P0041165_RPT_IRR - Copy

Page 2

        Issue - Heritage Impact Statement – comparative analysis

        The heritage impact statement does not provide a comparative or contextual analysis of the
        design of the hotel within the Noosa or wider region. The L-shaped form and the intact reception
        area are potentially relatively rare examples of a wartime functionalist style building by well-
        regarded architects of the time.

        More evidence should be provided of the relative rarity and significance of the interiors,
        including finishes, doors and windows and ceilings to justify the level of change proposed to the
        interior layout within the original L-shaped building. It is considered that the angled main entry,
        associated foyer space, reception counter and stairwell are potentially of exceptional
        significance and the layout of the upper-level bedrooms of high significance. While many hotels
        now offer ensuite bathrooms it is not uncommon for B&B’s and Airbnb style accommodation to
        offer shared bathrooms. Additional justification must be provided as to why the upper-level
        accommodation is no longer viable to justify the extensive demolition proposed.

        Information Required

        11. Provide more evidence of the relative rarity and significance of the interiors, including
        finishes, doors and windows and ceilings to justify the level of change proposed to the interior.

        12. Provide more justification as to why extensive demolition of the upper-level accommodation
        is necessary.

        Issue – Detail historic elements to be retained on the drawings.

        The heritage impact statement notes that there are doors and windows that are to be removed
        as they do not meet current standards, but the architectural documents do not clearly note
        these changes on the drawings and provide justification against a specific standard for these
        proposed changes. It should also be demonstrated that there are no alternative options to
        demolition; for example, could doors be fixed in an open position to achieve desired circulation
        or other outcome. It is also unclear on the drawings which, and how, the historic plaster ceilings
        are to be retained and/or interpreted.

        Information Required

        13. Clearly detail changes to doors and windows on the architectural documents and provide
        written justification of the proposed changes/demolition.

        14. Detail on the architectural drawings how the historic plaster ceilings are to be retained
        and/or interpreted.

        Issue – Demolition of south-eastern amenities block / new Poinciana Ave beer garden

        As noted in the Heritage Impact Statement, the amenities block is a recent addition and not of
        heritage significance. This is in fact an intrusive element and its removal will enhance the
        original L-shaped building footprint, a significant architectural feature.

        It is recommended the additional intrusive elements noted below should also be considered for
        removal as part of this work as well as changes to some design elements within the beer
        garden to enhance views of the hotel and reinstate it to a condition closer to the original open
        corner setting.

                  Reinstate the enclosed loggias (see diagram below) in the area below the upper
                   verandahs. Refer to original drawings. Alternatively, consideration could be given to


                                                                                                            2
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 3

                   removal of the lower verandah addition to the current lounge/bistro area with new doors
                   placed between the original rendered columns along the original wall of the loggia.

                  Remove awning roofs to loggias (as per diagram above).

                  Remove external stairwell (or justification for retention to be provided)

                  Remove balustrading to upper-level verandahs. The current vertical slatted balustrading
                   is not sympathetic with the original architectural design of the building. Replacement
                   balustrading is recommended which incorporates horizontal elements similar to the
                   original as visible in early photos. Council’s heritage advisor can assist in advising on an
                   appropriate form that meets current standards and interprets the early balustrading.

                  Remove existing street frontage vertical metal pool style fencing. The landscaped area
                   fronting Poinciana Avenue and Diyan Street was originally an open space, emphasising
                   the L-shaped form of the hotel building. It is desirable that this visual quality is retained
                   and a glazed wall detail, similar to the northern beer garden would be acceptable to
                   help achieve this. Alternatively, any enclosure should incorporate horizontal, rather than
                   vertical elements to be sympathetic with the original building horizontal banding, rails,
                   low walls etc, typical of the functional art deco style.

        Information Required

        15. Provide amended plans to remove intrusive elements identified above. Alternatively, provide
        justification as to why no changes will be made to these elements.

