Request for Further Information - 010.2007.00001259.001 [As Published] · 132007.1259

Page 2

6.      A written list of planning grounds supporting the proposed uses on the site, which
        are identified as inconsistent by The Noosa Plan (ie Entertainment & Dining &
        Business and Visitor Accommodation Type being without any caravan park sites).

7.      A written description of how proposed buildings A, B & C conform or otherwise
        with The Noosa Plan’s definition of visitor hostel.

8.      A written list of planning grounds supporting the proposed development’s design
        in terms of proposed population density, gross floor area, building height,
        setbacks from David Low Way and landscaping. In this regard, please note that:

        8.1. the population density for visitor hostel is based on the areas of the site
             being used for visitor accommodation and not commercial as currently
             calculated. A breakdown should be provided as to how the proposed
             population has been calculated (ie bed numbers per room etc).

        8.2. the maximum building height for the site is 8 metres, 2 storeys, not 11
             metres as stated in the planning report for the Open Space Recreation
             Zone (ie 11 metres is only for an indoor sporting complex).

        8.3. the building setbacks to David Low Way are to maintain the visual
             continuity and pattern of the street and allow landscaping between the
             buildings. Notably, development along this section of David Low Way
             including the hotel is setback 6 metres from the front boundary.

        8.4. the landscape setbacks to David Low Way (average 2m soft landscaping)
             and landscape areas (10%) around the commercial component are not
             considered to be offset by the rear of the site being not developed.
Artists Sketch
9.      An artist’s sketch of the proposed development from a more southerly
        perspective along David Low Way.
Ecological Assessment
10.     In regards to the Ecological Assessment:

        10.1. A site survey of vegetation types, overlaid with those areas to remain
              undeveloped/buffer areas and proposed to be developed.

        10.2. An assessment of the quality of vegetation of RE 12.2.7 which is not
              proposed to be retained.

        10.3. A site survey identifying any significant species within the area to be
              developed.

        10.4. Confirmation that the vegetated areas proposed to be retained is identified
              (ie pegged) on site.

11.     A site survey of existing trees within the proposed development area identifying
        the tree type and whether it is proposed to be retained/removed.

Fire Management




     Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
       Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 3

12.   A Fire Management Plan prepared by an appropriately qualified consultant
      identifying fire mitigation measures to address the potential threat of bushfire.
Motorcycle & Motor Scooter Parking
13.   A written submission or revised plans as appropriate addressing Planning
      Scheme Policy – Motorcycle & Motor Scooter Parking.

Traffic Impact Assessment:
14.   The input data and traffic generation used for the preparation of the Traffic Impact
      Assessment report (by Cardno Eppell Olsen dated June 2007) particularly at the
      intersection of entry road to the site (Road 151) and David Low Way.

15.   Further justification of the classification of the accommodation units as hostel
      units with low parking provision rates, particularly in respect of their potential
      usage during peak holiday periods by singles and couples with cars.

16.   Confirmation that the traffic analysis take into consideration the traffic generation
      from the commercial development on the north side of Heron Street currently
      being constructed and its impact on traffic volumes and flows at Heron
      Street/David Low Way roundabout.

17.   Demonstrate that the traffic model has been calibrated to the actual existing
      traffic conditions and based on adequate data collection.

18.   Previous traffic counts have demonstrated that the afternoon peak period in
      Noosa is likely to occur before 4.30pm on weekdays. Traffic count data for the
      period 2.30 to 4.30pm also needs to be evaluated, together with Saturday noon
      traffic operations.

19.   Assessment of the adequacy of the queuing lane for the right turning cars and
      large vehicles turning from David Low Way Road into the unnamed road (Road
      151).

20.   It is not accepted that the existing median geometry in David Low Way at the un-
      named road intersection satisfactory allows for two-stage right turns. Analyses
      are required of this intersection as a conventional (single stage right turn) T-
      junction.

21.   The impact of the development on the traffic flows at the Heron Street
      roundabout if no right turn from Road 151 into the southbound lane of David Low
      Way is implemented.

22.   Analysis is required of intersection operations during peak holiday periods.
      Alternatively, lower acceptable maximum Degree of Saturation values based on
      traffic data collected outside peak periods.

23.   Demonstrate that the Traffic Impact Assessment has addressed all the potential
      traffic conflicts at the intersection of the Road 151 with David Low Way including,
      but not limited to the existing bus stop on the southbound lane. Advise of any
      modification and improvement measures to be implemented at this intersection to
      offset any potential traffic conflicts and optimise traffic flows.




  Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
    Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 4

24.   Dimensioned, scaled drawings (of a larger size eg A2 or A1) of the car parking
      areas; internal roads and circulation areas to demonstrate compliance with
      AS2890, including cars and trucks manoeuvring patterns for spaces, aisles and
      loading bays; proposed bike racks (for employees and short term public users)
      and end-trip facilities.

25.   A pedestrian traffic management plan is required for the site, particularly in
      respect of pedestrian traffic movements through the car park areas.

26.   The proposed development can be expected to significantly increase usage of
      the existing pedestrian crossing of David Low Way adjacent to the site. The
      impact of this increased usage on queues in David Low Way should be assessed
      for the three inter-related traffic features - roundabout, pedestrian crossing and T-
      junction.

27.   Further details should be provided of bus parking facilities, particularly in view of
      the proposal to attract back-packer bus tour custom.
Stormwater Quality Management Assessment
28.   Please provide a comment from an ecologist that gives reasons to support the
      methodology of using Maroochy Load Reduction Targets instead of assessing
      the downstream ecosystem and its sensitivity of the low nutrient environment
      heathlands to nutrients and other pollutants to determine appropriate water
      quality objectives. If required please provide reviewed modelling and treatment
      train to achieve the new Water Quality parameters. See further detail of the
      issues here:

      28.1. The submitted assessment report has neglected the concentration based
            WQO with an argument which suggests that the existing site being "not in a
            natural 'undeveloped' condition" and therefore does not need to meet the
            concentration based WQO (Browns report, pg 5). There are concerns with
            neglecting concentrations all together and the fact that the mitigated
            concentrations expected using MUSIC gives values 3.5 times the allowable
            value for total nitrogen given in South East Queensland Water Quality
            Guidelines (2006) and would almost be 3 times higher than those
            acceptable in Brisbane City. The appropriate WQO for nitrogen is 0.5mg/L
            normally, but lower for a low nutrient heathland environment.

      28.2. In regards to the music model there is no information as to the pollutant
            removal efficiencies of the selected treatment devices such as the C* value.
            This is needed to determine if modelling of an ephemeral wetland is
            appropriate. The wetland itself would probably be very ephemeral as its
            catchments draining to it are very small and it is questioned whether or not
            it is fair to model as a wetland and whether wetland plant species would be
            supported.

      28.3. The Music model has been based on BCC 2003 guidelines because there
            are no MUSIC guidelines for Noosa available. The question is, why has the
            more recent GCCC 2006 guidelines been neglected when they are the only
            available guidelines which prescribe pollutant generation rates for roads,
            roofs and other areas which is how this particular model has been
            delineated.




  Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
    Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 5

29.   Provide an ecologist’s assessment demonstrating that the proposed stormwater
      treatment train and measures will protect the natural ecosystem downstream of
      the development site.

30.   In relation to the stormwater tank re-use methodology, table 4.6 should show that
      the reuse connections for buildings A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, and C1 should be to
      toilets, swimming pool topping and irrigation and for the beach shacks for toilets
      and irrigation also. Please provide amended results with this in mind.

31.   It seems as that the annual runoff rates have been used in the tank balance
      model and not actual daily data. Considering the small size of the tanks there is
      probably a lot of overtopping in the larger events that would lead to water being
      lost to the system. There are probably long periods of time when the tanks are
      empty for example the beach shack tanks are only 3kL and have a re-use of
      210L/day meaning there is only 14 days supply in each tank. More information is
      required to support the water balance model.

32.   Justification of the assumption that rooftops will have 100% of the area drain to
      the tank. The report states that the pipes will be positioned to collect all the runoff
      but no details are provided and this may not be practical. The available
      stormwater industry guidelines indicate only 70% effective capture for rainwater
      tanks without detailed design of roof pitches coupled with simultaneous wind and
      rain data.

33.   Explain why the overflow from the rainwater tanks (uncontaminated) is required
      to be directed through the wetlands.

34.   Please provide a more detailed plan/s of the proposed stormwater system
      including (but not limited to) the layout and grades of stormwater pipelines and
      outlet/s, the location of the treatment devices and their sizing.

35.   Information regarding any existing stormwater systems to be removed or
      replaced particularly at the outlets and the location and type of proposed outlets.

Sewer Mains

36.   Provide the general sewer layout plan on the development site taking into
      consideration that no building or other structure requiring building permit will be
      allowed within the zone of influence of the sewer main. Sewer easements of
      minimum width of 3m in favour of Council in accordance the requirements of
      Planning Scheme Policy 6 – Water & Sewerage Design Standards will be
      required on all new sewer mains.

37.   It should noted that a new sewer to service existing connection to Lot 51
      SP156203, No.221 David Low Way (Peregian Hotel site) should be constructed
      along and within the northern and eastern boundary of the proposed
      development site to a point adjacent to Council sewer manhole MP20/02/09.
      Connection to be made to existing manhole by contractor approved by Noosa
      Shire Council.

General




  Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
    Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 6

38.   What construction methods are to be implemented to support existing services,
      road structure, adjoining buildings and properties during the construction phase
      considering the sandy nature of the soil in this area and the basements
      proposed. Permission may not be available for entry from adjoining landowners.

39.   Information regarding the proposed electricity connection/s to the development
      site
Environmental Health
40.   Details of proposed public amenities and back of house areas for the commercial
      precinct. In particular relating to food premises and any proposed waste
      storage/recycling areas.

41.   A detailed waste management plan in accordance with PSP11 including the
      following information:

      41.1. Estimate volumes of waste to be generated;

      41.2. Estimated volumes of recyclables;

      41.3. Estimated volumes of garden/organic waste;

      41.4. Method to be used for disposal of garden/organic waste;

      41.5. Initiatives to minimise waste by waste reduction, reuse or recycling;

      41.6. Description of the procedures involved in disposing of refuse to bins, the
            storage of bins and the collection of bins by the contractor and who is
            responsible for each transfer of waste;

      41.7. A description of the design details of waste storage and recycling areas,
            including the method of preventing stormwater pollution to be highlighted
            on plan drawings;

      41.8. Plans showing the location and details of the waste storage areas;

      41.9. A description of the type of containers proposed to store the waste; and

      41.10.     A detailed description of the proposed access arrangement for waste
           collection vehicles to be highlighted on plan drawings

42.   In addition to the above please provide:

      42.1. An A3 drawing of the entrance and service area at 1:100 scale, clearly
            showing the proposed road surface and proposed truck movements.

      42.2. Details of compliance with Councils Policy for “Refuse Chutes and
            Accessories in Multi Storey Buildings”.

      42.3. Details on how recyclable waste will be segregated and will not be
            contaminated with waste by patrons.

      42.4. Details of the type/size and number of bins that will be housed in the waste
            area.


  Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
    Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 7

        42.5. Details of the bin wash proposed with a cold-water tap, hose and drain
              outlet connected to sewer, via a bucket trap and grease arrestor.

        42.6. Details of how these bins will be collected in a safe manner. (The proximity
              of the proposed 3 point turn for the waste vehicle to the main vehicle
              entrance and exit seems unsafe. The drawing requested in K and the
              further consideration of collection options following may assist to determine
              a better collection alternative.).
Note: Is the proposal to line up wheelie bins on the LHS of Grebe street, or are bulk
bins to be serviced directly from the waste area. If bulk bins are proposed it may be
possible to reposition the compound at a 45 degree angle and closer to building A, so a
front lift truck drives directly into this area off Grebe Street. 1.5m2 wheelable waste bulk
bins with 240L recycling bins could be feasible, depending on waste volumes. These
could be kept in the waste refuse areas around the development and either wheeled
down on each collection day or swapped with others kept in the main compound as
required. An acceptable ideal solution is to service the bins while allowing residents
cars to continue to use the entrance and exit roads unobstructed, otherwise the
entrance/service area may need to be enlarged.

Please provide six (6) copies of all information that you are providing. In addition, it
would assist Council if you could also provide an electronic copy of your response.
Please be aware that under Section 3.2.12 of the Integrated Planning Act, the applicant
is to respond to any information request within 12 months of the request or otherwise,
the application lapses.
Under the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, you as the applicant, have
three options available in response to this Information Request. You may give the
assessment manager (in this instance Council) and each referral agency (if any):-

1.      all of the information requested; or

2.      part of the information requested together with a letter asking the assessment
        manager and each referral agency to proceed with the assessment of the
        application; or

3.      a letter:-

        3.1. stating that you do not intend to supply any of the information requested;
             and

        3.2. asking the assessment manager and each referral agency to proceed with
             the assessment of the application.
The above information is required to be submitted, prior to assessment of the
application. If any further matters arise as part of assessment of this application, you
will be advised accordingly.




     Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
       Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention

Page 8

Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me on the above number.

Yours faithfully,



Kerri Coyle
SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER




  Award Winner - Australian Clean Beach
    Challenge 2004 Litter Prevention