2020-10-06 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                  6 OCTOBER 2020


    Unclear as to why it would not be possible to alter the existing building to achieve compliant
      access for persons with disabilities. The current proposal identifies an access ramp at the
      front of the building. It appears the proposed building is intended to have a floor level at or
      above the floor level of the existing building. This seems to identify that the provision of
      compliant access is achievable, and it would appear then to be a design exercise to
      incorporate the new construction into the character of the existing building.
    Restumping of existing buildings is undertaken regularly and would not usually be
      considered a difficult task.
    It stands to reason that the existing building may not be suitable for additional loading
      brought about by the change in classification. However, this again would simply be a
      design/engineering exercise to upgrade the existing building to suit.
    If it were not possible for the building to be modified to suit the additional loading
      associated with the imaging/x-ray equipment it is noted that the imaging/x-ray component is
      a small part of the overall development footprint. In this regard, the existing building could
      be repurposed for a suitable use such as reception/office/storage/consulting rooms.
    It would be standard practice to install mechanical ventilation system components within
      the roof space. Traditionally, older buildings have a reasonable roof pitch which can easily
      cater for ductwork. In the instance the existing building has a raked ceiling, and there may
      be options to install false ceilings to conceal services.
    Structural upgrading can be undertaken to suit the intended use.
    It is not unusual for internal modifications to be undertaken.
    The existing building envelope would need to be considered for the purposes of energy
      efficiency. Given the extent of the proposed development, upgrading of the existing
      building is unlikely to be cost prohibitive.
    For this type of development, the replacement of existing electrical systems and
      plumbing/drainage would be commonplace. It could be assumed that the same
      installations would be applicable to the new build. There may be minor cost increase due
      to working with the existing building.
    Whilst some works would be required to address the risk attributed to lead paint the
      presence of lead paint would not preclude the use of the building for alternate purposes.
    It is not uncommon for Queenslanders to be adaptively re-used for alternate purposes and
      WHS requirements complied with.
Whilst a person’s financial circumstances cannot form part of the assessment of an application, it
is noted that it is difficult to provide comment on building cost comparison due to the limited
information available. It would be usual to expect additional costs when modifying an existing
building, however, given the relatively small nature of the existing building in comparison to the
overall development, it is anticipated that there would not be a significant variation.
It is also noted that the applicant’s list of required works appear to apply a worst case scenario
and there also appears to be recommendations within the 21 July 2020 report which conflict with
the findings of the Structural Engineering Report dated 24 February 2020. For example with
regards to the cladding the 24 February 2020 report states:
      The chamferboard appeared to be in relatively sound condition given its age. There was
      typically no evidence of insect damage or rot at key locations where such damage would
      normally be evident (e.g. at window edges and building corners likely exposed to pooling
      water). There was widespread minor defects to the chamferboards including visible
      damage, paint flaking, discolouration and rust stains around nail heads.
This is in conflict with the 21 July 2020 Report which states:

                                                                                     Page 26 of 47