MCU14/0056 Information Response Cover Letter

Page 2

    f)     Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F);
    g) Ecology addendum report Prepared by Saunders Havill Group (Attachment G);
    h) Acoustic report prepared by MRG Environmental (Attachment H).

In response to the particular information request items –




Item 1 -

Provide a comprehensive need assessment for the car wash, tourist park and self-storage components of the
development.
Response:
Please refer to the response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B




Item 2 -
Provide a comprehensive assessment of need for the service station, including detailed assessment of supply of facilities,
demand for additional facilities, need for additional facilities and impact of additional facilities on the centres network.
Response:
Please refer to the response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B



Item 3 -
Provide an amended Needs Assessment for the proposed supermarket, revised to reflect more plausible market shares.
Response:
The proposed supermarket (1144m2) has been removed from the proposal and replaced with a shop (250m2)
associated with the service station component. Refer to the response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated
December 2014 at Attachment B



Item 4 -
Provide amended proposal plans revising the size of the supermarket to reflect the amended need assessment
Response:
The proposed supermarket (1144m2) has been deleted from the proposal and replaced with a shop (250m2)
associated with the service station component. Please refer to Proposal Plans by Verve at Attachment A




Item 5 -
Describe how each component of the proposed development is expected to integrate with and complement the other
components of the development.
Response:
Refer to response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B




                                                              2

Page 3

Item 6 -

To the extent that some or all of the components might be integrated or related demonstrate whether there is any
additional need for the development as a whole (or a number of components together), over and above the need for
separate components of the development.
Response:
Refer to response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B



Item 7 -

Provide detailed analysis of constraints on, and availability of, suitably zoned land within the area for the component
uses. Demonstrate why the uses should be developed out of zone (including within a Water Supply Catchment Overlay
Area).
Response:
Refer to response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B

In addition, it is noted-

    •      the site is contained entirely within the Urban Footprint of the SEQ Regional Plan;
    •      part of the site is shown within the Noosa Planning Scheme Strategy map as Urban;
    •      there are no appropriately zoned sites in Cooroy that can accommodate the highway based businesses
           proposed;
    •      the site is capable of being serviced by reticulated sewer and water supply as confirmed by Unity Water;
    •      matters related to water quality impacts of the development have been addressed in detail within the report
           by vT Consulting Engineers and the Ecological response report by Saunders Havill Group. The report by vT
           Consulting Engineers, including response to SPP and SEQ Water Development Guidelines demonstrates that
           the development will not adversely impact on the quality of water entering Lake Macdonald. SEQ Water, the
           authority responsible for the management of Lake Macdonald and its function as a water supply, has
           reviewed the report by vT Consulting Engineers, including the detailed response to the SEQ Water
           Development Guidelines, and has provided the following advice - “SEQ Water are satisfied that stormwater
           management, setbacks to the minor watercourse and general treatment of the riparian corridor are in accordance
           with the Seqwater Development Guidelines”. SEQ Water’s advice included the following recommendations
           that can be incorporated as conditions of approval by Council-
           a. “It is recommended that a Rehabilitation and Weed Management Plan is prepared by a qualified professional
           at the appropriate stage of development and approved / endorsed by Council prior to development commencing
           on the site”
           b.” Seqwater recommends the preparation of an Inspection and Maintenance Schedule and an Emergency
           Response and Contingency Plan for the pump station. This should be endorsed / approved by the relevant
           authorities (Council, DEHP). Seqwater requests a copy of any such plan for review when available”.
           c. “Should the location of the proposed on-site sewerage pump station change, Seqwater requires that this
           facility maintains at least a 50m setback from the surveyed high bank of the watercourse on the site”.
           d. “Seqwater strongly supports provision of at least 25% and up to 50% more emergency storage capacity at the
           pump station, than that required by the SEQ Sewer and Water Code”.
           e. “Seqwater requests to be included on a notification register in the event of any overflow / spill / other sewage
           discharge event”.

 Having regard to the above, it considered the development has merit and warrants support by Council subject to
reasonable and relevant conditions.




                                                               3

Page 4

Item 8 -

Provide comment on the development’s ability to encourage visitors/travellers to enter Cooroy and its surrounds for other
commercial or tourist activity and whether facilities could be provided within the development for this purpose.
Response:
Refer to response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B

The proposal also now includes provision for an Information kiosk.


Item 9 -

Provide further detail of the estimated overall investment to develop the project and the numbers and types of
construction and on-going job generation.
Response:
Refer to response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December 2014 at Attachment B



Item 10 -

Provide amended proposal plans showing the recommended noise attenuation barriers.
Response:

The noise attenuation barriers are shown on the amended site plan 14004-DA02 Rev F and within the Perspective
14004 DA-09 Rev C provided at Attachment A. The extent and height of the acoustic barriers have been reduced to
have regard to the changes in the layout of the site.



Item 11 -
Provide planning comment on the visual amenity of the barriers, any proposed design response to minimise their visual
impacts and the adequacy of the proposed boundary setbacks for that purpose.

Response:
Acoustic Barriers facing both Ferrells Road and the Bruce Highway have been significantly reduced in both height
and length due to the changes in the layout of the site. The barriers are setback approximately 10m from the Ferrells
Road property frontage and 6m from the Bruce Highway property frontage. The height of the barriers has been
reduced to 2.5m facing Ferrells Road and 5.0m facing the Bruce Highway. The barrier facing Ferrells Rd is only 0.5m
above that which could be erected without any approval required. The setback areas to the barriers are of sufficient
width and will be planted such that effective screening of the barriers is achieved. The effective screening of the
barriers within the setback will ameliorate visual impacts.



Item 12 -

Provide confirmation of the ongoing tenure and likely party responsible for maintenance of the noise attenuation barriers
in each stage/parcel of the development.
Response:

The barriers will be constructed and remain part of the lot subject of the application (Lot 4 SP248479). The proposal
does not incorporate subdivision of the lot and therefore the owner of Lot 4 will remain responsible for the
maintenance of the barriers.

