07/1841 - Representations Received [As Published] · 132007.1841

Amendment of condition 13 is requested to require minimum roof pitches in accordance with the
approved plans.

Condition 22

Condition 22 requires building K to remain in common property “to allow for research and development
facilities to support the industrial uses". This requirement is both irrelevant to and an unreasonable
imposition of the development. Building K will be utilised for both educational purposes and as common
meeting/gym facility. There has never been any proposal for this facility to be for “research and
development”. If the site is retained in a single ownership this condition would not create any
operational difficulties, however if the site is subdivided under a community titles scheme it would mean
that Building K had to remain under the ownership of the Body Corporate and could not be tet or sold on
a commercial basis. This places an unrealistic economic burden on the developer and brings into
question the financial feasibility and appropriateness of establishing this facility on the site. As detailed
with the application, the applicant has proposed this facility as a community benefit to relocate the
existing Noosa Community Training Centre currently existing elsewhere within the site and which will be
demolished as a result of other site development. It is essential for the inclusion of this facility to be
successful, that no restriction is placed on its titling ability. To ensure this facility can be utilised as a
common meeting/gym facility for the overall development the condition could be amended to require the
gym and toilet/shower facilities to be accessible at all times for use by other tenants, with the
conference/meeting facility available on a booking system managed by the education tenant.

Deletion of the requirement of condition 22 to remain in common property and reference to “research
and development facilities” is requested.

Condition 26

Condition 26 requires the driveway access connection to Rene Street to be a maximum width of 7m at
the property boundary. This requirement would result in the inability of the development to achieve
appropriate articulated vehicle access. Articulated vehicle access is considered necessary and required
by the planning scheme. The driveway crossover shown on the proposal plan is based on Barlow Gregg
VDM review of their Autoturn computer program. A drawing prepared by Barlow Gregg VDM showing
the articulated vehicle swept path is attached in Appendix B.

Amendment of condition 26 is requested to delete reference to a maximum width of 7m.

Condition 36

Condition 36.1 requires carspace 8 to be a dedicated turning area and 36.2 requires carspace 9 to be
dedicated as ‘staff’. Having regard to the layout plan and condition 36.2 which allows tandem staff
parking for carspaces 9 and 10, it would seem more appropriate to dedicate carspace 9 as a turning area
rather than carspace 8. This would achieve the same result in provision of a dedicated turning bay, but
would improve the carparking situation by removing the tandem staff arrangement of spaces 9 and 10.
Amendment of condition 36 is requested to require carspace 9 as the dedicated turning area.

Condition 37.3, 39.3, 41.2, 42.2, 44.4 & 46.3

Conditions 37.3, 39.3, 41.2, 42.2, 44.4 & 46.3 require the loading bays to be clear of the carparking
aisle. Upon review of the plans it is considered that this condition will have substantial design
implications upon the approved layout, is not necessary to comply with AS2890.2 and is therefore an
irrelevant and unreasonable imposition on the development.

The applicant's traffic consultant Burchill VDM has provided the following advice: