Ltr Representations for Negotiated Decision Notice - NBC Lot 22 (Final) 26.09.22 · MCU22/0038

Page 2

  2.1                             Indicative plant palette – streetscape and 17.03.22
                                  entry landscaping, prepared by place
                                  design group
  2.2                             Indicative plant palette – bio basin 17.03.22
                                  landscaping, prepared by place design
                                  group
  3.1                             Indicative materials palette, prepared by 17.03.22
                                  place design group


Representations:
Renders and perspectives are not required to be lodged in support of a development application. As
stated in the development application material, the abovementioned renders and perspectives were
provided to Council for its information only.   Such renders and perspectives are not cadastral in
nature.     It follows that referencing such renders and perspectives as “approved plans of
development” in Condition 2 is problematic.
Further, we consider it more appropriate that the Landscape Concept Plan dated 17.03.2022 be
referenced in a general condition that requires the landscaping to be undertaken generally in
accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan dated 17.03.2022. It is also not appropriate for single
aspects or plans from the Landscape Concept Plan to be read in isolation, it should be read as a whole.
Please refer to proposed change to Condition 25 below which requires the development to be carried
out generally in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan dated 17.03.22.
It is considered both appropriate and sufficient for Condition 2 to be limited to the architectural
package of plans submitted to Council by the Applicant, which include a Site Plan, Basement Plan 01,
Basement Plan 02, Ground Floor Plan, Level 01 Plan, Roof Plan, Sections and Elevations.

Condition 3
“The approved use must not commence until all works required by RAL 18/0023 have been completed”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 3.
Representations:
Condition 3 is neither reasonable nor relevant as prescribed under the Planning Act 2016.
It is appropriate for the commencement of the use of this development to be conditional upon the
sealing of RAL 18/0023. As you are aware, RAL 18/0023 has recently been sealed.
Additionally, despite some works being bonded in the process of sealing RAL 18/0023, no
outstanding works are relevant to the effective treatment or operation of the proposed
development on Lot 22.
Condition 16:
“Security in the Form of a cash bond or trading bank guarantee to the sum of $25,000 must be submitted
to Council, to secure performance of all conditions of this approval, prior to a pre-start meeting. The
cash bond or trading bank guarantee will be returned on performance of the conditions of approval less
any costs incurred by Council in respect of enforcing performance of this permit. Council reserves the
right to call upon the bond or guaranteed sum to effect compliance with conditions”.
Requested change:
We request removal of Condition 16 from the conditions package.

Page 3

Representations:
Condition 16 is neither reasonable nor relevant as prescribed under the Planning Act 2016.
Condition 16 of the development approval requires the payment of a $25,000 performance bond. This
condition is unnecessarily onerous and is intended to ensure the fulfilment of all conditions of
approval. The bond amount will be returned less any costs incurred by the Council in respect of
enforcing performance of any condition. The condition is silent on how costs are to be calculated and
justified by the Council, which is problematic, specifically those conditions which are ongoing and to
be maintained.
We note compliance with conditions of approval is a legal requirement imposed on all applicants.
Non-compliance gives rise to enforceable rights and there are a number of options that are available
to Council in that event.
There are conditions that must be satisfied prior to commencement of use, whilst others are
operational conditions and are ongoing. The wording of this condition in its current form creates
confusion as to how this could be reasonably satisfied, particularly if the fulfilment of some
conditions is an ongoing obligation which will extend to the future owners of individual units.
Condition 25:
“The site must be landscaped generally in accordance with an Operational Works Permit”
Requested change
Amend Condition 25 to read:
“The site must be landscaped generally in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan dated 17.03.22
and an Operational Works Permit”.
Representations:
Refer to representations made above in relation to Condition 2.
Condition 31:
“Tree Management Plan in accordance with AS4970-2009 detailing vegetation in the covenant to the
north of the site (Cov. I SP182845). The TMP will demonstrate the Tree Protection Zones and
Structural Root Zones of vegetation in the covenant are protected, to ensure the health and longevity
of vegetation in the covenant. If impacts proposed, offset planting may be required for any impacted
vegetation”.
Requested change
We suggest the inclusion of the words “Prepare a” at the beginning of Condition 31.
We also amendment of the final sentence of Condition 31 to read:
“If impacts are proposed, offset planting may be required within the covenant area for any impacted
vegetation”.
Representations:
This change is administrative in nature to ensure clarity of the condition when being implemented.
Condition 32:
“The report must be resubmitted to Council incorporating the above amendments prior to the issue
of any Development Permit for Operational Works”
Requested change:
Replace the word “report” with “TMP”.
Representations:

