Information Request MCU23 0090

Page 2

The extent of the shortfall of carparking indicates the proposed development is of a scale not
commensurate with the lot size. The shortfall in carparking and scale of the development is
not supported.
It is noted that Council may accept a contribution in lieu of a minor shortfall in carparking in
accordance with Councils ‘Contributions in Lieu of the Provision of Onsite Car Parking Policy’,
which would require the applicant to enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Council.
Information Required
1.     Reduce the scale of the development to ensure the proposal is commensurate with the
       lot size and provides sufficient onsite parking for the use.
2.     Should a minor shortfall in carparking be proposed under the amended proposal, provide
       details on a proposed Infrastructure Agreement for Contributions in Lieu of the Provision
       of Onsite Car Parking.
3.     Provide amended Gross Floor Area calculation plans for each level of the development.
4.     Provide Use Area calculation plans for each level of the development, including any
       outdoor beer gardens.


Issue – Proposed Bottle Shop Location
A Shop with primary frontage to Blakesley Street is specifically identified as impact,
inconsistent by the Noosa Plan 2020 assessment tables, with AO9.1(b) and PO9 of the District
Centre Zone Code and PO11 of the Tewantin Local Plan Code seeking that retail uses be
located in the main street, with land fronting Blakesley Street to provide a transition to the
residential uses opposite, and thus minimise the potential amenity impacts of such businesses
on nearby residents. The proposed location of the bottle shop is not supported.
Information Required
5.     Provide amended plans relocating the Shop (drive-thru bottle shop) away from Blakesley
       Street and Diyan Street frontages.

Issue - Tewantin Local Plan Requirements
Figure 7.2.3.4 Tewantin Framework and Character Plan in the Tewantin Local Plan Code
identifies the site as:
•    A Tewantin Key Development Site.
•    Key pedestrian and cycle linkages through the centre of the site (east/west) and along the
     north western boundary.
•    Heritage Site – Local;
•    Special Place – Arrival / Meeting / Town Character in the south eastern corner of the
•    Primary Streetscape Treatment Area along the full Poinciana Ave and Diyan St frontage
•    Primary Active Street Frontage along the full Poinciana Ave and Diyan St frontage, and
     along the Blakesley St frontage of Lot 3;
•    A key corner on the Diyan St and Blakesley St corner
•    A key corner on the Diyan St and Poinciana Ave corner
•    Gateway / Special Place Character Landscape along the Poinciana frontage
The proposal plans do not adequately address the requirement of the Tewantin Local Plan
Code, as the plans:
•    do not provide for key pedestrian/cycle links to be provided for through the centre of the
     site (east/west) and along the north western boundary of the site




                                                                                       Page 2 of 18

Page 3

•    provide limited built form elements to the northern beer garden fronting Diyan Street that
     will assist in fostering this street’s character and the requirements of a ‘key corner’ (noting
     the below Issue - Diyan & Blakesley Street Truncation & Blakesley Street Truncation &
     Issue – Key Corner Landscaping items).
•    do not provide a contextual picture of how the future development of Lot 3 will integrate
     with the proposed development in a manner that will achieve the vision as expressed in
     the Tewantin Framework and Character Plan and detailed in the PSP7 Framework and
     Character Plans for a ‘key corner’ (noting the below Issue - Diyan & Blakesley Street
     Truncation & Issue – Key Corner Landscaping items).
•    show an 800mm retaining wall for the northern beer garden, however provide limited detail
     on the extent of fill proposed on site for the elevated northern beer garden, which is
     substantially above street level (also refer to Issue – Earthworks item). Any fill on the site
     to elevate the beer garden is not supported
•    do not provide adequate information on the proposed southern beer garden, with the
     renders provided indicating the beer garden is to be elevated/filled, whilst it is unclear from
     the architectural plans if any fill is proposed. The southern beer garden must not be
     elevated / filled in order to achieve the requirements of a ‘Special Place’ to promote outdoor
     dining areas integrated with the streetscape.
•    do not provide details of any proposed landscape treatment within the road reserve for
     Diyan Street and Blakesley Street (noting the below Issue – Landscaping for further
     details).
Additionally, the proposal plans:
•    include a 42m long retaining wall with additional balustrading along the Diyan Street
     frontage. The length of this single plane structure is not supported.
•    do not indicate how onsite car parking will be interconnected and integrated with adjoining
     properties, in particular, with 96 Poinciana Avenue (also refer to Issue – Vehicular Access
     though to 96 Poinciana Ave item).
•    include proposed signage which is non-compliant with Council’s Local Law for advertising
     devices. It is noted that signage does not form part of the application and must be removed
     from all proposal plans.
•    do no provide for all-weather protection in the form of continuous cantilevered awnings
     over footpath areas, where possible (refer to Issue – Façade of Existing Pokies Area to
     Poinciana Avenue for further details)
The following advice is also provided:
•    It is recommended that the powerlines along the Diyan and Blakesley Street frontages be
     undergrounded to achieve an improved streetscape character and activated frontages in
     accordance with Performance Outcomes PO3 and PO12 of the Tewantin Local Plan Code.
     Undergrounding of powerlines will assist in achieving appropriate pedestrian footpaths and
     landscaping along these frontages.
Information Required
1.     Provide amended plans including:
       a.    a north/south pedestrian link in accordance with the Tewantin Framework and
             Character Plan.
       b.    an indicative location for a future east/west pedestrian link in accordance with the
             Tewantin Framework and Character Plan. This may also include a pedestrian
             access to the beer garden from the Diyan Street frontage.
       c.    additional built form and ‘step in’ elements to the northern beer garden fronting
             Diyan Street that will assist in fostering the streets character and the requirements
             of a ‘key corner’. This may include the provision of additional horizontal and vertical
             built form elements to the northern beer garden, including (but not limited to):




