Information response

•   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