Page 4

This change is administrative in nature to ensure clarity of the condition when being implemented.
Condition 33:
“Prior to the prestart meeting, a bank guarantee or a bond of $30,000 must be lodged as security for the
protection of the tree/s identified for retention in the conditions of this approval. The bond:
a) may be drawn upon by Council in its entirety if any one tree identified for retention
   is damaged to the point where the tree cannot be saved (as confirmed by the
    project arborist and agreed in writing by Council)
b) will be returned upon practical completion of all the operational works relating to
   this development”.
Requested change:
We request Condition 33 be amended as follows:
“Prior to the prestart meeting, a bank guarantee or a bond of $30,000 must be lodged as security for the
protection of the tree/s identified for retention in the conditions of this approval. The bond:
a) may be drawn upon by Council in its entirety if any one tree identified for retention
   is damaged to the point where the tree cannot be saved (as confirmed by the
    project arborist and agreed in writing by Council); and
b) the tree cannot be rehabilitated elsewhere on the site via new stock at a replanting ratio of 1:2 (in a
   location to be agreed to in writing by Council).

The bond will be returned upon practical completion of all the operational works relating to
this development (where a) and b) above are met)”.
Representations:
Condition 33 of the development approval requires the payment of another bond as security to ensure
the protection of trees on the site.
Whilst we do not object to the performance bond for the protection of trees and recognise the
importance of fulfilling the requirement of this condition, the current wording of the condition is too
rigid and does not account for contingencies such as accidental tree removal arising from site works.
We request that Condition 33 is amended to provide a reasonable degree of flexibility, in the instance
a tree was accidentally damaged on the site. The intent of the condition will remain and will ensure
the trees are protected or otherwise rehabilitated elsewhere on site. A replanting ratio of 1:2 provides
further incentive to avoid impacts to existing trees on the site.
Condition 40:
“Provision of amended plans incorporating the tandem carparking arrangement, together with the SRV
and ambulance bay shown on plans SK01, SK02 and SK03 prepared by SLR and dated 13/7/22, (with the
wheel stop deleted from the ambulance bay and the ground level carparking plan modified for
compatibility with the provision of that modified service vehicle arrangement) as amended by the
conditions of this approval”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 40.
Representations:
On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43
above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is
therefore appropriate for Condition 40 to be deleted.

Page 5

Condition 43:
“Provision of 104 car parking spaces and 10 motorcycle spaces on the site, plus the SRV loading bay
and ambulance bay”.
Requested change:
Amend Condition 43 to state:
“Provision of 98 car parking spaces and 10 motorcylce spaces on the site, plus SRV loading bay and
ambulance bay”.
Representations:
We propose the provision of the following to accommodate the transport requirements of the
development:
   •   98 car parking spaces comprising 7 at-grade (including 2 PWD spaces), 46 on Basement Level
       1 and 45 on Basement Level 2;
   •   10 motorcycle parking spaces across Basement Levels 1 and 2;
   •   One SRV loading bay and one ambulance bay at-grade;
   •   16 bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facilities comprising 8 lockers, 2 male and female
       showers and change rooms; and
   •   Reservation of all of the general purpose at-grade parking (5) parking spaces as designated
       short stay parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients at the medical
       centre.
The proposed car parking and traffic provision for the development in effect proposes to reduce the
number of basement tandem car parking spaces required under Condition 43 by 6 parking spaces. It
also proposes the reservation of all of the general purpose at-grade parking (5) parking spaces as
designated short stay parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients at the
medical centre. This is an increase of the 2 short term drop and go parking spaces required under
Condition 52.
The proposed traffic and parking provision for the development summarised above is supported by
the attached further Traffic Advice prepared by SLR Traffic Consulting dated 23 September 2022.
The attached further SLR Traffic Advice should be read in addition to and in conjunction with SLR’s
first principles traffic assessment dated 20 May 2022 previously provided to Council in response to
its Information Request.
At a high level, the SLR Traffic Advice provides:
   •   the proposed car parking provisions for the development are more than sufficient to
       accommodate the number and type of traffic that will be generated by the medical centre,
       irrespective of the combination of commercial and medical tenants that ultimately occupy the
       building. This assessment is based on relevant and accurate data including surveys of the
       parking provision and demands of similar medical centres operating in Noosa and the broader
       Sunshine Coast region;