        Issue - Demolition and alterations to northern area

        As noted in the Heritage Impact Statement, the dining room is a recent addition and not of
        heritage significance. As a relatively open structure the proposed roof deck does not obstruct
        the northern view of the building or the original building footprint and elevation. However, the
        new openings onto the deck are not sympathetic with the proportions and size of the early
        building elements. It is recommended the following changes should also be considered to
        mitigate the impact on the northern elevation.

                  Increase opening head height to match adjacent windows

                  Locate openings in the northern wall to align with those in the southern wall. It is
                   preferable that the openings would be the same width as those in the southern wall.
                   However, if this is not possible due to current requirements for circulation a slight
                   increase in width would be allowable provided, they are centred with the southern wall
                   openings.

                  Consider the form and detail of the rail to the roof deck to ensure it is consistent in
                   character and incorporates horizontal detailing sympathetic to the original building rails,
                   as noted elsewhere.

        Information Required

        16. Provide amended plans making the recommended changes to the northern area.
        Alternatively, provide comment on the proposed designs appropriateness.




                                                                                                               3
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 4

        Issue - Colour scheme and painting

        Repairs to the original render finish should be like-for-like in material composition and finished
        texture. Note that testing of the original render will be required for matching. The banding,
        corner corbels, sills and other decorative rendered features are to be retained.

        As noted in Part 3.3.4 of the Heritage Impact Statement, a colour scheme is yet to be submitted.
        The colours of the 1940s portion of the building should be based on the original colours with
        evidence of the research, such as paint scrape samples and early photographs provided. It is
        recommended that the colour scheme for the 1990’s and new parts of the building are different
        but complementary to the colour scheme for the 1940s fabric.

        Information Required

        17. Provide the proposed colour scheme for the building, including evidence of research of the
        original colours.

        Issue - Demolition and alterations to interiors

        While the heritage controls do not specifically highlight the interiors of the building, given the
        significance of the building, consideration should be given to the following:

                  Retention and/or reuse of the original reception counter, preferably close to the main
                   entrance.

                  An alternative arrangement of the ground floor amenities to allow for the original stair to
                   be visible and able to be used as the main access to the upper level. Currently in the
                   floor plan this appears to be a staff access only.

                  Consideration should also be given to retaining the original ceiling form and details in
                   the main entrance area and in other spaces where the c1942 details are intact.

                  While retention of the upper floor rooms would be a desirable outcome in terms of
                   retaining original fabric the use of the space for a larger function area is consistent with
                   the ongoing use of the place as a hotel. However, considerations should be given to
                   how the original floor plan could be interpreted as part of the new work. For example, it
                   could be represented though a subtle pattern in the floor coverings or ceiling, or through
                   retention of small nib sections of the walls.

        Information Required

        18. Provide amended plans addressing the above. Alternatively, provide comment on each
        interior issue raised

        Issue - A Demolition Work Method for Historic Fabric

        A work method for demolition of historic fabric has not been included in the documents lodged.
        A sample version of such a method is provided below for reference.

        Sample version

        Protect existing building fabric and features from incidental damage during the works. The
        building is of high architectural importance. It is essential that the greatest care be taken
        throughout the works to eliminate the possibility of damage to the building and its surroundings.



                                                                                                              4
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 5

                  Removal of elements scheduled for demolition is to be undertaken carefully, by hand
                   and removing fixings and lifting out individual elements (as though for salvage), rather
                   than breaking out large areas.

                  Protect adjacent significant historic building fabric from damage.

                  Ensure protective actions will not cause damage to materials, for example in the way
                   they are attached or fixed. Loose covers are preferred.

                  No chemical strippers are to be used.

                  Vibration is to be minimised.

                  Cut materials are to be removed by hand, using minimal, or the smallest power tools
                   suitable for the task without overcuts.

                  Retain the removed materials for storage on site where proposed for reuse or retention.
                   Ensure they are clearly labelled with their original location. Materials from each area
                   must be stored and labelled separately. Ensure materials from different parts of the
                   building are not mixed.

