Council archive · source document
MCU12/0023 Development Application Part 2 of 2 Town Planning Report
SCR-- CORRESPONDENCE
Place Barcode here
ME
THIS IS THE NEXT PART OF A
MULTIPLE PART RECORD
Application number:
Develop merit Counter
2 3 FEB 2012
Maroochydore
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 34 pages
Page 2
^iMIIIIM
!(^^IfIflY
IYI`!!!
URBANCONSULTANT!
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT
215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
FOR
Scanlon Property Group
Page 3
4AIN
/PREC#S#ON
Iffiluffin,
97 713
URBANCONSULTANTS
PLANNING REPORT
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT
215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
FOR
Scanlon Property Group
M2358 -Revision A
J F P Urb.:3r Cc>n sl.a! y td
Prepared by: Leanne Simpson
Approved by: Graeme Bews
BRISBANE SUNSHINE COAST CENTRAL QUEENSLAND __
JFP Hou; 237-239 Bradman Avenue, Maroochydore 59 Gocrdccn Sr-:el Glad•.tcne
76 Ern - - PO Box 6 Maroochydo•e Old 4559 PO Bo' 172. Gadstone Old 4680
PDB^._?°4. , ,I 3r"Ga _.,d:1C1 P 07 5443 2500 F 07 544 3 4 759 5 07 4972 2100 F 0 7 4972 5444
507381</'_0 P .i :5 :93:1
JFP URBAN CONSULTANTS PTY LTD ABN 79 050 414 045 WEBSITE. WVJWJFP.COM.AU
Page 4
mumt1M
URBAN
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 SITE DETAILS ................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 APPLICATION DETAILS .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 THE PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 REFERRAL AGENCIES .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 SITE HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................ 5
4.0 SITE IN CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................................................... 6
4.1.1 Development Site ................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1.2 Surrounding Locality ............................................................................................................................ 7
5.0 STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................... 8
5.1 REGIONAL PLANS ......................................................................................................................................... 8
5.2 PLANNING SCHEME LOCALITY, ZONING AND OVERLAYS ............................................................................ 8
5.3 PLANNING SCHEME CODES & POLICIES ....................................................................................................... 8
5.3.1 Eastern Beaches Locality Code ............................................................................................................ 9
5.3.2 Business Uses Code ............................................................................................................................ 11
5.3.3 Visitor Accommodation Code ............................................................................................................ 12
5.4 REFERRAL AGENCY ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................14
APPENDIX A - ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS .............................................................................................................. 15
APPENDIX B - NOISE AMENITY REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 16
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 3
Page 5
JFP Urban Consultants have been engaged by Scanlon Property Group to prepare an application for a Material
Change of Use in respect of land at 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach.
This Planning Assessment Report provides details of the development proposal and how the proposal complies
with Council's planning scheme and other relevant provisions.
1.1 SITE DETAILS
Real Property Description Part of Lot 77 on SP231615
Site Area 2.31 hectares (overall site), 3762m2 (Stage 1 only - excl. park)
Street Address 215A-219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach Qld 4573
Registered Owner Thomco (No. 2087) Pty Ltd
Local Government Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Planning Scheme Noosa Plan
SEQ Regional Plan Classification Urban Footprint
Noosa Strategy Map Classification Urban / Neighbourhood Business Centre
Locality/Zone Eastern Beaches Locality - Semi-Attached Housing Zone and
Open Space Recreation Zone
Applicable Overlays OM4.4 Eastern Beaches Natural Hazard: Bushfire and Acid
Sulfate Soils Overlay
1.2 APPLICATION DETAILS
This application is for a Material Change of Use - Development Permit for Extension to Entertainment and Dining
Business Type 1: Food and Beverages (to include Outdoor Dining) and Extension to Visitor Accommodation Type
4: Conventional (to include Juliette Balconies). The application is subject to impact assessment under the Noosa
Plan.
1.3 THE PROPOSAL
A development approval exists over the site for Material Change of Use (Visitor Accommodation Type 4:
Conventional, Commercial Business Type 1: Office, Retail Business Type 2: Shop and Salon, and Entertainment and
Dining Business Type 1: Food and Beverages).
The current proposal is for minor additions within Stage 1 of the existing approved development, being the
addition of juliette balconies to the upper level visitor accommodation and an outdoor dining area to the
ground/podium level of the approved restaurant tenancy(s) fronting David Low Way.
1.4 REFERRAL AGENCIES
The Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) is a concurrence agency and advice agency
to this application.
