Information Request MCU21 0146 · MCU21/0146

Officer: 	Patrick Murphy
Direct Telephone: 	61753296436
Our Reference:	MCU21/0146
Your Reference:	n/a
23 September 2021
Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd
PO Box 3144
SOUTH BRISBANE   QLD  4101
[email protected]
Dear
Information Request
Planning Act 2016
I refer to your application and advise that Council requires further information to satisfactorily assess the proposal.
application details
Application No.	MCU21/0146
Street Address:	Noosa Civic 28 Eenie Creek Rd Noosaville Qld 4566
Real Property Description:	Lot 3 SP 246584
Planning Scheme:	Noosa Plan 2020 (25 September 2020)
INFORMATION REQUIRED
The information requested is set out below:
Issue
The ground level corridor has not been included in the calculations for GFA.   This area is not considered a ground floor lobby and therefore should be included within the calculations.   The GFA is calculated at 7815m2, being 732m2 over the PO18 Plot ratio requirement of 0.7:1.  This exceedance of GFA is not consistent with the Noosa Plan 2020.
Information Required
Provide amended plans that includes all areas defined as GFA.
Reduce the GFA within the development to comply with the 0.7:1 as required by PO18.
Issue
The Section Plans and Elevations refer to a ‘ground level’ however it is unclear how this has been determined. It is also noted that the RL at the maximum height of the buildings has not been provided on the section plans or Elevations.
Information Required
Clarification that the site contours, including natural ground level, have been determined by a cadastral surveyor and/or a cadastral survey of the site and provide a copy of the survey plan.
All Elevation Plans, and Section Plans to detail the ground level and maximum RL of each building with the RL of the natural ground level confirmed below.
Issue
The developments scale and bulk raises concern. PO75 of the Major Centre Zone Code requires that development takes the form of small separate buildings, rather than large single bulky development.   There is no variation in roof form, and the architectural scale is dominant in the streetscape.
Information Required
Amend the plans to ensure the development takes the form of small separate buildings, thereby reducing the scale and bulk of the development.
Issue
Details of vegetation removal have not been provided.  Several of the relevant codes require the development to maximise the retention of mature vegetation.
Information Required
Provide details of vegetation that is proposed to be retained and removed as part of a vegetation survey.
Issue
The development includes a swale drain and bio retention basins within the land zoned Environmental Management and Conservation.   Development that involves the removal of vegetation within this zone is not supported.
Information Required
Amend the plans to ensure the development (and associated infrastructure) is not located within the land zoned Environmental Management and Conservation.
Issue
As the land is located within the Centre zone the Planning Scheme does not require visitor parking, however 48 motorcycle parking spaces are required (at a rate of 1 space per 2 dwellings).  Given that visitor parking spaces will be required at the development in a practical sense, 48 motorcycle spaces are required but none are proposed, and that 4 motorcycle spaces are equivalent to 1 parking bay, it is considered reasonable to require that the development provide 12 visitor parking bays on the site in total.
Information Required
Amend the plans to include a minimum of 12 visitor car parking spaces
Issue
Further information and / or amendments are required in relation to access and manoeuvrability
Information Required
Provide a widened access driveway to satisfactorily accommodate the swept path of the design vehicle, with the clearance envelope of the design vehicle remaining within the driveway and clear of kerb lines.
Ensure opposing cars clear of each other moving to/from the driveway and to/from the top of the basement ramp.
Provide modified ramp grading details in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004, including with the grading being measured along the inside of the curve at the base of the ramp.
Provide further clarification If a gate is to be proposed to secure the basement carpark, where will it is satisfactorily located, and how will it be satisfactorily activated?
Issue
There are a number of issues with the proposed management of stormwater quantity as noted below:
The development proposes only 14m3 of detention storge to mitigate the impacts, which is only 4% the size expected for this type of land use change
The analysis does not consider climate change
The development relies on the extended detention depth within the bioretention basins for mitigating peak flow impacts. This volume is generally excluded from such analysis due to the extended time that water is held in this zone (and risk that the volume will not be available/empty to mitigate peak flows when the design event occurs)
The model results show almost no change between pre-development and developed (unmitigated) peak flows from the site for the 1%AEP and 2%AEP events, even though very significant changes in imperviousness occurs
The sketch designs in Appendix C do not clearly show the detention system referred to in the report
No sections are provided showing the interaction between bioretention and detention systems/storages
There is no comparison of the pre-development or developed (un-mitigated) model results to rational method estimates. This would highlight the above discrepancy in the 1% and 2%AEP model results
The use of ensemble temporal patterns is not discussed and results are provided for a single duration rather than a range of durations.
Part of the site discharges by kerb adaptor to Hoffman Drive. No analysis is provided showing that Hoffman Drive has capacity for these flows. The preference would be for no new kerb adaptors.
.Information Required
Provide a revised SBSMP and revised preliminary engineering plans which address the following issues:
The stormwater quantity analysis and detention design is required to address climate change by demonstrating no increase in peak discharges for the 1%AEP at 2100
The proposal appears to rely on the extended detention depth within the bioretention basins for mitigating peak flow impacts. This volume is generally excluded from such analyses and a revised assessment which excludes the extended detention volume is requested
The model results show almost no change between pre-development and developed (unmitigated) peak flows from the site for the 1%AEP and 2%AEP events, even though very significant changes in imperviousness occurs. Explain this result.
The development proposes only 14m3 of detention storge to mitigate the impacts, which is a fraction of the size usually expected for this type of land use change and site area. Explain this result in consideration of usual expected detention volume sizing.
There is no comparison of the pre-development or developed (un-mitigated) model results to rational method estimates. This would highlight the above discrepancy in the 1% and 2%AEP model results. Provide this comparison.
Update the sketch designs in Appendix C to clearly show the detention system referred to in the report
Provide design sections showing the interaction between bioretention and detention systems/storages
The use of ensemble temporal patterns is not discussed, and results are provided for a single duration rather than a range of durations. Provide updated results which show no increase for each AEP for a range of durations and based on the median temporal pattern results for each AEP/duration combination
Part of the site is proposed to discharge by kerb adaptor to Hoffman Drive. The preference would be for no new kerb adaptors. Either remove connection by kerb adaptor or justify the proposal in reference to the capacity of Hoffman Drive and the peak flowrate proposed to be discharged by the kerb adaptors
Clearly identify on a catchment plan any existing external catchments which need to be accommodated by the design (even is such catchment will ultimately be diverted by future development of those sites)
Include analysis for the 1:1yr ARI (1EY) event in order to demonstrate compliance with the waterway stability management design objective
Issue
The development proposes to address stormwater quality primarily through the provision of 2 bioretention devices comprising a total of 125m2 of filter area. This is in line with expectations.
The levels shown on the sketch plans are however very tight to allow the systems to function. Saturated zone bioretention should be able to be made to work if the levels are correct. Survey at the outlet is requested. Once detention storage is correctly accounted for the level constraints will be exacerbated.
Information Required
Provide a revised SBSMP and revised preliminary engineering plans which address the following issues:
Provide survey levels of the invert and standing water levels at the proposed outlet locations from the site to Covenant J and demonstrate that the offsets specified in the Bioretention Technical Design Guidelines (Water by Design) are achieved
Confirm the extended detention depth assumed for the bioretention devices in the MUSIC model
Confirm the type of bioretention systems proposed (conventional, bio-infiltration, saturated zone)
Provide preliminary design sections for the bioretention systems, showing layers, ED, outlet levels and interaction with detention storage
Issue
A review of the Acoustic Logic noise report dated 16 August 2021 has been undertaken.  The Acoustic Logic report does not provide adequate information to support the noise predictions prepared using noise modelling.  Further the report is confusing in the actual noise treatments necessary, with options provided for glazing – ie if Noosa Civic Plant is acoustically treated or not.  There are matters which require further clarification and on this basis the following is requested:

