Information response

Page 2

Information Required
1. Provide further elevations and renderings for all views that clearly demonstrate:
    1.1. Elevations from the existing and finished levels (the elevations provided appear to have
         been taken from the street.
    1.2. the existing and finished levels of the proposed development
    1.3. proposed retaining walls on site including materials
    1.4. proposed fencing and materials
    1.5. basement openings and surrounding retaining structures and relationship to the street
    1.6. a section from the eastern edge of the development through the site.
    1.7. provide plans of Sections G and H.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, materials palette and renders. These plans and images
provide further information on external views of the development, existing and finished levels,
retaining walls and materials, fencing and materials, basement openings and additional sections.

2. Provide further plans that detail:
   2.1. the materials of the wall behind the ‘quiet pool’ and how this is viewed from the street
   2.2. how the treatment pool area relates to the street level
   2.3. a section from the western edge of the development through the treatment pools, lawn,
        central retail area and units

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. The site layout has been changed, with the quiet pool,
walls and treatment pools being relocated. It is now proposed to retain the majority of existing
vegetation within the 6m setback to Serenity Close, with the amended plans demonstrating an
improved streetscape interface.

3. Provide further plans that detail a 6 metre setback to the retaining walls associated with the
   ‘treatment pools’. The plans are to detail the retention of existing vegetation along the frontage.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. The site layout has been changed with relocation of the
treatment pools and removal of hard landscape and walls near the street frontage. The plans now
provide for retention of the majority of existing vegetation within the 6m setback to Serenity Close.

4. Provide further plans or information about the rectangular structure in the north eastern corner
   of the site

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. As shown on these plans the rectangular structure in the
north eastern corner of the site has been removed.

Issue - Height
AO9.1 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code details a building height of no more than 15
metres. The proposed service lift is detailed at 18.9 metre and is not supported. Further
information is required to review the proposed height of the development

Page 3

Information Required
5. Provide revised plans detailing the height of the proposed service lift compliant with the 15
    metre height limit.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. These plans remove the proposed service lift to ensure
a more compliant height outcome is achieved. As demonstrated on the Height Plane Diagram,
the proposal now largely complies with the 15 metre height limit, with exception of some minor
intrusions of 200mm to 400mm to sections of roof canopies/eaves and lift cores. The proposed
height intrusions will comply with performance outcome PO9 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone
Code as the overfall building and structures remain low rise and present a building height
consistent with structures on adjoining and surrounding premises; the intrusions will not visually
dominate the street or surrounding areas; will preserve the amenity of surrounding premises
including privacy, views and access to sunlight; respect the scale of any nearby vegetation,
retaining a vegetated skyline; respond to the topography of the site; and maintain a maximum
building height of four storeys.

6. Provide a further section through the proposed service lift area.

Response
The proposed service lift has been removed.

7. Provide revised elevations and roof plans that clearly detail R.L.s for the top of all buildings and
   plant on the site.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. These plans include elevations, sections and roof plans
that detail RL’s for the top of all buildings and plant on the site.

8. Provide a survey plan of the site prepared by a registered surveyor. The plan is to includes a
   survey of all frontages to the back of kerb of the opposite lots and include existing vegetation

Response
Refer attached Contour Survey plan. This plan was surveyed by Ken Hicks & Associates, now
Project Urban.

Issue – Site Cover
PO11 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code details a maximum site cover of 40% for the site.
The calculations have excluded the covered outdoor dining areas of the villas.

Information Required
9. Provide amended calculations that include the covered outdoor dining areas of the villas and
    demonstrate compliance with site cover.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans which remove the villas.       These plans include an
updated site cover plan which demonstrates that the amended design complies with the permitted
site cover of 40%.

Page 4

10. Provide further information with regard to the permanent cabana structures located around the
    pool area.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, which now show the cabana structures as gazebos.
There are 8 gazebos near the pool and which are small separate structures, separated by
landscape, providing shade and amenity for resort guests while using the pool area. The gazebos
will have a curved roof form and can be seen on Elevation 3: North elevation – east wing.

Issue – Vegetation Removal within front Setbacks
Concerns are raised as to the location of the rapid infiltration swale located in the front boundary
setback of Serenity Close. The Landscape Concept Plan details that the swales are located in the
ecological area inside the boundary and will comprise low level, robust native ground covers. The
swale is over 7 metres in width and extends approximately 60 metres across the frontage of the
site. The swale does not allow for the provision of a landscaped buffer to screen the development.

The location of these pits along the front boundary are not supported.

The proposal plans further detail the location of pools for Villas 1 to 15 within 1.5 metres of the
Serenity Close frontage. The pools are setback approximately 1.5 metres from the front boundary
with each unit having a private access to Serenity Close. The pools and pathway result in a
minimal landscape setback to Serenity Close and no opportunities for the retention of vegetation.
This presentation is not consistent with the character or amenity of the area and is not supported.

Information Required
11. Submit amended plans detailing:
    11.1. Removal of the rapid infiltration swale from the front 6 metre setback to Serenity Close
    11.2. Removal of the individual pathways from Villas 1 to 15 to Serenity Close
    11.3. An increased vegetated landscape setback to Serenity Close. The plan is to detail the
          retention of existing vegetation along Serenity Close.
    11.4. A dense landscape buffer to the north eastern corner of the site and Banksia Avenue
          including retention of existing vegetation

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. These plans remove the rapid infiltration pits and
individual pathways within the 6m setback to Serenity Close. The Villas have also been removed
providing for a substantially increased setback to the primary built form. The plans provide for an
increased landscape setback to the street frontage, including retention of the majority of existing
vegetation within the 6m setback to Serenity Close, including the north eastern corner of the site
and Banksia Avenue. It is intended that the existing vegetation within the landscaped setbacks will
be ‘cleaned up’ to remove any weed species and dead/unhealthy vegetation and supplemented
with new landscape as required.

Issue – Design
The Tourist Accommodation Code details that development is designed to response to the sub-
tropical climate of Noosa, be of a scale compatible with the surrounding area and not present an
appearance of bulk. The Acceptable Outcomes detail requirements for small separate buildings
with no more than 6 units attached in one plane (AO14.6) as well as buildings not to have
unbroken elevation longer than 15 metre.