                                                            4

Page 5

Item 13 -

Provide comment on the likely location and type of signage to be sought external to the site on State controlled roads (e.g.
Bruce Highway).
Response:

The location of on-site signage is shown within Site Plan 14004- DA02 ver F and DA 09 at Attachment A. Two pylon
signs are proposed. One at the Myall St frontage and one facing the Bruce Highway. Both signs are well separated
from the nearest residential properties in Ferrels Rd, are discrete in nature and are designed consistent with the
rural character of the development. A separate application for highway signage (Road Corridor Permit) will be
lodged with Transport and Main Roads. This would be in line with DTMR guidelines so as not to be obtrusive or
hazardous to road users. The purpose of that signage is to provide advance notice to highway users of the services
to be provided at the centre including tourist information and rest area. The service centre is well located between
two significantly smaller service stations and will provide a multipurpose stop on the left in the southbound
direction offering a variety of uses in the one location.




Item 14 -

Demonstrate how the development will achieve the State Interest, as described in the State Planning Policy Guideline –
State Interest – Water Quality August 2014.
Response:

Refer to the report prepared by VTE Consulting Engineers at Attachment C. Within Attachment E of the VTE report,
compliance with the SPP is addressed.



Item 15 -

Demonstrate the development is consistent with the SEQ Water Development Guidelines: Development Guidelines for
Water Quality Management in Drinking Water Catchments 2012.
Response:

Refer to the report prepared by VTE Consulting Engineers at Attachment C. Within Attachment I of the VTE report,
compliance with the Seqwater Development Guidelines is addressed. Seqwater’s charter is to ensure a safe, secure,
resilient and reliable water supply for South East Queensland inclusive of Lake Macdonald. Upon receipt of the
Council’s information request, a meeting was held with Seqwater and subsequently the report provided by VTE
Consulting Engineers was referred to them for comment. The responses provided by Seqwater are provided below
and at Attachment C -
“Thank you for providing the additional information we requested on the Cooroy mixed-use development. I have
reviewed the documentation and am satisfied that stormwater management, setbacks to the minor watercourse and
general treatment of the riparian corridor are in accordance with the Seqwater Development Guidelines. There are a few
points that were made informally (in emails) or touched upon in reports that I’d like to confirm regarding both the

                                                             5

Page 6

riparian buffer and the pump station, and also some uncertainties around the proposed pump station in the absence of a
report addressing this particular element of the proposal. To address these areas, I can provide the following advice /
recommendations:


          Seqwater supports the 20m average setback and riparian buffer width for all uses to the minor stream on the
         subject site. The 10m additional buffer strip affords important additional protection to the watercourse and
         riparian vegetation, given the high impact nature of some uses proposed. The response letter prepared by
         Saunders Havill Group (Keira Grundy, dated 20 November 2014) and the Ecological Assessment Report (EAR -
         prepared by Saunders Havill Group, dated 24 June 2014) both make brief reference to weeding and revegetation
         of the 20m riparian buffer area, however no Rehabilitation and Weeding Management Plan has been provided
         with the application material. The Landscape Masterplan (Prepared by Saunders Havill Group, dated 10
         February 2014) makes reference only to weeding in the riparian buffer area and planting in the additional 10m
         buffer strip.

         Given the degraded state of the existing riparian buffer (as evidenced in the aforementioned environmental
         advices) and the high impact nature of some of the proposed uses within a drinking water supply catchment,
         Seqwater considers it appropriate for a staged rehabilitation plan, including select and controlled weeding and
         revegetation to be developed for the existing riparian buffer. This should occur in addition to the proposed
         planting in the 10m buffer strip. It is recommended that a Rehabilitation and Weed Management Plan is
         prepared by a qualified professional at the appropriate stage of development and approved / endorsed by
         Council prior to development commencing on the site. Seqwater requests a copy of any such plan for review
         when available.

          The Water and Sewerage Network Analysis (prepared by GHD, dated November 2014) mentions that it does not
         cover internal site servicing. No report specifically addressing the private pump station required on site has been
         prepared, therefore no information exists as to the capacity, maintenance or emergency response measures
         associated with this infrastructure. Seqwater recommends the preparation of an Inspection and Maintenance
         Schedule and an Emergency Response and Contingency Plan for the pump station. This should be endorsed /
         approved by the relevant authorities (Council, DEHP). Seqwater requests a copy of any such plan for review when
         available.

         Should the location of the proposed on-site sewerage pump station change, Seqwater requires that this facility
         maintains at least a 50m setback from the surveyed high bank of the watercourse on the site.

          Seqwater strongly supports provision of at least 25% and up to 50% more emergency storage capacity at the
         pump station, than that required by the SEQ Sewer and Water Code.

          Seqwater requests to be included on a notification register in the event of any overflow / spill / other sewage
         discharge event “

Subsequent to the above advice, further advice was sought from Seqwater with regards to whether the Weeding
Management Plan and Rehabilitation plan and the Inspection and Maintenance schedule and an Emergency
Response and contingency plan for the pump station could be submitted for approval prior to issue of any
operational works approval for the site as an appropriate trigger point for Council to set timing for the conditions.
In response Seqwater advised that the above approach was acceptable to them.




                                                             6

Page 7

Item 16 -

Provide detailed assessment of the upstream drainage catchment/s taking into consideration any overflows from
adjacent catchments and stormwater runoff from roads (eg from Bruce Highway) onto the site. The assessment and
report must be prepared by RPEQ specialised in this field and include in particular:

(a) Plan/s and data showing the extent of flooding (floodline) for 1% AEP storm event on the development site and the
relevant downstream properties and roads (eg the Golf Course and Myall Street) for pre-development conditions.
(b) The general internal drainage layout and any proposed or anticipated required stormwater drainage works and
mitigation works external or internal to the site.
(c) Plan/s and data showing the extent of flooding for post development conditions on the fully developed site and the
relevant downstream properties and roads for 1%, 5% and 10% AEP storm events.
(d) Identification of potential adverse impact on other properties and recommended mitigation measures.
Response:

Refer to Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd (Attachment D)



Item 17 -

Provide plan/s to illustrate the estimated amount and levels of the earthworks required on the site and include cross
sections to demonstrate the changes in finished levels, and associated structures, within the development site.
Response:
Refer to Plan SK 01 Rev A prepared by VTE Consulting Engineers at Attachment E which identifies finished levels
across the site and extent of cut and fill proposed.



