Applicant's Information Response

Page 2

           “Where residential development is proposed it is provided for in a mixed use building with small
           dwellings, where such activities are ancillary to and support the predominant business functions
           of the zone”.

As part of this assessment it is important to note that the associated Acceptable Outcome A039.1 reads
as follows:

      “Where development provides for one or more of the following residential activities, it is in the
      form of small dwellings only and accommodated in a mixed-use building format:

      a)      caretaker’s accommodation;

      b)      dual occupancies;

      c)      dwelling units (e.g. shop top housing);
      d)      multiple dwellings.

As highlighted in the code assessment submitted with the original application, the proposal fully
complies with AO39.1 as the development consists of a mixed-use building format and the proposed
multiple dwelling residential units comply with the Council’s definition of small dwellings. (In relation to
this point it is important to note that the Noosa Plan does not include a definition of mixed-use
development and does not stipulate that it must include a specific proportion of different uses).

Given the proposal’s compliance with AO39.1, it is considered that it complies with PO39 and this is
conclusion is consistent with the advice in the Council’s own User Guide for the Noosa Plan which states
on Page 9 that:

           “The Planning Scheme is a performance-based scheme, which means assessable development
           is required to demonstrate how it can achieve the specified performance outcomes. The
           performance outcomes are considered to be the qualitative outcome that must be achieved
           whilst the acceptable outcomes are prescriptive, measurable criteria for development and
           represent the preferred way of achieving the performance outcomes”.

This advice confirms that as the proposal complies with the prescriptive, measurable criteria set out in
AO39.1, it also complies with PO39. On this basis, it is considered that any perceived conflict with PO39
is unfounded and is not a valid reason for seeking amendments to the current mix of uses within the
proposal.

Irrespective of the above, it is considered that the proposal does also comply with PO39 for the reasons
outlined below.

The first section of PO39 reads as follows:

            “Where residential development is proposed it is provided for in a mixed use building with
           small dwellings, where such activities are ancillary to and support the predominant business
           functions of the zone”.

The proposal clearly comprises a mixed use building with commercial uses at ground floor level with
residential units above so the first requirement of PO39 is satisfied. As all the proposed residential units
also comply with the Council’s definition of a small dwelling, the second requirement of this element of
PO39 is also satisfied.

The Council’s concerns appear to relate to the second element of PO39 which in summary, requires that
where residential development is proposed it should be “ancillary to and support the predominant
business function of the zone”. From the applicant’s perspective, it is critical to note that this element
of the PO refers to the “zone” as a whole and does not require that each development within the District
Centre zone must comprise predominately of business uses. On this basis, compliance of the proposed

Page 3

development must be assessed against its potential impacts on the “predominant business functions of
the zone”. In order to do this, the applicant has completed a survey of the land uses within the Tewantin
District Centre and the findings are summarised below with full details provided in Attachment A.

In summary, the key findings of the land use survey are as follows:

       there are a total of 34 parcels of land within the Centre which have a total area of 51,032m2;

       only 4 of the land parcels are used entirely, or partly, for residential purposes. The combined
        area of these land parcels is3,094m2 which is less than 6% of the total land area within the centre;

       94% of the land currently within the Centre zone is used for business/entertainment purposes
        and ancillary uses such as car parks, that are consistent with the Council’s key intent for the zone;

       there are currently only 8 residential dwelling units within the whole of the District Centre zone;

       the proposed development will increase the number of land parcels with some component of
        residential use to 6. The combined area of these land parcels is 4,623m2, which is approximately
        9% of the total land area within the District Centre zone; and

       the proposed development if approved, will increase the number of residential dwellings units
        within the District centre zone to just 27.

Based on the key findings outlined above, over 90% of the land area within the District Centre zone will
continue to be used or available for uses that support the business function of the zone even if this
application is approved. Given the significant proportion of land that would remain available for
commercial uses, the proposal would clearly not compromise the business function of the Tewantin
District centre, if approved, and therefore complies with PO39.

