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

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