Page 5

PO14 also specifically states:
f) has a form and architectural scale that does not dominate the streetscape or the surrounding
properties;
g) does not detract from the visual amenity of adjoining properties such as the impact on views,
access to sunlight or overlooking;
h) takes the form of small separate buildings, rather than large single bulky development;
i) sits within a landscaped setting; and
j) visually screens site utilities or integrates them with the design of the development.

Building scale and form is also referenced in the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code and the Visitor
Accommodation Code. AO7.1 to AO7.4 of the Noosa Heads Local Plan Code detail design
requirements relating to small separate buildings that do not dominate the street and respect the
scale of the surrounding vegetation. AO7.5 further details the provision of articulated roof forms, a
mix of lightweight materials, variation through articulation and texture and open balconies or
shaded patios with open transparent or semi open balustrades.

The proposed built form does not meet the Performance Outcome and provides a large bulky
development with limited opportunities for meaningful landscaping around and through the site due
to the extensive paved areas. The proposal plans do not meet the outcomes in relation to the
number of attached units and does not comprise small separate buildings. The buildings
uniformity, limited separation/ break between units, extensive flat planes and walls does not
respond to the sub-tropical climate of Noosa and is not supported.

Information Required
12. Provide amended plans that provide smaller buildings separated by meaningful landscaping
    (not lawns or pool areas).

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, design summary, materials palette and renders. The
plans provide for a changed site planning approach that achieves a smaller built form and
increased deep planting landscape outcome. The site layout change includes removal of the Villas
and associated hard landscape along Serenity Close and removal of the tennis court. This
provides for significantly greater building setbacks to Serenity Close, and ability to retain the
majority of existing vegetation within the 6m frontage setback. A large central open space area
providing meaningful onsite landscaping is also achieved. The primary built form is now separated
into four smaller components separated by 6-10m and linked with recessed open bridges.

13. Provide more variation to the design of the units to remove the uniformity and repetition of the
    development and meet the outcomes of the Codes.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, design summary, materials palette and renders. These
plans provide for more variation to the design, with increased articulation and texture, larger
balconies, building elements which separate the accommodation units, lightweight awnings and
varied roof form and which remove the uniformity of the development.

Page 6

14. Provide amended plans that reference the sub-tropical climate of Noosa for the development
    including articulated roof forms, lightweight materials, greater overhangs, use of different
    building materials, softening of the edges of the building by removing the boxy profiles.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, design summary, materials palette and renders. These
plans provide for an improved response to the sub-tropical climate of Noosa and include
articulated roof forms, greater mix of materials and textures, overhangs and awnings and softening
of building edges with box parapets replaced with finer varied roof edging. While the building
materials remain robust, to promote longevity and minimize maintenance, they include more varied
finishes and textures and finer grain detail, referencing natural elements and colours.

Issue – Roof Form
PO 20 of the Tourist Accommodation Zone Code details requirements that must be addressed
where roof top terraces are proposed. PO 20 states:

Roof forms:
a) contribute positively to the local skyline;
b) complement the character of the locality and the topography of the site;
c) avoid box profiles/parapets; and
d) do not create opportunities for overlooking the private open space or internal spaces of
neighbourhood properties.

The proposed roof form does not meet the above Performance Outcomes as the boxy profile
proposed is not consistent with the character of the area, will not contribute positively to the locality
and is of a boxy profile. The roof form is not supported.

Information Required
15. Provide amended plans that provide a more varied roof form that is consistent with the
    character of the area, the subtropical climate and avoid box profiles.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, design summary, materials palette and renders. The
plans and images provide a more varied roof form, including pitching, curved profile, scalloped
eaves, and awnings. The proposed roof form is consistent with the character of the area and the
subtropical climate.

Issue – Vegetation Removal
The arborists report has not been fully reviewed and a further request may be forthcoming when it
has been reviewed.

Information Required
16. Further information is to be provided regarding the existing vegetation along Serenity Close
    and Banksia Avenue and opportunities for retention.

Response
Refer attached amended Proposal plans and Ecological assessment report. The site layout plan
has been amended to provide for a 6m landscape setback to the street frontage allowing for
retention of the majority of existing vegetation.

Page 7

17. Concerns are raised as to whether the existing trees located near at the entrance to the
    basement are able to be retained with the excavation proposed. Further detailed plans are to
    be provided demonstrating the proposed levels and cut required for the driveway and tree
    location.

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 5.2 which provides concept design
and section of the driveway entry in relation to the existing trees. The Arborist Report lodged with
the initial application material indicates that the driveway will be constructed using a suspended
slab design which avoids impacts to the trees located near the entrance (refer Table 6.4.2 of the
Arborist Report).

Issue - Zoning
The southern portion of the site is included in the Environmental Management and Conservation
Zone and the proposal plan indicate earthworks, sheet piling and a rapid infiltration swale within
this zone ALTA Engineering Plan A676922PEW01. The assessment table for the zone indicates
that a Resort is an inconsistent use in the zone, and the proposed works are not considered
appropriate or consistent with the zone. The area is to be retained for dense landscaping and
screening.

The plan also indicated earthworks and sheet piling occurring within Councils reserve which is not
permitted.

Information Required
18. Provide amended plans that remove the sheet piling and rapid infiltration swales from the
    Environmental Management and Conservation zone.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans, preliminary earthworks plans and stormwater
management plan. These plans remove the sheet piling and rapid infiltration swales from the
Environmental Management and Conservation zone. No works are proposed within the
Environmental Management and Conservation zone area.

19. Remove any details of works within Councils reserve. All reports and plans are to be amended
    to remove these works from the reserve.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans and preliminary earthworks plans. These plans remove all
works within Councils reserve.

Issue Transport - Ferry
The Sustainability Strategy lodged with the application indicates that the hotel will provide a shuttle
boat to ferry people to and from Hastings Street. No information has been provided about the
frequency of service or where the ferry will be moored noting that the jetty is a public facility.

