RPS Information Request Response _Final_

Page 2

just 13.7m of a total western boundary length of 42m (i.e. less than a third of the length of that
frontage). The balance length of that frontage is occupied by generous landscaping and at-grade
carparking, thereby allowing the opening up of over 50% of the site area to enable clear sight
lines from east to west across the sight (refer Figure 1 as below).

Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the Schedule 1 setback requirements are called up by
the relevant Planning Scheme Codes as Probable Solutions, the key building siting
considerations that are listed within the Planning Scheme Codes as being the relevant Specific
Outcomes, are readily demonstrated.




Figure 1 – Site analysis

To this effect, it was also recognised in the afore-referenced pre-lodgement discussions that this
element of Schedule 1 building setback intrusion on the eastern alignment is directly adjacent to
an extraordinarily wide road corridor in excess of 40m (refer Figure 2) and sited opposite
extensive car parking and landscaping associated with the Bunnings development further to the
east and north-east. As a result, the proposed minor setback intrusion as described above will in
no way impact the maintenance of the visual and functional integrity of the road corridor, nor
adversely impact either the amenity of users of the premises or the visual and acoustic privacy of
adjoining and nearby land uses, thereby demonstrating accordance with the Planning Scheme
Code’s Specific Outcomes, as applicable to this development proposal.




Figure 2 – Site development proposal




                                                                                                 2

Page 3

Further to the above proposed building siting considerations, the Applicant advocates that the
design, orientation and address of the showroom component (rather than the workshop element) to
the eastern street alignment presents a pedestrian entry focus that interacts with the existing
footpath network and promotes engagement of the customer focussed element of the proposed use
with the street. This design outcome is accentuated by the continuation of the pedestrian footpath
into the site, as illustrated in Figure 3 as below. This 3m wide footpath entry within the site,
combined with the generous verge width and adjacent site landscaping, further ensures a
suitable interface with the street frontage, in the specific context of the proposed use and the
surrounding road network and land uses.




Figure 3 – Eastern (showroom) street engagement

To better deliver on this concept of street engagement at a pedestrian scale, the proposal plans
have been amended to deliver a varied roof height at this eastern end of the showroom. As
illustrated in Figures 4 as below, the roof height is now proposed to step down from R.L 10.00 to
R.L. 7.50, such as to visually reduce the appearance of the building bulk and scale from this frontage
and better identify the differentiation in use between the showroom component and the workshop
element. Please refer to enclosed Elevation Plans prepared by Michael Carr Architect included at
Attachment A for further detail).




     Figure 4 – Northern Elevation                     Figure 5 – Eastern Elevation


To further focus this street level engagement, the eastern elevation also incorporates specific
facade treatments, including the use of extensive window and door glazing (refer Figure 4 and
Figure 5 above) and a variation of facade finishes, to better articulate this component.

The use of low plantings in the reduced setback area to this “shopfront” component of the
development is aimed at ensuring the visual interaction between the public street and the
showroom is not compromised.




                                                                                                     3

Page 4

Planning Issue
It is unclear of the building height in metres.
2. Please provide a roof plan with roof height RL’s and
3. AHD and the corresponding NGL indicated and elevation plans showing the NGL.

Response:
The proposed building height in metres has been clarified by the inclusion of amended plans and
elevations prepared by Michael Carr Architects and included hereto at Attachment A.

Specifically, please refer to the enclosed, amended Elevation Plans TP-04D, which now clearly
annotate the roof heights, RLs and the natural ground levels. Spot levels (finished RLs) have also
been annotated on the amended Site Plan TP-02D.

Engineering Issue
The submitted management plan includes assumptions of the downstream drainage system and
the applicant has not demonstrated that the downstream drainage system has the capacity to
cater for the proposed development Information Required.

4. Demonstrate that the downstream drainage system has the capacity to cater for the proposed
development in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 5 and QUDM or provide
amended plans that indicate the necessary on-site detention system.

Response:
A drainage catchment plan is herein provided by Projex Partners which, together with the drainage
calculation table (provided by Council on 26th February 2015) demonstrates that the existing system
has the capacity to accommodate the post development flows from the site.

For a fully detailed response to this item, please refer to the enclosed material prepared by Projex
                   th
Partners dated 10 March 2015 included at Attachment B and the enclosed Drainage Catchment
Plan and Drainage Computations Sheet included at Attachment C.

Engineering Issue
5. Provide the MUSIC model data files for assessment.

Response:
                                                                                    th
Please refer to the enclosed to response letter prepared by Projex Partners dated 10 March 2015
included at Attachment B; and the enclosed MUSIC model data files prepared by Projex Partners
included at Attachment D.

Engineering Issue
6. Provide a copy of a quotation for the ongoing maintenance of the proposed stormwater
quality system.

Response:
Projex Partners have facilitated a quotation from Stormwater 360 for the ongoing maintenance of the
stormwater quality device proposed for the site.

Please refer to enclosed maintenance agreement and quote prepared by Stormwater 360 Australia
included at Attachment E (i) and Attachment E (ii).

Engineering Issue
Council has concerns with the proposed entry point on the eastern side of the site. The applicant
has not provided an indication of the expected number of heavy vehicle movements or whether
the intent is to also provide access for customers


                                                                                                   4

Page 5

7. In regard to the eastern access driveway provide an indication of the expected number of
heavy vehicle movements and indicate whether the intent is to also utilise this access for
customers.

Response:
One MRV is expected to service the site per day with 2 delivery vans also expected per day. Our
client does not intend to limit customer entry to the site from the east.
                                                                                    th
Please refer enclosed to response letter prepared by Projex Partners dated 10            March 2015
included at Attachment B.


SUPPORTING INFORMATION
The following supporting information is attached in support of this response:


     Attachment A – Amended Plans and Elevation prepared by Michael Carr Architect,
                                                                                               th
      Attachment B - Information request response letter prepared by Projex Partners dated 10
      March 2015;

     Attachment C – Drainage Catchment Plan and Drainage Computations Sheet

     Attachment D – MUSIC model data files prepared by Projex Partners; and
                                                                                               th

     Attachment E (i) – Maintenance quote prepared by Stormwater 360 Australia dated 18
      November 2014.

     Attachment E (ii) – Maintenance agreement quote prepared by Stormwater 360 Australia dated
        th
      18 November 2014.

In accordance with Section 378(1)(a) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 this letter and
attachments constitute a response to all of the information requested. We ask that the Requesting
Authority, Sunshine Coast Council, proceed with assessment of this development application.

We trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, however should you require any further
details or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Brad Williams by telephone on (07) 5436
7806.

Yours faithfully

RPS




Brad Williams
Technical Director and Planning Manager

Enc          Attachments (Supporting Information) A – E (ii)
cc           Mogpropmanagement Pty Ltd




                                                                                                  5