Finally, the applicant is aware that Council has started to prepare an amendment to the Noosa Plan to
rezone land on Doonella Street which includes the application site from District Centre zone to
Community Facilities zone. Although the Planning Scheme amendment process has only just
commenced and carries no weight in the assessment of this current application, it is interesting to note
that the Council report proposes that the land would more appropriately be zoned for “social housing
and community uses such as medical centres and car parking”. The report then recommends that the
Zone Map ZM-11 be amended to include the relevant parcels of land in the Community Facilities zone
and be annotated for “multiple dwelling (small dwellings only), rooming accommodation, health care
services, office, parking station”. As currently worded the proposed amendments also appears to accept
that sites within the Community Facilities zone could be developed purely for multiple dwellings.
Overall, the key points to note from the proposed amendments are that:

        Council accepts that the application site does not have a significant role to play in the business
         function of the District Centre; and

        the application site is more suited to development that comprises predominately multiple
         dwellings in the form of small dwellings with some ancillary uses such as health care facilities
         and offices. This approach is entirely consistent with the current application for the site.

In conclusion, the applicant believes that the mix of uses proposed in the application is entirely
consistent with Acceptable Outcome A039.1 and Performance Outcome PO39 and does not conflict
with the business function of the District Zone.

Council Issue – Building Design

“This site is a key site on Doonella Street and therefore sets the tone for future character of the street.
The building design is generally in keeping with the character of Tewantin, with the exception of the lack
of awnings. Awnings are a key character feature of Tewantin. It is noted that window hoods are proposed
which tend to be quite linear and boxy. It is suggested to incorporate awnings in the design for both the

Page 4

residential and commercial component, particularly where fronting Doonella Street. Refer to District
Centre Zone Code.”

Information Required

    2. Provide amended plans that incorporate awnings into the design, particularly on the
       Doonella Street frontage.

Applicant’s Response
The amended Proposal Plans prepared by Archiology Pty Ltd in Attachment B now include awnings
above the commercial tenancies on the Doonella Street frontage.


Council Issue – Removal of Mature Poinciana’s on Road Reserve

“The proposal results in the removal of existing Poinciana’s on road reserve. Noosa Plan is very clear that
mature vegetation on road reserves must be retained, especially where that vegetation is considered a
character tree in the locality (refer PO5 of the Tewantin Local Plan Code). The Poinciana trees is
considered a character vegetation in Tewantin. Removal of these trees is generally not supported.

The removal of established character street trees for the upgrade of the Unitywater mains. No
construction methods are detailed to support the removal to the significant street trees.”

Information Required

    3. Provide an analyses of construction methods used to retain the significant street trees for
       the provision of Unitywater mains, not limited to trenching, and explores the use of
       directional tunnel boring or other methods to retain the trees in-situ.

Applicant’s Response
The updated Engineering Plans prepared by Alta Engineers in Attachment C provide details of the extent
of earthworks required to construct a compliant footpath along the front of the application site. This
earthworks is in addition to the upgrades that the applicant will be required to make to the Unitywater
infrastructure within the road reserve. Given the extent of the engineering works required at the front
of the site, the applicant has sought arboricultural advice from Tree Solutions to see if there was any
potential for the trees to be maintained and a copy of its report is also included in Attachment D. In
summary, the report concludes as follows:

       three (3) of the existing trees are in good health and the fourth (tree 3) is in poor conditions
        and should be removed.

       of the healthy trees, one tree (tree 2) has to be removed as it is in the location of the driveway.
        (Removal of this tree was previously accepted by Council as part of MCU17/0014);

       the required Tree Protection Zones for the two remaining trees (trees 1 & 4) cannot be
        adequately protected from the impacts of the proposed civil works and they should therefore
        be removed and replaced.

Based on the advice from Tree Solutions the landscape plans show the replacement of all four trees
within the frontage of the site with advanced Delonix regia street trees. This is considered to be an
acceptable outcome and will ensure that Poinciana trees along the front of this site will continue to be
a significant feature within Doonella Street

Council Issue – Ex-ground Delonix regia

“Ex-ground Delonix regia street trees are proposed to be installed following the Unitywater works. There
is concern the siting and establishment of the Ex-ground Delonix regia street trees could be hindered
by existing and proposed infrastructure.”

Page 5

Information Required

    4. Provide information on the size of the root balls of the ex-ground Delonix regia street
       trees that are proposed to be installed in the frontage, including the size of the planting
       area to accommodate the root balls.
    5. Provide information of the height and canopy spread of the proposed Ex-ground Delonix
       regia street trees at the time of establishment in the streetscape.

