Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Council archive · source document

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

of 10

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Check the original when the exact wording matters.

Due to the type of land use, that is, light industry, it is anticipated that servicing will not be of such a
frequency to require loading areas separate to the car parking areas.

The Australian Standard for Parking Facilities Part 2: Off-street commercial vehicle facilities (AS2890.2)
provides guidance for service provisions. In Section 4 Service Areas, this document states the following:

The design of service areas must:
¢ Provide for the largest design vehicle likely to use the facility — in this case, a 12.5m HRV.
@ Aminor service area may be located on part of the internal roadway system at the site provided
the occasional obstruction to other traffic by manoeuvring trucks can be tolerated.

Taking into account that the service areas will not be heavily utilised, and that these areas have been
designed with sufficient manoeuvring area, it is considered that these fall under the classification of a
‘minor service area’. Furthermore, the time for service vehicles manoeuvring into the loading bays would
not involve a long period. Hence, the period of obstruction to traffic, based on the proposed layout,
would be very short.

Taking these factors into consideration, the proposed service arrangements comply AS2890.2 and are
considered appropriate for the site.

Deletion of conditions 37.3, 39.3, 41.2, 42.2, 44.4 & 46.3 is requested.

Condition 60

Condition 60 requires the submission of a report prepared by an ecologist that assesses the impacts of
the revised Stormwater Management Plans on the downstream ecologically sensitive areas. Given that
the proposed revised Stormwater Management Plans will have the same water quality objectives as the
original Stormwater Management Plan, which has been accepted by Council and assessed by an
ecologist, this requirement is unnecessary and therefore an irrelevant imposition of the development.
Deletion of condition 60 is requested.

We look forward to Councils further consideration of these matters and to the issue of a negotiated
decision notice.

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

Yours faithfully
KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES

 

Scott Sobey;
DIRECTOR

Used in these records

About this file

File size
1.4 MB (small file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

07_1841 - Representations Received [As Published].pdf · 1.4 MB (small file)

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.