Request for Further Information - 010.2008.00001128.001 [As Published] · 132008.1128

Page 2

                                                -2-


5.    Provide justification for all buildings, which exceed the maximum height limit of 2 storeys and 8
      metres.
6.    Provide roof plans for the Residential Aged Care Facility, Central Facilities and Serviced
      Apartments, Independent Living Apartments and Villas, demonstrating roof pitching and roof
      overhangs. Justify roof pitches less than 5 degrees and roof overhangs to less than 75% of
      the building.
Building Setbacks
7.    Demonstrate that the Independent Living Unit Apartments meet the required side (northern)
      boundary setbacks.
8.    Provide plans, which demonstrate that the distance between buildings, as not less 1.5 metres
      plus 0.5 metres for each storey of the building with the greatest number of storeys.
Site Cover
9.    Provide a plan demonstrating site cover calculations. It is noted that maximum site coverage
      of 50% applies to the site. Site cover shall be determined in accordance with planning
      scheme definitions.
Landscaping
10.   Provide a plan demonstrating landscaping calculations. It is noted that a minimum area of,
                               2
      proposed population x 40m is required, with 60% of the minimum area being available for soft
      landscaping.
11.   A 6 metre landscape setback is not provided to the front property boundary to Ben Lexcen
      Drive, as internal roadways and Independent Living Unit Villas are within this setback.
      Demonstrate compliance or provided suitable justification in this regard.
12.   Car parking to the Residential Aged Care Facility is not setback a minimum of 2 metres to the
      front property boundary to Grass Tree Court to allow for landscaping.
Car Parking / Access
13.   Demonstrate car parking for the development has been carried out in accordance with the
      minimum requirements stipulated in the Driveways and Car Parking Code. This includes car
      parking for Allied Health, Domiciliary Nursing and Respite Care, which form separately defined
      uses to the primary uses of the site (ie. Residential Aged Care and Independent Living Units).
      The following is also noted:-
      13.1.   The number of employees (including medical practitioners/specialists) relevant to the
              Residential Aged Care, Allied Health, Domiciliary Nursing and Respite Care
              components of the development should be made clear.
      13.2.   Only 7 car-parking spaces are identified for residents of the Serviced Apartments
              where 20 spaces is required. Clearly demonstrate on the plans that these spaces have
              been provided or provide justification for any non-compliance.
      13.3.   An emergency vehicle parking (1 space) is required for each of the following uses;
              Residential Aged Care Facility, Independent Living Units and Respite Care. Clearly
              demonstrate on the plans that these spaces have been provided or provide justification
              for any non-compliance.
      13.4.   The location of the 14 car parking spaces (visitor) proposed for Independent Living
              Unit Villas is not clearly shown on the proposal plans. Similarly, the location of car
              parking spaces (residents) for the Central Facilities and Serviced Apartments.
      13.5.   The location of additional car parking on the road reserve is not supported.         Car
              parking is required to be wholly contained within the site.
      13.6.   It would also assist if each car park space could be numbered and nominated as a
              staff parking space, a resident space, a visitor space, a disable space, a delivery
              space, an emergency vehicle space, etc, that relates to the actual uses intended to
              use such spaces as this will make the proposal easier to understand.