Applicant’s Response
Details of the proposed replacement street trees are provided on the Landscape Plans in Attachment
E. At this stage is it is anticipated that the replacement trees will be 400l, 3m high with a 550mm root
ball.

Council Issue – Landscape Plans

There are unlabelled structures are shown on landscape plans. Additionally it is not clear what
percentage of the site is proposed to be landscaped.

Information Required

    6. Clearly label structures within the landscape areas, such as 3rd party devices like booster
       pumps and consider the appropriateness of their location.
    7. Indicate on the plans how much of the site is to be landscaped in accordance with the
       provisions of Noosa Plan.

Applicant’s Response
The amended Landscape Plans in Attachment E have been updated to label all the relevant structures
as requested.

Details of the extent of the landscaping on the site were provided on the original Proposal Plans but this
information has now been added to the landscape plans as well. These figures confirm that 808m2 (32%)
of the site is landscaped which is significantly higher than the 10% sought by the Noosa Plan.


Council Issue – Location of access easement for pedestrian access

“The Tewantin Framework & Character Plan shows the need for a key pedestrian/cycle link along the
entire northern section of Lot 903. It is noted that the proposed access easement shown on the proposal
plans is not located across the entire northern boundary as shown on the Plan.”

Information Required

    8. Amend the proposal plans to show the key pedestrian/cycle link as required by the
       Tewantin Framework & Character Plan.

Applicant’s Response
A 3m access easement is now shown clearly on the Proposal Plans. Consistent with condition 21 of the
current approval, MCU17/0014, the easement extends from the eastern side of the bin area along the
remaining length of the northern boundary. Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate that the proposed
easement remains consistent with that previously approved and accepted by Council.




                          Figure 1 – Current Proposed Layout at Rear of Site

Page 6

                              Figure 2 - Approved Layout at Rear of Site


Council Issue – Sustainable Building Design

“Acceptable outcome AO2.1 of the Sustainable Building Design code requires a minimum of 3,000 litres
of rain water storage is provided per dwelling for non-potable purposes and incorporated into a
stormwater management plan.”

Information Required

    9. Provide details of on-site rain water storage that complies with the Sustainable Building
       Design code.

Applicant’s Response
Details of the additional on-site storage for rainwater are provided on the amended Engineering Plans
in Attachment C. This additional storage has been provided below the detention storage in the
basement shown on the original proposal plans.


Council Issue – Design Elements

“Performance outcome PO21 and corresponding Acceptable outcome AO21.4 of the District Centre zone
code requires a well-articulated building with variations in profile and treatment in patterning of
windows and changes in colours, textures and materials to break up facades. Further clarification is
required to demonstrate compliance with this.”

Information Required

    10. Provide a material palette and or renderings that demonstrate compliance with
        Performance outcome PO21 and corresponding Acceptable outcome AO21.4 of the
        District Centre zone code. Consider greater variation in the treatment and patterning of
        windows/shading devices.

Applicant’s Response
In response to this item, the applicant has made a number of changes to the elevations of the buildings
which are shown on the amended Proposal Plans. The Proposal Plans include a number of perspective
which illustrate the proposed changes and include a legend to provide further information about the
range of materials and finishes that are proposed. In summary, the architect has introduced a number
of new materials and design features which will add further interest and articulation to the elevations
and provide greater contrast between the commercial tenancies and the residential units above. Some
of the key design changes are summarised below:

       new awnings have been added above the commercial tenancies;

       a variety of window screens have been added which add a finer grain to the residential
        component and some privacy and noise attenuation to the road.;

Page 7

       the shape and design of some window and balcony edges have been altered to reflect the
        different layouts of the units and add interest to the elevations;

       a greater variety of materials have been used on the external elevations to provide greater
        contrast between the residential and commercial elements of the buildings; and

       the roof lines have been designed to fit appropriately with the residential properties on the
        opposite side of the street,

The introduction of these additional design measures together with the previous efforts made to reduce
the mass of the development by creating three separate buildings, ensure that the proposal will deliver
the high quality architectural outcomes sought by AO21.4 and PO21 of the District centre zone code.

