RESPONSE TO FURTHER ADVICE -response to information request 20 william · MCU25/0054

Page 2

The finished ground level of the habitable floors is required to be 2.7m AHD (up to 1.4m
higher than the existing ground levels). The basement is proposed at -0.3m AHD.

Detailed fill plan, fence and finished ground plans are provided, demonstrating the
maximum height of the building of 12.8m (11.5m high building relative to lowest existing
ground level of 1.3m AHD). The backfilling around the edges of the site to 2.7m with 1.4m
high fence surrounds the side boundaries, including significant landscaping, so as to add
visual privacy between the adjoining driveways.

Further negotiation of fence finishing occurs during construction with the owners of the
body corporate to ensure a complementary finish for neighbours.




                                                                            Page 2 of 5

Page 3

 2. Provide updated floor plans and elevations that demonstrate how overlooking
    and privacy issues are to be appropriately mitigated.

Additional screens and privacy measures have been added to the plans for the overlooking
to the side boundary neighbours. The top storey of the units do not require any further
screening, as they are setback more than 6m from the boundary and are not within no
further action taken as not overlooking windows/doors or private open spaces within 10m.
The proposal meets the Acceptable Outcome AO20 of the Medium Density Residential
Zone Code.




                                                                            Page 3 of 5

Page 4

 3. Provide amended plans which demonstrate a compliant site cover of the
    building not exceeding 40%.

The green roof areas of the building have been removed from the design. The proposal
meets the 40% birds eye view site cover, as demonstrated below.




 4. Provide amended plans which provide eaves to a minimum of 75% of the
    perimeter of the primary roof form.

Eaves have been added to the main roof form, compliant with the Acceptable Outcome.

 5. Provide amended plans that include a comprehensive fencing plan clearly
    showing all retaining walls and fencing structures along property boundaries.
    These plans should illustrate the relationship with adjoining properties and
    include existing and proposed ground levels where relevant. Note: To reduce
    the visual impact of fencing and retaining walls, the use of varied textures,
    colours, and finishes is encouraged.

Fence heights and materials have been revised to ensure the filling of the site to provide
for a flood free development does not impact the amenity of the neighbouring driveways
and outdoor living areas. It is also noted the adjoining site to the rear has been fille and
landscaped around the existing pool.

 6. Provide dewatering plan for Council review.

 7. In accordance with QUDM 7.2.3 address how a major (1% AEP) event will be
    managed in the event of a pump malfunction.

 8. Provide an Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code assessment and management plan.

 9. Provide the Geotechnical Report for Council review.

Please find attached SCG Engineers detailed response to each of the above issues
referencing the Dewatering Plan, Geotechnical Investigations and SWMP.


                                                                               Page 4 of 5

Page 5

 10. Provide an arborist report and detailed design plans that demonstrate that
     the proposal can be accommodated without compromising the health of the
     tree. Alternate design (wall and footings) / construction methodologies
     should be investigated to reduce the amount of works required within the
     structural root zone of the tree.

The planter garden with associated block wall and footings adjoining the Russel St
frontage has been removed. These were previously in close proximity to the existing tree
in the foot path area. All footings are now set back 1.4m from the street boundary and
1.8m from the centre of the tree as surveyed. Acknowledging the tree includes a highly
invasive root system and is not suitable for narrow frontages, we have designed the
building and fencing for the trees retention, however, seek the flexibility in the conditions
for the replacement for 2 x 200L suitable street tree varieties (similar to native plantings in
Noosa Pde).




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the Development Assessment Rules, the applicant has given the assessment
manager the information requested. Please proceed with the processing of the application
at your earliest convenience.

If you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
myself.

Regards,




Jack Lewis B.Sc Hons UNSW M.Plan Otago RPIA
Planner/Director
Pivotal Perspective Pty Ltd
0406 334 227




                                                                                                      Page 5 of 5