M3024 - Change representations (2)

Page 2

.




On 14 June 2023 – Council issued an information request seeking additional information on the following matters:

           Proposal plans – confirm GFA, request               Design materials
            sections and potential view lines for               Bicycle parking
            potential overlooking:                              Waste storage areas
           Building height                                     Stormwater
           Site cover                                          Driveway access
           Plot ratio                                          Earthworks
           Setbacks
           Car parking

An extract of Council’s concern relating to the front setbacks is included below:
        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 is 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.

On 26 September 2023 – a response to Council’s information request was submitted in response to Council’s concerns
including reducing the scale of the development by reducing the number of short term accommodation units from 5 to 4.

On 21 November 2023 – Council issued further outstanding issues regarding the proposal. The outstanding issues were
narrowed down to just two items being plot ratio and the front setback (3 storey).

On 14 December 2023 – a response to outstanding issues was lodged addressing Council’s concerns.

On 17 January 2024 – Council decided to approve the application subject to conditions. This approval included a condition
which requires plan amendments that remove all structures including side walls, privacy (dividing) wall and swimming
pool from within the 6m setback on Level 3.

The requested changes to the development approval conditions are outlined below. Requested amendments are shown
as strike-throughs (deletions) or bold-type (additions):

Approved Plans

3. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in accordance with the Approved Plans listed in
the tables below. The plans must be amended to incorporate the amendments listed within the table below and
resubmitted to Council prior to the issue of any Development Permit for Operational Works.

           Plan No.          Rev.   Plan/Document Name                                        Date

           7252-DA06         16     Duke Street & Douglas Lane Floor Plans prepared by        11-12-23
                                    Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DALS02              Landscaping Planting – Duke Street prepared by            11-12-23
                                    Blackburn Jackson




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                               Page 2

Page 3

.




           7252-DALS03               Landscaping Planting – Douglas Lane prepared by              11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DALS04               Landscaping Planting – Level 2 prepared by                   11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson


           Plan No.          Rev.    Plan/Document Name                                           Date

           7252-DA07         16      Floor Plan – Level 2 & Level 3 prepared by                   11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA08         11      Roof Plan & Height Plane Projection prepared by              11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA14         11      Elevations prepared by Blackburn Jackson                     11-12-23

           7252-DA15         12      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                       11-12-23

           7252-DA16         12      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                       11-12-23

           7252-DA23         09      Sections-additional prepared by Blackburn Jackson            11-12-23

           Amendments        a) The third storey must be setback a minimum of 6 metres from the front
                                boundary to Duke Street, with no structures located in this setback
                                including, but not limited, to balconies, balustrading, dividing wall, pool etc.
                             b) The planter box located along the western façade of Apartment 3 must
                                be a maximum of 1m in height for the length of the western boundary.



*(Refer to Advisory Note)

Representation
All outstanding matters have been resolved with the exception of the setback encroachments on the 3 storey where
Council remains concerned that the proposed development impacts on the view lines from the adjoining premises (Unit
7), 28-34 Duke Street and results in excessive mass when viewed from Duke St. Accordingly, Council required plan
amendments within the decision notice to ensure that the 3 storey setback is achieved.

The proposed plan amendments required by Council’s decision notice (i.e. Condition 3) seek to impose strict compliance
with AO13.1 (i.e. acceptable outcome – one means to achieve the performance outcome) which essentially prohibits any
structures including the plunge pools and associated fencing / screen walls from being within the 6m front setback on
level 3.

The removal of these structures and available use area on this level is not acceptable to our client and prejudices the
ability of the development to compete with other tourist accommodation offerings in the Duke St locality.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                    Page 3

Page 4

.




As stated throughout the application process our client is seeking a performance outcome with respect to the front
setbacks under Noosa Plan 2020.

An extract from the Tourist accommodation zone states:

         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.