                  Leave old foundations, slabs etc. Do not disturb support to foundations. Provide
                   protection with materials, such as sheeting, that are self-supporting and are not fixed to
                   the original materials.

                  Protect exposed areas of foundations

                  Leave partly demolished structure(s) in a stable condition, with adequate temporary
                   support at each stage to prevent risk of uncontrolled collapse. Adequately protect parts
                   of existing structure which are to be kept in place.

                  Stop construction work that might affect an historic item or material and protect the item
                   from damage or disturbance.

        Site staff responsible for supervision and control of the work are to be experienced with historic
        buildings and are to ensure that all personnel on site are briefed on heritage significance of the
        site, their responsibilities with regard to this, and the conditions of the approvals under which the
        work is carried out (see above). Any sub-contractors engaged in the works should be suitably
        qualified and properly inducted in regard to the site’s heritage issues as well.

        Before starting work:

                  Prepare a full photographic record of all existing defects and damage to the building
                   fabric adjacent to the work areas, and routes to work areas, internally and externally.

                  Take samples of mortar and render for testing

        Information Required

        19. Provide a detailed work method for demolition of historic fabric generally consistent with the
        sample method detailed above.




                                                                                                              5
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 6

4       Response
The proponent of the scheme, AVC Venue Co, has worked with its architects and other consultants
over the many months since the information request was issued, to address the issues raised in the
information request about the heritage impacts of the lodged scheme, as well as the other items raised
in the request. The scheme has been revised in response to these heritage concerns and indeed the
other concerns.

This response has been prepared with the assistance of a revised set of plans for the scheme by Red
Design Group. The revised plans are numbered as follows:

•     TP00 Rev 6 Submission Cover Sheet & Location Site Plan;

•     TP01 Rev 5 Existing Site Photos;

•     TP02 Rev 6 Existing Site Plan;

•     TP03 Rev 7 Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan – Ground Level;

•     TP04 Rev 7 Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan –Level 1;

•     TP05 Rev 6 Existing Conditions & Demolition Elevations;

•     TP05.1 Rev 3 GFA Plans and Site Coverage;

•     TP06 Rev 11 Proposed Site Plan;

•     TP07 Rev 7 Proposed Ground Floor Plan;

•     TP08 Rev 7 Proposed Level 1 Plan;

•     TP09 Rev 6 Proposed Beer Garden;

•     TP10 Rev 7 Proposed External Elevations;

•     TP11 Rev 6 Proposed External Elevations.
The proponent has considered the heritage concerns of Council in the information request and
modified the scheme in a number of important ways to address these concerns. This is set out in the
text below.

4.1       Comparative Analysis

For points 11 and 12, the following information in response is provided.

The Noosa Plan has identified 63 Local Heritage Places in the local government area as well as
character areas in Cooroy, Pomona and Cooran. Of the 63 local heritage places listed, the other
hotels identified in the planning scheme are the Country Life Hotel at 69 Main Street, Kin Kin, and the
Pomona Hotel at 1 Station Street, Pomona.

Both of these hotels were constructed in the early twentieth century (1910s) and are two storey
buildings of timber with corrugated metal roofs. Both are considered good representative examples of
two storey timber hotels from the early twentieth century period, and important for their social
significance as well established hotels in these towns.

These are clearly earlier examples of hotels compared to the Royal Mail Hotel, and from different
historical and architectural periods. While the Royal Mail Hotel is a two storey building form with
verandahs, like these other examples, the Royal Mail Hotel was constructed of rendered and painted
masonry with a terracotta tiled roof, unlike these others.
                                                                                                          6
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 7

The Country Life Hotel at Kin Kin is a typical rural hotel of the period, located on a corner allotment
with elevations addressing both corners. This is a very standard arrangement for hotel building in rural
locations, and indeed other locations. With elevations addressing both street frontages, this is a
slightly different arrangement of building forms to the Royal Mail Hotel, with its recessed front elevation
from the street frontage. However it is considered that the Country Life Hotel demonstrates an L -
shaped plan, like the Royal Mail Hotel.