Item 18 -

Provide information regarding the trucks expected to access the site and include in particular:
(a) Types of trucks expected to access the site for petrol fuelling and the refuelling of fuel storage tanks.
(b) Access path of deliveries and service vehicle from the roads and within the site.
(c) Plan/s to show the manoeuvring and truing movements for delivery trucks accessing the loading bay/s of the food
store and the fuel storage tanks for refuelling (clarify if the fuel tanks are above or underground).
Response:

Refer to Plans 14004- DA 14 A, 14004- VTP 01 A, 14004 VTP 02 A at Attachment A and Traffic Addendum prepared by
PTT (Attachment F). Types of trucks and movement paths are identified within those plans. Fuel tanks are located
underground as per plan 14004- DA 14 A.



Item 19 -

Justification for the proposed commercial development having access via Ferrells Road, which functions as a minor
residential collector street, or alternatively, provide amended plans and analyses based on all access via the proposed
Myall Street access. If access to and from Ferrells Road continues to be proposed, explain how service vehicle ingress or
egress via Ferrells Road will be avoided.
Response:

The proposal plans have been amended to remove access to Ferrells Road. All access is now provided from Myall
Street. Refer to plans at Attachment A and Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)




                                                             7

Page 8

Item 20 -

Justification for the proposed convenience retail and fast food facilities being located so remote from the town centre of
Cooroy, so that virtually all external trips must be via private vehicle.
Response:

The proposed supermarket (1144m2) has been removed from the proposal and replaced with a shop (250m2)
associated with the service station component. The proposal is so located as to service passing traffic on the Bruce
Highway. The use is therefore location dependant. The subject site is uniquely located to service passing traffic on
the Bruce Highway. The site is within the Urban Footprint (SEQ Regional Plan) of Cooroy and opposite well established
housing in Ferrells Road. Refer to Plan 14004 DA13 ver A within Attachment A which identifies internal/ external
pedestrian connection paths and Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)



Item 21 -

Provide analysis of the development impact on the traffic conditions within Cooroy CBD and particularly on the
intersection of Myall Street with Elm Street (the railway overpass) and include recommended works to offset impacts at
this intersection.
Response:

Refer Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F).



Item 22 -

Explain the expected or intended relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent Bruce Highway, given
that it is proposed to be located immediately adjacent to an all-turns interchange with the highway. It appears that,
depending on signage, it could be intended to function as a service centre to two separate facilities – both Myall Street
and the Bruce Highway. This will be particularly relevant in respect of the discussion at Section 4.2.1 of the Pekol Traffic
and Transport Report. In particular, any “drop-in” traffic diverted from the Bruce Highway will effectively be “new trips” in
respect of the Myall Street intersections.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F) and the Economic impact response prepared by
Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December, 2014 (Attachment B) and specifically the following extract from that
report-

“As a highway-based mixed use development the proposed service station, fast food, car wash and tourist caravan
park are expected to have significant overlap in their customer base. Patrons of the caravan park will be very likely to
purchase fuel and retail products from the service station, and have the convenience of a co-located car wash to clean
their cars and caravans. Residents would also find the co-location of the car wash and service station and fast food
outlet convenient, although not all facilities would be used in a single trip (for most trips).
The highway focus dictates the location of all but the self- storage units, although that use would also benefit from
the ease of access afforded by its location at the Myall Street interchange with the Bruce Highway”.




                                                             8

Page 9

Item 23 -

Taking into account the item above, provide further justification for the design traffic generations discussed in Section
4.2.1 of the Traffic and Transport report, and provide the results of new analysis if design generation rates are adjusted.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)



Item 24 -

The results of appropriate speed surveys to justify the design speeds adopted for sight distance and geometric design
purposes.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)



Item 25 -

Further details to identify clearing requirements within the road reserve, sign relocations and property boundary or fence
set-backs which might be necessary to provide satisfactory sight distances to and from the proposed site access
intersection with Myall Street.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F) and Proposal Plans at Attachment A which demonstrate
extent of roadworks within Myall Street



Item 26 -

Provide a preliminary geometric design for the proposed site access intersection taking account of the existing
intersections north and south of the proposed Myall Street site access intersection.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F) and Proposal Plans at Attachment A which demonstrate
extent of roadworks within Myall Street



Item 27 -

Confirm that SIDRA default values have been used, or justify any alternative gap acceptance (or other) parameters used in
analysis.
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)



Item 28 -

Provide SIDRA (lane) output tables for the proposed site access intersection in the same format as those in Appendix “C” of
the Pekol Traffic and Transport report
Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)
                                                              9

Page 10

Item 29 -

Provide strategy and details of pedestrian and bicycle access to the site (particularly to the proposed food store the fast
food outlet) and including end of trip facilities and taking into account of the nearby high school, and any other potential
local generators

Response:

Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F)



Item 30 -

Provide a plan indicating the proposed pedestrian and bicycle pathways/movement network within and around the site.
Response:
Refer to Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT (Attachment F) and Plan 14004 DA13 ver A within Attachment A which
identifies internal/ external pedestrian connection paths.




Item 31 –

Provide evidence of the fauna survey in accordance with Table 7.1 of Planning Scheme Policy 18- Ecological Assessment
Guidelines.
Response:

The IR states that no fauna survey results are presented in the application material. Section 4.4 of the Ecological
Assessment Report (EAR) details basic fauna observations including fauna survey methods undertaken, and
observed fauna species and potential habitat on site, made by a senior ecologist during the field survey (discussed
previously in Section 4.1 of the EAR). Further, Table 5 of the EAR provides a list of fauna species observed during the
site survey, with Sections 4.4.1 - 4.4.4 of the EAR noting that no listed or locally significant species were observed. A
likelihood of occurrence assessment of Environment and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 and Nature Conservation Act
1992 listed species and their potential to occur on site is also contained in Appendix H of the EAR.

Prior to going on site a risk based assessment was carried out by Saunders Havill Group to identify the appropriate
sampling effort and survey requirements. Given that the site is highly modified, primarily devoid of vegetation and
containing only a small vegetated area around the mapped waterway, it was identified as having a low probability of
containing habitat suitable for native fauna species. This assessment is also supported by the Ecotone
Environmental Services “Fauna and its Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa Shire” map of Biodiversity
Conservation Priority which identifies the site as Urban and Low Conservation Priority. In relation to Table 7.1 of
Planning Scheme Policy 18 requirements for extensive survey methods (such as pitfall traps, Elliot traps, wire cages,
netting, nocturnal call back and hair tubes) are considered unwarranted, particularly given the proposed
development is contained to already cleared areas of the site.

