Council Planning Negotiated Report MCU18 0097 · MCU18/0097

MCU18/0097 – REPRESENTATIONS TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR EDUCATION TYPE 2 SCHOOL (CAR PARK) AT 115 EUMUNDI NOOSA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE
Document information

Author	Development Planner, Billy Glover
Environment and Sustainable Development

Index	ECM/ Application/ MCU18/0097

Attachments	1. 	Original Approved Plans
2. 	Mark-up Plan

APPLICATION DETAILS
Applicant	Good Shepherd Lutheran College
Development Approval	Material Change of Use - Education - Type 2 School
Representations Received on	19 September 2019
Number of Submissions for Original Application	0

PROPERTY DETAILS
Property Address	115 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville Qld 4566
RP Description	Lot 30 SP 170751 Lot 1 SP 228052
Land Area	5019m² 56,755.06m²
Existing Use of Land	Vacant/School

STATUTORY DETAILS
SEQRP Designation	Urban Footprint
Locality	Noosaville
Zone	Industry
Overlays	Natural Hazard (Acid Sulfate Soils)
Assessment Type	Representations made to original approval
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Development Planner to the Planning & Environment Committee Meeting dated 12 November 2019 regarding representations made in relation to Application No. MCU18/0097 for a Development Permit for Material Change of Use - Education - Type 2 School (Car Park) situated at 115 Eumundi Noosa Road Noosaville and:
A.	Agree to amend condition 2 to read as follows:
Approved Plans
2.	Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No.	Rev.	Plan/Document Name	Date
P004	G	Proposed Car Park Layout, drawn by Odyssey Consulting Group	17.06.19
P013	6	Pick-up / Drop-off Layout Plan, drawn by Odyssey Consulting Group	17.06.19
Project No: K4277-0002-E	E	Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by Odyssey Consulting Group	18 June 2019
B.	Refuse to delete conditions 6.b., 13.a. & 20.a.i. as:
Deletion of 6.b. would result in unlimited access to the car park and adversely impact on the capacity and operations of the existing road network, contrary to the Driveways and Carparking Code.
Deletion of 13.a. would result in detrimental impacts to downstream flow, water quality and ecosystem health, contrary to the Water Sensitive Design Code.
Deletion of 20.a.i. would result in insufficient canopy trees, required to shade vehicles and to reduce reflective radiation, contrary to the Landscaping Code.
C.	Advise the applicant the overall car parking arrangement (except landscaping) depicted in Attachment 2 is considered generally in accordance with the approval.
D.	Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.

REPORT
background
A development approval for Material Change of Use - Education - Type 2 School (Car Park) was issued on 15 August 2019. The approval endorsed a total of 153 car spaces, with access and egress via the existing Walter Hay Drive connection points.
The applicant suspended the appeal period and made representations on 9 September 2019 to the development approval conditions. The representations are detailed below but primarily relate to the approved plans, traffic, stormwater and landscaping.
assessment
An assessment in relation to each of the submitted representations is provided below:
Condition 2 – Approved Plans
Approved Plans
2.	Development undertaken in accordance with this approval must generally comply with the approved plans of development. The approved plans are listed in the following table unless otherwise amended by these conditions.
Plan No.	Rev.	Plan/Document Name	Date
P004	G	Proposed Car Park Layout, drawn by Odyssey Consulting Group	17.06.19
K4277	6	Pick-up / Drop-off Layout Plan, drawn by Odyssey Consulting Group	17.06.19
P007	G	Stormwater Management Plan	17.06.19
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant submits the following:
It is noted that an error exists with reference to the Stormwater Management Plan. The plan reference should be Revision E and not G.
Assessment of Representation
The original Council report and Decision Notice for the application incorrectly detailed the Stormwater Management Plan as revision G instead of E, as stated by the applicant above. It is also noted other errors were contained within the list of the approved plans. The errors are acknowledged and it is recommended the condition be updated accordingly.