The main elevation of the Pomona Hotel addresses the street frontage of Station Street, with a side
wing to the south-west. Again, while this is a slightly different expression to the Royal Mail Hotel, with
its recessed front elevation from the street frontage, the Pomona Hotel also has an L -shaped plan like
the Royal Mail.

Notwithstanding the above, a comparative analysis of these other hotels in the Noosa local
government area has not been undertaken for this response, as this is not considered necessary. The
proposed scheme for the Royal Mail Hotel has been revised and the extent of demolition reduced in
response to the concerns of Council raised in the information request.

Of the elements raised in the information request, it is noted that the L-shaped form of the original
building of the Royal Mail Hotel is not being compromised by the proposed scheme. It is indeed being
restored, in the Burra Charter definition of this term, by the demolition of the toilet block addition to
Poinciana Avenue from the 1990s. This aspect of work will reinforce the L-shaped form of the building.

It is also noted the reception area is not highly intact as a space. The female toilets (proposed to be
demolished by the scheme) were added to this space some years ago. The revised scheme will retain
the reception area as a space to a greater degree than the lodged scheme, although allowing for new
development within, to make more efficient use of this space.

As the scheme has been revised to address heritage concerns, it is considered that more evidence
does not need to be provided of the relative rarity and significance of the interiors, including finishes,
doors and windows and ceilings, to justify the level of change proposed to the interior layout within the
original L-shaped building.

The angled main entry is being retained, and is not compromised or negatively impacted by the
revised scheme.

The foyer space associated with the angled entry is also being retained by the revised scheme, to a
greater degree than the lodged scheme as a space while allowing for new development within.

The reception counter was proposed for removal in the lodged scheme and this is continued for the
revised scheme.

The stairwell was proposed to be retained in the lodged scheme, and is being retained in the revised
scheme. It will be accessible to patrons (not just staff) and will continue to operate as it has for many
years, in providing access to the first floor of the building.

The scheme lodged for DA proposed the retention of the southern wing of hotel rooms on the first
floor, and the demolition of the eastern wing of rooms to create a large function venue in this space.
This has been revised considerably, the function room concept has been dropped and the upper level
bedrooms are retained to a much greater degree by the revised scheme, largely in their current
configuration and arrangement. Some slight demolition is proposed to some of the rooms to remove
existing fixtures and fittings. Some minor demolition of walls or parts of walls is proposed, to allow for
the installation of new toilets and bathrooms within some of the former rooms so that each hotel room
will have access to ensuite bathrooms. All hotel room doors to the corridor are proposed for removal
and replacement with new doorways and new doors to the rooms, for compliance reasons for fire
safety.

                                                                                                            7
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 8

The installation of new fabric and modifications to existing fabric will be largely carried out within the
existing collective footprint of the hotel rooms, to minimise demolition of and impact on the existing
building fabric and its cultural significance. The original double-loaded corridor of the upper floor, with
rooms opening off onto each side, will be retained, and will remain a strong feature of the internal
arrangement of the building on this first floor. Six of the individual rooms on the first floor will be
converted to bathrooms, with two separate bathrooms constructed back-to-back in these spaces, with
separate access from each of the adjoining rooms. Other bathrooms will be installed within some of
the existing larger rooms, while a new bathroom is to be constructed in the large lobby space on this
floor, with access from the adjoining room to the east.

Where ensuite bathrooms are provided in former hotel rooms with doors opening onto the verandah,
the doors will be retained, permanently locked with frosted film apply to the glass for privacy reasons.

This is a major revision to the scheme, which proposes the retention of all the first floor hotel rooms
and their modification to provide for en-suite bathrooms for each of the rooms. This approach and
methodology has been followed in other examples of heritage hotel conversions, in discreetly installing
bathrooms within the existing floor plan and layout of rooms, and working within the historic form to
create a wholly modern facility. This is to be commended and is of a net heritage benefit to the
scheme.