An extract of the related performance outcome PO13 is provided below:

         PO13
         Buildings and other structures are designed and sited to:
             a) provide a high level of amenity to users of the subject site and adjoining premises, including provision of
                 visual and acoustic privacy;
             b) not unreasonably obstruct views or cause overlooking of private open space or habitable areas of
                 adjoining premises;
             c) provide adequate distance from adjoining land uses;
             d) preserve existing vegetation that will help buffer development;
             e) 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;
             f) 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
             g) protect the natural character and avoid adverse impacts on ecologically important areas such as the
                 beach, Noosa River, national parks and other parklands.

Further to Council’s outstanding issues notice and follow up discussions with Council officers, the project team has
investigated various alternative solutions to address Council concerns relating to obstructed views and the appearance of
bulk and massing from the adjoining premises. These alternatives designs have explored removal of the western side wall
and replacing it with glass balustrading, repositioning of the plunge pools and incorporated new landscape elements.
Following a review of the alternative designs, Blackburne Jackson Design has prepared a revised proposal which we
considered adequately addresses Council’s concerns and suitably demonstrates compliance with PO13 above.

The revised proposal incorporates following amendments to the proposal plans:
     increases the western side wall setback from 3m to 6m when viewed from the adjoining premises.
     incorporates an embedded planter box on the western boundary to provide low level landscaping and soften the
        building mass as viewed from Duke St and the adjoining premises.
     The plunge pool in apartment 1 has been shifted approximately 1.0m back from the side boundary and will be
        screened by the proposed low level landscaping in the planter box.
     a fully transparent glass balustrade is proposed behind the landscaping and around the plunge pool.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                Page 4

Page 5

.




        the privacy (partition) wall between apartments 1 and 2 has been reduced to 1m in height for the front portion of
         the balconies and then rises to 1.8m beyond the 6m front setback.
        To accommodate the changes to the plunge pool locations, the motorbike parking spaces have been
         reconfigured. The change does not result in any change to the number of parking spaces.

Not only does the redesign minimise the impact on view lines from neighbouring unit 7 but it also softens the built form
when viewed from the adjoining premise to the west and Duke Street through additional landscaping.

To assist Council with the assessment of the visual impact of the proposal, below are extracts of the visual analyses
prepared by BJD architects that show the refinement and evolution of the proposal plans since the information request.
The latest plans (represented in Figure 3) show a considerable reduction in the perceived impacts on views from the
adjoining premises to the west and a reduced building mass.




Figure 1 – Information response proposal




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                               Page 5

Page 6

.




Figure 2 – Response to outstanding issues




Figure 3 – Negotiated decision representations




JFP Ref: M3024P                                  Page 6

Page 7

.




Figure 4 – Illustrates the existing view and extent of impact

As demonstrated in the above images the revised design (Refer to Figure 3) has evolved considerably and is comparable
with the outcome for a compliant setback. In this regard, we consider that the inclusion of the low set planter box even
improves on a compliant outcome by further softening the western façade and reducing the perceived bulk of the
building when viewed from the adjoining premises (Unit 7, 28/34 Duke Street).

In addition to the reduced bulk the revised design also maintains the key visual elements of the current view being the
ocean and the two Norfolk pines (refer to Figure 4 above). These elements remain prominent features in the revised
design and are further enhanced when viewed from other parts of the balcony i.e. further forward or against the rail.

It should be recognised that the primary views from unit 7 are predominantly to the south and the south-east. The
easterly view is more of an incidental view which requires someone to turn 90 degrees when stepping out onto the
balcony. The view analysis prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design is based on an eastwards view from the western
corner of the balcony which allows for an objective (or even conservative) assessment of the proposal’s view impact.

 The revised proposal as illustrated in Figure 3 demonstrates that the amended proposal will have negligible impact on
views from and visual impact on the adjoining premises.

In our opinion, the revised development proposal ensures compliance PO13 (as extracted above) for the following
reasons:
     The building design delivers a high level of residential amenity for future guests and for the adjoining premises.
     The proposed design does not unreasonably obstruct views when viewed from adjoining premises as
        demonstrated in Figure 3 above, due to an increase in setbacks and the use of low-rise landscaping and clear pool
        fencing.
     The proposal provides adequate side setbacks between adjoining landuses
     The proposal incorporates low rise landscape features which soften the built form.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                Page 7

Page 8

.




