02.02.22 Noosa Council Architectural Advice

Page 2

The Noosa Style and Subtropical Design Principles

The Major Centre Zone Code at 6.4.1.2 (p) (i) calls for development to be well designed reflecting

        (i) a subtropical; 'Noosa' style with emphasis on indoor and outdoor connections,
        variety in façade treatment through articulation and materials, creation of shade on
        public spaces and landscaping around sites and on buildings in accordance
        with PSP5 Sustainable Design Code; and

And of development within the High Density Residential Precinct of the Noosa Business Centre, the
Major Centre Zone Code says:

        (d) Development is designed using sub-tropical style in the Noosa Style with good
        pedestrian connectivity and integration with other centre uses, a high standard of
        architectural design, landscaping and private and public open spaces.

Architecturally the proposal incorporates some subtropical design principles and some gestures
towards the Noosa Style. However the outcome is underwhelming, and increased adoption of the
principles set out in SC6.6 – PSP5 Sustainable Building Design Code should be encouraged.

Nearly 70% of the proposal’s apartments (i.e. all those in buildings A and B) face east or west along
a north / south axis. This is not ideal for attaining the preferred solar access. The 33 apartments
facing west (which have not been provided with sufficient sun shading) will struggle with low level
afternoon sun penetration, likely triggering a heavy reliance on air conditioning. Certainly, a
reconfiguration of the site planning should be pursued, so that a greater proportion of apartments
have a north or south facing aspect.

Cross ventilation opportunities within the apartments should be improved. It is concerning that
within a number of the 2 bedroom apartments, the second bedroom is positioned at the rear of the
apartment, directly abutting the central circulation spine. It would appear that no windows are
proposed to these bedrooms. Certainly, the fire egress requirements of the Building Code will
prevent having operable windows to these bedrooms. The lack of ventilation and daylight access to
these bedrooms is not an acceptable outcome, from a resident amenity perspective. Furthermore,
this outcome will drive increased usage of air conditioning and artificial lighting and is at odds with
section (3)(xi) of SC7.6.3 Noosa Design Principles which says:


        (3)(xi) Working with the climate-
                 (A)      Reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical heating and cooling through the
                 use of passive design using sunlight and breeze to heat and cool;
                 (B)      Maximise natural light in habitable spaces, reducing the need for lighting and
                 reducing energy demand;


An important subtropical design principle is the integration of development with the natural
landscape, the use of large shade trees in private and public spaces. Whilst there is opportunity for
large trees across the recreation areas of the site, the siting of the buildings in a continuous wall like
arrangement and the long linear basement carpark mean that there is lack of opportunities for deep
planting between the buildings or in the surface level carparking area (this is apparent in the
rendered perspective imagery included in the development application).

Page 3

This is at odds with PO19 (e) of the Major Centre Zone Code which says:


        (e) allow for landscaping to be provided between buildings;

As well as AO32.6 (b) of the Major Centre Zone Code which envisages that “shade trees are provided
in car parks;”


This is also at odds with the vision outlined in section (3)(x) of SC7.6.3 Noosa Design Principles
which says:


        (3)      (x) Buildings to sit lightly within the landscape –

                 (A)       Buildings are to be pavilion style to allow significant landscaping between
                 buildings and reduce bulk and scale;


This issue needs to be remedied to so as to ensure a more impactful integration of the buildings with
the landscape.

The proposal has adopted roof forms with pitches of between 2 and 7 degrees. The pitch and roof
forms themselves display little variation and will likely appear flat. This lack of articulation adds to
the perception that these building are a long continuous wall of development rather than separate
buildings. Greater breakup of the roof forms is suggested to break up the building bulk. Additionally
the use of varied and articulated pitched roof forms contributes significantly to the character of the
shire and is synonymous with the Noosa design style. It is suggested that the proposal, through its
roof forms should participate more strongly in reinforcing this local design character.


Oversized building forms

In my view the current proposal is likely to be perceived as an overdevelopment of the site that
dominates the streetscape. This is due to:

    •   Overly long building length
    •   The train like procession of buildings along the street frontage
    •   Insufficient spacing and lack of landscaping between buildings.

The proposed building’s roof forms, plan forms and elevations are not, in my view sufficiently varied
and articulated enough to ameliorate the inappropriate wall like bulk that will be experienced from
the street edge.

