12332_Council_Representation_130921 · MCU20/0072

Page 2

The issue of student numbers was addressed as part of the information request and response for the
application. As detailed in the applicants response the maximum student numbers for the school for
the 2020 – 2029 period is 1150, which takes into account the current pattern of classes or streams per
year level and capacity of the college.

The maximum student numbers of 1150 are not dependent upon the demountable buildings and
reflect the current capacity of the college.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 5 be amended as follows:

5. The approved demountable buildings must only be used to service the current enrolments capacity
of the college and must not be used to facilitate an increase in enrolments.

Condition 6

Condition 6 limits the number of students to 1105. While this reflected the student numbers at time of
advice in 2020, it does not reflect the current 2021 year student numbers which are 1135.

As discussed under condition 5 above, the issue of student numbers was raised as part of the
information request with the applicants response confirming the maximum student numbers for the
school for the 2020 – 2029 period is 1150, which takes into account the current pattern of classes or
streams per year level and capacity of the college. This student number reflects the current capacity
of the college and is not facilitated by the demountable buildings.

A limitation of student numbers can only reasonably be based on car parking requirements. Car
parking has been comprehensively addressed in the traffic report submitted with the application. No
indication was received during the application process that there were any concerns about this car
parking assessment by Council or Councils traffic consultant. The car parking assessment included
consideration of the planning scheme parking requirements, the Department of Transport and Main
Roads parking requirements for schools and a parking demand assessment based on parking
occupancy surveys. This assessment demonstrated that the proposed 278 car parking spaces (after
removal of the old 94 space staff carpark) exceeded the planning scheme requirements by 110 spaces,
the Department of Transport and Main Roads requirements by 104 spaces and the demand survey by
36 spaces. While the traffic report based assessment on 1140 students, the proposed 1150 student
maximum would only result in a 0.3 space increase under the planning scheme requirements. The
application has clearly demonstrated the acceptability of the proposed number of 1150 students.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 6 be amended as follows:

6. The number of students must not exceed 1105 1150.

Condition 7

Condition 7 requires a minimum of 328 car parking spaces must be provided on site.

Council’s assessment report indicates that this total includes the provision of 50 car parking spaces
within the old staff car park area within vicinity of the proposed demountable works.

The application has been clear from the onset that it included the removal of all of the old 94 space
staff carpark. This staff carpark has become redundant since the establishment of the new 153 space
staff carpark on the corner of Goodchap Street and Walter Hay Drive. This are will become forecourt
for the demountable buildings, with any changed use subject to future development applications.

In the General Committee agenda report and in the General Committee discussion, the relationship
between the new staff carpark and parent access to onsite parking seemed unclear. Prior to the
construction of the new staff car park up to 50 staff needed to park in the parent accessed car parks
(this was discussed with the staff carpark MCU application). All staff are now required to park in the

Page 3

new facility (compliance is being monitored on a regular basis) to maximise the availability of parking
for parents. This has resulted in an effective increase of approximately 50 spaces available for parents
within the campus’s existing carparks. The majority of which are accessed via the preferred Goodchap
roundabout entry. This increased availability in the existing car parks compensates for parking that had
been informally occurring on Lot 30 for a number of years.

The old staff carpark has always been gated and not accessible to parents, students or the public.
Retention of 50 car parks within this area serves no purpose and is not required to comply with the car
parking requirements of the planning scheme. The application material has clearly demonstrated
compliance with the Driveway and Parking code requirement for car parking without retention of these
50 redundant staff carparks.

The Deed of Agreement and associated works was agreed to by the applicant on the understanding it
resolved all car parking and traffic issues moving forward based on a student cap of 1150 as detailed
in the information response.       The applicant would not have agreed to the Deed without certainty
around car parking provision.

The traffic report submitted and assessed with the application has demonstrated that the proposed
278 car parking spaces complies with the planning scheme requirements; the Department of Transport
and Main Roads requirements; and exceeds the demand survey. As a code assessable application
there is no requirement or justification for the retention of an additional 50 spaces within the now
redundant staff parking area.

Accordingly, we request that Condition 7 be amended as follows:

7. A minimum of 328 278 car parking spaces must be provided on site.

Conditions 10 and 11

Conditions 10 and 11 refer to the works subject to the Deed of Agreement and requirement for the
works to be undertaken as part of this approval. As discussed above the works under the Deed of
Agreement are separate to the requirements for the commencement of use of the demountable
buildings and should be not be included as conditions with this application. Inclusion of these
conditions would require the works to be completed prior to the commencement of use. The Deed of
Agreement was proposed as these works were acknowledged by both Council and the applicant as
works that could not reasonably be conditioned or required for the minor demountable extension. If
this is not the case then there is no requirement for the Deed and the works, timing and security could
simply have been dealt with as conditions of approval. The inclusion of Condition 12 requires the
applicant to comply with the requirements of the Deed of Agreement and is sufficient to tie this
approval to the Deed works.

Accordingly, we request that Conditions 10 and 11 be deleted.


Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
PROJECT URBAN




Scott Sobey
DIRECTOR
Email: [email protected]