Council archive · source document
Delegated Report - Code - Planning OPW24 0125 · OPW24/0125
The proposed development includes a fraction impervious of 0.551, reduced from 0.554 that
currently exists onsite. The MUSIC modelling provided by applicant demonstrated that the existing
stormwater management systems fails to achieve Council’s minimum total nitrogen reduction rate
of 45% (40.6%). Through assessment of the higher order approval, the applicant provided
additional modelling that included additional infiltration trenches. This resulted in a total nitrogen
reduction rate of 50.2%, exceeding the minimum requirement. The additional infiltration trenches
are documented in the latest revision of submitted drawings.
The applicant informed Council that Condition 36 of the existing 2005 approval was not currently
being complied with. The condition relates to stormwater quality treatment of an existing area of
the development that is not included as part of the proposed works. To satisfy the condition and
achieve a more holistic outcome, the applicant has proposed to retrofit a proprietary stormwater
treatment device as part of the proposed works. Performance Outcome 7 of the Water Quality and
Drainage Code states that:
“Water quality systems use natural processes, whenever possible…”
In this instance, Engineering believes that retrofitting a treatment device that uses natural
processes is not reasonably possible. The extent of works required to retrofit a treatment device
that uses natural processes will adversely affect the development site (i.e., loss of vegetation,
carparking, stormwater infrastructure, etc.). The proposed proprietary device would be privately
owned and maintained. Engineering believes the use of a proprietary device is considered
acceptable in this instance.
Earthworks
The works proposes a balance of 810m3 of earthworks (803m3 of cut, 1,613m3 of fill). The extent
of cut and fill will not occur below +5m AHD and therefore does not trigger assessment against the
State Planning Policy for Acid Sulfate Soils.
Carparking
The additional proposed carparks have been designed in accordance with AS2890.
Summary
The submitted development plans prepared by STP Consultants are annotated as “NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION”. An amended set of plans that are “FOR CONSTRUCTION” are to be submitted
to Council prior to Council attending the pre-start meeting.
Engineering believes that the proposed development generally complies with the relevant
provisions of The Noosa Plan 2020, the higher order approval and Infrastructure Agreement and
recommends the following conditions.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. Referral Agencies
Not Applicable
5.2. Internal Council Referrals
The application was forwarded to the following internal Council officers for review and/or comment:
• Senior Environment Officer
• Infrastructure Services (Design Office)
6. CONCLUSION & REASONS FOR DECISION
The proposed development generally complies with the requirements of the planning scheme and
does not raise any significant issues that cannot be addressed by reasonable and relevant
conditions. The application is therefore recommended for approval.
The report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
Page 5 of 19
Document Set ID: 23410526
Version: 6, Version Date: 14/01/2025
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Delegated Report - Code - Planning OPW24 0125.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 3.2 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.