Survey methods undertaken by Saunders Havill Group over a one day period (between sunrise and sunset) included
aquatic and terrestrial habitat assessments, opportunistic records, bird surveys (visual observation), scats, tracks and
other active searches and aquatic observations. These methods are considered sufficient to identify fauna species
likely to occupy the site and were supported with an observed site species list which included all species on or
adjacent to the site including site fly-overs (refer Table 5 of the EAR). Efforts were also placed on identifying plant
species that were considered to have the potential to provide habitat foraging/food resources to fauna that exist on
                                                            10

Page 11

site or may utilise the site temporarily throughout the year. Survey methods undertaken during the ecological
assessment are detailed in Section 4.4 of the EAR. These methods are consistent with EAR requirements of other
Councils such as Brisbane City Council and Fraser Coast Regional Council which advocate the use of survey methods
appropriate to the site, potential impact and proposed use.

In addition, no fauna listed in Ecotone Environmental Services “Fauna and its Associated Biodiversity Values in
Noose Shire” study were identified within the application site or area considered likely to utilise the site. Further the
site is not identified as a ‘Significant Track” for fauna movement by overlay mapping in the report.


Item 32 –

Provide an assessment of the proposal with relation to each of the Riparian Buffer Area Outcome 5 specific outcomes, in
particular
(a) How the proposal protects riparian zones by avoiding any new development in the riparian buffer area
(b) How the proposal protects riparian zones by retaining aquatic and terrestrial habitats in riparian zones
(c) How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining wildlife corridors along watercourses and drainage lines for
native fauna movement
(d) How the proposal protects riparian zones by avoiding edge effects and incompatible uses in riparian zones
(e) How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining bank stability by minimizing bank erosion and slumping
(f) How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and other
pollutants
(g) How the proposal protects riparian zones by removing undesirable plant species and replacing them with vegetation
of local origin;
Response:

The following responses have been provided to each of the Riparian Buffer Area Outcome 5 specific outcomes.

    a)   How the proposal protect[s] riparian zones by avoiding new development in the riparian buffer area.

As discussed in Appendix D of the EAR, the proposed development will occur on premises containing a mapped
Riparian Buffer Area. This buffer extends over approximately half of the site and protects the waterway that traverses
the south-eastern corner. Much of this riparian buffer area to the west of the watercourse has been highly disturbed
and cleared of vegetation. Approximately 0.005ha of the 1.1ha mapped riparian buffer contains riparian vegetation,
while the remainder of the mapped buffer area (approximately 1.095ha) contains mowed grass with some native
trees along the northern and southern property boundaries which act as a landscape buffer to adjacent arterial roads
(refer to Plan 1 below). The proposed development intends to retain all riparian vegetation as well an additional 10m
buffer along the existing vegetation boundary to minimise edge effects from the development.

The mapped riparian buffer protects a Stream Order 1 (lowest value) watercourse which under the Regional
Vegetation Management Code for Southeast Queensland Bioregion 2006 and the SEQ Healthy Waterways
Partnership is recommended to be protected by a minimum 10m riparian buffer. The existing vegetated riparian
corridor is on average 20m in width from the high bank with an addition 10m buffer from the existing vegetation
boundary proposed by the development (a total minimum average 30 buffer to the stream order
watercourse).Therefore, the proposed riparian buffer exceeds the recommended waterway setback for a stream order
1 watercourse.

It was noted in the EAR that this watercourse is highly disturbed and modified, fragmented by major arterial
development to the north and south and passes through a number of stormwater pipes. Site survey identified this
area to be heavily infested with weeds and considered to have poor water quality and limited ecological value. It is
considered that the proposed average 30m buffer from the high bank is suitable to protect the values associated with


                                                           11

Page 12

the highly modified watercourse and allows potential for enhancement and rehabilitation of the existing waterway
corridor.

Further, the majority of the mapped riparian buffer area is be retained as open space with the provision of soft
treatments such as stormwater detention basins and landscaped vegetation located within this area. Proposed
development within the riparian buffer area is limited to a small portion of the Tourist Park and car park which will
occupy approximately 0.32ha of the 1.1ha riparian buffer (refer to Plan 1 below). While this will result in impervious
surfaces developed over the existing mowed paddock and subsequently a potential increased in gross pollutants in
runoff, all runoff from the development site will be captured and treated in on-site sediment basins prior to entering
the waterway. The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), informed by MUSIC Modelling prepared by VT
Consulting Engineers states stormwater drainage for the proposed multi-use development will be piped to
individual bio-retention basins for each area which will flow into a large single detention basin located to the south
of the site. It is proposed that this detention basin will then drain to the existing overland flow path at via a new
concrete headwall channelling stormwater towards the two existing box culverts under Myall Steet. The SWMP also
states that no worsening of stormwater flows up to and including Q100 stormwater events is anticipated from the
development and modelling demonstrates that an 82% reduction in suspended solids and a 100% reduction in gross
pollutants is expected (refer to SWMP by VT Consulting Engineers for further detail).

Therefore, while the project proposal does not avoid new development in the riparian buffer area, proposed
development is restricted to areas already cleared of vegetation which have been identified by the EAR as containing
low to no ecological value or function as a riparian corridor (refer Section 4.2.1 of the EAR). No further clearing of
waterway vegetation is proposed by the development and an additional 10m open space buffer proposed to
minimise edge effects. No impact to hydrology is anticipated by the development and run-off from impervious areas
will be treated via a system of stormwater detention basins that will result in no worsening of flows and reduction in
gross pollutants leaving the site.

    b) How the proposal protect[s] riparian zones by retaining aquatic and terrestrial habitats in riparian zones

As discussed in the response to 32a, the project proposes no further clearing of riparian vegetation and an additional
10m buffer to the existing vegetation boundary (an average 30m total waterway buffer) to protect existing
watercourse values and potential habitat. Field survey (refer to Section 4.2.1 of the EAR) identified that the
watercourse is heavily degraded and highly modified, fragmented by arterial roads (Myall Street to the north and
Bruce Highway to the south) and currently passing through a number of stormwater pipes. In addition, survey noted
the watercourse is heavily infested with weeds including Pinus elliotti (Slash Pine) and Cinnamomum camphora
(Camphor Laurel) restricting potential habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species. The majority of the site has been
cleared and does not provide habitat for species of Commonwealth, State or local significance. Section 4.4 of the EAR
notes that due to these factors, the site presents limited opportunity to provide habitat connectivity and usage is
limited to highly mobile species.

