Letter to NC Requesting Changes to Development Approval 16 September 2016 · 132004.240098.6

Page 2

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”



With respect to Condition 19, the Council has raised concerns about the part enclosure of the balcony
area of Unit 7, where security shutters and door have been erected as shown in Figure 1. It is
understood that the security shutters have been erected because the balcony area is easily accessible
from the podium level and there has been a break and enter at the premises.




Figure 1A – Unit 7




Figure 1B – Unit 7




 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                  2|Page

Page 3

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”



The security shutters and door are setback back into the balcony area and enclose a small portion of
the balcony only, being about 6m² in area. It is suggested that while the part enclosure technically
does not comply with the above condition, this small enclosure has no impact on the appearance of
the balcony and can only be viewed from within the site and mostly when standing directly in front of
Unit 7, at the podium level.

The intention of the condition is to prevent the enclosure of balconies, which potentially increase GFA
and the appearance of building bulk. In this instance, the part enclosure of the balcony makes no
material difference to the appearance of the building.

While is accepted that the condition is desirable as a general rule to prevent the full enclosure of
balconies for multiple unit developments, given the nature of this enclosure the condition should be
amended as follows:

Any deck areas are not to be enclosed with shutters, glass paneling or the like, thus remaining as open
structures, with the exception of Unit 7, which has a 6m² area of the balcony enclosed by security shutters
only.

Condition 20

The Council has advised that the roof top terraces for Lots 9-13 have exceeded 10% of the covered
area and are not complying with the condition of the development approval. Photographs of some of
the terrace areas and existing pergolas are provided in Figure 2, below.




Figure 2A – Open pergola structure




 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                        3|Page

Page 4

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”



The client has advised that the pergolas that have been constructed have not been enlarged since the
development was first built with some clear sheet roofing being added to the pergolas fronting
Gympie Terrace. It is understood that while some of the pergola structures might marginally exceed
10% of the area of the terrace, they are all about the same size and are generally in accordance with
the approved plans. That is, it is the areas of the roof terraces themselves that differ causing the
purported non-compliance.




Figure 2B – Other pergola structures near Gympie Terrace

In any event, the pergola’s are open structures, do not constitute GFA and are not a storey under the
planning scheme. Collectively, the pergola structures do not add to the appearance of building bulk,
and cannot be viewed easily off site and have little impact if any on the streetscape.

It is requested that the condition be amended as follows:

The rooftop pergolas are to be generally in accordance with Plan No. 2.903.5C prepared by Andrew
McKellar Design and date stamped 15 June 2005 and designed as cantilevered structures with only 2
support poles and slopping open slatted roof.

Condition 38

Council has advised that some of the car parking spaces have been enclosed by garage doors and a
gate and that the development is currently not complying with the approval. The condition requires
a minimum of 17 visitor spaces to be available for general public use for the shops and restaurants. A
copy of the approved plans showing the carparking for the development is provided as Attachment
1.



 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                   4|Page

Page 5

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




The approved plans show a total of 22 visitor spaces and 10 unit spaces. Since the approval was
granted the units have been separately titled, which includes 1 carpark per unit and 1 additional
exclusive use carpark per unit. Therefore, each unit has use of 2 carparking spaces. It is suggested that
any visitors of residents attending the site would have ready access to a carpark.

It is noted that 3 of the visitor spaces are located in tandem behind unit carparks U4, U5 & U6, as
approved (Attachment 1). These 3 spaces (V9, V10 & V11) are exclusive use carparks for each of these
units; however, technically these 3 spaces are visitor spaces and have unrestricted access. If no other
spaces were available on site, a person attending a restaurant or shop on site could use 1 of these
spaces, at least for a short period. Consequently, this means that there are 15 visitor car spaces that
could be used by patrons attending the site.

Importantly, all of the parking provided for under the approval remains available for parking on the
site, but it is accepted that the number of available visitor spaces having unrestricted access has been
reduced to 15, including 1 disabled space. Therefore, the only thing that has changed is the availability
of visitor parking on site having unrestricted access. That is, it is not the case the development has not
provided the total number of car parks required under the approval.