Information Required
20. Provide further information regarding the ferry including:
     20.1. Frequency of service

Page 8

    20.2.   Estimates of patron/ passenger numbers
    20.3.   Where the ferry is to be moored and how it will be accessed
    20.4.   Arrangements in relation to access to destination jetties

Response
The proposed ferry is an additional transport option being explored for the development and is not
intended to form part of the development approval. Details and confirmation of the proposed ferry
have not been finalised at this stage.      Frequency of service may be half hourly, with hours of
operation dependent upon demand and time of year. The ferry being investigated is 12m long
and a catamaran design with electric motors and a roof supporting PV solar cells. The passenger
capacity may be as high as 48. The preference would be to make necessary arrangements to
allow the ferry to be moored at the Settlers Cove jetty, understanding this would require the
approval of Council and upgrading of the existing jetty to accommodate this. Alternatively, a
commercial mooring offsite would be required. Until the final size of the vessel and timing is
determined, no formal arrangements can be progressed. The proposed destination jetty is the
Woods jetty at the end of Hastings Street. While informal discussions with Council have been held
about is, no formal approach has been pursued. Should more detailed investigations establish the
ferry to be viable, then it would operate as ancillary to the approved use.

Issue - Stormwater drainage
While not wanting to discourage innovation, the RIP system does appear to be a high-maintenance
solution and at high-risk of failure compared to conventional drainage. A lower risk drainage
solution which still achieves the infiltration targets could be achieved through conventional
drainage and provision of pipeless biofiltration systems.

Information Required
21. Provide further information on the proposed rapid infiltration pits (RIPs) and justify the suitability
    compared to a conventional drainage solution, and specifically address the following:
    • The SWMP Appendix D spreadsheet calculations seem to use an impervious catchment
       area for the external catchment of 4437m2, whereas the catchment plan shows an area of
       ~1.1ha. Clarify this apparent discrepancy.
    • Provide current infiltration test data on the existing RIPs to demonstrate the infiltration rates
       both in the current state of the devices and following the routine maintenance required by
       the management plan
    • Update the maintenance plan for the RIPs to include a performance objective of ‘No
       ponding of water within RIPs between rainfall events’ or similar
    • Explain what structures will be present over the 600mm dia emergency relief pipe and how
       this pipe will be able to be accessed should maintenance or upgrade be required in the
       future
    • Explain why a more conventional solution (eg conventional drainage and pipeless
       bioretention) could not be adopted for the site and would not present a lower-risk and
       lower-maintenance solution

Response
Refer attached amended stormwater management plan, which reduces the extent of proposed
rapid infiltration pits, and which are now only proposed in an area near the southern-western
boundary of the site. The stormwater management plan:
    • Provides calculations which address underground and overland flows for the external
        catchment and RIP Infiltration for internal catchments

Page 9

   •   Proposes a prototype RIP on the development site, with further testing to be carried out to
       verify design infiltration rates prior to Operational Works application
   •   Updates the maintenance plan for the RIPs
   •   Removes the emergency relief pipe design element
   •   Includes a conventional drainage solution for external catchments.

Issue – Stormwater quality
Stormwater quality is not directly addressed in the SWMP - presumably on the basis that all flows
are infiltrated and hence ‘lost’. This does not recognise that groundwater is a receiving
environment and treatment is required prior to infiltration

Information Required
15. Provide an updated SWMP and preliminary engineering and layout plans which demonstrate
    that stormwater quality objectives are achieved prior to discharge to groundwater (i.e. prior to
    infiltration).

Response
Refer attached amended stormwater management plan which demonstrates that stormwater
quality objectives are achieved prior to discharge to groundwater. The amended design now sees
low flows directed to a landscaped swale with remediated soils, as required by the EMP, prior to
discharge to RIPs for infiltration.

Issue – Grant/Banksia Roundabout Upgrade
Page 18 of TTM’s Traffic Engineering Report (22135916) dated 07 October 2022 details design
modifications of the existing Grant/Banksia roundabout and “Driveway Entry” into the Resort. The
submitted documentation does not contain sufficient information for Council to assess the
proposed Grant/Banksia roundabout upgrade and “Driveway Entry”.

Information Required
22. Provide additional detail demonstrating the extent of the Grant/Banksia roundabout upgrade
    and proposed ‘Driveway Entry’ into the Resort. The detail must be prepared by a suitably
    qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but
    not be limited to:
    a. Demonstrate the extent of roadworks, including:
       i.   design alterations to the roadway, traffic islands and roundabout island;
      ii.   signage; and
     iii.   line-marking.
    b. Demonstrate the extent of entrance works, including:
       i.   demonstrate the design of the proposed “Driveway Entry” complies with Noosa
            Council’s standard drawing RS-051;
      ii.   provide a longitudinal section extending from the centreline of the road formation about
            the Grant/Banksia roundabout to the “Driveway/Setdown” area;
     iii.   demonstrate B99 vehicle will not scrape or bottom out while entering and exiting the
            proposed “Driveway Entry”;
     iv.    demonstrate additional stormwater runoff generated by the downward slope of the
            proposed “Driveway Entry” will create a worsening of drainage conditions within the
            road reserve and road network; and
      v.    demonstrate the required vegetation clearing.

Page 10

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 5.2 which includes a preliminary
functional layout of Grant Street/ Banksia Avenue intersection and a longitudinal section of the
access ramp demonstrating these works and access arrangements will comply with applicable
standards.     The proposed driveway catchment area is very small and can be adequately
conveyed by existing kerb and channel in usual fashion without any worsening of drainage
conditions within the road reserve.

The Arborist Report lodged with the initial application material indicates that the driveway will be
constructed using a suspended slab design which avoids impacts to the trees located near the
entrance (refer Table 6.4.2 of the Arborist Report).

Issue – Serenity Close Cul-de-sac Upgrades
Page 18 of TTM’s Traffic Engineering Report (22135916) dated 07 October 2022 details design
modifications of the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Serenity Close. The submitted documentation
does not contain sufficient information for Council to assess the proposed Serenity Close cul-de-
sac upgrade.