        The development complements the predominant character of the Duke St streetscape and surrounding area.

Our client has made significant concessions throughout the design process (including the removal of one residential unit)
to ensure that the subject development accords with Council’s planning scheme assessment benchmarks. We have also
made considerable effort, as shown in the evolution and refinement of the design, to achieve compliance with the
requirements of PO13.

In addition, we wish to emphasise the importance of the inclusion of the plunge pools as these elements are integral to
delivering the amenities tourists expect for luxury accommodation of this type. Accordingly, we consider that the revised
proposal strikes the right balance between ensuring compliance with the planning scheme’s assessment benchmarks and
enabling our client to deliver a quality mixed use development on the Sunshine Beach tourist strip.

Considering the above, we request that condition 3 is amended to delete the required proposal plan amendments, and to
include the revised architectural and landscape plan package prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design dated 12/02/2024
be incorporated into the approved plan package as follows:

         Approved Plans
         3. Development authorised by this approval must be undertaken generally in accordance with the Approved Plans
         listed in the tables below. The plans must be amended to incorporate the amendments listed within the table
         below and resubmitted to Council prior to the issue of any Development Permit for Operational Works.



           Plan No.         Rev.    Plan/Document Name                                         Date

           7252-DA06        16 19 Duke Street & Douglas Lane Floor Plans prepared by           11-12-23
                                  Blackburn Jackson
                                                                                               12-02-2024
           7252-DA07        19      Floor Plan – Level 2 & Level 3 prepared by                 12-02-2024
                                    Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA08        12      Roof Plan & Height Plane Projection prepared by            12-02-2024
                                    Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA14        12      Elevations prepared by Blackburn Jackson                   12-02-2024


           7252-DA15        13      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                     12-02-2024


           7252-DA16        13      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                     12-02-2024


           7252-DA23        10      Sections - additional prepared by Blackburn Jackson        12-02-2024




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                               Page 8

Page 9

.




           7252-DALS02      09       Landscaping Planting – Duke Street prepared by              11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson
                                                                                                 12-02 2024-
           7252-DALS03      09       Landscaping Planting – Douglas Lane prepared by             11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson
                                                                                                 12-02-2024
           7252-DALS04      09       Landscaping Planting – Level 2 prepared by                  11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson
                                                                                                 12-02-2024

           Plan No.          Rev.    Plan/Document Name                                          Date

           7252-DA07         16      Floor Plan – Level 2 & Level 3 prepared by                  11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA08         11      Roof Plan & Height Plane Projection prepared by             11-12-23
                                     Blackburn Jackson

           7252-DA14         11      Elevations prepared by Blackburn Jackson                    11-12-23

           7252-DA15         12      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                      11-12-23

           7252-DA16         12      Sections prepared by Blackburn Jackson                      11-12-23

           7252-DA23         09      Sections-additional prepared by Blackburn Jackson           11-12-23

           Amendments        c) The third storey must be setback a minimum of 6 metres from the front
                                boundary to Duke Street, with no structures located in this setback including,
                                but not limited, to balconies, balustrading, dividing wall, pool etc.
                             d) The planter box located along the western façade of Apartment 3 must be a
                                maximum of 1m in height for the length of the western boundary.




Condition 4
        Nature and Extent of Approved Use
        4. The premises must not be used as a party house, with no events, functions or parties (e.g. bucks parties, hen’s
        parties, raves, or wedding receptions for example) permitted on site.

Representation
Our client seeks to have this condition deleted as the development application has sought approval for Short term
accommodation and food and drink outlet, not a Party house which is a separately defined use and is defined as follows:
        Party house means premises containing a dwelling that is used to provide, for a fee, accommodation or facilities
        for guests if—
             a) guests regularly use all or part of the premises for parties (bucks parties, hens parties, raves, or wedding
                 receptions, for example); and
             b) the accommodation or facilities are provided for a period of less than 10 days; and




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                  Page 9

Page 10

.




              c) the owner of the premises does not occupy the premises during that period.