ENGINEERING

Council Issue – Carparking

“From the information provided it is unclear:
    a) That the proposed carparking arrangement complies with the requirements of AS/NZ2890.1,
        namely carparks’ widths for the relevant user classes, considering that most carpark spaces have
        an adjacent obstruction (i.e. requiring an additional 300mm refer to section 2.4.1(b)(ii) of
        AS/NZ2890.1);
    b) How vehicles will park in specific carparks using a two-point turn maximum;
    c) How vehicles parked in specific car parks will use a three-point turn maximum to leave the site
        in a forward gear;
    d) How the separation between carparking for residential and commercial uses will be
        implemented (i.e. signage; boom gates; etc.).”

Information Required

    11. Provide an updated carpark layout plan including, but not limited to, the following
        information:
            a. Dimensions for the parking spaces in compliance with the relevant section/s and
               the applicable car User Classes of Australian Standard AS/NZ2890.1;
            b. Demonstrate (i.e. provide swept paths) that a standard vehicle (B99) is able to
               park in carparks P1, P7, P15, P23 and P32 (as shown in plan No. SD02, titled
               “Ground / Carpark Plan”, Issue 8, dated 01/02/2021, prepared by Archicology P/L),
               through a two point turn maximum, when the adjacent and opposite carparks are
               occupied;
            c. Demonstrate (i.e. provide swept paths) that a standard vehicle (B99) parked in
               proposed carparks P1, P7, P15, P23 and P32 (as shown in plan No. SD02, titled
               “Ground / Carpark Plan”, Issue 8, dated 01/02/2021, prepared by Archicology P/L)
               is able to leave the carpark in a forward gear, through a three point turn
               maximum, when the adjacent and opposite carparks are occupied;
            d. Demonstrate how the carparking separation between commercial and residential
               uses will be assured and that the proposed carparking provisions comply with the
               requirements of the Driveways and Parking Code;
            e. Proposed signage, including for directional purposes, small car parking spaces,
               motorbikes and bicycles.

Applicant’s Response
Drawing 20531 SD02 in the Proposal Plans provides a detailed car parking layout plan which includes
the dimensions and type of user class for each parking space. This drawing includes changes to the
parking layout to address the issues raised above. The plans also confirm that signage will be used to
clearly differentiate between commercial and residential spaces and the different size and type of
parking spaces (ie car, motorbike and cycle).

A series of swept paths are provided on drawings A6035/2/R04, 05 and 06 in the Engineering Plans to
demonstrate compliance with the relevant standards.

Page 8

Council Issue – Driveways

“From the provided information, due to the grade changes across the footpath, it is unclear that vehicles
will not bottom out or scrape when entering/exiting the proposed driveways.

Doonella St is an important road in Council’s network and carries very high traffic volumes for a 2-lane
road. It is therefore important that the access driveways to the site are satisfactorily restricted to left
turns only. The applicant has not demonstrated how this will be achieved, noting that the existing single
white line along the centre of Doonella Street does not legally prohibit right turn movements to/from
driveways along the street. It is also important for safety reasons that adequate pedestrian sight lines be
achieved at the exit driveway”

Information Required

    12. Demonstrate that a B99 vehicle will not bottom out or scrape entering/exiting the
        proposed driveways.
    13. Submit an RPEQ certified proposal demonstrating how the proposed site access driveways
        will be satisfactorily restricted to left turns only without impacting on the usability of
        other existing driveways along the street, and also demonstrating pedestrian sight lines
        at the exist driveway in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004.

Applicant’s Response
The amended Engineering Plans have been updated to include a section that demonstrates that B99
vehicles will not bottom out or scrape entering/exiting the proposed driveways. Refer to drawing
A6035/21/R03 for further details.

The Engineering Plans also provide further details to show the measures proposed to restrict movements
from the site to left turn only. These measures are the same as those approved by Council as part of the
MCU17/0014 and include:

       the driveway entry and exit geometry has been designed to make the restriction in vehicle
        turning movements obvious;

       “NO RIGHT TURN” signs (R2-6) will be installed for westbound traffic at both driveways to
        prevent right turns into the development but will not impact right turns into the existing
        residential properties on the opposite side of Doonella Street; and

       A “LEFT ONLY” sign (R2-14) and left turn pavement arrow will be provided at the exit driveway.

The required sightlines are now noted on drawing A6035/21/R04 and this plans show that the booster
cabinet and padmount do not encroach on these sightlines. In addition, it is important to note that the
landscape design has been amended to ensure that the landscaping within these sightlines will not
exceed 0.6m in height.