Information Required
Provide details on the inputs to the road traffic noise modelling, including traffic flow rates, vehicle speeds, commercial vehicle component.
Provide validation of the traffic noise modelling to the measured road traffic noise levels.
Provide tabulated noise results at residential unit facades for day/Evening and Night periods.
Provide the required acoustic rating of façade elements to comply with road traffic noise for day/evening and night periods to comply with the Table 10 Noise Limits
Provide details on the inputs to the mechanical plant noise modelling including source sound power levels and operating times for all plant items considered.
Provide clarification of why there are no predictions provided for night time mechanical plant noise.
Provide clarification as to whether the acoustic design proposed for residential units is reliant upon windows and doors to be closed at all times for internal noise criteria to be achieved.
Please advise whether mechanical ventilation/air conditioning is proposed to all noise affected units on the basis  if external doors and windows have to be closed.
Provide clarification on whether acoustic mitigation works identified in Section 8 for the Shopping Centre will be implemented.

due date for response to information request
The due date for providing the requested information is 22 December 2021. Email your response to [email protected]. Please advise Council of your response to this information request in accordance with section 13 of the Development Assessment Rules.
If you do not provide a response before the due date, it will be taken as if you have decided not to respond to the information request and Council will continue with the assessment of your application.
other details
You can follow the progress of this application online at www.noosa.qld.gov.au. The “Online Services” page can be accessed via "Quick Links" on the left hand side of the screen.
Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number above.
Yours faithfully,
Kerri Coyle
Manager Development Assessment

[word/footer1.xml]
Page 5 of 5

[word/footer2.xml]
PO Box 141		P. (07) 5329 6500	[email protected]	
	TEWANTIN  QLD  4565	F. (07) 5329 6501	www.noosa.qld.gov.au
				Page 1 of 5

[word/header1.xml]
3

[Attachment: image1.png (image text)]
K Coy fs