4.2       Detail historic elements to be retained on the drawings.

For points 13 and 14, the following information in response is provided.

The doors and windows to be demolished or removed are clearly shown on the revised set of
drawings. The scheme has been revisited such that the extent of demolition and removal of doors,
windows and wall elements on the ground floor has been minimised. The twin timber glazed doors
leading from the lounge/bistro to the central lobby area that were proposed for demolition in the
scheme lodged for the DA are now retained. The sections of wall along this alignment that were also
proposed for demolition in the lodged scheme are now retained. The single leaf solid timber door
behind the timber counter in the central lobby area will be retained and will be fixed shut as part of the
revised proposal.

An original timber framed sash window is located adjacent to the original angled entrance to the hotel,
and leading to the central lobby area. The scheme as lodged proposed the demolition of this window
and its subsequent infill, as a toilet was proposed in the space behind the window in the central lobby
area. This toilet has been removed from the revised scheme. This window can now be retained.

Plaster ceilings are located in the central lobby area on the ground floor. In the revised scheme, this
part of the building will remain largely open as it is currently, rather than be the location of additional
toilets. While new toilets are proposed these are largely in the location of the existing female toilets,
and the remainder of the space remains open and accessible and allowing access to the first floor via
the original timber staircase.

In this regard it is considered that the plaster ceilings in this central lobby area location can be retained
as part of the revised scheme. Plaster ceilings also are located in the angled entrance space of the
ground floor, the main bar to Poinciana Drive, and the lobby space on the first floor off the staircase.
No works proposed as part of the revised scheme will compromise these ceilings and it is therefore
understood that all identified ceilings can be retained as part of the proposed scheme.

4.3       Demolition of south-eastern amenities block / new Poinciana Ave beer garden

For points 13 and 14, the following information in response is provided.

The applicant has considered the list of intrusive elements identified by Council in the information
request. The applicant respectfully advises Council that this list of additional works is well beyond the
                                                                                                              8
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 9

envisaged scheme, and represents a much greater scope of work for this site. This enlarged scope of
work is well in excess the current program of works to be delivered at this hotel.

It is also pointed out that this scheme is not a traditional heritage restoration project, insofar as all later
additions to the building will be removed and the building restored to its absolutely original form. The
lodged scheme, and the scheme as revised, takes into account the modern requirements for the
operation of regional hotels, and works largely within the current fabric of the building to rejuvenate the
hotel operation, without having a negative impact on the significant fabric of the building, and the
cultural significance of the site in a broader sense.

For the specific items noted, the applicant specifically advises as follows:

     While no original drawings survive documentary evidence of early photographs suggests that the
      loggias to the ground floor to the southern and eastern wings were originally open. We are unsure
      as to how the “enclosed loggias” can be “reinstated”, and understand this request to mean
      reinstate the open nature of the loggias. It is emphasised that these spaces provide valuable
      lettable space for the hotel. Therefore it is important that these areas remain enclosed as part of
      the overall facility as part of this application.

     The structure to the awning roofs of the loggias will be retained and the existing sheeting will be
      replaced with new sheeting.

     The external stairwell to Poinciana Avenue will not be removed. It is considered a valuable
      alternative point for egress from the first floor of the building for patrons.

     The existing balustrading to the upper level verandahs will not be removed. While the current
      vertical slatted balustrading may not be sympathetic to the original architectural design of the
      building, it is considered important that this is retained in-situ. It would appear that the simple
      horizontal steel pipe balustrading that is visible in early photographs also remains in-situ in many
      places along the verandah. If the current vertical slatted balustrading was to be removed it would
      need to be replaced with an alternative form of balustrading, as the extant horizontal balustrading
      would not be compliant with current codes and would frankly be unsafe for any occupation of the
      first floor. Again, the scope of work that would be required to address this, and the additional cost,
      is well beyond the allocated program of work for this site. The scheme as it stands retains the
      existing balustrading (the vertical slatted and the horizontal pipe), does not affect either of these
      elements, and allows for a later consideration of this aspect of the overall design of the Royal Mail
      Hotel as part of future works.