                                                                                           Page 3 of 18

Page 4

              i.     providing ‘stepped in’ sections along the retaining wall to provide greater
                     articulation along the Diyan Street frontage;
              ii.    varied roof form,
              iii.   lowering the beer garden to street level;
              iv.    provision of landscaping within the road reserve.
              All built form elements should be in keeping with Tewantin’s fine scale built form
              character.
      d.      details of any proposed landscape treatment within the road reserve for Diyan
              Street and Blakesley Street.
      e.      detail on the extent of fill proposed on site for the elevated northern beer garden.
      f.      detail on the integration of the southern beer garden with the streetscape, including
              a section plan confirming no fill is proposed in this area.
2.    Provide a contextual picture of how the future development of lot 3 will integrate with the
      proposed development in a manner that will achieve the vision as expressed in the
      Tewantin Framework and Character Plan and detailed in the PSP7 Framework and
      Character Plans for a ‘key corner’.
3.    Remove all signage from the proposal plans.
4.    Provide a public thoroughfare easement over the proposed driveway areas from
      Blakesley Street for 96 Poinciana Avenue.
5.    Provide clarification as to whether the powerlines along the Diyan and Blakesley Street
      frontages are proposed to be undergrounded to achieve an improved streetscape
      character, including appropriate landscaping (refer to below Issue – Landscaping item).


Issue – Façade of Existing Pokies Area to Poinciana Avenue
The architectural plans indicate that it is proposed to ’retain existing façade finish, make good
and repair any damaged paint finish’ to the pokies area adjacent Poinciana Avenue. This
existing extension to the hotel contributes little to the streetscape, noting the requirements for
Primary Active Frontage along the Poinciana Avenue frontage under the Tewantin Local Plan
Code. It is recommended this façade be improved to provide an enhanced streetscape
character. Improvements may include the removal of the mirrored windows, providing
additional/improved openings to the street, removing the green parapet, incorporating a street
awning, and/or including a use that will better activate this part of the street.
Information Required
6.    Provide amended plans detailing improvements to the façade of the existing pokies area
      to Poinciana Avenue, including all-weather protection in the form of a continuous
      cantilevered awning over footpath areas that will not impact on the character of the
      original heritage building and/or existing and proposed landscaping along this frontage.


Issue - Function Room
The application as lodged seeks approval for a ‘hotel extension, shop and boundary
realignment of 2 into 2 lots’. The plans detail that some of the existing accommodation rooms
on level 1 are to be demolished for a 185m2 function room, 115m2 function roof deck and 16m2
bar. A Hotel may include an ‘entertainment activity’ (which includes a function facility), where
the activity is ancillary to the selling of liquor for consumption on the premises.
     Hotel—




                                                                                          Page 4 of 18

Page 5

      (a) means the use of premises for—
          (i) selling liquor for consumption on the premises; or
          (ii) a dining or entertainment activity, or providing accommodation to tourists or travellers, if
               the use is ancillary to the use in subparagraph (i); but
      (b) does not include a bar.
The application material does not provide sufficient detail around the proposed use of the
function room, noting that the use may constitute a standalone use, being a Function facility.
      Function facility means the use of premises for—
      (a) receptions or functions; or
      (b) preparing and providing food and liquor for consumption on the premises as part of a reception
          or function.
Information Required
7.      Provide clarification of the proposed use of the function room and associated deck,
        including type of functions proposed (i.e. 18th birthday parties, wedding receptions,
        conferences etc), maximum patron numbers, catering provisions and whether live music
        (bands) is proposed from the mobile stage.
8.      Should the use be a standalone Function facility, amend the application to include a
        Function facility and pay additional application fees attributed to this use.
9.      Provide an updated Noise Impact Assessment as the assessment prepared by Urbis
        does not appear to consider this use (refer to below Issue - Noise item for further details)
10.     Provide an amended Traffic Impact Assessment that considers the use of the function
        room and balcony.