Page 3

                                                  -3-


14.   Clarify the car parking area (13 spaces) / service yard adjacent to the Residential Aged Care
      Facility. Notations on the plan suggest 13 spaces, yet only 11 spaces are identifiable.
      Demonstrate how the service yard be used as there is no clear provision for a loading bay.
Biodiversity
15.   The site contains known populations of rare and threatened plants species (NCA 1992) (inter
      alia. Acacia baueri, Gompholobium virgata v. emarginatum, Macarthuria complanata,
      Schoenus scabripes). Please provide a comprehensive flora survey and plan of the subject
      site, documenting the locations of the rare and threatened plants, species of the plants,
      abundance, damage avoidance/mitigation strategies likely to be engaged. The flora survey is
      to be undertaken by a suitably qualified botanist with field experience in the identification of the
      species known to occur on the site, and with suitable knowledge of the heathland vegetation of
      the Sunshine Coast.
16.   Please provide an assessment of the subject site with relation to the Environmental protection
      Agency's Biodiversity Assessment Panel mapping of State Significant Bioregional Wildlife
      corridors. This report is to be authored by a suitably qualified and experienced Ecologist or
      equivalent persons.
17.   Please provide an assessment of the ecological matters relevant to the site in accordance with
      the guidelines contained within Planning Scheme Policy 18 Ecological Assessment
      Guidelines. Targeted species are to include rare and threatened species listed under EPBC
      1999 and NCA 1992.
18.   Please provide an assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the ecological
      values (including edge effects) of the adjacent National Park and riparian habitat. This report is
      to be authored by a suitably qualified and experienced Ecologist or equivalent persons.
19.   Please provide supporting information that documents the current run-off water quality and
      quantity (pre-developed) for the site. Please provide estimated nutrient loads, water quantities
      and velocities expected to leave the site and detail mitigation methods should these values
      appear to detrimental to the local environs.
20.   Please provide details of the proposed earthworks on the hydrological regime of the site and
      the possible off-site impacts.
Bushfire
21.   The plan contained within the bushfire assessment report does not clearly identify the required
      location of fire breaks and any other fire mitigation measures.
22.   Please provide documentary evidence that the current bush fire management accesses and
      trails is an acceptable standard for Queensland Fire and Rescue fire fighting personnel and
      equipment.
Cultural Heritage
23.   It has been identified that there is a high possibility that the site contains Aboriginal Cultural
      Heritage sites or significant objects. Their relevant location should be identified on a plan.
      Council recommends that you contact the Department of Natural Resources and Water
      Cultural Heritage Co-ordination Unit, who administer the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003
      to discuss your obligations under the ACH Act. The Cultural Heritage Co-ordination Unit can
      be contacted on 07 3238 3838.
Land Development
Rainwater Tanks
24.   There is no “Noosa Rainwater Tank Policy”. Advise Council of the actual source that was used
      to size the rainwater storage tanks as referred to in Section 2.6 of the Cardno Engineering
      Report (24 June 2008).

Page 4

                                                 -4-


25.   The Cardno Engineering Report (24 June 2008) indicates that rain water tanks will only be
      incorporated into the “Residential Unit Dwellings” within the proposed development. Drawing
      238301-SK01 only refers to “Residential Aged Care” and “Independent Living Units”. Please
      advise whether the reference to “Residential Unit Dwellings” applies to “Independent Living
      Units” as shown on Drawing 238301-SK01 and advise of any proposed water reuse to be
      incorporated into the “Residential Aged Care” component of the development.
26.   Demonstrate that rainwater tanks will comply with the Queensland Development Code.
Earthworks
27.   Indicate on a plan the footprint of earthworks including the location of batters and banks
      required for construction.
Stormwater Modelling
28.   Council does not accept stormwater modelling based on rainfall data from Nambour – which is
      located within a separate locality and catchment from the site. Council requires the stormwater
      modelling to be re-run using site specific rainfall data.
29.   Provide details on the infiltration rates of soils underlying the bioretention basin and provide
      comment whether sealing of the bioretention basin is required.
30.   Provide an indicative maintenance program for the bioretention basins. The plan must include
      details of access requirements.
31.   Advise whether the impact of earthworks (i.e. changed site contours) and rainwater tanks has
      been taken into account within the stormwater modelling presented in the Cardno Engineering
      Report (24 June 2008).
32.   There is inconsistency (due to rounding error) associated with the capacity of the bioretention
      basins shown on Drawing 238301-SK02 and page 12 of the Cardno Engineering Report (24
      June 2008). Council requests confirmation that early rounding of figures has not led to
      inaccuracy of calculations.
33.   Provide comment on the suitability of the 0.3m freeboard within the Lot 1 bioretention basin –
      or otherwise resize the basin appropriately.
34.   Advise the anticipated pH range of water leaving the site following stormwater treatment.
35.   Council requires certification from a RPEQ that the proposed stormwater design will achieve
      the required runoff velocities and water quality objectives.
36.   In order to better integrate Water Sensitive Urban Design into the proposed development,
      consider integration of multiple stormwater quality improvement devices throughout the
      development design.
37.   Overland flow paths are necessary in the event of a failure of the constructed stormwater
      network. Consider integration of overland stormwater flow paths into the design.
38.   Council is concerned that the 1:2 batters on the spreader channel are too steep and may be
      unstable and / or result in scouring during periods of high flow. Provide comment regarding the
      suitability of the proposed batter grade.
39.   Advise of the intent to include grease and oil arrestors within the design.
40.   Please provide a preliminary stormwater management plan for drainage of basements. Within
      that preliminary plan demonstrate that all basements can drain by gravity means, as The
      Noosa Plan does not permit the use of pumps within basement car parks.
41.   Demonstrate how all water that lands on the driveways to the basements will be collected and
      drained and that overland flow drainage (from Grasstree Court for example) will not enter the
      basement car parks.
Ecological Impacts