Council Issue – Delivery Vehicles

“Performance outcome PO7 of the Driveways and Parking Code requires that the development “provides
adequate, clearly defined and easily accessible …. (b) loading and manoeuvring areas for delivery and
service vehicles”. Compliance with that requirement has not been demonstrated.”

Information Required

    14. Demonstrate how delivery and service vehicles will be satisfactorily accommodated for
        the residential use (for example furniture trucks, goods and food deliveries) and for the
        commercial use (most likely vans due to the small tenancies).

Page 9

Applicant’s Response
Consistent with the approach accepted for MCU17/0014, delivery vehicles for the commercial
development are expected to be smaller vehicles such as vans which can access the basement.
Occasional large vehicles including furniture trucks are expected to use the rear laneway access through
the adjacent car park, similar to the waste collection vehicle. It should be noted that large trucks are
expected to only visit the site infrequently and would be encouraged to avoid peak periods of use within
the car park,

Council Issue – Pedestrian Connection

“From the provided information it is unclear how the proposed footpath, along the northern boundary
of the subject property, will tie-in to the existing Sidoni Lane.”

Information Required

    15. Provide amended plans that detail the proposed connection between the existing carpark
        in lot plan 904T1631 and Sidoni Lane. The detail must include, but not be limited to:
             a. Levels and gradients in longitudinal and cross sections, generally in accordance
                 with council’s standard drawing RS-065;
             b. Proposed landscaping works;
             c. Pram ramps where necessary;
             d. Any necessary alteration and reinstatement works beyond the boundary of the
                 site in order to connect and match existing public parks, laneways or pathways
                 pavements;
             e. Location, extents and dimensions of the proposed “Public Thoroughfare”
                 easement in favour of council.

Applicant’s Response
Drawing A6035/21/EW01 in the Engineering Plans provides details of the proposed connection between
the existing car park in lot 904T1631 and Sidoni Lane. This plan includes a series of sections to illustrate
level, gradients and the extent of the access easement. A section through this area is also proposed on
the Landscape Plans to illustrate the landscape outcome that is proposed within this section of the site.

Council Issue – Frontage Works

“The proposed plans include a ‘Brigade Booster Cabinet’, a ‘Pad Mount Transformer’ and a ‘Water/Fire
Meter Assembly’ to the subject site’s frontage. The location and appearance of these structures will have
a detrimental effect on the streetscape. Council is also concerned that these structures might have an
impact on sightlines to the east with regards to pedestrians.

It also appears that the level difference between the existing footpath and the roadway is significant.”

Information Required

    16. Provide sections with levels and gradients including, but not limited to, the proposed
        footpath finished level and the K&C invert.
    17. Provide amended plans:
            a. Demonstrating how the proposed location of these structures (i.e. Brigade Booster
               Cabinet’; ‘Pad Mount Transformer’; and ‘Water/Fire Meter Assembly’) will not
               reduce the required sightlines for both pedestrians and drivers exiting the subject
               site;
            b. Providing alternative colours for these structures;
            c. Confirming that the proposed landscaping solution will both screen these
               structures and not create any safety hazards (i.e. obstruct sightlines);
            d. Renderings of how it will look.

Applicant’s Response
The sections requested in item 16 are provided on engineering drawing A6035/21/RO3.

Page 10

With regard to item 17, it should be noted that the location of the proposed structures at the front of
the site are consistent with those previously approved by Council. Council will recall that originally the
booster pump was approved directly on the property boundary but its relocation to its current position
was approved as part of minor change application MCU17/0014.01.

Similarly, a padmont was shown on the approved drawings but was located on the western side of the
frontage. The current location was discussed informally with Council and it was accepted that it was
generally in accordance with the original approval.

With regard to sight distances, the sighlines shown on A6035/21/R04 in the Engineering Plans shows
that as these are setback at least 3m from the property boundary , they will not adversely affect the
ability of pedestrians to see vehicles leaving the site. The visibility of the vehicles leaving the site will also
be improved given that the exit from parking area will be more than 1m above the footpath.

Consistent with the current approval it is proposed that the subdued muted colours will be used for
these external structures, where possible. It is anticipated that Council will include a condition to this
effect.