The buildings themselves are too long and they dominate the streetscape. The proposal would
benefit from taking the form of smaller separate buildings, rather than being three large bulky
buildings. This is the outcome envisaged at items (b) and (d) of PO75 of the Major Centre Zone Code:

Page 4

        Development:
        (b) has a form and architectural scale that does not dominate the streetscape or surrounding
        properties;
        (d) takes the form of small separate buildings, rather than large single bulky development;

Building Height and skyline presentation

The proposal seeks to maximise the 12 metre height across the development, to achieve this feat
the designer’s have settled on long low pitched roof forms that have very little
variation in their height and pitch. The result is the bland skyline presentation shown in the
development application’s rendered images and elevation drawings. These long flat roof lines create
a monotonous visual datum across the site – which in my view is an unacceptable outcome. PO24
(e) of the Major Centre Zone Code envisages that “Buildings and other structures present a high
quality streetscape with design elements and building forms that: contribute to their setting,
including the skyline.”

It is my view with regard to good design practice as well as the intentions of the Noosa Plan, that
the 12m height limit is not intended to be completely filled with ‘saleable storeys’ topped by a low
pitch skillion roof plane, but the 12m height window is envisaged to accommodate 2/3
storeys as well as the variations and articulations in roof form that contribute to subtropical design
character and the skyline.

In my view increased variation in roof form, pitch and height are required. Attaining this variation
may require a reduction in storey height for some portions of the proposal.

Universal Access, Affordable Housing and Social Housing

The Noosa Plan at SC6.6.6 Universal Building Design Principles sets out aspirations for the adoption
of universal design principles to allow “occupants to easily adapt and convert their home to meet
their changing needs over time.” The 2022 Building Code of Australia will introduce enhanced
requirements for universal access, and the considerations of aging in place provisions are becoming
more relevant. Ideally all of the apartments in the proposal would be designed with ready
adaptability for universal access. This may not be financially feasible for the developer; however it is
suggested that a proportion of the apartments should be redesigned spatially to suit future
adaptability – particularly with regards to bathrooms, kitchen and laundry layouts, and apartment
entry areas. The adaptability of the proposal should be the subject of a specialist consultant review.

The Noosa Plan, at PO74 of the Major Centre Zone Code, says quite specifically with reference to the
High Density Residential Precinct of the Noosa Business Centre:

        Development provides for higher density multiple dwellings which meets the needs of a
        diverse range of current and future resident populations including small households, older
        persons, people on low incomes and people with special mobility needs.

And at PO80 and AO80 of the Major Centre Zone Code:

        PO80 - Where there is development for multiple dwellings, dwellings are provided to meet
        the needs of different households.
        AO80 - Development:

        (a) makes provision for affordable and social housing;

Page 5

        (b) provides social housing that is distributed across the development site;
        (c) provides 2 in every 10 dwellings as affordable housing;
        (d) provides 1 in every 10 dwellings as social housing.

The proposal scheme does not appear to satisfy these requirements for housing diversity. The
apartments look to have little differentiation. The applicant should provide evidence as to how the
needs of different households, income levels and mobility levels are being accommodated.

SUGGESTED SITE PLANNING ADJUSTMENTS

A reconfiguration of the site planning, as per my sketch below could address multiple issues faced
by the current proposal. I would suggest:

    •   Bringing the recreation space from the rear of the site to the front of the site,
    •   Turning ‘Building A’ 90 degrees,
    •   Carparking to remain underground, but articulated to permit deep planting between the
        buildings,
    •   Maintaining a landscaped buffer between Building B and the Noosa Civic Shopping Mall,
    •   Maintaining a surface carpark with deep planting shade trees at the southern corner of the
        site. Dedicated refuse collection, and delivery truck parking bays would be incorporated.
    •   Providing for removalist vans parking in the basement.

Page 6

In my view these adjustments would:

    •   Break up the presentation of the built form to the street, and make the development seem
        finer grained.
    •   Create greater variation in setback from the street and in doing so satisfy PO19 (g) of the
        Major Centre Zone Code which seeks to “avoid large areas of continuous wall planes by
        varying the building setbacks and using appropriate techniques to provide visual relief.”
    •   Reduce the perception of overdevelopment on the site
    •   Reduce the number of apartments with east or west facing aspects.
    •   Conceal the excess of plot ratio being sought by the proposal

On top of this I would suggest the incorporation of more varied and articulated roof forms, variation
in building height (generally 2 storeys with some 3 storey components) shorter building lengths, and
vastly increased incorporation of subtropical design principles and Noosa design style principles.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposal is clearly a blocky overdevelopment of the site, due its overly long buildings,
insufficiently articulated roof forms, plan form and elevations, lack of landscaping between
buildings, universal 3 storey height, maxing out of the 12m height limit allowance, and train like
procession along the street frontage.

The architecture presented is not climatically responsive. It does not respond adequately to the
Noosa Design Style, nor subtropical design language, is not responsive to its site and will likely
promote the resident’s reliance on air conditioning and artificial lighting for thermal and lighting
comfort.