In relation to potential aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the riparian zone, Section 4.4 of EAR notes that:

     
   Only common species were observed during field survey with specific attempts made to check under fallen
         logs and within leaf litter around the mapped watercourse.
     
   Two common reptile species, Cyptoblempharis vigatus (Wall Skink) and Intellagama lesueurii (Eastern Water
         Dragon) and one pest amphibian Bufo marinus (Cane Toad) were observed throughout the mapped
         waterway.
     
   In its current condition, the watercourse does not support enough features to provide habitat for native
         amphibian species.


                                                           12

Page 13

     
   The area is dominated by introduced flora species and at the time of the assessment contained stagnant
         water in small ponded areas adjacent to the stormwater pipes.
     
   A number of common bird species including Cracticus nigrogularis (Pied Butcherbird), Dacelo novagguineae
         (Laughing Kookaburra), Grainilla cyanoleuca (Magpie), Lopholaimus antarticus (Pigeon), Platycercus adscitus
         (Pale-headed Rosella) and Trichoglossus haematodus (Rainbow Lorikeet) were also observed within large
         habitat trees within the waterway corridor.

Existing habitat for identified and potential terrestrial aquatic species will be retained by the development in its
current form and protected from edge effects of the proposed by development by an additional 10m buffer (refer
Plan 1 below). Rehabilitation works, including the removal of weed species within the waterway area is also proposed
by the development to enhance potential habitat for native flora and fauna species. Rehabilitation works will be
undertaken in accordance with the approved Rehabilitation and Weed Management Plan. Further the SWMP
anticipates no change to existing hydrology and details appropriate treatment and management controls to filter
potential pollutants and ensure no worsening of water quality as a result of the development (refer to the SWMP by
VT Consulting Engineers for further detail).

    c)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining wildlife corridors along watercourses and drainage
         lines for fauna movement

The site was identified in a preliminary risk based assessment by Saunders Havill Group and in an Council’s
commissioned report by Ecotone Environmental Services “Fauna and its Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa
Shire” as Low Conservation Priority and not as containing significant tracks for fauna movement. Further, site
surveys did not identify the presence of or habitat for significant Commonwealth, State or local species fauna or
flora species.

As discussed in the response to 32a and 32b, the project proposes no further clearing of riparian vegetation and an
additional 10m buffer to existing vegetation boundary (an average 30m total waterway buffer) to protect watercourse
values and potential habitat. The proposed development is restricted to already cleared areas of the site and intends
to retain potential habitat associated with the waterway corridor in its current form. It is however important to note
that Section 4.2.1 of the EAR identified that this corridor is fragmented by major arterial development (Mayall Street
to the north and Bruce Highway to the south) which restricts fauna movement to highly mobile species. Further,
broad assessment of the area identified that the waterway is not considered part of a strategic wildlife corridor.
Rehabilitation works, including the removal of weed species within the waterway area is also proposed by the
development to protect existing and enhance potential habitat for native flora and fauna species.

    d) How the proposal protects riparian zones by avoiding edge effects and incompatible uses in riparian zones

As discussed in the response to 32a-c, the project proposes no further clearing of riparian vegetation. The existing
waterway corridor is proposed to be retained in its current form, with an additional 10m buffer to existing vegetation
to mitigate edge effects from the development. This will result in an average 30m buffer to the waterway which is
identified as a highly modified and fragmented low level (Stream Order 1) watercourse. Further, soft treatments
including bioretention basins, a stormwater detention area and landscaping with native species will be located
adjacent to the protected waterway corridor to provide an addition buffer to edge effects. The proposed soft
treatments will provide a strengthened buffer to the waterway area reducing exposure to habitats within the
waterway corridor and likelihood of predators.

    e)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining water quality by maintaining bank stability by
         minimising bank erosion and slumping



                                                          13

Page 14

As discussed in the previous responses to item 32, the project proposes to retain the existing waterway corridor
(approximately 1.325ha) in its current form with an additional 10m buffer from the existing vegetation boundary to
safeguard impacts to bank stability and water quality. Soft treatments including biorention basins, a stormwater
detention area and landscaping with native species is proposed adjacent the protected waterway corridor to
minimise edge effects from the development. Further, bulk earthworks are not proposed within close proximity to
the retained waterway area and minimal hard surfaces (i.e. car park and Tourist Park) are located adjacent to the
buffered area.

No impacts on bank stability, including erosion and slumping is anticipated by the development. No works are
proposed within the existing riparian corridor and stormwater will be managed to maintain existing hydraulic
conditions. Detailed Bulk Earthworks Plans and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared at operational
works to be approved by Council. Further, the SWMP details that the detention basin will be designed to mitigate
the effects of additional runoff and to ensure no worsening of stormwater flows up to and including Q100 stormwater
events. To assist with the removal of gross pollutants from run-off, Enviropod baskets are proposed to be installed in
all stormwater gullies and inlets (refer to the SWMP by VT Consulting Engineers for further detail on erosion and
sediment controls).

    f)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining water quality by filtering sediments, nutrients and
         other pollutants

As discussed in previous responses to Item 32, the waterway corridor will be retained in its current form with an
additional 10m buffer proposed on the existing vegetation boundary. Further, adjacent land uses to the waterway
corridor will include soft treatments such as bioretenison basins, a stormwater detention basin and landscaping with
native species to minimise edge effects from the development and allow runoff to be captured and filtered prior to
entering the waterway corridor area.

A SWMP has been prepared for the site which provides details on the proposed detention basins and stormwater
management of the site. This will involve a number of individual bioretention basin which will flow into a larger single
detention basin located at the South of the site. It is proposed that this detention basin will then drain to the existing
overland flow path at the South of the site via a new concrete headwall, channeling the stormwater towards the two
existing box culverts and Myall Street. The bioretenion system is designed to treat the stormwater runoff by filtering
runoff through densely planted vegetation and percolating the runoff through the filter media. The proposed design
is in accordance with the Water Sensitive Urban Design Technical Guidelines by Water Design. Further, to assist with
the removal of gross pollutants, it is proposed that Enviropod baskets be installed in all stormwater gullies and inlets.

