Council archive · source document
Information Request Response Lot 22 · MCU22/0038
Our Ref: 21-0694P/02
Your Ref: MCU22/0038
20 May 2022
The Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Shire Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Via email: [email protected]
Attn: Patrick Murphy – Coordinator Planning
Dear Patrick,
RE: RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST (Section 13.2 DA Rules)
Development Permit for a Material Change of Use (Commercial Business Type 1 Office & Type 2
Medical) Assessed Against Superseded Planning Scheme
28 Eenie Creek Road, NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566 (Future Lot 22)
1. INTRODUCTION
We refer to your Information Request letter dated 13 April 2022 in relation to the abovementioned
application and provide below a full response in accordance with section 13.2(a) of the Development
Assessment Rules (DA Rules).
This response is supported by the following information:
§ Appendix A – Revised Architectural Plans by BUCHAN;
§ Appendix B – Civil Engineering Documents by MPN Consulting; and
§ Appendix C – Traffic Engineering Report by SLR Consulting.
BRISBANE
Wolter Consulting Group Pty Ltd Level 2, 1 Breakfast Creek Rd Newstead Q 4006 P 07 3666 5200 [email protected]
ABN: 61 147 343 084 PO Box 436 New Farm Q 4005 F 07 3666 5202 wolterconsulting.com.au
DIRECTORS: MICHAEL WOLTER, ANDREW CRAWFORD, NATALIE RAYMENT
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 12 pages
Page 2
2. RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST
This Information Request Response includes further information and clarification of certain matters
relevant to the assessment of the application. Key items include:
§ Additional justification and clarification regarding the roof pitch of the proposed development;
§ Additional justification and clarification regarding car parking provision, detailed design of
basement carpark and provision for loading, demonstrating compliance with planning scheme
requirements; and
§ Additional information regarding civil engineering matters, including Stormwater Management
Plan.
Changes to the development application are limited to the pitch of the roof design. All changes are
minor changes and are made directly in response to the Information Request, therefore do not change
the development assessment process as per Section 52(3) of the Planning Act 2016.
We provide below a schedule of updated Architectural Plans accompanying this letter, along with
nominations of whether these should be referenced in the approval package, once issued by Council. It
is our view that Perspectives should not be contained in an approval package as is it not possible for an
applicant to be able to demonstrate compliance with a three-dimensional, unscalable representation
of other plans which will be approved and to scale.
Drawing Name Number Date For Approval
Site Plan A-DA-0002-N 18 May 2022 Yes
Basement 01 A-DA-100-B1-K 18 May 2022 Yes
Basement 02 A-DA-100-B2-K 18 May 2022 Yes
Ground Floor A-DA-1000-P 18 May 2022 Yes
Level 01 A-DA-1001-O 18 May 2022 Yes
Roof Plan A-DA-1200-I 18 May 2022 Yes
Sections A-DA-2000-E 18 May 2022 Yes
Elevations A-DA-3000-K 18 May 2022 Yes
Perspectives A-DA-6000-G 18 May 2022 No
Perspectives A-DA-6002-C 18 May 2022 No
|2
Page 3
Council Item 1 – Roof Pitch
ISSUE
The Noosa Plan (8 June 2018) seeks a 5-degree roof pitch with 600mm eaves to 75% of the building. The
roof has a pitch of 1.5-degrees with a small section having a 3-degree pitch. This results in sections of
the roof appearing flat.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Amended plans with the roof pitch increased to comply with Specific Outcome O20 of the Noosaville
Locality Code.
Our Response
As depicted in the attached Appendix A – Revised Architectural Plans, the proposed development has
been revised to provide 5 degrees of roof pitch along the western and southern boundaries, relevantly
being the view points where the roof pitch is likely to be most visible and are representative of the
“Gateway” entry to the Noosa Business Centre. However, the built form will maintain varying roof
forms and pitches. Please refer to the attached Appendix A – Revised Architectural Plans, specifically
Drawing Number 1200.
As requested by Council during recent discussions with the applicant regarding the roof pitch, a number
of perspectives have been included to illustrate the outcome of the roof design at various view points.
These plans are intended to be illustrative only and are not intended to be approved by Council. Please
refer to the attached Appendix A, specifically Drawing No. A-DA – 6000-G and A-DA-6002-C. .
Further justification from the BUCHAN architects is also provided below regarding the roof form.
Specific Outcome O20 Roof Form The proposed development façade comprises a vertical
Rooflines— gateway entry linked by a pedestrian arbour; meandering
a) contribute positively to the local screened verandah access; and significant coastal vegetation.
skyline; Roof forms and pitches vary to accentuate a casual coastal
b) complement the character of function to a building providing professional community
the locality; service. Large eaves and overhangs from 750-1,250mm are
c) are articulated, pitched or provided to the entire perimeter of the building including
skillion; verandahs.
d) avoid low pitched (eg. less than The four elevations include 5-degree roof pitches, overhangs
5 degrees) or box roof and verandahs. Running the length of the South West
profiles/parapets; and Elevation is the site gateway raising above the mass of the
e) do not create opportunities for balance of the building with a roof pitch of 5 degrees. The
residents to overlook the private gateway element bookends the southern end of the site and
|3
Page 4
open space areas of provides focus to access and circulation entry points. 5 degree
neighbouring properties. pitched roofs continue from the gateway end around the
verandah to the North West Elevation as a skillion that extends
back beyond the verandah pushing the pitch along the North
East Elevation. Similarly, the gateway bookend wraps around
the South East to a lower verandah roof that transitions to 3
degrees and then a subtle 1.5-degree pitch with wider
overhangs around the North East which reduces the mass and
scale. The façade composition utilises a mix of overhang
witdths, roof pitches, screens and verandahs to provide a
layering of materials, light and shade whilst avoiding boxed
parapet roof forms.
Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the development complies with this Specific
Outcome of the Local Plan.
Council Item 2 – Car Parking Provisions
Section 5 of the SLR memo assesses parking requirements of the proposal against the superseded
planning scheme provisions as being 109 spaces.
The SLR memo also assesses parking requirements based on “amended structure plan” rates quoted as
being 1 space per 20m2 GFA at ground level plus 1 space per 30m2 GFA on other levels. This only relates
to development located in the Major Centre Zone Code in Noosa Heads, the subject site is within
Noosaville.
My reading of the Noosa Plan 2020 parking requirement for the development is 1 space per 20m2 GFA
for office and 1 space per 20m2 GFA for health care service, both of which would require the provision
of 109 parking spaces at the site.
That is, both the superseded planning scheme and the current planning scheme require 109 parking
spaces, compared with only 99 proposed parking spaces. The SLR memo attempts to justify the shortfall
on two grounds (directly quoted from the report hereunder):
i. “The proposed parking capacity is however considered to be acceptable owing to the
proponent’s intended delivery of the nearby multi-modal transport hub, which would increase
the attractiveness of public transport to both employees and customers as an alternative to
driving to and from the proposed development”.
|4
Page 5
ii. “Additionally, the location of the subject site within the broader Noosa Business Centre means
that a significant portion of development-generated trips are likely to be linked with other uses,
therefore reducing parking demand and spreading it across the existing parking areas proximate
to the subject site.”
In relation to the two grounds identified in the SLR memo:
i. It is understood that the proponent is not proposing to deliver the multi-modal transport hub.
ii. While it is agreed that there will be linked trips with other uses at the Noosa Business Centre, all
that means is that the overall traffic generation rate of the centre on a GFA basis reduces as the
size of the centre increases, it does not mean that parking demands associated with the proposal
will reduce. It simply means that some customers will park for longer in the same parking space
while they undertake other activities at the Centre. The customers and staff of the proposed
development will still generate the same parking demands.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide parking provisions consistent with planning scheme requirements.
Our Response
SLR have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix C, with the
relevant commentary extracted below.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
· Further correspondence with Council’s strategic planning team has confirmed (since the
drafting of this IR) that the new parking rates, as assessed within the SLR Traffic Impact
Statement under ‘Amended Structure Plan Rates’, are proposed to be adopted by Council
in the Planning Scheme amendment.
· The provision of 99 parking spaces as per the proposed development plan will be sufficient
to accommodate peak parking demands in the context of future planning.
In addition to the proposed parking rates being supported by Council’s own forward planning, SLR have
also provided a first principles assessment and justification for the parking to be provided in the
proposed medical development. In SLR’s opinion;
|5
Page 6
The resultant total number of parking spaces required based on a ‘First Principles’ approach
equates to approximately 75 parking spaces. However, SLR suggests that it would be appropriate
to apply a 20% factor of safety to this calculation given that the specific tenancy arrangements
are not resolved at this time. Hence the calculated first principles rate inclusive of a 20% factor of
safety is 90 spaces.
And furthermore;
…it can be concluded that the provision of 99 parking spaces, as per the proposed development
plan will be sufficient to accommodate peak parking demands in the context of future planning.
Furthermore, it will encourage a transport mode shift away from the single-occupancy vehicle to
more sustainable options such as public transport and active transport, as is the strategic intent
for transport as per Council’s Noosa Plan 2020.
It can therefore be concluded that the provision of 99 car parking spaces is more than sufficient for the
intended use.
Council Item 3 – Service Vehicles
The development proposes an ambulance bay, and a refuse storage area. There is no other provision
for deliveries. Whether the development is occupied by office or medical uses, there will be demands
for deliveries by vehicles of at least SRV in size.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Demonstrate how deliveries by vehicles other than vans will occur in a satisfactory manner or provide
an SRV loading bay.
Our Response
SLR have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix C, with the
relevant commentary extracted below.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
· Refer to Attachment B Figure 2 which demonstrates an SRV swept path utilising Easement
AC to circulate through the site facilitating deliveries.
|6
Page 7
· In reference to the Infrastructure Agreement between Noosa Shire Council and Stockwell
for the Noosa Shire Business Centre (Lot 3 on SP246584), specific mention is made
regarding Easement AC at the rear of the existing Showroom tenancies as follows:
‘Easement AC is a vehicular access easement providing service vehicle access over the
existing driveway and will benefit proposed Lots 2 and 22’.
· With the above in mind, the proposed SRV delivery approach, as per SLR Figure 2, is
consistent with the intentions of the Infrastructure Agreement and provides for a suitable
method for servicing SRV deliveries.
Council Item 4 – Clarification of Vehicle Priority and Routes
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Assess and propose signage and line-marking as necessary in the following areas of potential uncertainty
for road users:
i. General traffic volumes along easement AB will significantly increase as a result of the proposal,
potentially leading to driver confusion as to who has priority at the oddly configured t-junction just
on the northern side of the site access driveway.
ii. Direction signage for vehicles departing from the basement to discourage travel along the service
aisle that runs along the rear of the showrooms.
Our Response
SLR have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix C, with the
relevant commentary extracted below.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
· Refer to Attachment B Figure 3 which depicts conceptual line marking and signage
arrangements to address the above items 4i and 4ii.
|7
Page 8
Council Item 5 – Stormwater
The submitted documentation indicates that biobasin treated stormwater will “connect to the basement
drainage system for pump out to the external drainage system” and that “this is required due to the high
invert levels of the existing external stormwater network.”
The submitted documentation is unclear on:
§ how the water will be pumped from the basement into the lawful points of discharge;
§ the details of the proposed pump system (size, pipes, tanks, power supply, power redundancy, etc.);
§ the location of the proposed pumping system and the effect on carparking layout, including the
proposed turn around area.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide amended plans detailing the proposed stormwater management system, including but not
limited to:
§ Location and dimensions of the proposed basement pump out system, including any required
tanks, pipe sizes, etc.;
§ How the basement pump out system will affect the proposed carparking arrangement and
vehicle manoeuvring areas; and
§ How the basement pump out system will be powered and what redundancy power
arrangement/system will be put in place to ensure the basements won’t flood in case the
principal system fails.
Our Response
MPN Consulting have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix
B, with the relevant commentary extracted below.
The proposed pump out tank will be located under the basement slab and will have no impact on
the car parking layout of the basement. The pumps utilised will be submerged pumps which can
be accesses through a maintenance opening in the basement slab. The final sizing of the tank will
be completed as part of the detail design stage of the development.
|8
Page 9
The tank will only contain the treated flows from the bioretention basin 1 subsoil drainage and as
such the volume of water flowing into the tank will be minimal. No bioretention basin overflows
or roofwater flows will enter the tank.
The pump out system will be powered from the building power supply. No back up power supply
will be provided for the pump out system. Redundancy will be provided within the tank.
Council Item 6.1 – Stormwater Management Plan - Quality
The biobasins have been designed without a free-draining outlet to an existing stormwater system.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
· Provide justification that the biobasins need to drain to the basement carpark pump out system.
Include information on discharge pit invert levels.
