2016-03-01 Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                     1 MARCH 2016


REPORT
1.    BACKGROUND

An application to create 2 lots (the Bunning’s site and the area of land between Old Gateway
Drive and Gateway Drive), new road reserve (to encompass the new roadworks) and a “Park”
along part of the Eumundi Noosa Road frontage was approved on 15 March 2012.

Due to the extensive amount of earthworks undertaken within the sites during the construction of
the “Bunnings” a condition (Condition 9) was included on this approval to obtain certification of
the earthworks to address the uncontrolled fill on this site.

9     Certification of the earthworks undertaken on the lots provided by a RPEQ must be
      submitted to Council prior to the sealing of the survey plan. The certification must include:
      (a) Certification that the works have been undertaken in accordance with the provisions
             of AS 3798 ‘Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Development’
      (b)   Test results as required by AS 3798,
      (c)   Certification of the quality and uniformity of the materials.

2.    PROPOSED CHANGE

The intention of the subject change application is to provide an alternative to complying with the
original condition by creating a covenant that makes reference to a geotechnical report that
includes recommendations for foundations and construction methods (Attachment A).

3.    ASSESSMENT

To address Condition 9 the applicant engaged a geotechnical engineer to test the site
(specifically Lot 102 as the building on Lot 101 was complete). It was apparent after the testing
that to comply with the condition the developer would need to excavate a significant amount of
material (uncontrolled fill) from the site. The geotechnical report concluded that the developer
could either remove it completely from the site or sort the material by removing unsuitable
material and reinstating suitable material. It is expected that in either scenario the developer
would need to import material. The reinstated material would also need to be compacted and
supervised in accordance with the relevant standard.

To seek a resolution the developer and his engineer/builder met with Council Officers to discuss
the options. During this meeting the engineer/builder indicated that sites like this could be built on
by using specific construction methods without the need to remove the uncontrolled fill from the
site. The engineer/builder advised that this type of construction method was used to construct the
adjoining “Bunnings” and carpark area. This type of design and construction is significantly more
expensive than on a “standard” lot. The creation of the covenant would therefore advise
prospective purchasers of the site conditions. The outcome of the meeting was for Council to
consider whether a covenant option in the condition would suitably address the concerns.

It is normally expected that a site of this type is suitable for its intended use without the need for
additional works but given this site’s location and size it is considered that the covenant provides
a reasonable alternative to removing the uncontrolled fill as it significantly reduces the amount of
works required to develop the site and permits further development of the site in a controlled
manner.




                                                                                      Page 18 of 79