Page 5

                                                 -5-


42.   The discharge velocity for Q2 events in the developed scenario exceeds the undeveloped
      case. Council also notes that the Lot 6 bioretention basin reduces the Q100 flows to velocities
      experienced in Q10 events and Q10 flows to velocities experienced in Q2 events. Due to the
      sensitivity of the area and number of significant species residing within the receiving
      environment, Council requests comment regarding the impact of such event flow reductions
      on the ecology on significant species.
43.   Provide ecologist comment of the impact of on site detention of water (i.e. volumes within
      rainwater tanks) to downstream uses.
44.   Council requests an ecologist comment regarding the impact of the concentration of flows
      from the site to the designated discharge areas.
45.   Drawing 0673_DA11 Dated May 2008 by Smith+Tracey Architects shows that a gazebo and
      terrace is intended to be located within the proposed bioretention basin at Lot 6 on RP901384.
      With respect to the integral function of planting densities within bioretention basins,
      demonstrate and provide RPEQ certification that the proposed terrace and gazebo will not
      adversely affect the MUSIC modelling results and intended water quality improvement function
      of the bioretention basin.
46.   The detention basin on Lot 1 SP177650 is located directly adjacent to the 20-metre buffer. It
      is considered desirable to have the detention basin setback from the buffer to allow for its
      construction without disturbance to vegetation within the buffer.
External Traffic Generation
47.   It is noted within the Traffic Assessment Report by ARUP that a SIDRA analysis has been
      undertaken, however no output data or digital files have been provided for Council to assess.
      Accordingly, please provide a digital copy of the calibrated SIDRA analysis with the digital data
      files and traffic report certified by a RPEQ specialising in traffic engineering, as Council will
      independently review the data.
      Please note that the Noosa region has been developed with a primary focus on maintaining a
      low stress relaxed environment and the road network has been specifically designed to avoid
      conditions typically found in cities, such as congestion / delays, four lane roads, and traffic
      lights. There are currently only 3 traffic lights within the Noosa region, two of which are for
      pedestrian movements.
      To maintain this standard Noosa has designed the road system with a much lower degree of
      saturation, with roundabouts being designed with a maximum Degree of Saturation of 0.7,
      which has also been confirmed through calibration of the operating conditions of a number of
      existing intersections within the Noosa region.
      Furthermore, the Noosa region has a high percentage of older / slower drivers and
      intersections do not handle the same capacity that is often experienced in city areas.
      Accordingly, the SIDRA analysis undertaken should be based on a maximum degree of
      saturation of 0.7 and the results and digital data of the intersection analysis submitted for
      Council to review and carry out our own SIDRA analysis.
      In this regard there are 3 distinct scenarios that need to be analysed:
        a)   The existing situation needs to be modelled and calibrated to reflect the manual turning
             movement counts undertaken on Wednesday 28 May 2008.
        b)   The existing situation, as modelled in (a) above, needs to be projected to the design
             horizon year and re-analysed. And
        c)   The existing situation, as modelled in (b) above, needs to have the development traffic
             added as projected to the design horizon year and re-analysed.
        Should any improvements to the various intersections being analysed need to be undertaken
        as a result of the proposed development, please provide a recommendation as to what
        should be done.

Page 6

                                                 -6-


       Please also provide a copy of the manual turning movement counts undertaken on
       Wednesday 28 May, as outlined in the Traffic Report, for Council to assess against our own
       traffic count data.