Issue - Heritage Impacts Statement – comparative analysis
The heritage impact statement does not provide a comparative or contextual analysis of the
design of the hotel within the Noosa or wider region. The L-shaped form and the intact
reception area are potentially relatively rare examples of a wartime functionalist style building
by well-regarded architects of the time.
More evidence should be provided of the relative rarity and significance of the interiors,
including finishes, doors and windows and ceilings to justify the level of change proposed to
the interior layout within the original L-shaped building. It is considered that the angled main
entry, associated foyer space, reception counter and stairwell are potentially of exceptional
significance and the layout of the upper-level bedrooms of high significance. While many
hotels now offer ensuite bathrooms it is not uncommon for B&B’s and Airbnb style
accommodation to offer shared bathrooms. Additional justification must be provided as to why
the upper-level accommodation is no longer viable to justify the extensive demolition
proposed.
Information Required
11.     Provide more evidence of the relative rarity and significance of the interiors, including
        finishes, doors and windows and ceilings to justify the level of change proposed to the
        interior.
12.     Provide more justification as to why extensive demolition of the upper-level
        accommodation is necessary.


Issue – Detail historic elements to be retained on the drawings.
The heritage impact statement notes that there are doors and windows that are to be removed
as they do not meet current standards, but the architectural documents do not clearly note




                                                                                                 Page 5 of 18

Page 6

these changes on the drawings and provide justification against a specific standard for these
proposed changes. It should also be demonstrated that there are no alternative options to
demolition; for example, could doors be fixed in an open position to achieve desired circulation
or other outcome. It is also unclear on the drawings which, and how, the historic plaster ceilings
are to be retained and/or interpreted.
Information Required
13.   Clearly detail changes to doors and windows on the architectural documents and provide
      written justification of the proposed changes/demolition.
14.   Detail on the architectural drawings how the historic plaster ceilings are to be retained
      and/or interpreted.


Issue - Demolition of south-eastern amenities block / new Poinciana Ave beer garden
As noted in the Heritage Impact Statement, the amenities block is a recent addition and not of
heritage significance. This is in fact an intrusive element and its removal will enhance the
original L-shaped building footprint, a significant architectural feature.
It is recommended the additional intrusive elements noted below should also be considered
for removal as part of this work as well as changes to some design elements within the beer
garden to enhance views of the hotel and reinstate it to a condition closer to the original open
corner setting.
•     Reinstate the enclosed loggias (see diagram below) in the area below the upper
      verandahs. Refer to original drawings. Alternatively, consideration could be given to
      removal of the lower verandah addition to the current lounge/bistro area with new doors
      placed between the original rendered columns along the original wall of the loggia.




•     Remove awning roofs to loggias (as per diagram above).
•     Remove external stairwell (or justification for retention to be provided)
•     Remove balustrading to upper-level verandahs. The current vertical slatted balustrading
      is not sympathetic with the original architectural design of the building. Replacement
      balustrading is recommended which incorporates horizontal elements similar to the
      original as visible in early photos. Council’s heritage advisor can assist in advising on an
      appropriate form that meets current standards and interprets the early balustrading.
•     Remove existing street frontage vertical metal pool style fencing. The landscaped area
      fronting Poinciana Avenue and Diyan Street was originally an open space, emphasising
      the L-shaped form of the hotel building. It is desirable that this visual quality is retained
      and a glazed wall detail, similar to the northern beer garden would be acceptable to help
      achieve this. Alternatively, any enclosure should incorporate horizontal, rather than




                                                                                          Page 6 of 18

Page 7

      vertical elements to be sympathetic with the original building horizontal banding, rails,
      low walls etc, typical of the functional art deco style.
Information Required
15.   Provide amended plans to remove intrusive elements identified above. Alternatively,
      provide justification as to why no changes will be made to these elements.


Issue - Demolition and alterations to northern area
As noted in the Heritage Impact Statement, the dining room is a recent addition and not of
heritage significance. As a relatively open structure the proposed roof deck does not obstruct
the northern view of the building or the original building footprint and elevation. However, the
new openings onto the deck are not sympathetic with the proportions and size of the early
building elements. It is recommended the following changes should also be considered to
mitigate the impact on the northern elevation.
•     Increase opening head height to match adjacent windows




•     Locate openings in the northern wall to align with those in the southern wall. It is
      preferable that the openings would be the same width as those in the southern wall.
      However, if this is not possible due to current requirements for circulation a slight
      increase in width would be allowable provided, they are centred with the southern wall
      openings.




•     Consider the form and detail of the rail to the roof deck to ensure it is consistent in
      character and incorporates horizontal detailing sympathetic to the original building rails,
      as noted elsewhere.
Information Required
16.   Provide amended plans making the recommended changes to the northern area.
      Alternatively, provide comment on the proposed designs appropriateness.




                                                                                        Page 7 of 18

Page 8

Issue - Colour scheme and painting
Repairs to the original render finish should be like-for-like in material composition and finished
texture. Note that testing of the original render will be required for matching. The banding,
corner corbels, sills and other decorative rendered features are to be retained.
As noted in Part 3.3.4 of the Heritage Impact Statement, a colour scheme is yet to be
submitted. The colours of the 1940s portion of the building should be based on the original
colours with evidence of the research, such as paint scrape samples and early photographs
provided. It is recommended that the colour scheme for the 1990’s and new parts of the
building are different but complementary to the colour scheme for the 1940s fabric.
Information Required
17.   Provide the proposed colour scheme for the building, including evidence of research of
      the original colours.


Issue - Demolition and alterations to interiors
While the heritage controls do not specifically highlight the interiors of the building, given the
significance of the building, consideration should be given to the following:
•     Retention and/or reuse of the original reception counter, preferably close to the main
      entrance.
•     An alternative arrangement of the ground floor amenities to allow for the original stair to
      be visible and able to be used as the main access to the upper level. Currently in the
      floor plan this appears to be a staff access only.
•     Consideration should also be given to retaining the original ceiling form and details in
      the main entrance area and in other spaces where the c1942 details are intact.
•     While retention of the upper floor rooms would be a desirable outcome in terms of
      retaining original fabric the use of the space for a larger function area is consistent with
      the ongoing use of the place as a hotel. However, considerations should be given to
      how the original floor plan could be interpreted as part of the new work. For example, it
      could be represented though a subtle pattern in the floor coverings or ceiling, or through
      retention of small nib sections of the walls.
Information Required
18.   Provide amended plans addressing the above. Alternatively, provide comment on each
      interior issue raised.


Issue - A Demolition Work Method for Historic Fabric
A work method for demolition of historic fabric has not been included in the documents lodged.
A sample version of such a method is provided below for reference.
      Sample version
      Protect existing building fabric and features from incidental damage during the works. The building is of high
      architectural importance. It is essential that the greatest care be taken throughout the works to eliminate the
      possibility of damage to the building and its surroundings.
      •   Removal of elements scheduled for demolition is to be undertaken carefully, by hand and removing
          fixings and lifting out individual elements (as though for salvage), rather than breaking out large areas.
      •   Protect adjacent significant historic building fabric from damage.
      •   Ensure protective actions will not cause damage to materials, for example in the way they are attached
          or fixed. Loose covers are preferred.
      •   No chemical strippers are to be used.
      •   Vibration is to be minimised.




                                                                                                          Page 8 of 18

Page 9

      •    Cut materials are to be removed by hand, using minimal, or the smallest power tools suitable for the
           task without overcuts.
      •    Retain the removed materials for storage on site where proposed for reuse or retention. Ensure they
           are clearly labelled with their original location. Materials from each area must be stored and labelled
           separately. Ensure materials from different parts of the building are not mixed.
      •    Leave old foundations, slabs etc. Do not disturb support to foundations. Provide protection with
           materials, such as sheeting, that are self-supporting and are not fixed to the original materials.
      •    Protect exposed areas of foundations
      •    Leave partly demolished structure(s) in a stable condition, with adequate temporary support at each
           stage to prevent risk of uncontrolled collapse. Adequately protect parts of existing structure which are
           to be kept in place.
      •    Stop construction work that might affect an historic item or material and protect the item from damage
           or disturbance.
      Site staff responsible for supervision and control of the work are to be experienced with historic buildings
      and are to ensure that all personnel on site are briefed on heritage significance of the site, their
      responsibilities with regard to this, and the conditions of the approvals under which the work is carried out
      (see above). Any sub-contractors engaged in the works should be suitably qualified and properly inducted
      in regard to the site’s heritage issues as well.
      Before starting work:
      •    Prepare a full photographic record of all existing defects and damage to the building fabric adjacent to
           the work areas, and routes to work areas, internally and externally.
      •    Take samples of mortar and render for testing

Information Required
19.   Provide a detailed work method for demolition of historic fabric generally consistent with
      the sample method detailed above.