Information Required
23. Provide additional detail demonstrating the extent of the Serenity Close cul-de-sac upgrade.
    The detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
    Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
    a. Demonstrate the extent of cul-de-sac roadworks, including:
        i.     demonstrate the proposed services entrance generally complies with Noosa Council’s
               standard drawing RS-051;
       ii.     provide a longitudinal section extending from the centreline of the road formation about
               the Serenity Close cul-de-sac roundabout to the “Loading” area;
      iii.     Demonstrate the expected service vehicles (SRV, MRV, LRV BCC and VOLVO B12
               BLE) will not scrape or bottom out while entering, manoeuvring on site and exiting the
               proposed servicing/loading entrance.
    b. Demonstrate how the additional stormwater runoff generated by the downslope slope of the
           entrance will be controlled, treated and released.
    c. Provide comment on the amount of additional catchment volume during up to, and
           including, a 1% AEP event and if the downstream drainage system has sufficient capacity
           to handle this increase.

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 5.3 and 6.2 which confirms that the
proposed services entrance will generally comply with Council’s standard drawing RS-051 and
includes a longitudinal section, demonstrating appropriate service vehicle movements.

The attached amended stormwater plan accommodates the overall site stormwater outcomes
including this site entrance. The proposed driveway catchment area is very small and will be
adequately conveyed by existing grassed swale in usual fashion. The catchment volume and
downstream drainage system capacity is addressed in the stormwater plan.

Issue – Practicality and Functionality of the Coach
Engineering is concerned the use of the coach is impracticable. The functionality of the coach
manoeuvring is impracticable and is likely to adversely affect the existing road network conditions.

Page 11

Information Required
24. Provide additional detail demonstrating the coach is capable of manoeuvring through the
    existing road network without adversely affecting the existing traffic conditions. The detail must
    be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
    Queensland) and follow the below route:
    a. Enter the Grant Street/Noosa Drive/Sunshine Beach Road roundabout via the west (Noosa
        Drive) and south (Sunshine Beach Road);
    b. Grant Street via the Grant Street/Noosa Drive/Sunshine Beach Road roundabout;
    c. Banksia Avenue (north) via the Grant Street/Banksia Avenue roundabout;
    d. Serenity Close via Banksia Avenue;
    e. Proposed Coach parking bay via Serenity Close;
    f. Manoeuvre using the cul-de-sac;
    g. Banksia Avenue via Serenity Close;
    h. Grant Street via the Grant Street/Banksia Avenue roundabout;
    i. Noosa Drive (west) via the Grant Street/Noosa Drive/Sunshine Beach Road roundabout;
        and
    j. Sunshine Beach Road the Grant Street/Noosa Drive/Sunshine Beach Road roundabout.

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 2.2 which notes that the target
market for the proposed hotel does not include tour groups, as such coaches will not require
access to the site or park within the site / surrounding streets. The hotel will provide a minibus,
with the Porte Cochere/ set down area designed to cater for a 21 seater minibus.

25. Provide additional detail demonstrating how the manoeuvrability of the coach will affect and be
    affected by the existing on-street parking arrangements along Serenity Close. The additional
    detail must consider all possible turning paths of the coach and be prepared by a suitably
    qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland).

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 2.2 which notes that the target
market for the proposed hotel does not include tour groups, as such coaches will not be required
access to the site or park within the site / surrounding streets. The hotel will provide a minibus,
with the Porte Cochere/ set down area designed to cater for a 21 seater minibus. There will be no
iMac to existing on-street parking along Serenity Close.

26. Provide additional detail and comments demonstrating how the VOLVO B12 BLE will enter the
    site in a forward gear and manoeuvre using the cul-de-sac without any component of the coach
    (including 0.3m clearance) mounting the kerb, crossing the coach bay line-marking or entering
    any private driveways. The detail and comments must be prepared by a suitably qualified
    person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland).

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 2.2 which notes that the target
market for the proposed hotel does not include tour groups, as such coaches will not require
access to the site or park within the site / surrounding streets. The hotel will provide a minibus,
with the Porte Cochere/ set down area designed to cater for a 21 seater minibus.

Page 12

27. Provide comment detailing the viability of alternate methods of transporting guests of the
    Resort (i.e. utilising the existing Noosa Junction Bus Interchange to transport guests to the
    Resort using a small vehicle that will have a lesser impact on the road network compared to a
    coach).

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 2.2 which notes that the target
market for the proposed hotel does not include tour groups, as such coaches will not require
access to the site or park within the site / surrounding streets. The hotel will provide a minibus,
with the Porte Cochere/ set down area designed to cater for a 21 seater minibus. The minibus will
be used to transport guests from various destinations, including transport hubs such as the Noosa
Junction bus interchange.

Issue – Internal Carparks
Engineering is concerned that a number of the proposed internal carparks are not functional.

Information Required
28. Provide additional detail demonstrating the highlighted carparks (extracted by Richards &
    Spence’ SD-A-01-02-G_LEVEL 02-RevS) are functional. The detail must be prepared by a
    suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and
    include, but not be limited to:
    a. Turning Path Plans indicating a B99 vehicle can enter and exit the highlighted carparks
        without any component of the vehicle (excluding 0.3m clearance) colliding with another
        vehicle or parking infrastructure. The plans must demonstrate that the adjacent (or
        opposite, where applicable) carpark is occupied.

Response
Refer attached amended Proposal Plans and amended Traffic engineering report, section 4.2,
which certifies that the modified car park layout has been designed to comply with the relevant
standards.

Issue - Parking
The traffic report has not been fully reviewed by Council Traffic Consultant and a further request
may be forthcoming when it has been reviewed.

Issue – Extent of Earthworks
Alta’s Preliminary Earthworks Layout plan (A676-22-PEW01) dated 5 October 2022 indicates the
proposed excavation earthworks and does not detail the earthworks required for the proposed
development as a whole.