48.   An intersection analysis shall also be carried out on all intersections within the area that result
      in a 5% increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development, and recommendations
      made as to how best to improve these intersections.
49.   It is noted that a 10 year horizon has been used based on all construction being completed by
      2012, giving a projected year of 2022 as stated in Section 4.1.1 of the Traffic Assessment
      Report by ARUP, however at section 4.4 of the report the intersection analysis has been
      based on traffic volumes projected to 2019, not 2022. This anomaly should be corrected and
      the data revised accordingly. Furthermore the completion date of 2012 for the entire
      development with full occupancy seems an ambitious target and it is questionable as to
      whether the 10-year horizon should be based on a more realistic completion date for the
      development.
50.   In terms of traffic distribution it is noted that no assessment has been made for traffic that will
      utilise Eenie Creek Road. Though it is acknowledged that the section of Eenie Creek Road
      that adjoins Ben Lexcen Drive has not been open to traffic at this point in time, this is likely to
      change very soon as this section of the Road network is due to be completed and open before
      the end of 2008. Accordingly some traffic too and from the proposed development is likely to
      use this route and this should be taken into consideration in the analysis.
51.   In terms of the Origin / Destination split of traffic, it is also noted that no assessment has been
      made for traffic that utilises the existing service road that currently cuts across the north-
      eastern boundary of proposed Lot 9, that is, the one-way service road that has entry off Ben
      Lexcen Drive south of Lipton Street. In this regard consideration needs to be given to existing
      traffic that take this route as well as some of the traffic that will be associated with the
      proposed development which will also take this route.
52.   In addition to the above, also review the traffic impacts of changing the one-way service road
      off Ben Lexcen Drive to allow two-way vehicle movements with an exit onto Ben Lexcen Drive
      to avoid vehicles with a southern origin/ destination having to use the Lipton / Ben Lexcen
      Drive roundabout and having to travel past the Shop precinct.
Internal Traffic Generation and Vehicular Access
53.   Provide a plan that clearly illustrates all of the internal road widths and whether two-way or
      one-way vehicle movements are proposed. Information provided to date is unclear and based
      on drawing 0673_DA16 by Smith & Tracey Architects is likely to result in driver confusion,
      panic, and low speed accidents occurring. This convoluted arrangement is unacceptable and
      it is recommended that all circulation roads be designed to cater for two-way movements, with
      low volume internal roads being at least 5.5m wide, and the higher volume internal roads
      being approximately 7m wide as suggested in the Traffic Assessment by ARUP.
54.   Demonstrate that all internal roads can cater for the vehicles intended to use them, by
      illustrating appropriate vehicle swept paths. This is an issue that must be addressed up front
      as opposed to delaying to operational works stage as vehicle turning paths and internal
      roadway requirements are likely to affect the proposed building locations, shapes and sizes.
55.   Provide a plan that also illustrates all internal pathways and the width of such pathways. It is
      suggested that an internal pathway hierarchy needs to be established, with the pathways
      carrying the lower volume of users being 1.5m wide (also the narrowest), and the pathways
      more likely to carry higher volumes being at least 2.0m wide. Consideration also needs to be
      given to the mobility levels of the various patrons, as it is considered that some patrons will
      utilise walking fames and some will be in wheelchairs. To this end the pathway network needs
      to be designed to cater for these users. The applicant may also choose to provide wider
      pathways than that which has been mentioned to enhance the standard of their development.
56.   Demonstrate that service vehicle access (i.e. exit and entry) to various parts of the site will
      occur in a forward gear at all times.