Stormwater management and water quality standards will comply with the State Planning Policy Guideline – State
Interest – Water Quality August 2014 and SEQ Water Development Guidelines: Development Guidelines for Water Quality
Management in Drinking Water Catchments in 2012. MUSIC modelling for proposed bioretenion basis areas shows an
overall reduction in gross pollutant loads is anticipated from existing conditions through storm water management
proposed by the development and meets required Water Quality Objectives. Refer to the extract from the SWMP
below and IR Response Items 14 & 15 by VT Consulting Engineers for further detail.




                                                           14

Page 15

    g)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by removing undesirable plant species and replacing them with
         vegetation of a local origin.

A list of observed weed species was noted within Section 4.3 the EAR including declared pests and locally listed
environmental weeds. The proposal intends to retain and rehabilitate the waterway corridor. Detailed Weed
Management and Rehabilitation Plans will be prepared as part of operational works.

Weed management be undertaken throughout the site with particular focus on removal of competitive species
within the corridor area and will provide a basis of aiding natural regeneration within the riparian corridor. Where
significant disturbance occurs, infill tubestock planting will be utilised to aid stabilisation and native vegetation
succession. Weed removal will be managed to ensure bank stability and hydrological function are not impacted. Post
weed-removal, revegetation of the riparian corridor will be undertaken to varying degrees, depending on the level of
disturbance. This will involve the cultivation and planting of native species and erosion and sediment control
management. The Revegetation and Weed Management Plan will provide details on the types of plant species which
will be used to rehabilitate the riparian corridor (refer to Landscape and Design Plans further detail on revegetation
and weed management measures proposed).




                                                         15

Page 16

S\isaunders havill group # surveying # town planning # urban design # environmental management # landscape architecture

Plan 1-
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN RIPARIAN BUFFER

 

 

 

Legend

CJ Project Site Boundary Figure 1 Developmentwithin Riparian | Vurve Building Design
5 & Concepts
Noosa biodiversity overlay Corridor

VF) retained vegetation
LAA tom buterarea File ref. 6520 € Figure 1 Openspace Veg Retention A SS aaa

Date 4/12/2014

jrou;

TF Hardstand area Project MyallSt- Mixed Used Development arcup
oe
Open space &rboretenton [a A| Se
Scale (M4): 1:2,500 [GDA 1994 MGAZ561] (tweet on 0 Par

 

 

 

Layer Sources DCDB(ONRM 2013), Aerial (QLD Globe 2012),

 

 

16

Page 17

Item 33 –

Provide justification, based on environmental grounds, for the development to occur with the riparian buffer area.

Response:

The site has been identified by in a preliminary risk based assessment by Saunders Havill Group and in the Council’s
commissioned report by Ecotone Environmental Services Report as Low Conservation Priority due to historical
land use and surrounding urban development resulting in the development site being highly modified, largely
devoid of native vegetation, and isolated by major arterial development to the north and south. Field survey of the
site did not identify the presence of, or habitat for, significant Commonwealth, State or local species fauna or flora
species. Further, the EAR prepared for the project identified that due to the highly disturbed and fragmented nature
of the site, the application area presents limited opportunity to provide habitat connectivity and usage is limited to
highly mobile species.

Site survey identified that ecological values contained to the waterway corridor which traverses the south-eastern
portion of the site. The mapped waterway is identified as a low value (stream order 1) watercourse and is highly
fragmented from surrounding areas by major arterial development to the north and south. Assessment of the area
identified that the waterway is not considered part of a strategic wildlife corridor or containing significant tracks for
fauna movement (refer to the “Fauna and its Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa Shire” report by Ecotone
Environmental Services). Further, field survey noted that the waterway is heavily infested with weeds and in its
current degraded condition does not contain enough features to provide habitat for native amphibian species.

Proposed development of the site is restricted to already cleared areas of the site which were identified by the
EAR for the project as containing low to no ecological value. As discussed in the response to Item 32a, the riparian
buffer area extends over approximately half of the site (refer Plan 1 above), with only 0.005ha of the 1.1ha western
riparian buffer containing complex riparian vegetation and the remainder of the mapped buffer area (approximately
1.095ha) consisting of mowed grass. The 0.005ha of riparian vegetation, along with an additional 10m buffer from the
existing vegetation boundary is to be retained by the development (a total average 30m buffer from the stream order
1 watercourse). The project however proposes development within the remainder of the western buffer area which
consists of maintained grass and identified by the EAR as containing no ecological values or function as a riparian
corridor. This area of encroachment consists of highly degraded and treated grass, is not mapped by Commonwealth
of State environmental overlays and is identified as not containing vegetation that falls within Council’s
environmental protection category (refer to Appendix D within the EAR for further detail).

The proposed works will maintain and enhance current values of the riparian corridor and buffer by removing weed
species, treating stormwater and revegetating degraded areas. Weed management will be undertaken throughout
the site with particular focus on removal of competitive species within the corridor area and will provide a basis of
aiding natural regeneration within the riparian corridor. Where significant disturbance occurs, infill tubestock
planting will be utilised to aid stabilisation and native vegetation succession. Stormwater will be managed on site to
maintain current hydraulic conditions and water quality of run-off entering the creek. MUSIC modelling for proposed
bioretenion basis areas shows an overall reduction in gross pollutant loads is anticipated from existing conditions
through storm water management proposed by the development and meets required Water Quality Objectives.
Modelling also shows that under current conditions the waterway will degrade further and support the spread of
weeds and pest species through the site.