An elevation has now been included in the Landscape Plan to illustrate the landscape outcome at the
front of the site. The elevation shows how the landscaping will screen the booster cabinet from the
street. Due to Energex’s access requirements, it is not possible to plant in front of the pad mount so the
landscape plans show dense planting on its eastern and western sides, consistent with condition 47 of
MCU17/0014.02, to screen it as far as possible.

Council Issue – Waste Collection

“It is not clear how waste collection will be managed.”

Information Required

    18. Provide a detailed Waste Management Plan, which must include detail, but not be limited
        to the following:
            a. Number and type of bins to be collected;
            b. Location of where bins are to be collected;
            c. Wash bin area (which is to be connected to sewer infrastructure);
            d. Type of vehicle required for the collection;
            e. Provide travel paths for the required waste collection vehicle, demonstrating how
                it will manoeuvre on site without having to use more than a 3 point turn to turn
                around.

Applicant’s Response
Additional information has been added to Proposal Plan 20531 SD01 to confirm the number and type
of bins required on site and to illustrate that these can be accommodated on site.

Consistent with the approach accepted as part of MCU17/0114, the bins will be moved to the frontage
with Sidoni Lane on collection days to be emptied.

The Proposal Plans confirm that the bin enclosure will include a bin wash area which will be connected
to the sewer infrastructure.

The bins will be collected by a standard waste collection vehicle and a swept path that demonstrates
that this size vehicle will be able to collect the bins from Sidoni Lane, is provided on drawing
A6035/21/R07 in the Engineering Plans.

Council Issue – Earthworks

“The submitted information indicates that approximately 2,300m3 of material is to be excavated and
carted off site and that the carpark finished surface level is RL 5.7m (i.e. the excavated level, for
foundations and slab construction, is expected to be below RL 5.0m).

Page 11

The submitted information does not include a geotechnical report for the subject site, nor an Acid
Sulphate Soils Management Plan.”

Information Required

    19. Provide a site-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by a suitably qualified
        person* that addresses, in particular (but not limited to):
            a. the impact of excavation and the construction works on the stability of nearby
               building and infrastructures;
            b. details of the proposed retaining structures;
            c. section plans indicating the location of the retaining structures and foundations
               in relation to the property boundary, the building pad, finished floor levels, etc.;
            d. the structures required to collect and convey existing overland flows that are
               impacted on by the construction of the retaining structures;
            e. any fencing to be installed on top of or beside the retaining structures;
            f. the location of any services, above or below ground, adjacent to the proposed
               retaining structures.
    20. Provide a plan of the proposed temporary and permanent structural systems and their
        construction methodology. Please note that the system must not rely on temporary or
        permanent anchors extending beyond the property boundary unless written authority
        from the land owners or controlling authority are provided.
    21. Provide a site-specific Acid Sulfate Soils investigation, including recommendations for the
        management and treatment of potential acid sulfate soils.

Applicant’s Response
A Geotechnical Investigation Report has been prepared by Tectonic and is included in Attachment F.

With regard to item 20, a preliminary design for car park level is provided on engineering plan
A6035/21/R08. This preliminary design has been reviewed by Tectonic and a letter confirming that it is
consistent with the advice in the Geotechnical Report is included in Attachment G.

An Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment has been prepared by Tectonic in response to item 21 and is included
in Attachment H.

STORMWATER

Council Issue - Water Quality Management

“PO1 of the water quality and drainage code requires development is planned and designed having
regard to the natural features of the site, to avoid impacts to ecologically important areas and
effectiveness of sediment and erosion control measures during construction. Runoff from this
development drains directly to Lake Doonella, an area of High Ecological Significance.

The development includes for the water quality treatment features, i.e. sediment basin and basins to be
located mid way along the eastern property boundary. In both construction and operation this will
necessitate a large area of the site to drain uphill for waters to be treated prior to leaving the site.

Minimum sediment and erosion control objectives for all development are detailed in Appendix 2 of the
State Planning Policy, and are guided by the International Erosion Control Association Best Practice Book
Series. In addition to water draining uphill, the proposed sediment and erosion control design does not
demonstrate that it will be possible for the construction phase stormwater management design
objectives included in Appendix 2 of the State Planning Policy to be practically incorporated into the
construction.

Construction for the bio-retention basin, as well as other drainage pipework footings etc. for the site will
necessitate excavations below the elevation of 5m AHD, which triggers the need for assessment of Acid
Sulphate Soil impacts.