Page 7

                                                 -7-


57.   Illustrate where and how garbage is proposed to be collected on site for each of the individual
      uses and where exactly a garbage truck will need to drive, showing the actual swept paths. If
      it is proposed to have a central collection point, please illustrate how garbage will be taken
      from the individual uses to the central collection area and how a garbage truck will service the
      central collection area. For safety reasons and contractual reasons Council’s garbage truck
      must enter, manoeuvre on site, and leave the site in a forward gear, with no reverse
      manoeuvres.
58.   All garages need to be setback sufficiently from their internal boundaries to allow a car to park
      on the driveways of the proposed units without protruding over the boundary. This is to
      ensure that parked vehicles do not obstruct visibility or restrict vehicle movements on the
      internal circulating roads/driveways.
Car Parking
59.   Provide plans detailing sight lines required pursuant to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (Parking
      Facilities – Off Street Carparking) or most recent equivalent for vehicles reversing from
      driveways to the internal road network.
60.   Advise the user-class that the car spaces are designed to pursuant to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004
      (Parking Facilities – Off Street Carparking).
61.   Illustrate all proposed car parking on site, including the basement car park areas, and
      demonstrate how these comply with all relevant aspects of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (Parking
      Facilities – Off Street Carparking) or most recent equivalent. Ensure plans are provided
      detailing sight lines required pursuant to AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 (Parking Facilities – Off Street
      Carparking) or most recent equivalent for vehicles reversing from driveways to the internal
      road network.
62.   All car-parking areas must be separate to service/delivery/refuse areas to avoid incompatible
      uses and the risks of accidents.
63.   Provide turn-around facilities to all car park areas and cul-de-sacs to allow vehicles the ability
      to turn around and drive out in a forward direction.
64.   Provide an appropriate number of disabled parking spaces across the development with
      consideration given to the likely patronage of the Blue Care development as well as
      consideration to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and other related documentation.
External Infrastructure Agreements
65.   Provide amended plans for the Lot Reconfiguration component of the development with the
      north-eastern corner of proposed Lot 9 truncated such that the existing access road off Ben
      Lexcen Drive is dedicated as Road Reserve. In this regard the boundary should be located at
      least 10m from the centreline of the existing access road, and the proposed residential units
      adjusted accordingly to comply with Council’s building setback requirements from the
      realigned boundary.
66.   Submit a traffic management plan for the construction phase of the development outlining how
      traffic will be controlled and also addressing how dirt/debris carried on vehicle wheels will be
      kept off the road network.
67.   Illustrate appropriate external public pathway connections to Council’s existing pathway
      network. In this regard a 2.0m wide path should be provided along both sides of Grasstree
      Court to connect to existing infrastructure and local shops where patrons of Blue Care are
      likely to walk.
68.   Illustrate on all of the proposal plans all existing services on site, such as the existing sewer
      main and pump station, and any service easements that may be necessary. In this regard
      easements will be required to be created over all Council services with a minimum width being
      the greater of 3.0m or twice the depth to the invert level of the pipe where no structures
      (buildings, retaining walls, etc) will be permitted to extend beyond these easements. To this
      end consultation with Council’s Water & Sewerage Capital Works Manager (07 5449 5288) is
      recommended to ensure easements are appropriate.

Page 8

                                                  -8-


Sewerage
69.    Indicate the location of easements over the existing sewer network in accordance with the
       Noosa Planning Scheme Policy 06 Engineering Design Standards – Water and Sewerage.
Water Supply
70.    In respect to the Water Supply component of the Cardno Engineering Report (24 June 2008)
       Council considers that the recommendation for a 150mm loop main is reasonable, however,
       the scope of the report appears to be limited and Council will require its consultant (i.e. Worley
       Parsons) to consider the proposals impact on the Councils water supply network prior to issue
       of any decision notice. The applicant is responsible for all cost incurred by Council in this
       regard. The cost for this analysis will be $1,520 (excluding GST) as detailed on the enclosed
       pay in slip.
Under the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, you have three options available in
response to this Information Request. You may give the assessment manager (in this instance
Council) and each referral agency (if any):
1.     all of the information requested; or
2.     part of the information requested together with a letter asking the assessment manager and
       each referral agency to proceed with the assessment of the application; or
3.     a letter:
       (i)    stating that you do not intend to supply any of the information requested; and

       (ii)   asking the assessment manager and each referral agency to proceed with the
              assessment of the application.

Please be aware that under Section 3.2.12 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the applicant is to
respond to any information request within 12 months of the request or otherwise, the application
lapses.
A response to the above is required to be submitted, prior to further assessment of the application. If
any further matters arise as part of assessment of this application, you will be advised accordingly.

Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact Tracy
Jones on the above number.

Yours faithfully,




Tracy Jones
SENIOR PLANNING OFFICER