and Finishes

        “The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO14, as the side elevations are do
        not provide sufficient variation in texture and finishes to break up the surface.

Page 7

        The proposal also does not comply with corresponding Performance Outcome PO14 of the
        High Density Residential Zone Code, as the side elevations present as bulky single plane finishes.

        Information Required:
        11. Provide updated plans complying with Performance Outcome PO14, specifically by
            incorporating materials and finishes that complement the surrounding area and integrate
            with the surrounding natural and built environment; and
        12. A variety of external finishes to provide an interesting built form and avoid bulky single
            plane finishes.

Applicant’s Response:
The amended Proposal Plans now include further details of the suggested materials and finishes for the
building. It is considered that the proposed materials together with the range of features included in
the amended design will add interest and articulation to the elevations which will ensure that the
proposal is not only sympathetic to the prevailing character of the local area but will also integrate
successfully with future developments within the street. For these reasons the amended proposal is
considered to comply with Performance Outcome PO14 of the High density residential code.

Council Issue - Amenity

        “It is unclear as to whether the proposal will result in overlooking or will result in the reduction
        of sunlight to private open spaces of adjacent dwellings, as per Acceptable Outcome AO16.1.”

        Information Required:
        13. Provide evidence that the proposal will not unreasonably impact on the amenity enjoyed by
            users of adjoining or nearby premises, including privacy and access to sunlight.


Applicant’s Response:
The attached proposal plans illustrate that the upper levels of the building comply with the Council’s
preferred side setbacks except for some sunhoods. Given the nature and minor scale of the
encroachments along the side boundaries, it is evident that they will not result in any overlooking or any
additional overshadowing impacts when compared with a fully compliant building.

With regard to the setback encroachments resulting from the balcony on the upper level at the rear of
the building, it is important to note that the application site is well below the property adjoining the rear
boundary, the rear portion of the building is well below the existing natural ground level and the building
is significantly lower than the maximum 12m height limit for the site in this location. Given this
relationship to the adjoining sites and the proposed privacy screens, it is concluded that the proposed
setback encroachment at the rear of the site will have no adverse impact in terms of overlooking or
overshadowing to the properties to the rear and either side of the proposal.

Finally, the setback encroachment at the front of the site relates purely to the unenclosed section of the
upper level deck. Given the limited height and design of the balustrading around this deck, any
additional overshadowing impacts created by this element of the building will be negligible.
Furthermore, as the deck is orientated towards Noosa Junction it is considered that there would be no
discernible increase in potential overlooking to the properties either side as a result of this small section
of the deck.

For the reasons outlined above the proposal is considered to satisfy Acceptable Outcome AO16.1.

Council Issue - Landscaping

        “The proposal does not comply with Acceptable Outcome AO10.2 of the Dual Occupancy and
        Multiple Dwelling Code, as the proposal does not provide landscaping to a minimum of 35% of
        the site area and 60% of this is soft landscaping. The proposal also does not comply with
        Performance Outcome PO10 of the Dual Occupancy and Multiple Dwelling Code as the

Page 8

        proposed landscaping does not contributes to the visual amenity and natural landscape
        character of the area or reduce the bulk and scale of the development.”

        Information Required:
        14. Provide updated plans complying with landscaping requirements of Noosa Plan 2020 and
            evidence that any planting on areas of fill will be capable of being maintained”.

Applicant’s Response:
The architectural and landscape plans have been amended to achieve the prescribed measures within
AO10.2. The amended proposal now provides 43.7% of the site are as landscaping with 67.8% of this
area comprising soft landscaping. See the below exerted table from the architectural plans for the total
landscape areas;




Council Issue – Access Driveway

        “The proposed access driveway has significant grades and the work includes significant
        earthworks in the road reserve. Council has concerns that:
           i.  vehicles will scrap or bottom out on the driveway and/or the road formation when
               entering and exiting the site; and
          ii.  the earthworks will impact on pedestrian safety, the adjoining properties and services
               (surface and buried).

        Information Required:
        15      Provide a preliminary design for the access driveway. The design must be prepared by
        a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland and include (but not be limited to):
            i.  Dimensions;
           ii.  existing and proposed levels, grades;
          iii.  a longitudinal section that extends from the centreline of the road formation to the
                garage area. The section must demonstrate that a B99 vehicle (as described in
                AS/NZS2890.1:2004) will not scrap or bottom out on the driveway and/or the road
                formation when entering and exiting the site;
          iv.   the depth and location of any services in the verge area. The vertical and horizontal
                clearances to services must be in accordance with the service authorities’ requirements;
           v.   the extent of any earthworks in the verge area to transition to the adjacent existing
                surface levels without creating pedestrian/trip hazards. Please note that Council will not
                support private retaining structures (walls etc) within the road reserve; and
          vi.   any vegetation that may be impacted by the works.

Applicant’s Response:
Please refer to the attached documents from Empire Engineering which include a response to this item.

Council Issue - Carparking

        “Council has concerns that the proposed carparking and manoeuvring areas are not functional
        and do not provide the opportunity for vehicles to enter the site and access the spaces in a
        forward gear, manoeuvre on site and exit the site in a forward gear.

        Information Required:

Page 9

        15. Provide plans that demonstrate that vehicles (B99 as described in AS/NZS2890.1:2004) can
            enter the site and access the spaces in a forward gear, manoeuvre on site and exit the site
            in a forward gear. The manoeuvre must be carried out in a total of 3 movements and
            consider that the adjacent space is occupied. It is noted that the proposed security gate will
            impact on the proposed visitor space and the proposed turning area.”

Applicant’s Response:
As a result of the proposed amendments to the design an amended parking layout is now proposed.
The supporting documents from Empire Engineering provide a response to this item based on the
amended parking layout.

Council Issue - Stormwater

        “The submitted material does not include sufficient detail to fully assess the stormwater impacts
        of the proposed development.

        Information Required:
        16. Provide an updated stormwater management plan prepared by an Registered Professional
            Engineer of Queensland that includes but is not be limited to:
            • a preliminary stormwater design for the proposed development which includes the
                detention system described in the submitted stormwater management plan;
            • measures to convey existing overland flows through the site without redirecting flows
                on to any adjoining property”.

Applicant’s Response:
Please refer to the attached Engineering Response to Information Request and Stormwater Management
Plan, prepared by Empire Engineering. These documents include a response to this item in full.

Lodgement of this response with Council brings the Information Request stage for the application to an
end and the Decision Stage now commences.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]