     The existing street frontage vertical metal pool style fencing will be removed as part of the revised
      scheme and replaced with a new fence to the southern beer garden. This new fence will have
      vertical balustrading to match the existing fence in this location. In this regard, this modern
      element will be clearly modern and will not replicate the horizontal balustrading of the original
      building and its 1930s/1940s Art Deco/Functionalist design, consistent with good heritage
      practice of not mimicking original and significant details in new elements. It is acknowledged that
      the landscaped area fronting Poinciana Avenue and Diyan Street was originally an open space,
      emphasising the L-shaped form of the hotel building. It is considered that the removal of the
      1990s toilet block in this location will be of a considerable visual benefit to the aesthetic
      appreciation of the Royal Mail Hotel. The height of any new fencing will be negligible in
      comparison to the main L-shaped building form of the hotel building, and its form is considered of
      little aesthetic impact on the aesthetic appreciation of the Royal Mail Hotel as a result.

4.4       Demolition and alterations to northern area

For point 16, the following information in response is provided.

                                                                                                             9
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 10

The scheme has been completely revisited to the northern side of the building. The dining room is not
being demolished and will be retained. The roof deck is not being proposed, and therefore the
modifications to the first floor northern elevation are no longer required to provide access to this roof
deck. All existing windows to this elevation will be retained.

4.5       Colour scheme and painting

For point 17, the following information in response is provided.

The original colour scheme for the building is not known. The earliest photographs of the site and
building are in black and white. A colour photograph of the building from the 1960s was reprinted in
the Heritage Impact Statement lodged with the application.

No investigations of these colour schemes have been done as yet. The applicant respectfully requests
that information on a new colour scheme is not a factor in the assessment and approval of the subject
development application.

Further, the applicant also respectfully requests that the preparation of a new colour scheme for the
external elements of the hotel building be investigated and carried out as a condition to the
Development Approval. The colour scheme analysis can be undertaken, a report prepared and
provided to Council for compliance reasons, together with the chosen scheme for the hotel building
based on this analysis.

4.6       Demolition and alterations to interiors

For point 18, the following information in response is provided.

For the specific items noted, the applicant specifically advises as follows:

     The original timber reception counter in the central lobby area is now retained in its existing
      location.

     The ground floor amenities have been revised and will incorporate a much smaller footprint of the
      central lobby area than the lodged scheme. As noted above the original timber staircase will be
      retained and will be accessible to patrons (not just staff), and continue to operate as it has for
      many years, in providing access to the first floor of the building.

     It is understood that that existing ceiling forms and details can be retained in the main entrance
      area and in other spaces where these details remain intact.

     As noted above the scheme has been completely revisited on the first floor and the individual
      hotel rooms on this floor are now retained. The original double-loaded corridor of the upper floor,
      with rooms opening off onto each side, will be retained, and will remain a strong feature of the
      internal arrangement of the building on this first floor.

4.7       Demolition Work Method for Historic Fabric

For point 19, the following information in response is provided.

The applicant and its consultants would not expect to have prepared a work method statement for the
demolition of historic fabric in the application documents, as this is something that is more appropriate
to be conditioned as part of a development approval.



                                                                                                           10
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 11

The applicant and its consultants are happy to have a work method statement conditioned by Council,
similar to the text in the sample version provided in the information request.

5        Comparison of schemes
A quick comparison is made of the lodged scheme for the DA in July 2023 and the current scheme as
revised for this information request response in April 2024.

At lodgement, the scheme proposed the following (in relation to the heritage building external footprint
and internal elements):

         The demolition of the dining room extension on the northern side of the ground floor of the
          building. This dining room extension was constructed in the early 1990s and is of no heritage
          significance.

