IR Response

Parking Demand
The approach adopted in the TIA is considered comprehensive and detailed considering the relatively small scale of the proposed
expansion (i.e. 940m2 GFA increase). Factoring of surveyed parking demands to represent a ‘800-person day level’ is considered
excessive given that only seven (7) days exceed this level of patronage (including Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve). The adopted
approach presented in the TIA of an 85th percentile trading day is considered applicable given this represents likely peak demands.
As stated in the TIA, on the few days of the year where parking demands may exceed supply (i.e. Anzac Day, New Year’s Eve etc.),
we are of the view that there are sufficient on-street parking opportunities to cater for this temporary spike in demand.
On this basis, it is expected that obtaining further traffic survey data and extending the scope (to include different time periods and
adjacent street parking) would provide limited benefit for significant additional cost, and is therefore not considered warranted. Refer
to the attached Bitzios response.

Car Parking Layout
Annotated basement height clearance and pedestrian route have been provided on the revised plans of development included within
this response. Revised development plans demonstrate height clearances of approximately 2.34m in accordance with AS2890.1
(with consideration to services / infrastructure). Council’s request for a lift as part of stage 4 will not occur the proposed additional
car parking does not warrant a need for a lift during stage 4, not to mention there are budgetary constraints whereby this was
previously discussed, and decided against. Therefore the lift is to be provided as part of Stage 5. Refer to the attached Bitzios
response.

Stormwater
Please refer to the attached combined Engineering and Stormwater report by vT Consulting Engineers dated September 2016.

Light Spill
With regard to the concern of light spill, it is considered that any lighting for example, car parking areas will be shielded to not spill
directly beyond the site and into any adjacent residential buildings. As such Cushway Blackford Consulting Engineers provided an
Obtrusive light compliance report dated 21/09/2016 for the proposal including luminescence figures indicating compliance. This report
is attached for Council’s review. It is advised that the proposal be conditioned in terms of the AS4282-1997 to not cause a nuisance
to the adjacent residential area and in accordance with this report.

Waste Storage
Waste storage is shown on the site plan 1620/DA/DA2.02 rev. C dated 28/09/2016 adjacent the Pallet Store and labelled upon Plan
1620/DA/2.04 rev. B dated 28/09/2016.


Despite the request of Council for a peer review, we are of the opinion that the architectural improvements are consistent with that
in which Council had requested and we therefore do not consider a peer review necessary. We do however appreciate Council’s
position on the location of the site and the importance of architecture, and therefore, should Council wish to discuss any further
design elements during the assessment process, we are happy to receive feedback and discuss any further design considerations
at a later point in time.

As per s278(1)(b) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA)¸ this response to the information request constitutes a response for
part of the information and we hereby request the assessment manager to proceed with the assessment of the application as this
response constitutes the end of the information and referral stage (s293(1)(b) of SPA). As per s296(3) of SPA we will now commence
Public Notification.