We do not believe the condition is warranted for a development, which is seeking to provide short term accommodation
aimed at twin share or single persons. It is considered that the small size of the units (i.e single bed) assists in mitigating
the risk of units as being used as a party house.

Any precautionary measures relating to the premises being potentially used as a party house would be more
appropriately nestled in the approval’s advisory notes and/ or property notations. It is also understood the future owners
will be required to adhere the requirements of Noosa Council short term accommodation local law policy, which is
required for all short term letting or home hosted accommodation. It is considered that this local law has sufficient
safeguards to ensure the proposed 1 bedroom’s units are not used for the purposes of a party house.
As such, it is requested that condition 4 be deleted as follows.

         4. The premises must not be used as a party house, with no events, functions or parties (e.g. bucks parties, hen’s
         parties, raves, or wedding receptions for example) permitted on site. Deleted

Condition 12
        Amenity
        The operation of the approved use must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity (including but not limited
        to noise, overlooking, light spill or odour) enjoyed by surrounding residents or cause a nuisance, including a noise
        nuisance.

Representation
Our client does not believe this condition is reasonably required for the development and is potentially vague in its
application. The operation of the use is adequately controlled through the approved plans and other conditions of
approval such as hours of operation (food and drink outlet) which mitigate the potential impacts from overlooking and
noise on surrounding premises. In addition, noise nuisance matters are appropriately addressed EP Noise policy.
Accordingly, we request that the condition be deleted and any additional commentary regarding potential noise impacts
can be addressed by way of Advisory Notes and the short term accommodation local law, as per Condition 4 above.
We recommend that condition 12 be deleted as follows:

         Amenity
         The operation of the approved use must not detrimentally affect the residential amenity (including but not limited
         to noise, overlooking, light spill or odour) enjoyed by surrounding residents or cause a nuisance, including a noise
         nuisance.
         Deleted

Condition 20
        Any street fencing along Douglas Lane must not exceed 1.8 metres in height, be setback an average of 1 metre
        and articulated to provide visual interest by stepping the design. Any fencing on the front boundary must either:
                a. not exceed a maximum height of 1.2 metres
                b. be of open construction.




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                    Page 10

Page 11

.




Representation
No fence is proposed across the rear of the site apart from the proposed bin enclosure area. Notwithstanding this, if a
fence is ever proposed, the condition should be amended to be setback an average of 2m. The reason for this is because
the 1m access path to the bin enclosure area would effectively preclude any landscaping from being visible from Douglas
Lane when applying a 1m average setback. Accordingly, we suggest an average 2m depth would provide a more visually
appealing outcome when being viewed from Douglas Lane.

The condition also refers to fencing along the front boundary. The proposal involves outdoor dining along the Duke St
frontage and no fencing is proposed. Accordingly, we request that the reference to the front fence be deleted as per
below:

Amended Condition 20
      Any street fencing along Douglas Lane must not exceed 1.8 metres in height, be set back an average of 1 2 metre
      and articulated to provide visual interest by stepping the design. Any fencing on the front boundary must either:
              a. not exceed a maximum height of 1.2 metres
              b. be of open construction.

Condition 21
        The area of land between the fence and the front property boundary must be densely landscaped to screen any
        fencing from the street.

Representation
This condition appears to be applied through error, as no front fencing is proposed due to the commercial premises being
located on the Duke St frontage. Please delete the condition as follows:

Amended Condition 21
      The area of land between the fence and the front property boundary must be densely landscaped to screen any
      fencing from the street. Deleted




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                              Page 11

Page 12

.




We look forward to Council’s favourable consideration of our change representations and receiving Council’s Negotiated
Decision Notice as soon as possible.

Should you require any clarification on any of the above issues please do not hesitate to contact our office.



Yours faithfully,




TIMOTHY BALCOMBE
SENIOR URBAN PLANNER
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS

CC/- Cambooya Ltd Pty

Attachments
       Architectural plans prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design
       Landscape plans prepared by Blackburne Jackson Design




JFP Ref: M3024P                                                                                                 Page 12