         The demolition of the male and female toilet extension on the southern side of the ground floor
          of the building. Again, this extension was constructed in the early 1990s and is of no heritage
          significance.

         The demolition of the fixtures and fittings of the lounge/bistro on the ground floor of the
          eastern wing of the original building.

         The demolition of the female toilets in the central lobby area of the building.

         The demolition of the original timber counter in the central lobby area.

         The demolition of a section of wall in the central lobby area that houses the fire hose reel
          (FHR).

         Enclosure/boxing out of the timber staircase to the first floor and the staircase becoming staff
          access only.

         The demolition of an original timber window near the original entrance to the hotel, as well as
          a small section of wall in this location.

         The demolition of the twin timber and glazed doors to the dining room, between the current
          lounge/bistro and the central lobby area.

         The demolition of all the hotel rooms on the eastern wing of the building on the first floor.

         The demolition of some walls in the hotel rooms in the southern wing of the building on the
          first floor.

         The removal of parts of the first floor structure to allow for a lift to be installed to service both
          floors.

         The demolition of parts of the northern wall on the eastern wing of the building on the first floor
          to create new openings for access to the new elevated beer garden at this level.

         The demolition of two existing windows to the northern elevation on the first floor, and the
          infilling of these window spaces with new material to matching the existing finish.

         The construction of new male and female toilets in the central lobby area throughout most of
          the space, as well as an accessible toilet as a separate structure in this overall location, which
          would require the removal of the existing ceilings in this location.
                                                                                                          11
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 12

         The construction of a new function room with a mobile stage in the eastern wing of the first
          floor in place of the hotel rooms in this location, and a new bar. New toilets will be installed
          along the southern wing of the hotel.

         The construction of a function roof deck off the northern elevation of the building and above
          the current dining room, with four sets of new double doors from this elevation to allow access
          from the building to the roof deck.

At the current stage of responding to the information request from Council, the revised DA scheme
proposes the following:

         The dining room extension on the northern side of the ground floor of the building is not being
          demolished. This is of no heritage significance and has no net heritage benefit in itself.

         The demolition of the male and female toilet extension on the southern side of the ground floor
          is still proposed. This is of no heritage significance and represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of the part of the fixtures and fittings of the lounge/bistro on the ground floor of
          the eastern wing of the original building is still proposed. These are of no heritage significance
          and this demolition represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of the female toilets in the central lobby area of the building is still proposed.

         The demolition of the original timber counter in the central lobby area is not proposed and this
          element will be retained. The retention of this element represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of a section of wall in the central lobby area that houses the fire hose reel
          (FHR) is still proposed. This wall is of no heritage significance and this demolition represents a
          net heritage benefit.

         The enclosure/boxing out of the timber staircase to the first floor is no longer proposed. The
          staircase will remain largely as it is currently, and will remain accessible by all hotel patrons.

         The demolition of an original timber window near the original entrance to the hotel is not
          proposed and this element will be retained. The retention of this element represents a net
          heritage benefit.

         The demolition of the twin timber and glazed doors to the dining room, between the current
          lounge/bistro and the central lobby area is not proposed and this element will be retained. The
          retention of this element represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of all the hotel rooms on the eastern wing of the building on the first floor is not
          proposed and these fabric elements will be retained. The retention of these elements
          represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of some walls in the hotel rooms in the southern wing of the building on the
          first floor is still proposed.

         The installation of ensuite bathrooms within the existing room layout of the first floor hotel
          rooms of the building. While this involves some demolition of existing building fabric of some
          of the internal walls, this is considered an acceptable intervention in terms of providing ensuite
          facilities to each room, making these rooms more suitable for the modern accommodation
          market.

                                                                                                               12
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 13

         The removal of parts of the first floor structure to allow for a lift to be installed to service both
          floors is no longer proposed. The retention of these elements represents a net heritage
          benefit.

