Skip to the record
Accept no imitations.

Original source · versioned page text

2020-01-13 General Committee Agenda

of 172

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

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Very large file: it may take a few minutes

The original of this document is very large (11.3 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                       13 JANUARY 2020


The following Table 5 sets out Council’s traffic consultant rates for the car parking of the
applicants definitions.

                                     Table 5 – car parking analysis
Use                          Area m²         Councils Traffic consultant rate   Car carpark number
Showroom (large format       7,845           1 per 30m²                         262
retail)
Office / indoor sport and    3,320           1 per 20m²                         166
recreation
Low impact Industry          900             1 per 30m²                         30
Food and drink               216             1 per 20m²                         11
Total car parking required by Councils traffic consultant                       469 spaces
Applicant proposes                                                              347
Deficient                                                                       108
In relation to the car parking demand, Councils’ traffic consultant raises significant concerns with
the 1 space per 50m² rate proposed for showrooms. The tailor made definition of showroom
allows for large format retail (large shops) which attracts a higher rate of at least 1 space per
30m². Council’s traffic consultant advises that the 1 space per 50m² is adequate for traditional
bulky good showrooms but significantly inadequate for large format retail such as that proposed.
It is acknowledged that offices and low impact industry uses may not generate parking peaks at
the same time as showrooms (which typically occur on Saturday) but medical and indoor sport
uses and food and drink parking peaks can occur on Saturday. Therefore, while there may be
some justification for the provision of less than 469 spaces as identified above, Council’s traffic
consultant advises that 347 parking spaces is significantly insufficient to support the potential
uses.
The applicant’s traffic report is fundamentally flawed as an incorrect traffic generation rate is used
for the bulk of the development (showrooms). Council’s traffic consultant advises ‘The traffic
generation rates used in the traffic report for showrooms would be applicable for showroom uses
that fit the current Noosa Showroom definition, but would be low for tenancy types that could be
located at the subject site under the proposed altered showroom definition, which does not
require that the goods be bulky (such that large format retail would be permitted).’
Stormwater Management
Flooding and drainage
The site is subject to local overland flowpath flooding from external catchments located to the
north and west of the site. These catchments are currently conveyed through the site as overland
flow in a south-easterly direction and ultimately discharge under Hofmann Drive to an existing
conservation area. The proposal seeks to realign this open swale to follow the north and east
boundaries, eventually discharging under the main access near building 4 (office building). In this
prominent location near building 4, the swale levels are not clear but it appears the swale would
be deep and narrow, more akin to an urban drain requiring balustrading and not complying with
the relevant provisions of The Noosa Plan.
Stormwater Quality
The application proposes bioretention integrated within the carpark landscaping with rainwater
harvesting and reuse. The applicant proposes to use the water quality bioretention system
‘stratavault’ which incorporates underground stratavault modules. Council’s consultant hydrology
engineer advises this system ‘may compromise the landscape outcome of the carpark and is
inconsistent with the landscape sections currently provided’ and also suggests ‘ There are better
conceptual design options for landscaping and stormwater quality …that would be lower cost and
deliver better landscape outcomes’.
Overall, the stormwater modelling and flooding analysis generally appear acceptable. However, a
number of concerns relating to how the modelled solutions will integrate with the development


                                                                                             Page 85 of 172
Log in to download the original file

2020-01-13 General Committee Agenda(PDF, 11MB).pdf · 11.3 MB (very large file)

Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

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”.