2016-10-11 S&O Agenda - Attachment 1 to Item 8 - Delegations of Authority

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                               11 OCTOBER 2016


TTM Consulting note only Pavilion 2 and the upper level of Pavilion 3 are currently vacant. Its
adopted parking demand approach was to undertake a parking survey on Monday 4 July 2016,
which identified an existing peak demand of 22 cars. TTM Consulting then calculated total
demand by allowing Council’s parking rates for the untenanted parts of the development, which it
estimates will require a further 14 spaces. It also indicated:
If Council have concerns with the proposed uses and parking supply, it may be reasonable for
Council to Condition that Commercial Business Type 2 [Medical] can only be in one of the vacant
tenancies and not both. This allows the applicant to have flexibility to provide this use in either
tenancy based on customer/operator demands and should satisfy Council concerns with the
suitability of parking supply. This would result in the maximum parking requirement for the vacant
tenancies being up to 14 spaces (Commercial Business Type 2 in Pavilion 2 and Commercial
Business Type 1 or Entertainment and Dining Business Type 2 in the upper level of Pavilion 3).
The overall parking demands would therefore be a maximum of 36 spaces, which is catered for
with the proposed parking layout and TTM’s recommendations.
Council traffic engineers, Holland Traffic Consulting (HTC), undertook a peer review of the
submitted traffic assessment. HTC inspected the site during business hours and advised the
following concerns:
… nursery and showroom uses are typically busier on weekends than on weekdays, and nursery
uses are typically busier in Spring and Summer than in the middle of winter. Also, at my isolated
inspection there were more than the 22 cars on the site that TTM adopted as the existing design
demand for the entire site except the upper level of Pavilion 3 and Pavilion 2.
I also have concerns about permitting Retail Business Type 2 in Pavilion 1. For example, the
description they have used would permit a mini “fresh food market”. This would generate
significantly higher parking demands than the current showroom use.
Overall, HTC’s peer review recommends:
… the parking provisions would be sufficient, provided the following conditions are included:
   Retail Business Type 2 in Pavilion 1 is prohibited in Pavilion 1 or restricted to a low floor
     area (say 50m2).
   Commercial Business Type 2 is restricted to a total of 110m2 for the overall site, and there
     is to be no more than 3 practitioners operating from the site at any one time. This is
     basically as per TTM’s suggestion.
A number of conditions are recommended to limit uses on the site accordingly.
Expanded Café Operation
The site has an existing approval for a café limited to 19 seats. The Acres development
established on the site exceeds this limit. The application seeks to remove the seating limit and
obtain approval for a designated café area shown on the plans, with a dining area of 80m 2
(shown shaded on the plans). Seating currently on site in that area is approximately 48 seats
and the café has a liquor licence.
Objections from adjoining neighbours have been received and moderate levels of patron noise
have been observed by Council staff at their premises mid-morning, with the café seating only
around 1/3 occupied. Four “pods” seating around 24 people have been established (without
approval) along the southern boundary and the adjoining residents’ indicate they experience
fairly constant patron noise, with an existing open paling fence providing little acoustic
attenuation.
No acoustic assessment has been undertaken by the applicant but neighbours have requested
additional controls to protect their amenity, including:
   An acoustic fence along the common boundary to 3metres high, which would also assist
     with line of sight into the property and light spill


                                                                                    Page 62 of 86