Alta’s Preliminary Earthworks Layout plan (A676-22-PEW01) dated 5 October 2022 makes
reference to the manufacturer’s design & certification. Engineering has not received any
documentation pertaining the design, standard detail, anchoring notes and recommendations or
certification of the sheet piling.

Engineering has identified that the extent of sheet piling and installation of temporary battering
extends beyond the property boundary at the north- and south- eastern corners of the subject site.

Page 13

Information Required
29. Provide an Earthworks Plan demonstrating the extent of the proposed earthworks required to
    carry out the proposed development. The additional plan must be prepared by a suitably
    qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but
    not be limited to:
    a. the extent and volume of cut and fill; and
    b. Additional detail indicating whether the excess earth will be transported off-site or
        temporarily stored on-site. If the excess earth is being transported off-site, provide a
        construction management plan including truck routes.

       Note that temporary on-site storage piles must be suitably treated to ensure short-term
       stabilisation

Response
Refer attached amended Earthworks Plan demonstrating the extent of the proposed earthworks
required to carry out the proposed development. This plan indicates cut/fill volumes along with
revised sheet piling extents located within site boundaries. All spoil will be transported off site with
details subject to the builder and contractors engaged. Details including truck routes will be
included in a Construction Management Plan associated with the subsequent Operational Works
approval.

30. Provide additional plans demonstrating the extent of the sheet piling. The plan must be
    prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
    Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
    a. Standard detail of the sheet piling, including any required anchoring methods and locations
       (note that all anchoring must be contained within the subject site);
    b. Construction methodology of the proposed sheet piling;
    c. Depth of the sheet piling; and
    d. Comment on how the sheet piling will affect the proposed stormwater culvert and other
       existing site features (trees, services, etc.).

Response
Refer attached amended Earthworks Plan which shows sheet piling extents located within site
boundaries. While sheet piling extents have increased, this will reduce the extent of earthworks
required on the site beyond the building footprint, enabling greater retention of natural landform
and vegetation external to the building. The plan includes sheet piling notes indicating the general
sheet piling approach and requirements. Sheet piling will be carried out as a design (RPEQ) and
construct package by specialist contractors. Further details cannot be provided until this detailed
design is undertaken.

31. Provide comment on the sheet piling extending beyond the north- and south- eastern
    boundary. The comment must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
    Professional Engineer of Queensland) and consider:
    a. the extent of development (including anchoring) must be kept within the property boundary;
       and
    b. the safety of pedestrians.

Page 14

Response
Refer attached amended Earthworks Plan. The sheet piling extending beyond the north- and
south- eastern boundary was an error on the original plans and has been removed from the
amended plans.

Issue – Acid Sulfate Soils Management
Council have identified that the proposed development is encumbered by Council’s Acid Sulfate
Soils hazard overlay. The submitted documentation does not include an Acid Sulfate Management
Plan or make reference to a Dewatering Plan.

Information Required
32. Demonstrates through a geotechnical report, if the proposed development triggers assessment
    against the Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code of The Noosa Plan 2020. If assessment is
    required, provide a site specific Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan. The Acid Sulfate Soils
    Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
    Professional Engineer of Queensland).

Response
Refer attached Acid sulfate soil assessment. This report confirms that the proposed development
will not involve disturbance of any soil with potential to contain acid sulfate soil or any soil below an
elevation of 5mAHD and that no specific management measures for acid sulfate soil are required.
No assessment against the Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code is triggered.

33. Demonstrate through a geotechnical report, that the proposed development will not encounter
    water during excavations. If the proposed development is likely to encounter water during
    excavation, provide a Dewatering Plan demonstrating how Acid Sulfate affected water
    encountered during excavation will be treated and disposed of. The Dewater Plan must be
    prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of
    Queensland).

Response
Refer attached Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment. This report confirms that the development will have
a negligible risk of affecting groundwater conditions which may impact acid sulfate soils and that
the development may proceed without need for any dewatering management measures.

Issue – Erosion and Sediment Control
The proposed development will alter the existing drainage conditions of the site during
construction. Council is concerned how sediment leaving the site will be controlled and treated and
how erosion of the site and neighbouring properties will be managed.

Information Required
34. Provide a Sediment and Erosion Control plan that demonstrates how the site will control
    contaminates leaving the site without causing erosion damage to the site and neighbouring
    properties. The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
    Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
    a. a Maintenance Plan that includes:
       i.  maintenance timeframes
      ii.  quantitative or qualitative method of assessing the functionality of each measure
     iii.  review of overall measures

Page 15

   b. Demonstrate how water collected on site will be treated before being leaving the site (bio-
      basin, etc.).

Response
A Sediment and Erosion Control plan to control contaminates leaving the site without causing
erosion damage to the site and neighbouring properties is readily achievable but subject to
detailed architectural and engineering design. There are no site constraints that warrant this to be
provided at this material change of use stage and the plans will be provided with a subsequent
operational works application and included in the construction management plan.

Additional Items 15 March 2023

Issue – Ecological Assessment
The submitted application material has not provided an ecological assessment in accordance with
the Planning Scheme Policy 3 – Ecological assessment guidelines. The development proposes to
clear vegetation identified by the Noosa Plan 2020 as biodiversity significance, ecologically
important areas, koala core habitat, protected areas, ecological linkages and connecting habitat.

Information Required
1. Provide an ecological assessment undertaken by a qualified person in accordance with the
    requirements of the Planning Scheme Policy 3 – Ecological assessment guidelines.

Response
Refer attached Ecological assessment report, which includes additional targeted survey for Koala
and Glossy Black Cockatoo, together with response letter from Litoria Consulting included in
Appendix A. This report includes identification of the flora, fauna and habitat of the site and its
immediate environment; identification of matters of environmental significance; determination of
potential impacts of the operation and construction phases of the development on the matters of
environmental significance, including the long term vitality and function of these matters; and
recommendations in relation to any measures or changes to the development design that may be
required to avoid or mitigate any impacts.

