2017-02-07 Planning and Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   7 FEBRUARY 2017




                                                     Page 53 of 125

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                         7 FEBRUARY 2017

                                                                                                                                     nra

                  REPORT

                   ITEM                                                             NOTES
                   Pe               Review against Use Codes and Works Codes
                   7A               Response to Business Uses Code Requirements
                   7.1.1       __| With reference to 025, it is noted that whilst the applicant has demonstrated that visual monitoring of the
                                    rear parking podium is possible from the street, there remains concern that the arrangement of uses in the
                                    proposed building do not permit the rear half of the site to be monitored by the building users/management.
                                   This lack of causal surveillance opportunity from the vantage point of the RSL facilities themselves, creates
                                    a potentially unsafe area at the rear carpark podium, particularly in the deliveries and service area — an area
                                    deep in the plan where safety cannot be reliant upon visual surveillance from the street.
                                   The response proposal has no windows on the eastern facade, and thus no effective opportunities for
                                    casual surveillance by the RSL patrons or staff of the rear carpark area and deliveries/service areas.
                                        a)   It is suggested that opportunities for overlooking and casual surveillance of the rear carparking
                                             area be improved. Safety should not be solely reliant upon the use of CCTV cameras as has been
                                             indicated in the applicants response to the information request, but should include the
                                             introduction of additional windows to the eastern elevation as well as the use of security gates as
                                             has been discussed in item 5.4 above,
                   7.1.2           With reference to 027, the carpark podium level, being out of visual surveillance is potentially vulnerable to
                                   vandalism and graffiti.
                                        a)   It is suggested that opportunities for overlooking and casual surveillance of the rear carparking
                                             area be improved. The insertion of landscaped planters at the building interface with the carpark,
                                             as has been discussed at item 3.3 above, should discourage graffiti in accordance with $27.1 b)
                                            of the Noosa Plan.
                   7.1.3         | Withreferenceto032,       2       —iiti—‘—s—s~“‘“‘“‘<i;i;w
                                        a)   The applicant is to provide evidence to show screening of the external bin area. It is further
                                             suggested that in order to remove the bin store from the openly visible location shown on the
                                             response drawings, that it be moved adjacent to the smokers terrace where its presence can be
                                             better concealed from public view.

                   7.2   —*«|      Response to Business Works Code Requirements               =  |      =      =                           |
                   7.2.1.    __|   With reference to 01 the setbacks have not been adhered to, and when combined with the non-activated
                                   frontages produces the perception of heavy site cover and a monolithic carpark podium.
                                        a)   The introduction of different materials in the response scheme has assisted in breaking up the
                                             perception of the podium’s bulk when viewed from Pelican and Doonella Streets. However it is
                                             suggested that allowance be made for two significant feature trees in the Pelican Street frontage
                                             to further breakup the podium bulk. This is considered to be a reasonable request given the
                                             extent of boundary setback being sought by the applicant.
                   ‘7.2.2——_‘|     With reference to 02 a) we raise concern with the proposed use of box gutters at a couple of places within
                                   the proposal.
                                        a)   It is suggested that as part of the roof form design, as described at item 3.4 above these be
                                             worked out of the scheme
                  Page 6 of 8
                  Y:\86035C16 Tewantin RSL Extension\2.0 Email - Correspondence\2.1 Architect\2.1.09 Reports\1.09.1 Predesign\PF 16 2nd Peer Review Report - Issue A.doc Noel Robinson Architects Pt Ltd
                  Issue. Created 24 July 2013                                                                                  AB

                                                                                                                               Page 53 of 125