   •   the proposed parking for the development achieves the performance outcomes for traffic and
       parking under both the superseded Noosa Plan 2006 and the current Noosa Plan 2020; and

   •   the proposed development is considered consistent with the Strategic Intent of the Noosa
       Plan 2020 which seeks to prioritise a mode shift away from private car usage to alternative
       transport options such as walking, cycling, the use of motorcycles and scooters and public
       transport.

Page 6

It is important to note in relation to the proposed provision of car parking at a rate of 4.52 spaces per
100m2 GFA, that other operational medical centres within the LGA have been required to provide far
less car parking (between 2.75 spaces and 3.87 spaces per 100m2 GFA) and have been found through
recent parking surveys undertaken by SLR to be generally below occupancy.
It is also important to note in relation to any commercial tenancies that may occupy the development,
that despite the current rate that applies to office/commercial uses under both the Noosa Plan 2006
and Noosa Plan 2022 being 1/20m2 GFA, Council has recently acknowledged to Stockwell that this
rate is “high” and that it is appropriate for the lower rate of 1/20m2 of Ground Level GFA and 1/30m2
of Above Ground Level GFA that currently applies in other Major Centre Zones to also apply to the
Major Centre Zone for the Noosa Business Centre. To this end, Council have confirmed that it is
proposing an amendment to the Noosa Plan 2020 to give effect to this more appropriate parking rate
for commercial uses in the Noosa Business Centre. It is our understanding that this proposed
planning scheme amendment is to be presented to Council for endorsement in October. To be clear,
the proposed car parking as set out in these representations exceeds the revised car parking rate for
commercial uses that is proposed by Council to apply to the Noosa Business Centre.
Condition 46:
“Each tandem parking space arrangement (ie 2 spaces) is to be allocated to a single tenant”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 46.
Representations:
On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43
above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is
therefore appropriate for Condition 46 to be deleted.
Condition 47:
“Signage is to be installed and maintained at all times identifying the allocation of the tandem
spaces
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 47.
Representations:
On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43
above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is
therefore appropriate for Condition 47 to be deleted.
Condition 48:
“A management plan is to be prepared documenting in detail options for how use and operation of
the tandem parking spaces is to be managed by the individual tenants to ensure that both spaces of
each tandem space are effectively utilised”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 48.
Representations:
On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43
above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is
therefore appropriate for Condition 48 to be deleted.

Page 7

Condition 49:
”That management plan is prepared to the satisfaction of Council and prior to the commencement of
use on the site is to be incorporated into the requirement and procedures of the body corporate”.
Requested change:
We request the deletion of Condition 49.
Representations:
On the basis that Council accepts Stockwell’s representations made in relation to Condition 43
above, there is no longer a need for the provision of tandem car parking in the development. It is
therefore appropriate for Condition 49 to be deleted.
Condition 52:
“2 of the car parking bays provided at grade must be signed and reserved for short stay car parking”.
Requested change:
We request that Condition 52 be amended to read as follows:
“5 of the car parking bays provided at grade must be signed and reserved for short stay car parking”.
Representations:
Following on from the representations made above in relation to Condition 43, it is proposed that all of the
general purpose at-grade parking (five (5) parking spaces) is reserved as designated short stay
parking to meet the demand for “set-down and pick-up” of patients at the medical centre. This is an
increase of short term drop and go parking from 2 (two) spaces required under Condition 52 to five (5)
spaces.
Moving forward
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss and work through the representations
set out above.
In the meantime, if you have any questions in relation to our representations and/or requested
amendments to the conditions of approval, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.


Yours sincerely,




Kelly Alcorn
Stockwell Development