Skip to the record
Accept no imitations.

Council archive · source document

06/0823 - Applicant's Response to Information Request including Attachments [As Published] · 132006.823

of 107

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Check the original when the exact wording matters.

Very large file (42.4 MB): the whole original can take several minutes to open, especially on a phone. Text is quick to read.

17.

+ the remaining non-penthouse unit will utilise a tandem space (ie. for parking of
two cars). This allocation exceeds Council's car parking requirements.

Therefore, the provision of car parking for Buildings G (K), H (M) and | (N) is consistent with
Council's car parking requirement for accommodation units.

Health Spa

A total of 19 car parking spaces are provided for the development’s Health Spa component.
This provision coupled with the surplus car parking spaces within the adjacent Building D (8
spaces) is considered by the Health Spa operator to be adequate for the proposed
operations. Correspondence from the proposed operator (Golden Door) is included as
Attachment 11 confirming their satisfaction with the provision of 19 spaces.

Central Facilities

A total of 29 internal and 4 external car parking spaces are provided for Building V. This
provision is 49 spaces less than Council’s parking requirement. However it is considered that
the proposed number of spaces is adequate when the following is taken into consideration:

+ the provision of on-grade parking proximate to this building;

+ the staff use of 10 tandem parking spaces within Blocks G (K), H (M) and I (N);
and

* the integrated nature of the site operations, particularly with regard to the uses
located within Building V.

Staff

Resort staff will be allocated the remaining tandem spaces (ie. parking up to 20 cars) within
Blocks G (K), H (M) and 1 (N). The operation of these spaces will be managed by the resort
operator.

When considering the compliance of the proposed development with the Driveways and
Carparking Code, it is critical to understand that the application is for an integrated resort, and
as such an assessment of the individual component parts is not a true reflection of the
parking demand likely to be generated.

Table 3.1 contained within the Traffic Impact Assessment is not considered to be correct. For
example it is noted that Table 14.47 of the Driveways & Car Parking Code requires:-

17.1 1 space per accommodation unit; AND
17.2 1 space per 10 accommodation units.
These additional ‘1 per 10’ spaces have not been addressed.

Further, in accordance with Item 15 of this Information Request, please amend the report to
reference all proposed uses on the site.

Page 13

Used in these records

About this file

File size
42.4 MB (very large file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

06_0823 - Applicant's Response to Information Request including Attachments [As Published].pdf · 42.4 MB (very large file)

The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.