Response to RFI - Council

               Standard Drawings RS-049 and RS-050 and have grades ensure a standard vehicle (B99),
               entering or leaving the site will not scrape or bottom down.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Engineering Response to Council’s Information Request (Attachment 3), as well as the
Amended Operational Works Plans prepared by 360 Civil Consulting Pty Ltd (Attachment 2), which responds to
Information Request Items 7 – 9. The specific response to Information Request Item 9 is detailed below:

   ‘Please refer to the amended 360 Civil Consulting Drawing No. 11 and 12 which detail a driveway long
   section and relevant cross section drawings incorporating the 2m wide footpath and compliance with
   IPWEA Drawings RS-049 and RS-050’.



    10.        Provide amended landscaping plans that demonstrate compliance with the minimum
               landscaping requirements.

RESPONSE
Please refer to the Amended Architectural Plans (Attachment 1), specifically Sheet 2, which provides detail on
the soft and hard landscaping for each unit, as outlined below:

   30 the Cockleshell
          •   Soft Landscaping = 115.0m2 (45.18%)
          •   Hard Landscaping = 139.5m2 (54.81%)
          •   Total = 254.5m2

   32 the Cockleshell
    •     Soft Landscaping = 114.9m2 (45.21%)
    •     Hard Landscaping = 139.2m2 (54.78%)
    •     Total = 254.1m2

Overall, each unit block results in a minor shortfall in landscaping, with a shortfall of 9.5m2 for 30 The
Cockleshell and 9.9m2 for 32 The Cockleshell. Overall the development provides a total of 508m2 of
landscaped area, which equates to 42.2% of the consolidate site.

The development has mitigated the landscaping shortfall through providing the soft landscaping elements
to the frontage and rear of the site, as well as the adjoining northern and southern boundaries. Shortfalls to
the required landscaping are considered appropriate given the development is not able to provide
landscaping strips to the internal common boundary, given its required access arrangements. It is noted
that if the common internal boundary was capable of being landscaped, the development would comply
with the landscaping requirements. Thus, the provided landscaping strips on all other boundaries are of an
appropriate width to mitigate amenity impacts and integrate into the existing streetscape.

Despite the proposed non-compliance with Probable Solution S1.1 of the Landscaping Code, the
development satisfies Specific Outcomes O1, with the development providing sufficient landscaped area,
such that:
    •     The proposed landscaping enhances the visual amentiy and natural landscape character of the
          area, through the development containing a significantly improved streetscape, and through the
          inclusion of a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers;