Response to Information Request - 5 April 2018 · 132007.12.8

Page 2

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




  With respect to (1) above, the Noosaville Medical and Professional Centre is a substantial
  development which has operated from the site for many years. It is understood that the
  development has operated without causing significant adverse traffic impacts off site during
  this time.

  The former approval on the site required the provision of 393 parking spaces with the
  construction of the multi-level carpark on the land as part of development for ‘Building B’. The
  approval was subsequently changed to remove the requirement for the construction of the
  multi-level carpark and now requires 369 carparks to be provided in accordance with the
  Judgement dated 3 February 2017.

  The development proposal seeks to provide a two-level carpark and 675m² of office, partly
  over the third level. This requires a total of 403 spaces to be provided at a rate of 1 space per
  20m² of use area. This means the current proposal requires 10 additional carparking spaces
  compared to the former approval, which required 393 carparking spaces. Consequently, the
  proposed development is not likely to generate significant additional traffic movements when
  compared to the former approval. This position is supported by TOD Consulting who has
  provided some helpful advice about the development (refer Attachment 1).

  With respect to part (2), the requirement for external works under conditions 65 and 66 were
  imposed on 16 March 2010. At this time the proposed development required provision for 393
  carparking spaces. These conditions remain current despite the current approval being
  amended to provide 369 spaces. Subsequently, the applicant requested TOD Consulting
  undertake a review of the works required by the approval. TOD Consulting has confirmed that
  the works required by conditions 65 and 26 should be undertaken as soon as possible (refer
  Attachment 1). It is noted that a development approval for operational work was obtained on
  28 April 2010 (2009/538) for the external works, but this approval has now lapsed (refer
  Attachment 2). Consequently, the applicant will reapply for an operational works approval as
  soon as possible and undertake this work.

  It is also noted that since these conditions have been imposed the applicant has entered into
  an Infrastructure Agreement with the Council as part of the settlement for the recent appeal
  lodged for the removal of the requirement for the multi-level carpark. This Infrastructure
  Agreement required the applicant to pay $46,000 towards the upgrading of bus infrastructure
  at the frontage in Goodchap Street (refer Attachment 3). It is suggested that this might have
  some bearing on whether the additional bus indentation work on the northern side of
  Goodchap Street is reasonably required in accordance with condition 66. Consequently, it is
  requested that consideration be given to amending or deleting this condition.

  It is also requested that condition 27 be amended to not require the splitter island within the
  northern driveway. This work has also not been undertaken because most of the vehicles
  leaving the carpark area fronting Goodchap Street turn right to exit directly onto Goodchap
  Street. Otherwise these vehicles would have to turn left and drive around the development to
  exit at the same location or the western exit. The provision of a splitter island at this location

                                                                                         2|Page
  14006 – Noosaville Medical and Professional Centre, New Office and Carpark Structure

Page 3

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




  will cause additional traffic conflict within the site and encourage vehicles to leave the site via
  Traders Lane, which currently provides for service vehicle access. Consequently, it is suggested
  that the current arrangement is satisfactory and does not warrant a splitter island to be
  installed and condition 27 should be amended accordingly.

  With respect to (3) above and the reference made to condition 63, it is my understanding that
  there is currently no infrastructure agreement as required by this condition. The applicant is
  currently in the process of drafting a suitable infrastructure agreement in accordance with this
  condition of approval. The infrastructure agreement will deal with the provision and
  maintenance of the private services that traverse the laneway at this location. Further, it is my
  understanding that these services relate to access, water supply, sewerage, electricity and
  telecommunications.

  The applicant is also in the process of applying for a permanent road closure in strata under a
  term lease arrangement for the construction of the elevated pedestrian walkway over the
  laneway (road reserve), as advised by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
  (DNRME). The applicant is currently having discussions with the DNRME about the application
  that is to be made and intends to lodge this as soon as possible.

  Issue
  The proposed works indicated on the submitted Engineering plan – “Level 1 General
  Arrangement Plan” includes works on the adjoining property and the works also include
  connections to the adjoining property.
  Information Required
  4. Provide approval from the adjoining property owner for the works indicated on the submitted
      Engineering plan – “Level 1 General Arrangement Plan”
  5. Indicate on the relevant plans any easements (sewer and stormwater) within the subject site
      to encompass the service authority infrastructure and the private stormwater easements.

  The provision of stormwater drainage and sewerage connections are the same as that
  previously required and approved by Council (refer Attachment 2). The owner of the adjoining
  land (Telstra) has previously consented to the alteration of these services within Lot 5 on
  SP196846 (refer Attachment 4). It is suggested that this letter is adequate for current purposes
  given the owner has already consented to the alteration of the services in the same manner.

  If necessary, the applicant will provide an easement over the subject land to allow for the
  disposal of stormwater drainage from the Telstra land (Lot 5), which is to be collected and
  treated within the bio-retention basin located along the south western boundary adjoining the
  parkland. It is not necessary for the relocated stormwater drainage line within the Telstra land
  to be contained within an easement.

  The relocation of the sewer line for the development is to be contained within a 3m wide
  easement along the north western boundary as labelled on the Level 1 – General Layout Plan,
  in accordance with the requirements of Unitywater. The applicant does not have the ability,

                                                                                          3|Page
  14006 – Noosaville Medical and Professional Centre, New Office and Carpark Structure

Page 4

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




  nor is it reasonable in the circumstances to require an easement over the relocated sewer
  within the Telstra Depot land (Lot 5).

  With respect to the further issues raised in the email of 17 January 2018, the following
  comments are provided.

  Issue
  Specific outcome O1 requires that downstream properties are not adversely impacted by the
  development.

  Drawing 15652-SK1 shows the Bioretention basin will extend right up to the property boundary
  with the invert level from the outlet pipe at RL4.7. Given that this is below the surface level of the
  adjoining property, it is expected that the applicant is proposing to include scour protection as
  well as stormwater infrastructure in the form of the outlet pipe within the adjoining property.

  Info Required
  Demonstrate that all infrastructure, including scour protection for the overflow weir along with
  the low flow pipe will be able to be contained entirely within the applicant’s property.

  With respect to the above, the following advice has been provided from TOD Consulting:

  The sections X and Y on drawing 15652-SK1 are probably a little misleading with respect to the
  existing ground levels. In reality the ground levels along the wall adjacent to the boundary vary
  from RL 5.2 to RL 4.7. The level contours in the neighbouring property indicate that the existing
  surface level adjacent to rock rubble dissipater is at or below RL 4.7. As shown on section X the
  weir for the bio basin is located at the western end of the basin and discharges water onto the
  rock rubble dissipater. Water for the rock rubble dissipater sheet flows into the neighbouring
  property (park).

  It is noted that the previous approval over the land for the multi-level carpark structure and
  the subsequent operational works approval (Attachment 2) allowed for the construction of
  the stormwater retention basin in the same location. The proposed retention basin is
  essentially the same design as that previously approved.

  Issue
  Specific Outcome O8 of the Water Sensitive Design Code of the Noosa Plan requires that the
  scale of the development provides adequate footprint to integrate all elements of the stormwater
  quality treatment infrastructure including maintenance access without the need for retaining
  walls.

  Info Required
  Demonstrate how the design of the proposed bioretention basin is consistent with the Water by
  Design Bio-Retention Technical Design Guideline (the acceptable solution for Specific Outcome
  O8) in terms of:


                                                                                            4|Page
  14006 – Noosaville Medical and Professional Centre, New Office and Carpark Structure

Page 5

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




       •   Provision of adequate maintenance access
       •   Retaining walls
       •   Likelihood of success of plantings necessary for pollutant removal with the shading likely
           over the basin.

  In relation to these issues, the following responses have been provided by TOD Consulting:

  Access to the bio basin will be provided at the eastern end of the basin. A concrete ramp will be
  provided instead of a blockwork wall at this end of the basin to allow for maintenance access.
  Details of this access will be provided as part of the detailed design and Operational works
  application.

  Retaining walls are required due to the limited space available after providing the number of car
  parks required for the site. Section 3.3.5.5 of the Water by Design Bio Retention Technical Design
  Guideline states that “bioretention systems should be designed without retaining walls, where
  possible ...” but does not state they cannot be used. Given the space constraints and the fact the
  basin is in a location generally not visible to the public, the use of retaining walls is considered
  to be appropriate in this situation.

  Advice of suitable plant species that are shade tolerant can be provided by a landscape
  designer/horticulturalist.

  The area of land and the design of the carparks required restricts the amount of land available
  and the location for the bio-retention basin. The shade tolerant plants to be provided in the
  bio-retention basin will be addressed in the subsequent application for operational works
  required for the development.

  In accordance with Part 3, section 13.2(a) of the Development Assessment Rules, the applicant
  has provided the further information requested and Part 3 is now complete (refer 15.1(b)(i)).
  Accordingly, it would be appreciated if Council would provide the adjoining owners details as
  soon as possible so that public notification for the ‘other changes’ application can commence
  in accordance with section 16.4 of the Development Assessment Rules.

  Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please contact me.

  Yours faithfully




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

                                                                                           5|Page
  14006 – Noosaville Medical and Professional Centre, New Office and Carpark Structure