Condition 6.b. – Boom Gate
Traffic
6.	The traffic layout is to be as designed, constructed and operated as shown on Odyssey Consulting Group drawing numbers K4277 P004 G and P013 6, modified / clarified as follows:
a.	The parking layout is to comply with the requirements of the AS/NZS 2890 series of Australian Standards.
b.	On school days prior to 4.00pm, the new large parking area is to be used for staff parking only.  The applicant is to submit a parking management plan for the approval of Council detailing how use of that parking area will be managed to achieve that outcome, including boom gate locations, means of accessing through the boom gate/s, signage detailing operation, etc.
c.	The existing bus zone in the Walter Hay Drive parking area (closest to the campus) is to remain for bus use only. Cars are to be prohibited from usage of the bus zone area and signage must be installed to ensure that outcome. The details of the signage must be included in the required Operational Works application. To be clear, only buses are to be permitted to use or travel through the existing bus zone and cars are to be prohibited.
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant submits the following:
Conditions 6.b limits the carpark to staff use prior to 4pm on school days and requires a parking management plan including provision of boom gates. While no objection is raised with the staff use or a parking management plan the requirement for boom gates is an unreasonable imposition on the development. The provision of boom gates will result in an additional cost of $45,000 - $50,000 to the carpark. Given the only purpose is to restrict non staff from using the carpark this is an unreasonable imposition. The condition limiting the use of the carpark prior to 4pm on school days for staff only together with the parking management plan will provide sufficient certainty for the carpark use without the need for boom gates.
Accordingly, we request that Condition 6b be amended to delete the requirement for boom gates.
Assessment of Representation
Council approved the application based on the recommendation that a boom gate/s be a condition of approval and requirement of the development. Council’s consultant Traffic Engineer advises the boom gate/s is required to ensure that only staff will access the new car park area on Lot 30 SP170751, whereas unlimited access would significantly impact on existing congestion on Walter Hay Drive. A management plan is not sufficient to address this issue. The applicant informally advised a ‘drop gate’ is currently located at the entrance of the existing central car park of the school and may potentially be relocated to the new car park. A ‘drop gate’ would be considered generally in accordance with a boom gate providing it achieves the same traffic outcome.
It is therefore recommended the applicants request to delete condition 6.b. be refused.

