Skip to the record
Beware of cheap imitations.

Original source · versioned page text

2018-10-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

of 52

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

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

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                    9 OCTOBER 2018


3.3.1. Primary Planning Scheme assessment Issues
Acid Sulfate Soils
The site is affected by the Natural Hazards Overlay for potential acid sulfate soils. The
development proposes significant excavation across the site for the basement. The applicant has
not provided an Acid Sulfate Management Plan. A condition could be included to provide an Acid
Sulfate Soils Management Plan as part of an operational works application to ensure acid sulfate
soils are managed during and post construction.
Traffic and carparking
The applicant has provided a Traffic Report prepared by QTraffic Engineering Consultants
(QTraffic report) which addresses broader traffic impacts, vehicle access and manoeuvring, car
parking provision, servicing and refuse collection. The QTraffic report was peered reviewed by
Council’s consultant traffic engineer, Holland Traffic Consulting. The pertinent matters raised by
Holland Consulting are discussed below.
Traffic impacts on the broader road network – no concerns were raised by Holland Consulting
stating with Council’s consultant traffic engineer advising:
      I concur with the traffic impact assessment outlined in Section 4.0 of the QTraffic report
      dated 20 December 2017. The impact of the proposal on the broader road network would
      be insignificant – the aged care facility would generate traffic similar to the volumes
      generated by 20 residential houses, and there are 9 residential houses currently on the
      site, so the additional traffic would only be equivalent to that generated by 10 houses.
Vehicle Access in Val Crescent – the location of the Val Crescent driveway raises concerns in
regard to sightlines, given its proximity to the Goodchap Street roundabout and the bend in Val
Crescent. Initially, the applicant demonstrated sightlines in one direction only and as part of
addressing Council’s Information Request, assumed vehicles would be travelling at less than
40km/hr. Council’s consultant traffic engineer required verification of vehicle speeds as the basis
for sight line distances in both directions. As part of the response to these outstanding issues, the
applicant undertook a traffic speed survey over 5 days in 2 locations in Val Crescent which found
the mean recorded speed was 25.3km/hr and 27.7km/ph and slightly higher for the 85th
percentile.
The QTraffic report also indicated as a result of the traffic speed survey that:
      … the frequency with which a vehicle will seek to exit the site when a vehicle is
      approaching the driveway on Val Crescent will be extremely low, therefore any potential for
      conflict in this location is substantially reduced.
Council’s consultant traffic engineer is satisfied with the response to the outstanding issues and
advises:
      The QTraffic report of 3 August 2018 now provides sufficient detail to demonstrate that
      sight lines in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard (AS/NZS 2890.1-
      2004) can be achieved at the access driveway, and the author of that report has certified
      as an RPEQ that access arrangements are acceptable.
      I note that QTraffic plan SK.01 A of the latest report identifies a lesser sight distance
      requirement toward the Goodchap Street roundabout than was identified in the earlier
      QTraffic reporting (previous reporting had the sight line toward the Goodchap St
      roundabout touching the edge of the fence as shown in the attached sketch). It is
      recommended if the development is to be approved, that a condition be included to require
      that the sight line areas identified in the QTraffic plan SK.01A in the report dated 3 August
      2018, and as modified in red on the attached version of that plan, be maintained at all times
      without structures or landscaping (the gum tree trunk can obviously remain) other than
      grass. A covenant or easement over those sight line areas would be appropriate.



                                                                                      Page 44 of 52
Log in to download the original file

2018-10-09 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda(PDF, 4MB).pdf · 3.9 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

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”.