· Provide the MUSIC model for the proposed development.
· Provide sizing details of the high flow stormwater pipes inlet and outlet pipes for biobasin 1.
Our Response
MPN Consulting have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix
B, with the relevant commentary extracted below.
As depicted on the revised layout plans the invert levels at the downstream connection point for bio
basin 1 are higher than the base of the bio retention basin by 400mm. As a result the subsoil drainage
from the bio basin will need to connect into the basement for pump out to the external network.
Details on the pipe sizes and invert levels for the bioretention basins have been provided on the revised
plans.
The site MUSIC model was previously submitted to council and has been issued again as requested.
|9
Page 10
Council Item 6.2 – Stormwater Management Plan - Quantity
Section 4.5.2 of the Stormwater Management plan does not detail how the existing stormwater
infrastructure will take into account any increases in stormwater quantity and flows from the
development of this site.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide further information of how the site does not change the existing hydrological regime
including drainage patterns and run-off quantity. Detail how the existing stormwater
infrastructure for the Noosa Civic Shopping Centre and Hofmann Drive drainage systems,
accounts for any increases or changes in runoff from the site.
Our Response
MPN Consulting have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix
B, with the relevant commentary extracted below.
Stormwater discharge from site is consistent with the overall Noosa Civic and Noosa Business Centre
masterplanning. The proposed development will connect into the drainage system for Noosa Civic and
Hofmann Drive. The sites minor flows will run through the existing pipe system whilst major flows will
overland flow down the internal roads prior to discharging to the creek to the south of the site in
accordance with the overall Noosa Civic and Noosa Business Centre development. There will be no
impacts to external developments as a result of the flows through the internal site system.
Council Item 6.3 – Stormwater Management Plan - Grass Swale Construction on the Northern Boundary
The earthworks appear to encroach into Cov I. SP182845
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide information detailing how vegetation, and the Tree protection zones of this vegetation, in
Covenant I will be protected during construction of the swale and batters along the northern boundary
of the site.
| 10
Page 11
Our Response
MPN Consulting have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix
B, with the relevant commentary extracted below.
All earthworks have been revised to be fully contained within the development site and do not
extend over the boundary. Any works completed within the vicinity of existing trees to be retained
will be completed under the supervision of the project arborist as required.
Council Item 7 – Footpath
The submitted documentation (drawing “Stormwater Treatment Plan”, CP.1.01, Rev A, prepared by MPN
Consulting) indicates that the existing footpath, to the frontage of the subject property, is to be removed
and replaced with a new 1.8m wide one. The existing footpath is 2m wide.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Submit amended plans showing all proposed footpaths to be 2m wide.
Our Response
All plans have been amended to show paths to be 2m wide.
| 11
Page 12
Council Item 8 – Headroom
Clause 5.3 HEADROOM of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 requires that “the height between the floor and an
overhead obstruction shall be a minimum of 2200mm.” The submitted Traffic Assessment Report
indicates that the minimum height between the floor and an overhead obstruction is approximately 1.7m
(refer to snippet below).
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide amended plans demonstrating compliance with Clause 5.3 HEADROOM of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.
Our Response
SLR have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix C, with the
relevant commentary extracted below.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
· Please refer to Attachment B Figure 5 which provides clarification on the location of suspended
slab structure and column for vehicle overhead obstructions on the ramp.
| 12
Page 13
Council Item 9 – B99 turn around in Basement 02
From the provided documentation it is not clear that a B99 vehicle will be able to turn around at the
proposed Turn Around Bay located on the NE corner of Basement 02 using a maximum 3 point turn
manoeuvre.
INFORMATION REQUIRED
Provide travel paths for a B99 vehicle, demonstrating how it will turn around at the proposed Turn
Around Bay located on the NE corner of Basement 02, without having to use more than a 3 point turn
to do so.
Our Response
SLR have prepared an attached letter responding to this specific RFI item, refer Appendix C, with the
relevant commentary extracted below.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
· Please refer to Attachment B Figure 6 which shows a modification to the Storage/Plant area to
accommodate a B99 three-point turn within Basement 02.
3. CONCLUSION
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any further queries regarding this
application, please contact the undersigned on (07) 3666 5200.
Yours sincerely,
Brad Jones
Director of Planning
Wolter Consulting Group
| 13
Used in these records
Information Request Response Lot 22.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 127 KB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.