Letter to Noosa Council - RACV Minor Change August 2019 · 132006.1395.05

Page 2

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




   d) Supporting reports in respect of koala conservation, bushfire and stormwater.


I set out below a summary of the changes proposed in respect of the key issues identified
above.


Revised Site Plan
The revised site plan was prepared by Ken Down Architects (Drawing No. 180064_S – 01 - 10_B)
issue B dated 5 August 2019 - Attachment 1.


The location of the structures and roads have been adjusted following advice from the
applicant's koala expert, Dr Bill Ellis. Under the existing plan of approval, 38 E.robusta trees
(prime koala habitat) would have been lost if that plan was developed. As a result of some
adjustments to the building footprints and roads, the applicant has been able to reduce the
loss of koala trees by more than 50%, to a total of 18.


The building footprints for the existing approval are marked with a dotted red line for
comparison purposes.


The revised site plan has also been marked up by Dr Ellis to identify indicative areas where
additional koala habitat can be planted to replace or create a net gain in respect of the 18
koala trees that would be lost under the revised site plan.


Koala Assessment Report
The change application is supported by Dr Bill Ellis who has prepared a report which forms
part of this material - Attachment 2.


The conclusion to Dr Ellis' report is extracted below:


Conclusion
It is to be recognised that the part of the site the subject of the approval is zoned for semi-
attached housing uses.
Despite its presently degrading koala habitat, the change plan and conditions provide an
opportunity to enhance and rehabilitate the koala habitat. This is consistent with overall outcome
13.7.2(c) of the Biodiversity Overlay Code.
The change plan has changed the layout of roads and structures in the existing approval which
has reduced by more than 50% the number of koala trees that would have been impacted. The
change plan achieves better connectivity and linkage of koala habitat than would occur under
the existing plan. This is consistent with overall outcome 13.7.2(d) of the Biodiversity Overlay
Code.
                                                                                        2|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

Page 3

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




The recommended conditions for rehabilitation and replanting are consistent with overall
outcome with 13.7.2(e) of the Biodiversity Overlay Code.
It is my opinion that the change plan achieves a much better ecological outcome in respect of
koala than would occur under the existing approval and that these outcomes reflect the current
provisions of the Noosa Planning Scheme.


Bushfire Management
Under Division 9 – Natural Hazards Overlays Code, in particular Table 13.9 Bushfire hazard
areas, performance O4, which states … the proposed use does not compromise the safety of
people or property from bushfire. Under the probable solution S4.1 … the use is sited on land
that is not in a Bushfire Hazard Area. Further, under S4.2 … the use is sited on land that is
determined as ow bushfire risk by a site-specific bushfire hazard assessment.


According to the overlay mapping under the Noosa Plan the site has a High Potential Bushfire
Intensity in part and is also affected Potential Bushfire Buffer Area (refer Figure 1 below). Under
the mapping for the State Planning Policy 2017, the site is designated as High Potential
Bushfire Intensity and Potential Impact Buffer as shown in Figure 2 below.




Figure 1 – Overlay mapping under the Noosa Plan (Map OM.4)


The applicant has engaged Rob Friend and Associates who has provided a statement about
the risk from bushfire as it applies to the site - Attachment 3. Despite the abovementioned
designations, Mr Friend has advised that risk from bushfire is low. Mr Friend concludes that:


                                                                                        3|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

Page 4

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




   Based on our site assessment of the bushfire hazard relevant to this Minor Change
   Application we have concluded: -
   1. The subject site and adjacent vegetation can effectively be described as an area of low
        bushfire hazard due to the dominant vegetation types, the status of the hydrology i.e.
        permanent wetland and the lack of connectivity with any area of significant bushfire
        hazard.


   2. We note however that while the vegetation remaining outside of the development
        footprint is an area of low bushfire hazard, it may become involved in a low intensity
        vegetation fire and as such some measures should be implemented to ensure that a low
        intensity vegetation fire does not impact on the property.