Page 12

Due to the above, the current development design does not demonstrate how the development has
been designed with regard to the natural drainage features or to avoid areas of acid sulphate soil across
the site in interest of protecting the High Ecological Value receiving waters directly across the road.

Information Required

    22. In order to demonstrate that PO1 is met:
            a. Provide a drainage plan which shows direction of flow of site stormwater during
                construction and operation phases of the development and demonstrate that all
                waters will flow to the water quality treatment features as proposed.
            b. Engage a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control to work in
                conjunction with designers and demonstrate that construction of the proposed
                development can be practically achieved whilst meeting Appendix 2 requirements
                of the State Planning Policy and IECA Best Practice Sediment Erosion Control
                standards.
            c. Provide and Acid Sulphate Soils investigation undertaken by a suitable qualified
                and experienced soil scientist to demonstrate areas containing actual and
                potential Acid Sulphate soil across the site including levels of standing
                groundwater in accordance with current State government investigation
                requirements. Where applicable, provide updated design plans in response to the
                locations of any potential or actual acid sulphate soil areas and permanent
                groundwater levels. In particular drainage design will need to demonstrate that it
                is constructed in a way that it will not cause continual dewatering of any
                permanent groundwaters along bedding materials.

Applicant’s Response
The Engineering Plans and Report have been updated to provide the requested drainage details and
include a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.

As mentioned above, an Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment has been prepared and is included in the
supporting documents. The report concludes that the proposed development is unlikely to disturb Acid
Sulfate Soils.

Council Issue - Drainage and footprint allocation

“PO 6 of the of the water quality and drainage code requires development is located, designed,
constructed and operated to protect and enhance environmental values and water quality of waterways,
wetlands, lakes, ground waters and drainage systems. The MUSIC model provided proposed for the
entire site to drain to the bio-retention basin for treatment.

Given that a significant portion of the site drains to the road frontage, and not the eastern boundary, it
is unclear from the information provided how the water from all catchments across the site will drain to
the bio-retention basin as proposed.

Additionally, while it is acknowledged that different pollutant reductions are achieved in each stochastic
MUSIC model run, internal running of MUSIC found only 78% reduction in Total Suspended solids was
achieved. This does not meet the minimum threshold of 80%. Also, it is expected that the current design
will necessitate for some catchments across the site to bypass the bio-retention basin, which will further
reduce the pollutant reduction ability of the current design.”

Information Required

    23. Provide a catchment drainage plan and integrate the catchment areas of that into an
        updated MUSIC model. Demonstrate that every catchment will be treated and that the
        overall pollutant reduction targets are achievable.

Applicant’s Response
Alta Engineers have updated the Music Model, Engineering Plans and the Engineering Report and SWMP
(Attachment I) accordingly and these are included in the supporting documents. It should be noted

Page 13

that a swale at the front of the site has now been incorporated into the design to treat water from the
catchment at the front of the site.

Council Issue – Integration

“PO7 requires that water quality treatment systems are integrated into development to enhance
biodiversity and landscape benefits. The prior information request item is expected to necessitate
changes is the stormwater quality treatment design. The current design includes only one biobasin at
the far eastern boundary of the site. In order to achieve drainage of all catchments on the site to it, the
inlet pipe depth will be very low, and therefore not expected to practically achieve integration of the
water quality treatment feature into the site.”

Information Required

    24. Provide inlet levels of pipes draining all catchments entering water quality treatment
        features to demonstrate that they enter to the proposed surface level of the filter media
        and facilitate for integration of water quality treatment feature(s) into the design without
        the need to excessive retaining walls to allow it to fit.

Applicant’s Response
Alta Engineers have updated the engineering documents accordingly. Refer to the documents in
Attachments C and I for details.

Council Issue - Plan consistency

“Some aspects of the application proposed for 800mm depth of filter media, while others proposed for
500mm. Also the extended detention depth shown on plans submitted for approval are at depths that
do not exist on the site.”

Information Required

    25. Please ensure all plans submitted for approval are consistent with the MUSIC model
        provided to achieve the required pollutant reduction target.

Applicant’s Response
Alta Engineers have updated the engineering documents accordingly.

                                     END INFORMATION RESPONSE

Part 3: Information Request has now concluded and the application is now in Part 5: Decision.

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Mick Sheppard
Director
Email: [email protected]