The targeted Koala survey was carried out utilising purpose-bred detection dogs and the targeted
Glossy Black Cockatoo was carried out in accordance with the Queensland Herbarium’s targeted
species guidelines for Glossy Black Cockatoo. The survey results indicated that:
• The site does not currently form part of the home range of any individual Koala, nor has it been
   recently used by Koalas. No direct evidence of koala use (scat, sightings, Koala scratches) was
   observed on site during botanical survey and tree survey
• None of the Allocasurina trees within the assessable area were active feed trees for Glossy
   Black Cockatoo. A systematic search beneath the entire canopy of all Allocasurina trees
   indicated no presence of orts.

The assessment of impacts largely concentrates on the change to the approved development
footprint, the subject of the application. The report concludes:
• Spatial analysis of the impacts of the proposed change indicated that the development would
    be positive in terms of impacts to vegetation and potential fauna habitat, as a greater area of
    native vegetation will be retained;

Page 16

•   The changed development footprint results in a net positive impact to potential fauna habitat on
    site; does not result in any significant habitat loss; does not result in barriers to fauna
    movement within the site or wider landscape;
•   The assessable area is not expected to result in any significant, direct impacts to waterways or
    wetlands as the development does not contain waterways or wetland, with indirect impacts to
    adjacent waterways and wetlands, such as stormwater runoff and erosion avoided or mitigated
    through design and management measures.

Issue – Biodiversity waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code
The submitted application material does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate how
Performance Outcome(s) PO1, PO3, PO11 of the Biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay
code and PO7 and PO26 of the Noosa Heads local Plan have been addressed in relation to the
protection and management of ecologically important areas.

In particular, the development proposes the clearing of mapped areas of biodiversity significance,
ecologically important areas, koala core habitat, protected areas, ecological linkages and
connecting habitat.

Information Required
2. Provide an amended plan of development to demonstrate how the applicable Performance
    Outcomes of the Biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay code and Noosa Heads
    Local Plan code can be achieved. This must include:
    a) Demonstrate that the development is sited and designed to protect the physical and
       ecological integrity and biodiversity of ecological important areas.
    b) Incorporate siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological values and
       ecosystems processes within and adjacent the development site.
    c) Avoid development footprint within ecologically important areas by locating new
       infrastructure within existing disturbed areas and cleared areas of the site.
    d) Demonstrate how the development design complies with the Koala-sensitive Design
       Guidelines, incorporates revegetation and landscaping that provides food, shelter and
       movement opportunities for koalas.
    e) Incorporate a development design that respects the scale of surrounding vegetation and
       maximises the opportunity for retention of existing vegetation and incorporates soft
       landscaping between buildings.
    f) Demonstrate that the development has no significant adverse impacts on biodiversity,
       natural vegetation, and fauna habitat.

Response
Refer attached amended Proposal plans and Ecological assessment report, together with
response letter from Litoria Consulting included in Appendix A.

The site layout has been amended to allow for increased retention of existing vegetation and
landscape area.

The Ecological assessment report includes a targeted survey for Koala and Glossy Black
Cockatoo and which indicated that:
• The site does not currently form part of the home range of any individual Koala, nor has it been
   recently used by Koalas. No direct evidence of koala use (scat, sightings, Koala scratches) was
   observed on site during botanical survey and tree survey

Page 17

•   None of the Allocasurina trees within the assessable area were active feed trees for Glossy
    Black Cockatoo. A systematic search beneath the entire canopy of all Allocasurina trees
    indicated no presence of orts.

The Ecological assessment report includes a code response to the performance outcomes raised
in the issues discussion.

The Ecological assessment report, assessment of impacts, largely concentrates on the change to
the approved development footprint, the subject of the application, being the relevant assessment
extent under the Planning Act for a change application, which is not a minor change.

The report concludes:
• Spatial analysis of the impacts of the proposed change indicated that the development would
   be positive in terms of impacts to vegetation and potential fauna habitat, as a greater area of
   native vegetation will be retained;
• The changed development footprint results in a net positive impact to potential fauna habitat on
   site; does not result in any significant habitat loss; does not result in barriers to fauna
   movement within the site or wider landscape;
• The assessable area is not expected to result in any significant, direct impacts to waterways or
   wetlands as the development does not contain waterways or wetland, with indirect impacts to
   adjacent waterways and wetlands, such as stormwater runoff and erosion avoided or mitigated
   through design and management measures.

Issue – Carparking Provision
Councils traffic consultants advises that there has not been sufficient evidence presented in the
TTM report to justify that only 0.5 parking spaces per room is appropriate as a design rate for the
“accommodation” component of the assessment.

Information Required
3. Further justification of the proposed parking relaxation, including addressing the following
    issues
    (i) There is no reason that the rate of “accommodation” parking per room for the proposed
          development will be any different to the rate of “accommodation” parking at other short term
          accommodation developments that include a pool, restaurants, and bars.
    (ii) There is no evidence or discussion included in the TTM report to identify how guests who
          do not drive a car to the site will be transported with their luggage to and from the
          development. For example, is it expected that large proportions of guests will hire a driver
          to transport them to/from the development, or will they use public transport, or be
          transported to/from the airport by mini bus or coach (noting that this may impact on the size
          of the design vehicle for the Grant Street access – given that under the current proposed
          arrangements, any vehicles larger than a car delivering and collecting guests of the
          development would need to use the “back door” access via the pedestrian entry and
          proposed bus stop in Serenity Close)?
    (iii) In relation to the parking provision rates provided in Table 4.2 of the TTM report, none
          appear to be comparable to conditions at Noosa, noting:
          • The RTA rate is for hotels in the Sydney CBD (where alternative modes of travel are
              well established and on-street parking is highly regulated and in high demand).
          • The Gold Coast rate is for a defined resort complex (it would be interesting to know
              which developments on the Gold Coast are classified as a resort complex, and how

Page 18

           they functionally differ from a “short term accommodation” use, and in any event, like
           the Sydney CBD, the Gold Coast well established alternative modes of travel and on-
           street parking is highly regulated and in high demand).
       •   Further details would be required to be provided for the Westin Hotel Yaroomba
           approval before any comparison could be considered.
       •   The website for the Holiday Inn Maroochydore states, “Limited on-site carparking
           available for $20 per night. Cannot be pre-booked or guaranteed. Off site outdoor public
           carpark available at Sunshine Coast Council Maroochydore Parking Area.” This is not
           suggestive of a development having a parking provision that adequately satisfies
           existing parking demands.