   3. We, therefore, respectfully suggest the measures specified below be considered as
        conditions for bushfire management as part of this minor change application:


            a. An area of the understorey and groundcover of a width of no less than 20 metres
                  from any class 1 or 2 structure be maintained around all structures. All canopy
                  or sub-canopy tree over 5 metre in height or non-juvenile Koala habitat tree is
                  be retained within this 20 metre assert protection area, if it is deemed to be a
                  healthy specimen by a suitably qualified and experienced Arboricultureist.




Figure 2 – State Planning Policy mapping


                                                                                        4|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

Page 5

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




Consequently, it is suggested that a condition should be imposed requiring the submission of
a Bushfire Risk Assessment and Management Plan submitted prior to the issue of a
development permit for operational work. A suggested condition is as follows:


The applicant shall submit a Bushfire Risk Assessment and Management Plan (BRAMP) prepared
by a suitably qualified and experienced bushfire expert. The BRAMP shall consider the level of
risk from bushfire for the proposed development and make appropriate recommendations for
minimizing the risk to acceptable level in accordance with current standards. The applicant shall
implement the recommendations of the BRAMP as required prior to commencement and for the
ongoing use of the premises. The BRAMP shall be referred to in any community management
scheme registered for the titling of the dwelling units.


Stormwater Management
With respect to the matter of stormwater, it is understood that the key issue raised is with
respect to water quality, which is to be addressed under Division 20 – Water Sensitive Design
Code. Under Table 14-61, Maintenance of environmental values and water quality objectives,
performance outcome O1, states, … downstream ecosystems, properties and infrastructure are
not adversely impacted by either changes to flow, water quality or ecosystem health caused by
development.


With respect to the management of stormwater quality, advice has been received from ADG -
Attachment 4. The advice confirms that since the Stormwater Quality Management and
Assessment Report, dated June 2007 by Callaghan & Toth was prepared various stormwater
quality standards have changed. Consequently, it is suggested by ADG that condition 48 be
amended as follows:


The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Quality Management and Assessment Report (SQMAR)
prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland
(RPEQ). The SQMAR is to be submitted prior to or at the time of making a development
application for operational works for the site.


Further, condition 50 should be amended as follows:


All developed surfaces catchments shall be captured and treated to meet the required water
quality objectives as detailed in the Stormwater Quality Management and Assessment Report.


As stated by ADG, there does not appear to be a need to retain conditions 51 and 52, the
requirements of which may have been overtaken by current requirements under the planning


                                                                                        5|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

Page 6

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




scheme. Consequently, conditions 48 and 50 will be retained as amended with condition 53
also being retained.


Minor Change
This change application is made pursuant to section 78 of the Planning Act 2016 and the
definition of a ‘minor change’ is provided under Schedule 1 of the Development Assessment
Rules. Having regard to the definition of a minor change, the proposed changes to the
conditions of the approval will not result in a ‘substantially different development’.


Having regard to Schedule 1, the following comments are made:
   (a) the changes do not involve a new use;
   (b) do not result in the application applying to a new parcel of land;
   (c) do not dramatically changes the built form in terms of scale, bulk and appearance;
   (d) the changes will not affect the ability of the proposed development to operate as
        intended;
   (e) does not remove a component that is integral to the operation of the development;
   (f) will not have any significant impacts on traffic flow and the transport network, such as
        increasing traffic to the site;
   (g) will not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of known impacts;
   (h) does not remove an incentive or offset component that would have balanced a
        negative impact of the development; and
   (i) will not impact on infrastructure provisions.


Having regard to the above, the proposed development will not be substantially different.
Further, having regard to the other matters under the definition of a minor change, the
changes being made are considered minor.


Conclusion
In summary, the revised site plan and proposed changes to the conditions of approval means
that the changed development will comply with the development standards set out in Noosa
Plan 2006, including with regard to koala movement, stormwater and bushfire management.


It is apparent also that the changed development, if approved, will provide significant
environment benefits in respect of koala conservation that are not reflected in the existing
approval.

                                                                                         6|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads

Page 7

 “Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning advice”




Yours faithfully




Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA, MQELA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director - Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd




                                                                                        7|Page
 18006 – RACV ‘Minor Change’ 142 Noosa Drive, Noosa Heads