         The demolition of parts of the northern wall on the eastern wing of the building on the first floor
          to create new openings for access to the new elevated beer garden at this level is no longer
          proposed. The retention of these elements represents a net heritage benefit.

         The demolition of two existing windows to the northern elevation on the first floor, and the
          infilling of these window spaces with new material to matching the existing finish is no longer
          proposed. The retention of these elements represents a net heritage benefit.

         The construction of new male and female toilets in the central lobby area throughout most of
          the space, as well as an accessible toilet as a separate structure in this overall location, is no
          longer proposed to the same extent as the lodged scheme. The proposed extent of the toilets
          in this location is much reduced. This represents a net heritage benefit.

         The construction of a new function room with a mobile stage in the eastern wing of the first
          floor, and a new bar, is no longer proposed. This represents a net heritage benefit.

         The construction of a function roof deck off the northern elevation of the building and above
          the current dining room, with four sets of new double doors from this elevation to allow access
          from the building to the roof deck is no longer proposed. This represents a net heritage
          benefit.

The revised scheme proposes a slightly greater demolition scope of one of the internal walls within the
original building footprint beyond what was lodged, and therefore discussed in the heritage impact
statement. This is located on the ground floor near the original window that is now being retained. A
snip of this plan is shown below (TP03 Rev 7 Existing Conditions & Demolition Plan – Ground Level);




                                                                                                              13
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 14

Photographs of this element are included below:




This is a modern wall located within the former loggia space of the original hotel building. Its
demolition has no impact on the cultural heritage significance of the Royal Mail Hotel Local Heritage
Place.

The extent of retention and conservation of the existing fabric of the building external and internal, is
much greater in the revised scheme than the lodged scheme.

6        Assessment of heritage impacts
The following section discusses the potential impacts of the revised scheme for the site on the cultural
heritage significance of the former Royal Mail Hotel Local Heritage Place.

The Noosa Plan 2020 Heritage Overlay Code includes provisions for the assessment of development
proposals both of Local Heritage Places and character places.

The code contains a Purpose, Overall Outcomes and Performance Outcomes that the proposed
development of places included in the Local Heritage Overlay is to satisfy.

The purpose of the Heritage Overlay Code is to ensure:

     •    development on an identified local heritage place is compatible with the heritage significance
          of the place; and
     •    the streetscape character and significance of identified character areas are conserved and
          enhanced.
Development on a local heritage place is compatible with the heritage significance of the place by:

     •    retaining local heritage places to a level that ensures the retention of their cultural heritage
          significance;
     •    maintaining or encouraging as much as possible the appropriate use or adaptive reuse of a
          local heritage place to provide for the future
     •    protection of its heritage values, while also protecting the amenity of adjacent uses;
     •    protecting, as far as practical, the context and setting of the local heritage place;
     •    ensuring that development on a local heritage place is sympathetic with the cultural heritage
          significance and retains valued heritage features of the place.
     •    Development is appropriately managed to prevent damage and disturbance to local heritage
          places during construction and operational phases of development.


                                                                                                            14
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR

Page 15

     •    Development in a character area is sympathetic to the streetscape character and heritage
          values of the area by retaining buildings, structures and other elements that contribute to the
          preferred character of the area and by complementing the predominant building styles in the
          street.
It is considered that the revised scheme for the site complies with and achieves the purpose of the
Heritage Overlay Code and complies with the above Overall Outcomes that are relevant to this site
and the proposal.

6         summary
As noted above the extent of retention and conservation of existing building fabric external and
internal, is much greater in the revised scheme than the lodged scheme.

It is considered that this revised scheme presents a good heritage outcome for the retention,
reconstruction and conservation of the building fabric of the Royal Mail Hotel Local Heritage Place and
its cultural heritage significance.

Yours sincerely,




Scott Richards
Associate Director
Urbis Pty Ltd




                                                                                                        15
URBIS
P0041165_RPT_IRR