Response
Refer attached amended proposal plans. These plans include provision of an additional basement
carpark and which increases total carparks from 237 to 380 spaces.

Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 4.1 which confirms compliance of
the amended car parking provision with Councils car parking rate requirements.

4. The plans identify “pay stations” and boom gates controlling access to the carpark. Provide
   detail of, and assess, how this system is proposed to be operated, including pricing for staff,
   guests, and other visitors. In addition, provide assessment of the likely on-street parking
   demands generated by the proposed pricing structure of the carpark (it is noted that on-street
   parking is free and unregulated, so on-site parking fees are likely to lead to unacceptable on-
   street parking demands).

Response
Refer attached updated Traffic engineering report and section 4.1 which provides further
information on the carpark management. The development plans include “boom gates” at the
entry / exit of the car park. Whilst the details of the car park management plan, including any policy
relating to paid parking, are yet to be resolved, the primary purpose of incorporating the boom gate
controls into the development plan is to allow a validation system, or similar, to be implemented
such that the car park is used only by guests, staff and legitimate visitors to the proposed
development. The combination of the increased parking supply and the car park management
validation system for guests, staff and visitors will ensure that the proposed development will not
create any overflow parking onto the surrounding local street system.

5. Additional information in relation to the proposed Grant Street access including the following:
   • Demonstrate that a 14.5m coach can satisfactorily manoeuvre to/from Banksia Avenue
      to/from Grant Street.
   • Provide appropriate geometry to enable a car departing from the development to turn left
      into Banksia Avenue.
   • Provide detail of how vehicles larger than a car will be prevented from accessing the site
      via the roundabout.

Response
Refer attached updated Traffic engineering report and sections 2.2 and 5.2. This information
confirms that the target market for the proposed hotel does not include tour groups, as such
coaches will not be required access to the site or park within the site / surrounding streets. The
hotel will provide a minibus, with the Porte Cochere/ set down area designed to cater for a 21

Page 19

seater minibus. A preliminary functional layout of Grant Street/ Banksia Avenue intersection and a
longitudinal section of the access ramp is provided demonstrating these works and access
arrangements will comply with applicable standards. Appropriate signage will be installed adjacent
to the entry driveway to ensure larger vehicles do not enter via this driveway, with service vehicles
directed to the driveway at the end of Serenity Close

6. Identify and assess the proposed access driveway gradients against the requirements of
   AS/NZS 2890.1 2004.

Response
Refer attached amended Traffic engineering report and section 5 which includes details confirming
the proposed access driveway gradients will comply with relevant standards.

7. Assess whether adequate height clearance is required to enable loading of refuse bins into the
   refuse truck.

Response
Refer attached updated Traffic engineering report and section 6.2 which confirms that adequate
height clearance is provided to enable loading of refuse bins into the refuse truck.


                                END INFORMATION RESPONSE


Part 3: Information Request has now concluded. We ask that you now provide details of adjoining
owners in order that we may commence the public notification of the application.

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

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]

Page 20

URBAN ©)

APPENDIX A

 

Litoria consulting response

Page 21

litoria consulting

PO Box 461
Paddington O 4064

Level 3/22 Wandoo Street
Fortitude Valley Q 4006

T 07 3852.4855

Your Ref: [email protected]
Our Ref: 22011 litoria.com.au
12 July 2023

Nadine Gorton

Development Planner

Noosa Council

via email: [email protected]

Dear Nadine,

RE: INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE - 132008.176.05 - 3-7 SERENITY CLOSE, NOOSA
HEADS (LOTS 10 & 11 ON SP195871)

| refer to Council’s information requests (2 December 2022 and 16 March 2023) associated
with the change application located at the abovementioned address.

In preparing our response we have considered the information requested by Council and
the relevant Noosa Plan 2020 assessment benchmarks. The applicant has modified the
design of the proposed development to address the issues raised by Council.

Our response has been prepared for all ecology matters raised in Council’s information
requests.

Information Request (2 December 2022)

Issue - Vegetation Removal within front Setbacks

Concerns are raised as to the location of the rapid infiltration swale located in the
front boundary setback of Serenity Close. The Landscape Concept Plan details that
the swales are located in the ecological area inside the boundary and will comprise
low level, robust native ground covers. The swale is over 7 metres in width and
extends approximately 60 metres across the frontage of the site. The swale does
not allow for the provision of a landscaped buffer to screen the development.

The location of these pits along the front boundary are not supported.

The proposal plans further detail the location of pools for Villas 1 to 15 within 1.5
metres of the Serenity Close frontage. The pools are setback approximately 1.5

689 11S OOL SZ NaV

Page 22

metres from the front boundary with each unit having a private access to Serenity
Close. The pools and pathway result in a minimal landscape setback to Serenity
Close and no opportunities for the retention of vegetation. This presentation is not
consistent with the character or amenity of the area and is not supported.

Information Required
11. Submit amended plans detailing:

11.1. Removal of the rapid infiltration swale from the front 6 metre setback to
Serenity Close

11.2. Removal of the individual pathways from Villas 1 to 15 to Serenity Close

11.3. An increased vegetated landscape setback to Serenity Close. The plan is
to detail the retention of existing vegetation along Serenity Close.

11.4. A dense landscape buffer to the north eastern corner of the site and
Banksia Avenue including retention of existing vegetation.

Response:

Additional tree survey was conducted in 2023 along the six (6) metre setback of
the site along Serenity Close. The architectural plans for the proposed change have
been amended to address points 11.1 - 11.4 (Refer to Richards and Spence
Architects, Drawing No. SD-A-01-01-G - SD-A-01-07-G, Rev. J, 5 July 2023).

Consequential changes to the Arborist Report and Vegetation Management Plan
(VMP) (Litoria Consulting, Issue A, 7 October 2022) (encl.) can be conditioned as
part of a development permit and submitted as part of a subsequent operational
works application to Council.