Condition 13.a. – Detention Tanks
Stormwater Drainage
13.	The application for Operational Works Stormwater Drainage must be supported by detail design plans that demonstrate that the development shall be constructed generally in accordance with the Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan for Proposed Carpark Lot 30 on SP170751 115 Eumundi Noosa Road, Noosaville, Revision E By Odyssey Consulting Group dated 18 June. Except as amended below:
a.	The detention tank parameters must be amended to separately detain waters from each catchment for subsequent treatment and discharge to the filter media surface of the respective bio retention basins.
b.	The Operational Works application for the development must demonstrate that the active filter media surface areas of the bio retention basins are 34m2 and 13m2 respectively. The active filter media area does not include footprints occupied by inlet scour protection or the riser pit.
c.	Non- aggressive root system tree species such as Banksia robur may be planted on the batters of the bio retention basins, but not within the active filter media area of the bio retention basins.
d.	That construction shall be managed in accordance with Table A Appendix 2 of the State Planning Policy including for construction areas in excess of 2500m2 to be treated through sediment basins capable of treating 80% of the average annual runoff from the site to 50mg/L Total Suspended Solids.
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant submits the following:
Conditions 13.a requires the detention tank parameters must be amended to separately detain waters from each catchment for subsequent treatment and discharge.
To meet mitigation targets & non-worsening the stormwater management design has provided a single detention tank for Catchment A to over-compensate for Catchment B, thereby allowing Catchment B to leave the site un-mitigated. Separate mitigation measures are not required.
Accordingly, we request that Condition 13.a be deleted.
Assessment of Representation
Council’s Environmental officer confirms condition 13.a. is imposed to ensure consistency with the water quality and quantity outcomes within the stormwater management plan. Stormwater treatment measures need to be consistent with the MUSIC model and deemed to comply solutions, in which all stormwater needs to be accounted for in the treatment process. Whilst Catchment A is considered to over-compensate for Catchment B, Catchment B must still be treated.
The applicant has not provided sufficient detail or material to support this request. It is recommended the applicant’s request to delete condition 13.a. be refused.
Condition 20.a.i. – Shade Trees
Landscaping Works
20.	The development site must be landscaped.  The works must be undertaken in accordance with an Operational Works approval and the Noosa Plan for that specific area and must include in particular:
a.	the works generally shown on the approved plans except where amended by the conditions contained herein:
i.	Provision of additional 100L shade trees in carparks 47, 28, in the areas between carpark 93 and 72, 81 and 60, as numbered on Odyssey drawing P004 Rev G dated 17-06-19.
ii.	100L shade trees within the carpark areas must be local native species.
iii.	Provision of a minimum of 5m3 structured suitable soils for each carpark tree.
iv.	Any landscape plan must accurately show the locations of structures, including water quality devices, retaining walls, lighting and underground services.
Applicant’s Representation
The applicant submits the following:
Understanding Councils reasoning for the additional shade trees, but also clients desire to maintain car parking numbers we have further reviewed the carpark/landscape design.
Refer attached mark-up (attachment 2) showing possible outcome to achieve both. I believe this would remain generally in accordance with the approval and is a design we could pursue as part of the OPW application.
Assessment of Representation
Specific Outcome O28 of the Landscaping Code requires car parking areas to be designed to provide for advanced canopy trees, to shade vehicles and to reduce reflected radiation. The existing and proposed canopy trees in the area of the new car park are predominately located around the boundaries of the site, accordingly, additional shade trees were conditioned within the original approval.
Following recent discussions, the applicant understands and acknowledges the requirement for the shade trees as sought by the code and condition 20.a.i. of the approval. Subsequently the applicant informally agreed to retain condition 20.a.i.
During the recent discussions, the applicant again highlighted the intention to achieve the maximum number of car spaces on the site. The recently submitted mark-up plan (Attachment 2) results in 155 car spaces on-site (gain of 2 car spaces to what was originally approved), whilst still ensuring sufficient canopy tress can be provided on-site, in accordance with the code and Condition 20a.i. The car park arrangement detailed in the mark-up plan is considered to meet the outcomes required and is considered to be generally in accordance with the original approval. The detailed car park arrangement can be assessed for compliance and endorsed within the future operational works application.
It is recommended the applicants request (as submitted within the representations) to delete condition 20.a.i. be refused and the revised car parking arrangement depicted in Attachment 2 be considered generally in accordance with the approval.

conclusion & REASONS FOR DECISION
With regard to Condition 2 Approved Plans, an error was made within the original planning report and decision, it is therefore recommended the condition be amended to correctly reflect the approved plans.
The applicant’s request to delete Conditions 6.b., 13.a. & 20.a.i. does not comply with the relevant codes and requirements of the planning scheme as:
Deletion of 6.b. would result in unlimited access to the car park and adversely impact on the capacity and operations of the existing road network, contrary to the Driveways and Carparking Code.
Deletion of 13.a. would result in detrimental impacts to downstream flow, water quality and ecosystem health, contrary to the Water Sensitive Design Code.
Deletion of 20.a.i. would result in insufficient canopy trees, required to shade vehicles and to reduce reflective radiation, contrary to the Landscaping Code.
It is recommended the applicants request to amend Condition 2 be supported, deletion of Conditions 6.b., 13.a. & 20.a.i. be refused, and the overall car parking arrangement (except landscaping) depicted in attachment 2 be considered generally in accordance with the approval.

Departments/Sections Consulted:
	Chief Executive Officer		Community Services		Corporate Services
	Executive Officer		Community Development		Financial Services
	Executive Support		Community Facilities		ICT
			Libraries & Galleries		Procurement & Fleet
			Local Laws		Property
			Waste & Environmental Health		Revenue Services
					
	Executive Services	X	Environment & Sustainable Development		Infrastructure Services
	Community Engagement		Building & Plumbing Services		Asset Management
	Customer Service	X	Development Assessment		Buildings and Facilities
	Governance		Economic Development		Civil Operations
	People and Culture	X	Environmental Services		Disaster Management
			Strategic Land Use Planning		Infrastructure Planning, Design and Delivery
					

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 6 of 6

[word/header1.xml]
3

[word/header2.xml]
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT	12 NOVEMBER 2019

[Attachment: image1.gif (image text)]
\ ©
=<

GS