2015-09-15 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                              15 SEPTEMBER 2015


The development raises significant infrastructure planning issues, stemming from:
    Substantial external road upgrade works and signalisations are likely to be required, which
      are not part of Noosa’s LGIP.
    Preliminary advice from Council’s consulting traffic engineer indicates the quantum and cost
      of the works may potentially be prohibitive to the development (i.e. well in excess of $10M),
      should the cost borne by the developer.
    Because the upgrades would occur on Noosa’s trunk network, the applicant will likely seek
      their conversion to trunk infrastructure, with the costs then borne by Council.
The infrastructure and financial implications of the development broadly prohibit Council’s ability to
support the proposal.
Stormwater Quality & Quantity
The issue of Stormwater is divided into two parts, quality and quantity. The acceptable outcome is
a “non-worsening” in regard to the quality and quantity of stormwater released from the site due to
the development of the site. Council engaged hydrology consultants BMT WBM to undertake a
peer review of the Cardno Stormwater Management Plan, including associated MUSIC and
XPSTORM model files. In regard to stormwater quality and treatment, BMT WBM advised:
Overall the stormwater quality concept presented by Cardno (May, 2015) is generally appropriate
with bio-basins proposed in the car-parking areas and in the southern portion of the site. A key
issue; however, with the applied modelling and predicted treatment performance of the proposed
stormwater management strategy, is the inclusion of the ‘swale’ [Covenant J] treatment node,
which we do not believe is appropriate.
The drainage corridor is already currently providing a stormwater treatment function and should
therefore not be included in an assessment of the treatment performance for the (new) stormwater
management strategy.
We would anticipate that the [performance] targets could be achieved through the revision of the
proposed strategy (e.g. increased size of bioretention systems). The review did not identify any
other significant deficiencies in other aspects associated with the modelling or strategy.
BMTWBM indicate the Covenant J area is proposed to be used for detention and in events greater
than a 5 year ARI and blockage factors may cause backups of waters that impact existing
vegetation not suited to increased inundation. The issues with the proposed methods could be
addressed via the inclusion of reasonable conditions and resolved by the amended detailed
designs submitted at Operational Works stage.
Biodiversity
The submitted ecological assessment report suitably analyses the quality of habitat for the
purposes of this assessment. The development is located in areas of low ecological value over
other areas, to the greatest extent practicable. While the development involves clearing native
vegetation, the scale and extent is consistent with the master planning for the NBC, which commits
Precincts E1, E6, E7 and associated roads for development. The previous planning process for
the development of the Noosa Civic lands resulted in the dedication of parklands for environmental
purposes. These lands contain the high value ecological attributes when compared with the land
set aside for development.
The applicant has provided detail of the fauna assemblages expected to inhabit the proposed area
to be cleared. Two scheduled species were found, the Koala and the Wallum Froglet. No scheduled
species of plants were discovered. Suitable conditions can be applied to the management of
clearing operations, on-going use and management of residual land area, the impacts on
scheduled species can be mitigated and minimised.




                                                                                    Page 100 of 189