Issue - Vegetation Removal

The arborists report has not been fully reviewed and a further request may be
forthcoming when it has been reviewed.

Information Required

16. Further information is to be provided regarding the existing vegetation along
Serenity Close and Banksia Avenue and opportunities for retention.

17. Concerns are raised as to whether the existing trees located near at the entrance
to the basement are able to be retained with the excavation proposed. Further
detailed plans are to be provided demonstrating the proposed levels and cut
required for the driveway and tree location.

LORS 215

Page 23

Response:

Additional tree survey was conducted in 2023 along the six (6) metre setback of
the site along Serenity Close. The architectural plans for the proposed change have
been amended to allow for an increased vegetation retention within the additional
setback along Serenity Close and Bankia Avenue (Refer to Richards and Spence
Architects, Drawing No. SD-A-01-01-G - SD-A-01-07-G, Rev. J, 5 July 2023). The
Sketch Plan - Earthworks Layout (ALTA Projects, Drawing No. A6769-23_SK19,
Rev. 2, 6 July 2023) indicate that the extent of the earthworks is largely limited to
the building footprint; enabling retention of existing trees along Serenity Close and
Banksia Avenue.

The Sketch Plan - Earthworks Layout also indicates excavation for the basement
and basement entrance is largely limited to the building footprint, with no
additional earthworks at the driveway entrance. The Arborist Report indicates that
the driveway will be constructed using a suspended slab design which avoids
impacts to trees located near the entrance (Refer to Table 6.4.2 of the Arborist
Report).

Consequential changes to the current VMP can be conditioned as part of a
development permit and submitted as part of a subsequent operational works
application to Council.

Additional Items - Information Request (16 March 2023)
Issue - Ecological Assessment

The submitted application material has not provided an ecological assessment in
accordance with the Planning Scheme Policy 3 - Ecological assessment guidelines.
The development proposes to clear vegetation identified by the Noosa Plan 2020
as biodiversity significance, ecologically important areas, koala core habitat,
protected areas, ecological linkages and connecting habitat.

Information Required

1. Provide an ecological assessment undertaken by a qualified person in accordance
with the requirements of the Planning Scheme Policy 3 - Ecological assessment
guidelines.

Response:

An ecological assessment was undertaken generally in accordance with the Noosa
Plan 2020 Planning Scheme Policy 3 - Ecological assessment guidelines. As part of
the assessment, the following targeted surveys were carried out:

e targeted Koala survey utilising purpose-bred detection dogs,

LORS 315

Page 24

e targeted Glossy Black Cockatoo in accordance with the Queensland
Herbarium’s Targeted Species Survey Guidelines for the Glossy Black
Cockatoo'.

A copy of the Ecological Assessment Report (Litoria Consulting, v 1.0, July 2023)
(EAR) is enclosed with this response.

Issue - Biodiversity waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code

The submitted application material does not provide sufficient information to
demonstrate how Performance Outcome(s) POT, POS, PO! of the Biodiversity,
waterways and wetlands overlay code and PO7 and PO26 of the Noosa Head's local
Plan have been addressed in relation to the protection and management of
ecologically important areas.

In particular, the development proposes the clearing of mapped areas of
biodiversity significance, ecologically important areas, koala core habitat, protected
areas, ecological linkages and connecting habitat.

Information Required

2. Provide an amended plan of development to demonstrate how the applicable
Performance Outcomes of the Biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay code
and Noosa Head's Local Plan code can be achieved. This must include:

(a) Demonstrate that the development is sited and designed to protect the
physical and ecological integrity and biodiversity of ecological important
areas.

(b) Incorporate siting and design measures to protect and retain ecological
values and ecosystems processes within and adjacent the development site.

(Cc) Avoid development footprint within ecologically important areas by
locating new infrastructure within existing disturbed areas and cleared areas
of the site.

(d) Demonstrate how the development design complies with the Koala-
sensitive Design Guidelines, incorporates revegetation and landscaping that
provides food, shelter and movement opportunities for koalas.

(e) Incorporate a development design that respects the scale of surrounding
vegetation and maximises the opportunity for retention of existing
vegetation and incorporates soft landscaping between buildings.

1 Hourigan (2012). Targeted species survey guidelines - Glossy black-cockatoo
Calyptorhynchus lathami. Department Environment and Science, Queensland
Government..

LORS 4s

Page 25

(£) Demonstrate that the development has no significant adverse impacts on
biodiversity, natural vegetation, and fauna habitat.

Response:

The architectural plans for the proposed change have been amended in response
to Items 2.(a) - 2.(f) of the Council’s information request. The proposed changes
help to demonstrate compliance with Performance Outcome(s) PO1, PO3, PO11 of
the Biodiversity, waterways and wetlands overlay code and PO7 and PO26 of the
Noosa Heads Local Plan.

The EAR incorporates a detailed code response which assesses potential impacts
resulting from the proposed changes, outlines management measures and
demonstrates compliance with the relevant assessment benchmarks. Compliance
has been achieved through additional retention of areas containing ecological
values, which will result in a net positive impact.

Please note, the EAR and assessment of environmental impacts were conducted using
land parcel boundaries obtained by the Department of Resources in 2022. It has come to
our attention that there has been an update to the land parcel boundaries in 2023,
resulting in slight variations in lot sizes and extents. However, based on these changes, it is
unlikely that the assessment outcomes presented in the EAR will be significantly different.

| trust that the enclosed information is satisfactory and assists Council in approving the
application; however, if there are any matters that you wish to discuss, please do not
hesitate to contact Freya Jassim from our office on [email protected] or O7 3852
4855.

Sincerely,

 

Daniel Clowes BAppSc (EnvSc) DipArb MEIANZ MESA MISA
Director

Encl.: Arborist Report and Vegetation Management Plan (Litoria Consulting, Issue A, 7
October 2022)

Ecological Assessment Report (EAR) (Litoria Consulting, v 1.0, July 2023)

LORS 515