Issue – Landscaping
The architectural plans provided with the application material indicate a 2 metre landscape
setback, however the submitted concept landscape plans have not provided details of the
landscape associated with the Poinciana, Diyan and Blakesley Street frontages.
Information Required
20.   Provide revised concept landscape plans that deliver further details including
      dimensions a concept landscape layout that includes tall trees shrubs and
      groundcovers. Incorporation of tall single stemmed trees such as Corymbia tessellaris
      that allow for views to the river, provide scale to the built form, and replaces the loss of
      significant trees within the site is encouraged. (Undergrounding power along Diyan
      Street would be beneficial in achieving landscape with tall trees that allow for
      unobstructed views to the river)


Issue – Existing Landscaping
The submitted concept landscape plans has identified areas of existing landscape to be
retained.
Information Required
21.   Provided revised concept landscape plans that identifies areas of existing landscape to
      be refurbished and incorporate concept landscape plans for these areas that includes
      the establishment of trees shrubs and groundcovers to assist in the scaling and buffering
      of the built form.
22.   Provide an overall concept landscape plan that calculates the total percentage of the
      site proposed to be landscaped




                                                                                                        Page 9 of 18

Page 10

Issue – Key Corner Landscaping
Landscape Concept Plans have not provided details of the landscape treatment of the key
corner identified on the corner of Poinciana Avenue and Diyan Street.
Information Required
23.   Provide revised concept landscape plans that address AO3.1 of the Tewantin Local Plan
      Code by incorporating landscape treatments which emphasise the corner location as
      show in figure AP3-10A and Figure AP3-10B.


Issue – Diyan & Blakesley Street Truncation
To address concerns relating to sight distances and to accommodate future pedestrian
footpaths, the corner of Diyan and Blakesley must be truncated with a 6m by 3 chord.
Information Required
24.   Provide amended plans to include a 6m by 3 chord truncation at the intersection of Diyan
      and Blakesley Street.


Issue – Vehicle Access to 26 Diyan Street
The submitted Architectural Plans do not include a vehicular access point to proposed Lot 3
(26 Diyan Street). A vehicular access point off Diyan and Blakesley Street is likely to adversely
affect existing traffic conditions. There is an opportunity for access to proposed Lot 3 to be via
the proposed Royal Mail carpark.
Any vehicular access to proposed Lot 3 via the proposed Royal Mail carpark must be
supported by an access easement.
Information Required
25.   Provide additional detail demonstrating how vehicles will enter and exit proposed Lot 3.
      The additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ –
      Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland).


Issue – External Works
Council is concerned that the proposed development may compromise the future provision of
planned infrastructure along Blakesley and Diyan Street (Performance Outcome PO60 of the
District Centre Zone Code). As an outcome of Council’s Noosa Walking and Cycling Strategy
and the Noosa High Priority Cycle Route Corridor Study, Council’s Infrastructure Services
department has highlighted the need to upgrade Blakesley and Diyan Street. In preparation
for this upgrade, Council has prepared an ultimate development plan for Blakesley Street. It
is expected that any external works proposed as part of the redevelopment of the Royal Mail
align with these drawings. Please refer to the attached drawings included as part of this
document.
The proposed redevelopment does not achieve compliance with Performance Outcome PO59
of the District Centre Zone Code by failing to provide the following:
•     The construction of a 1.5m wide footpath along the Blakesley and Diyan Street
      frontages;
•     Frontage widening (including kerb and channel) along the northern side of Diyan Street
      to achieve the desired footpath alignment. The existing northern bus parking zone and
      ‘no-standing’ line marking must be decommissioned to achieve this widening (refer to
      Council’s Demolition and Clearing Plan, C110, Rev. 1); and




                                                                                        Page 10 of 18

Page 11

•     The removal of the existing northern driveway crossover fronting Diyan Street.
Information Required
26.   Provide additional detail demonstrating the extent of the frontage works necessary to
      ensure that the development is supported by adequate infrastructure and urban
      services. The additional detail must be generally in accordance with Council’s Blakesley
      Street development drawings, be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ –
      Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland), and include, but not be limited to:
      a. The construction of a 1.5m pedestrian footpath fronting both street frontages;
      b. Frontage widening along the northern side of Diyan Street. As part of the frontage
         widening, the northern bus parking zone and a portion of the ‘no-standing’ line
         marking must be decommissioned (see Council’s Demolition and Clearing Plan,
         C110, Rev. 1); and
      c. The removal of the existing northern vehicle crossover fronting Diyan Street.


Issue – Drive-through Queuing
The Driveways and Parking Code requires queuing room for 10 vehicles to provided on site
for drive-throughs that are included as part of a Food and Drink Outlet. Although it is
acknowledged that the Liquorland is defined as a Shop (not a Food and Drink Outlet), it is
considered that the requirements for onsite queuing are commensurate. Red’s Proposed Site
Plan (TP06, Rev. 5) proposes a shortened queuing provision with little commentary provided
on the proposed queuing length.
Information Required
27.   Provide an amended set of plans demonstrating that the proposed Liquorland can
      accommodate a minimum on-site vehicle queuing area for 10 vehicles.
28.   Alternatively, provide sufficient justification for the shortened queuing provision of the
      proposed Liquorland by providing a traffic survey identifying the average existing
      queuing/parking requirements of the Liquorland drive-through over the course of 7 days.
      The traffic survey must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
      Professional Engineer of Queensland).


Issue – Exit Driveway Queuing
The Traffic Impact Assessment does not sufficiently address the queuing requirements at the
driveways. Council is concerned that the location of the drive-through exit and exit driveway
will mean that carparks in this area will not be feasible.
Note that Council is unlikely to support carparks within queuing areas.




                                                                                      Page 11 of 18

Page 12

Information Required
29.   Provide a Queue Length Assessment demonstrating the feasibility of the highlighted
      carparks with respect to the queuing provisions of the driveway and drive-through. The
      Queue Length Assessment must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ –
      Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland), consider all vehicles utilising the exits
      from within the site (Royal Mail, 96, 110, 112 and 114 Poinciana Ave) and include, but
      not be limited to:
      a. B99 vehicle manoeuvring to and from the highlighted carparks are feasible without
         impacting queue storage areas.


Issue – Carpark Relaxation
Council calculates the total use area of the Hotel (including the beer gardens and function
room component) as approximately 3400m2 and the Shop use at approximately 265m2,
requiring a total of 183 onsite carparks. The proposal includes a substantial shortfall in
proposed onsite car parking. The extent of the shortfall of carparking is not supported. Council
has the following concerns:
•     The proposed 53 carparking spaces is insufficient. For reference, the 960m2 of beer
      garden alone may generate 48 carparking spaces. This overflow is likely to be at the
      expense of the community and Council.
•     The Traffic Impact Assessment does not identify and/or give consideration to patrons
      who may park offsite, either in the nearby streets or in 26 Diyan Street.
•     The Traffic Impact Assessment compares the Friday and Saturday parking demands for
      the proposed hotel to other hotels that are unlikely to have the same patronage (i.e.,
      waterfront, tourist location, etc.). Any comparisons made to justify a carparking
      relaxation must be based upon a parking demand survey of an existing similar facility,
      in a similar coastal, tourist location, and conducted during the summer holiday period.
•     The Traffic Impact Assessment relies upon the existing on-street parking spaces
      provided along Diyan and Blakesley Street. No parking surveys, and assessment of
      these surveys, of the Diyan/Blakesley on-street carparking spaces has been provided.
•     The Traffic Impact Assessment does not consider the use of the function rooms on the
      upper level of the hotel (refer to Issue – Function Room for further details).




                                                                                      Page 12 of 18

Page 13

Information Required
30.   Provide amended plans reducing the scale of the development and/or increasing onsite
      carparking (refer to Issue – Scale of Development for further details).
31.   Provide an amended Traffic Impact Assessment that provides sufficient justification for
      any proposed carparking relaxation for the amended development required above. The
      amended Traffic Impact Assessment must be endorsed by a suitably qualified person
      (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include the necessary
      information to address Council’s concerns.


Issue – Vehicle Swept Paths
Red’s Proposed Site Plan (TP06, Rev. 4) does not demonstrate the reversing manoeuvre of
the HRV back into the Arcade.
The Vehicle Swept Paths for the HRV and Side Loading Refuse Vehicle includes sections
where the wheel path of these vehicles mounts the pedestrian islands in the proposed carpark.
See the highlighted areas below.




Information Required
32.   Provide amended Vehicle Swept Paths demonstrating the necessary vehicles can
      manoeuvre the site without failure. The amended plans must be prepared by a suitably
      qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland) and
      include, but not be limited to:
      a. Demonstrate a HRV can reverse into the existing arcade; and
      b. Demonstrate a HRV and Side Loading Refuse Vehicle can manoeuvre the site
         without failure (mounting road furniture, etc.).


Issue – PWD Carparks
There is an opportunity to relocate the proposed DDA car space highlighted above to improve
pedestrian safety for those that utilise this space when accessing the hotel and other tenancies
that front the carpark.




                                                                                      Page 13 of 18

Page 14

Information Required
33.   Provide additional commentary discussing the suitability of the proposed DDA car
      spaces. The commentary must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and consider
      the physical ability of those utilising those car spaces to ensure that pedestrian safety is
      not put at risk.


Issue – Pedestrian Network
The Traffic Impact Assessment details how vehicles utilising the Royal Mail’s carpark may not
be patrons of the hotel. Council recognises that the Royal Mail carpark links to an existing
carpark at the rear of 96 and 114 Poinciana Ave. Council is concerned that a clearly defined
pedestrian network has not been provided in accordance with Performance Outcome 12 of
the Driveways and Parking Code (also refer to Issue - Tewantin Framework and Character
Plan).
Information Required
34.   Provide additional detail demonstrating a clearly defined pedestrian network. The
      additional detail must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
      Professional Engineer of Queensland) and include, but not limited to:
      a. Demonstrate compliance with Performance Outcome 12 of the Driveways and
         Parking Code; and
      b. Consideration of the various occupancies the carpark serves (i.e., vehicle link to the
         carpark at the rear of 96 Poinciana Ave., those that park at the Royal Mail carpark
         and walk to other occupancies, etc.).


Issue – Carparking Depth
The proposed carparks highlighted below do not comply with the depth requirements of
AS2890. It is unclear whether this is in error or intended.




Information Required
35.   Provide clarification if the shortened carparks are intended or are in error. If the
      shortened carparks are intentional, provide additional detail justifying their use.




                                                                                        Page 14 of 18

Page 15

Issue - Earthworks
The submitted documentation includes earthworks across the site. A preliminary Earthworks
Plan has not been provided demonstrating the extent of cut and fill across the site and details
of any retaining structures.
Information Required
36.   Provide an Earthworks Plan demonstrating the extent of the proposed earthworks
      required to carry out the proposed works. The plan can be preliminary in nature but must
      be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional Engineer
      of Queensland) and include, but not be limited to:
      a. the extent and volume of cut and fill; and
      b. details of any retaining structures.


Issue – Acid Sulfate Soils
The Engineering Serviceability Report expects that the proposed development is to encounter
Acid Sulphate Soils during excavations. A Dewatering Plan and Acid Sulfate Soils
Management Plan must be submitted to achieve compliance with Council’s Acid Sulfate Soils
Overlay Code.
Information Required
37.   Provide a Dewatering Plan demonstrating how Acid Sulfate affected water encountered
      during excavation will be treated and disposed of. The Dewater Plan must be prepared
      by a suitably qualified person.
38.   Provide a site-specific Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan. The Acid Sulfate Soils
      Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered
      Professional Engineer of Queensland).


Issue – Construction Management
The subject site is in the Tewantin town centre and is surrounded by various uses (residential,
commercial, etc.). Council recognises that the availability of carparking for construction
workers is limited and that the floating of construction machinery may adversely affect the
local traffic network (including pedestrian safety). It is unclear how construction activities will
be managed during the redevelopment of the Royal Mail.
Information Required
39.   Provide a preliminary Construction Management Plan that details how construction
      activities, both on and off site, will be managed to ensure minimal disturbance to the
      local area. The preliminary Construction Management Plan must be prepared by a
      suitably qualified person and include, but not be limited to:
      a. Traffic management during all aspects of the construction phase (i.e., MUTCD-
         compliant traffic management, pedestrian and vehicle detours, etc.);
      b. Adequate parking arrangements for construction workers; and
      c. Details of haulage operations.


Issue – Vehicular Access though to 96 Poinciana Ave
A public thoroughfare easement must be created over the full length of the proposed driveway
to provide 96 Poinciana Ave with the lawful right to access the carpark to the rear of the site.




                                                                                         Page 15 of 18

Page 16

The details of the easement should allow for public access to the parking area and through
the proposed Royal Mail carpark to access the existing carpark at 96 Poinciana Ave.
Information Required
40.   Provide amended plans indicating a future public thoroughfare easement in favour of 96
      Poinciana Ave. The easement must span the full length of the proposed Royal Mail
      driveway.


Issue – Rainfall Intensity
Bornhorst & Ward’s Site Based Stormwater Management Plan does not account for a
predicted rainfall intensity increase of 20% by the year 2100.
Information Required
41.   Provide an amended Site Based Stormwater Management Plan that accounts for a
      predicted 20% increase in rainfall by the year 2100. The amended plans must be
      prepared by a suitably qualified person and achieve compliance with Performance
      Outcome 2 of the Noosa Plan – Water Quality and Drainage Code and PSP6.


Issue – Sewer Property Connection
The Engineering Services Report expects that the existing sewer property connection will
continue to service 26 Diyan Street after the proposed boundary realignment. Council is
concerned that as part of the boundary realignment, the existing sewer property connection
will no longer be located within, and be able to service, 26 Diyan Street.
Information Required
42.   Provide additional detail demonstrating that 26 Diyan Street will continue to be serviced
      by the necessary utilities after the proposed boundary realignment. The additional detail
      must be prepared by a suitably qualified person (RPEQ – Registered Professional
      Engineer of Queensland).


Issue – Waste Collection
The application material does not clearly demonstrate how bins are proposed to be serviced,
noting a path has not been provided for the 4.5m3 bin, and that this bin is serviced by a front
lift truck larger than a general collection vehicle. Insufficient Vehicle Swept Path plans have
been provided demonstrating how a HRV will service the 4.5m3 bins.
The collection vehicle would require a safe turnaround or drive through access which are
impeded with the new Liquorland location.
Moving a bin of this size by hand with one person is difficult and unsafe and so the proposed
location should have safe vehicle access with limited to no bin movement required.
The preferred option would be an open bin top bin area with drive on access so front lift can
service bin from storage location.
It should be noted that Cleanaway does not provide a “go fetch” ie collect bins and bring to
service point for 240L bins, so these bins will need to be presented for service for the side lift
truck at an accessible location. In front of the bin compound would likely be suitable.




                                                                                        Page 16 of 18

Page 17

Information Required
43.   Provide additional Vehicle Swept Paths demonstrating that a HRV can enter the site in
      a forward gear, service the 4.5m3 bins frontally, and exit the site in a forward gear. The
      additional Vehicle Swept Paths must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and
      include, but not be limited to:
44.   Demonstrate how the waste bins are proposed to be serviced, including providing
      vehicle swept paths.


Issue - Noise
The noise report does not adequately assess the actual impacts of the development as:
•     The ambient noise data relied upon is stated in the David Moore report as being Rating
      Background Level (RBL). However the Acoustic Works report does not state the data
      is RBL and it is my experience and opinion that it is more likely average noise levels, not
      RBL. If this is the case, then the noise limits will be lower and compliance may not be
      achieved.
•     The assessment report has not provided adequate detail on the noise source levels,
      particularly with respect to patron noise in terms of the number of patrons adopted in
      each outdoor area.
•     The assessment report when considering carparking noise appears to assess a single
      car only, not multiple cars in one time period, thus underestimating the noise impact.
•     The assessment report has not considered noise from the Liquor Land operation in
      terms of car movements in the drive-thru, use of forklifts for unloading delivery trucks
      and within the building.
•     The assessment report has not considered noise from within the hotel building,
      particularly with respect to the new Level 1 function room.
•     The assessment report has not provided a cumulative assessment of all noise sources
      to compare to the noise criteria.
Information Required
45.   The ambient background noise levels relied upon from the Acoustic Works report
      attached to the DMA report are represented in the DMA report as Rating Background
      Levels. The Acoustic Works report does not label the values as Rating Background
      Level and appear to be average background, rather than RBL. Please confirm if the
      ambient background noise levels adopted are Average or RBL values and if not RBL
      values, derive amended noise criteria on the basis of RBL values.
46.   Detail all source noise levels relied upon including in respect to patron noise in outdoor
      areas and provided the number of patrons represented in each outdoor area and the
      source noise level used for calculation purposes for each area.
47.   Detail each noise source used in the noise modelling including characteristics of whether
      it is a point, line or area source and for each source identify the source height and
      location.
48.   A review of the architectural drawings identifies that part of the proposal is to convert
      part of the Level 1 building into a function room which has doorway access to the new
      northern deck. Please include within the noise assessment noise from within this new
      function area in terms of patron and amplified music noise and detail the necessary
      noise mitigation measures for this internal area.
49.   Include within the assessment, noise associated with forklift or other operations at the
      new Liquor Land involving loading/unloading activities in the indoor and outdoor areas
      of the new facility.




                                                                                       Page 17 of 18

Page 18

50.   It would appear from review of the report that consideration of noise from carparking
      activities has been based upon a single vehicle. Provide an amended assessment
      which considers the number of vehicle movements per time period (minimum 15
      minutes) in respect of both the hotel and Liquor Land operations.
51.   The proposal will change the vehicular access points to the land with all vehicles now
      entering and exiting via two crossovers on Dylan Street. This change will result in
      increased noise levels from road traffic on Dylan Street and it requested that an
      assessment of vehicle noise on Dylan Street and Poinciana Avenue in respect to impact
      upon the amenity of existing noise sensitive uses.
52.   Provide a cumulative assessment of noise from the existing (retained) hotel and the
      proposed (new) use areas and compare to the noise criteria (this will include both patron
      noise and music noise).
53.   Provide a cumulative noise assessment of all time varying noise sources and compare
      to the noise criteria.

Issue - Acoustic Measures
Amongst other matters the submitted Environmental Noise Level Impact Assessment Report
prepared by David Moore & Associations Pty Ltd recommends that the level 1 deck has a
2.1m high acoustic barrier along the complete western, northern and eastern sides and the
northern beer garden deck has 3m high acoustic barrier to the northern boundary (to Blakesley
Street) and 2.7m high and 2.4m high acoustic barriers installed on the western side. The
architectural plans are unclear in respect to the proposed appearance of these acoustic
barriers.
Information Required
54.   Provide amended plans detailing the proposed acoustic barriers to the Level 1 deck and
      the northern beer garden, including the proposed materials, colours and updated
      elevations and perspectives.
3.    DUE DATE FOR RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST

The due date for providing the requested information is 16 January 2023. Email your response
to [email protected]. Please advise Council of your response to this information request
in accordance with section 13 of the Development Assessment Rules.
If you do not provide a response before the due date, it will be taken as if you have decided
not to respond to the information request and Council will continue with the assessment of
your application.
4.    OTHER DETAILS

You can follow the progress of this application online at www.noosa.qld.gov.au. The “Online
Services” page can be accessed via "Quick Links" on the left hand side of the screen.
Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me on the number above.

Yours faithfully


Tara Norley
Development Planner




                                                                                     Page 18 of 18