Therefore, based on environmental grounds the proposal will provide an overall benefit to the ecological value of the
site through weed removal and management, revegetation and rehabilitation, and treatment of stormwater resulting
a net improvement in water quality and ecological function of the waterway.
                                                           17

Page 18

Item 34 –

Demonstrate that the MUSIC model adequately sized all bioretention basins for all catchments that drain to each.
Response:

Refer to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan), prepared by vT
Consulting Engineers (Attachment C) and Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water
Consulting Pty Ltd (Attachment D)




Item 35 –

Amend the MUSIC model to include all catchments (including external road catchments) that will experience increased
traffic or require road upgrades as a result of the proposed development. Demonstrate that the State Planning Policy
Water Quality Pollutant Reduction Targets will still be met. Also demonstrate that adequate permissions can be obtained
for construction and installation of any Water Quality Improvement infrastructure external to the site.
Response:

Refer to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan), prepared by vT
Consulting Engineers (Attachment C) and Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water
Consulting Pty Ltd (Attachment D)



Item 36 –

Demonstrate how the capacity of the tourist park bioretention basin and detention basin will not be compromised from
inflows from future development.
Response:

Refer to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan), prepared by vT
Consulting Engineers (Attachment C) and Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water
Consulting Pty Ltd (Attachment D)



Item 37 –

Label the nominated sizes for each basin on the drawings and ensure adequate footprint is included on the design to
include the required filter media area plus sediment forebays plus 1:4 batters around the edges of the basins and
maintenance access points. Also propose estimated inlet and outlet levels for the stormwater drainage to and from each
biobasin.

Response:

Refer to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan), prepared by vT
Consulting Engineers (Attachment C)



                                                          18

Page 19

Item 38 –

Please demonstrate that discharge from the self-storage area bioretention basin will have a legal point of discharge and
will not be retreated or overload another proposed bioretention basin.
Response:

Refer to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan), prepared by vT Consulting
Engineers (Attachment C) and Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd
(Attachment D)



Item 39 –

Provide an amended Acoustic Assessment addressing the following:

(a) Provide further information about the traffic noise model, including the extent of the model, ground absorption co-
efficient, buildings included, grid spacing for noise contour plots.
(b) Re-plotting of the traffic noise levels contours showing 60 dBA L10 (18 hour) scale and increments of 1 dB.
(c) Provide further information to demonstrate that the proposed park cabin design may satisfy the MP4.4 noise criteria
for a 6.0m high boundary acoustic barrier.
(d) Provide information to demonstrate compliance for the whole pool area with the passive recreation noise criterion.
(e) Conduct testing to determine a representative caravan outside-to-inside field transmission loss with natural
ventilation, and then determine a suitable external façade corrected noise criterion based upon the recommended mobile
accommodation noise criteria noted in Section 2.1.1 above.
(f) Provide further information to demonstrate that the mobile accommodation will comply with the determined façade
corrected noise criterion.
(g) Provide an assessment of sleep disturbance due to road traffic for the park cabins and mobile accommodation areas,
based upon the sleep disturbance criterion of Section 2.1.1 above.
(h) Provide an assessment of the noise impact of commercial uses upon the tourist park accommodation during the day,
evening and night periods.
(i) Review and confirm the applicable noise criteria levels in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 of the acoustic report.
(j) Provide a detailed description of the noise model used to assess the impact of the commercial uses, including source
locations, buildings included, car wash roof, receptor locations.

(k) Provide predictions of cumulative commercial noise impacts for various operating scenarios to confirm compliance
with the criteria the Ferrell Street receptors for the commercial uses on the development site.
 (l) Provide an assessment of the noise impact of the changed traffic volumes on Ferrells Road to the existing sensitive
receptors in this road.
(m) Provide further information regarding noise character adjustment for noise from commercial uses, including
reversing alarms.
(n) Provide a more detailed acoustic assessment of vehicle movements and noise emissions on the site, particularly at
night.
(o) Provide a more detailed explanation of the reasons for the height and length of the noise barrier along the Ferrells
Road site boundary.
(p) Provide further information to support the noise mitigation measures listed for control of commercial uses noise
emissions upon Ferrell Street receptors.
(q) Specify maximum sound power levels/acoustic performance requirements for all mechanical plant (including the
carwash/vacuum facility) based upon the cumulative noise budget required to achieve compliance for commercial uses
for Ferrell Street receptors and tourist park cabins and mobile accommodation.
(r) Provide a draft noise management plan that covers, as a minimum, authority, training, expectations, maintenance of
noise mitigation measures, vehicle speed management on site, patron behaviour and noise control, and complaints.
Response:

Refer to Acoustic report prepared by MRG Environmental (Attachment H).

                                                           19

Page 20

Item 40 –

Provide an updated town planning report and architectural drawings that include the recommendations of the acoustic
report, with the architectural drawings to include noise barriers and a floor layout for the site manager’s building.
Response:

Refer to Proposal plans at Attachment A. Recommendations from the Acoustic Report are able to be included as
conditions of any approval by Council.



Item 41 –

Provide details of how the Manifest Quantity Workplace (MQW) will comply with State interests (Workplace Health and
Safety Queensland) for the design and operation of the site.
Response:

Service station design detail relevant to this stage of the development is provided within Plan 14004- DA 14 A within
Attachment A. Workplace Health and Safety matters are dealt with under separate State Legislation and are not a
relevant consideration for an application of this nature but may be conditioned should Council consider appropriate.



Item 42 –

Please provide detailed design information of the service station, including the following as a minimum:
a) Detailed drawings showing the proposed design of service station including underground and/or above ground
storage capacity of flammable and combustible liquids on site
b) Maximum storage volume of storage tanks and type of fuel
c) Describe the type of storage tanks (e.g. double containment FRP etc.)
d) Location of tanks & distances to protected works, including site plan etc.
e) Leak detection methods proposed (e.g. statistical inventory analysis, automatic tank gauging, electronic line leak
detection, safe suction etc) - at least 2 methods capable of detecting a leak at a rate of 0.76 litres per hour or more with at
least 95% accuracy and a probability of false detection of 0.05 or less
f) proposed ground water monitoring wells and location
g) vapour recovery design proposed (Type 1and/or Type 2)
h) clarify the description of the forecourt spillage containment system and drip line using drawings and contours etc (i.e
the system to capture all spilt fuels and other contaminants as a result of the dispenser pumps operation and bulk delivery
filling of the underground/above ground tanks)
i) describe the capacity of forecourt containment vessel (i.e. minimum 10,000 l sump/tank with no connections to
stormwater and with/without connections to sewer). It appears that the Puraceptor system is also to be used to capture
flows/spills from the fuel dispensing area as well as the blind sump/tank) where it is stated in Item e Service Station
Treatment - “It is proposed that a SPEL Puraceptor containment system be installed to capture and retain flows from the
fuel dispensing areas”.
j) clarify the use of the Puraceptor system for treatment of stormwater runoff from uncovered (non-fuel dispensing areas)
of the service station to remove contaminants prior to discharge to stormwater system
k) any sewer pre-treatment devices/options (if any) consistent with Unitywater’s Trade Waste Policy and/or advice
l) regulated waste removal and disposal options
m) any other information that supports environmental protection including the protection of the water supply catchment