The most relevant provisions under the Noosa Plan 2006 that relate to the above are under specific
outcome O7 from the Driveways and Parking Code, which is discussed below.

 14.114 Carpark design and layout
 O7 Sufficient carparking is provided to S7.1 The number of parking and loading bays is
 accommodate the number and type of vehicles not less than the minimum number specified in
 likely to be generated by the development Table 14-51 Vehicle Parking Requirements;
 having regard to the specifics of the use
 including:
 a) the type and intensity of land use;
 b) any existing parking available on the site;
 c) hours of operation;
 d) likely numbers of users;
 e) the peak parking demand periods of uses on
      the site; and
 f) the availability of alternative carparking.



While the parking provided might not meet the carparking numbers required under the acceptable
solution, specifically Table 14-51, the proposed development meets the performance outcome. This
is because of the availability of visitor parking on site, the nature of the mixed use development being
in an accessible location fronting Gympie Terrace, where ample off street parking is provided.

A recent parking survey was undertaken during the school holiday period for approximately 1 week
in July 2016 and is provided as Attachment 2. The parking survey shows that during this time the
maximum number of spaces used by visitors attending the development was 6. This demonstrates
that the existing visitor spaces available on site are more than adequate for the proposed uses. This is




 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                       5|Page

Page 6

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”



because of the location of the development and the position of the shops and restaurants on the site,
which means that the majority of patrons choose to park in Gympie Terrace.

Given the above, it is suggested that the proposed development meets specific outcome O7 under
the Driveways and Carparking Code and it is requested that the condition be amended as follows:

A minimum of 15 car parking spaces including 1 disabled space shall be available for visitor parking for
public use at all times.

Permissible Change

Pursuant to Section 367 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the proposed development is a change
that will not because of the change:
    a) result in a substantially different development;
    b) require referral to additional concurrence agencies; or
    c) likely to cause a reasonable person to make a properly made submission objecting to the
        change if circumstances allowed.

Consequently, the proposed development is considered to be a ‘permissible change’ pursuant to the
above.

Conclusion

The proposed request to change the current development approval relates to 3 potential areas of
non-compliance. The first being with respect to a small enclosure of part of the balcony area of Unit
7 (condition 19), which has been undertaken for security reasons. This part enclosure cannot be viewed
off site, is partly visible from the within the parking area of the site and is only really clearly visible at
the podium level. This part enclosure does not add to building bulk and makes no material difference
to the appearance of the building off site.

The second issue is with respect to the roof top pergola structures, purportedly exceeding the 10%
area of the roof top terraces. While this could be the case, this is a marginal with the pergola structures
essentially being the same size as shown on the approved plans. The pergolas are open structures
with some having clear roofing where fronting Gympie Terrace. The existing structures were
constructed with the development and do not add to GFA or building bulk and have little if any impact
on the streetscape.

The third issue is respect to visitor parking. Each of the 10 units has 1 titled carparking space and 1
exclusive use area space. Despite this, there are currently 15 unrestricted visitor spaces provided for
the development that could be used for the commercial uses on the land, including 1 disabled space.

The parking survey undertaken during the school holiday period in July 2016, has revealed that a
maximum of 6 visitor spaces are required during peak periods. This is because of the nature and
location of the development with ample and accessible parking available in Gympie Terrace, this being
the preferred location to park. Further, the proposed development has the required number of parking
spaces provided in accordance with the approved plan. In my opinion, adequate visitor parking is




 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                          6|Page

Page 7

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”



available onsite to meet the demands of the development and therefore complies with the Driveways
and Carparking Code.

The proposed changes being sought to the conditions of approval are reasonable and should be
supported. Should you have any questions with respect to the above please contact me.

Yours faithfully




Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director of Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd ATF




 16012 – On The Terrace – 21 Elizabeth Street Noosaville                                7|Page