                                                              20

Page 21

Response:

Refer to Service station design detail relevant to this stage of the development provided within Plan 14004- DA 14 A
within Attachment A and to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management Plan),
prepared by vT Consulting Engineers and inclusive of response from Seq water (Attachment C)



Item 43 –

Confirm the design for the accommodation park satisfies following criteria identified under Local Law 1:
a) camp sites must be large enough to allow a 1.8 metre separation distance between sites, or if devices are used to secure
a tent, between the devices and the adjacent tent or devices used to secure it; and
b) every site shall have a well drained surface and where concrete pads are provided they should be designed and built in
accordance with the current Australian Standard; and
c) a sufficient number of conveniently located and suitably equipped toilet and ablution facilities must be provided for
each gender in accordance with the following guidelines—
(i) where private ensuite facilities are not provided for accommodation on a site—
   a). facilities must be located at least 6 metres but no more than 100 metres from the site; and
   b). where there are 40 sites or fewer, one pedestal for every 7 sites must be provided for female occupants, one pedestal
for every 10 sites must be provided for male occupants, and a 0.6 metre urinal must be provided for every 20 sites (or part
thereof) for male occupants; and
   c).where there are more than 40 sites, the appropriate number of toilet facilities shall be as provided in caravan park
industry guidelines; and
(ii) individual toilets, showers or baths must be adequately screened for privacy; and
(iii) separate ablution facilities for each gender must be provided in the ratio of one shower or bath and hand basin to
every 15 sites; and
d) be provided with adequate laundry facilities for use by residents
e) be provided with a suitable “dump point” connected to sewer for use by campers to dispose of sewage holding tanks
etc.
f) any other information that would support the issue of a permit for the accommodation park under the Local Law.
Response:

Refer to Proposal Plans within Attachment A. Compliance with Local Law requirements able to be conditioned
should Council consider required.



Item 44 –

Please provide a Waste Management Plan (Operational) in accordance with Planning Scheme Policy No. 9 “Waste
Management Multi-Dwellings and Commercial and Industrial Premises”, for the day-to-day operation of the
development, including an integrated approach to the waste management for the service station, accommodation park,
food sales shop and fast food drive thru. The plan is to be submitted and approved by council prior to the issue of the
Decision Notice for Operational Works. The Plan should include the following information as a minimum:
a) The types of waste that will be generated from the activities approved within the development.
b) Estimated volumes or tonnage of both recyclables and waste generated.
c) Methods to be used for dealing with any green waste.
d) Initiatives to minimize waste either by waste prevention, reduction, re-use or recycling.
e) Description of procedures for getting all waste to the bins; the storage of bins and the collection of bins by the
contractor.
f) A description of the design details of waste storage and recycling areas including size, location, elevation, enclosure/s,
floor plan and methods of bin washing that prevent contamination of storm water and an appropriately sized bin wash
area drained to sewer. The bin wash area should have as a minimum: a cold-water tap, hose and drain outlet connected
to sewer, via a bucket trap. The drain outlet is to be designed to prevent storm water entry to the sewerage system and this

                                                             21

Page 22

can be achieved with a nib wall 50mm high and up to 700mm x 700mm wide (max 0.5m²), or alternatively the waste area
can be roofed, or any other design approved by Council.

g) A description of types and volume of waste storage containers to be used. Note: Refuse containers must be provided in
accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Interim Waste) Regulation 1996 and (Waste
Management) Regulation 2000, for the storage and collection of refuse.
h) The waste and recycling storage area should include the provision of correctly sized containers for all waste and
recycling materials including putrescible matter, non-recycling waste, paper/ cardboard, glass, aluminium/steel cans,
waste oil, styrofoam boxes, etc., and bin washing facilities connected to sewer.
i) A detailed description of the waste vehicle access to collect waste including vehicle turnarounds consistent with vehicle
access requirements that allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. It should be noted that:
    Waste vehicles are front loading for steel bins 1.5 to 3m3 bins
    Waste vehicles are rear loading for plastic low noise bins 1.1m3 bins
    Waste vehicles are side loading for 240 litre wheelie bins
    Please see the specifications for Refuse Vehicle Access Requirements for design purposes below
j) Refuse Vehicle Access Requirements for Noosa Shire.
Response:

Refer to Plans, 14004- VTP 01 A, 14004 VTP 02 A at Attachment A and Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT
(Attachment F) which demonstrate on-site capability for Refuse vehicle access. The waste management plan can be
conditioned to be approved prior to relevant Operational Works Approval.


In summary, we believe the above responses will satisfy Council’s issues in respect of the proposed development.

We offer this in full response to Council’s Information Request and request that the Council continue with its
assessment of the application. As previously advised, we have already provided a response to SARA’s Information
Request. In fulfilment of our obligations under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, we will arrange for public
notification to be carried out.

Should there be any further clarification provided, please contact me on telephone 07 3251 9421 or email:
[email protected] faithfully
Saunders Havill Group




Eddie Venturini
Principal- Town Planning




                                                             22

Page 23

Attachments

       (Attachment A) Revised Proposal Plans prepared by Verve


       (Attachment B) Economic impact response prepared by Foresight Partners Pty/Ltd dated December, 2014


       (Attachment C) Revision to Civil Engineering Report (Engineering Report and Stormwater Management
       Plan), prepared by vT Consulting Engineers and inclusive of response from Seq water


       (Attachment D) Stormwater Quantity Management Plan prepared by Storm Water Consulting Pty Ltd


       (Attachment E) Earthworks Plan prepared by vT Consulting Engineers


       (Attachment F) Traffic Addendum prepared by PTT


       (Attachment G) Ecology addendum report Prepared by Saunders Havill Group


       (Attachment H) Acoustic report prepared by MRG Environmental




                                                      23