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A
Page 6
X"MIV
URBAN
Since the closure of the Peregian Beach Caravan Park, the greater site (being the whole of Lot 77 on SP231615)
has been the subject of a number of development applications/approvals as follows:
Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Visitor Accommodation Type 4:Conventional,
Commercial Business Type 1: Office, Retail Business Type 2: Shop and Salon, and Entertainment and
Dining Business Type 1: Food and Beverages) issued by the Planning and Environment Court on 12
February 2010 (Appeal No. 2587 of 2009);
n Generally in Accordance advice from Council dated 7 July 2010 incorporating minor changes consistent
with the aforementioned Court approval;
n Development Permit for Reconfiguring a Lot (4 lots into 1 lot into 3 lots) issued by Council on 29 October
2010 (note: this approval has not yet been enacted);
Permissible Change to Development Permit for Material Change of Use (Visitor Accommodation Type 4:
Conventional, Commercial Business Type 1: Office, Retail Business Type 2: Shop and Salon, and
Entertainment and Dining Business Type 1: Food and Beverages) issued by the Planning and Environment
Court on 24 January 2012 (Appeal No. 4783 of 2011). The key change resulting from this approval was to
split the development into three stages, with the commercial/retail/visitor accommodation building
fronting David Low Way (and its associated driveway and carparking) comprising Stage 1.
The application for permissible change included the current proposal which is for changes to the commercial
building in Stage 1 to include the addition of juliette balconies to the visitor accommodation and the addition of
outdoor dining to the restaurant. However, the Court ruled that these components did not meet the criteria for a
permissible change under section 367(1)(c) of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 as they were likely to attract a
submission.
In issuing his ruling on 10 February 2012, the Planning and Environment Court Judge advised that, on merit, the
proposed juliette balconies and outdoor dining were supportable. It is these two components that now form the
subject of this development application.
The current Material Change of Use development approval over the site incorporates the following uses within
each stage (refer to drawing no. TP1001 at Appendix A for Site/Staging Plan):
Stage 1:
n Commercial building fronting David Low Way, including 306m2 of restaurant and 387m2 of retail on the
ground level and 58 bed visitor accommodation on the upper level; and
n Rehabilitation and dedication of park/environmental reserve at the rear of the site.
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 5
Page 7
URBAN
Stage 2:
n Two visitor accommodation buildings comprising a total of 32 x 3 bedroom apartments and pool/BBQ
area.
Stage 3:
n 30 individual beach shacks, comprising a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom.
The current proposal affects only the commercial building within Stage 1 of the development. Details of the
proposal are as follows (refer also to Appendix A for Architectural Drawings):
1. Addition of 13 x juliette balconies to the upper level visitor accommodation, with each balcony measuring
3.2m wide x 1.2m deep (total area 3.84m2);
2. Addition of an outdoor dining area of maximum 70m2 adjacent to the ground/podium level restaurant,
comprising a 30m2 area fronting David Low Way and a 40m2 fronting the northern boundary and
adjoining Peregian Beach Hotel.
It is noted that the original development approval granted in February 2010 included a single balcony off the
communal lounge fronting David Low Way, as well as balcony areas to the rear of the building. The current
proposal essentially retains these balconies, with the smaller juliette style balconies added as a new element.
A Noise Amenity Review has been undertaken by MWA Environmental to address any potential noise impacts
arising from the proposed extensions (refer Appendix B). This report concludes that the proposed extensions are
not likely to result in adverse noise impacts on nearby residential dwellings to the north or south of the site,
primarily due to the existing ambient background noise levels.
Carparking to service the outdoor dining area is provided within Stage 1 of the overall development and is located
at the site entry and within the basement of the commercial building. A total of 7 additional carparks were
provided at a rate of 1 space per 10m2 of additional gross floor area (70m), which is consistent with Council's
requirements. This carparking has been endorsed by Council and approved by the Court as part of the previous
permissible change request (Appeal No. 4783 of 2011).
It is noted that the proposed juliette balconies do not constitute gross floor area and therefore do not require
additional carparking.
SITE IN I
4.1 LAND USE AND ZONING
4.1.1 Development Site
The greater site (being the whole of Lot 77 on SP231615) was formerly occupied by the Peregian Beach Caravan
Park and is now vacant, other than the presence of a small administration/office building which will ultimately be
demolished.
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Wav. Peregian Beach 6
Page 8
IMMUrs
URBAN
The site the subject of this application (commercial building within Stage 1 only) falls partly within the Semi-
Attached Housing Zone and partly within the Open Space Recreation Zone (refer to Figure 1 below):
Detached Housing
Semi-Attached Housing
n Attached Housing
Visitor Mixed Use
Neighbourhood Centre
Community Services
'# Rural Settlement
Open Space Recreation
n Open Space Conservation
Figure 1: Eastern Beaches Zone Map
Source: Sunshine Coast Regional Council
The site is located directly opposite the Peregian Beach Village Centre, which comprises a mix of commercial,
residential and dining businesses, many of which have outdoor dining areas. Immediately adjoining the site to
the north is the Peregian Beach Hotel which has a drive-thru bottle shop and carpark at its southern end adjoining
the site.
To the south of the site, is an existing retail premises currently operating as a hardware store. Residential
dwellings exist diagonally to the south-east and also further to the north. The closest residence on the corner of
David Low Way and Grebe St, is separated from the proposed juliette balconies and outdoor dining by a distance
of 46m and 50m respectively.
Figure 2 below shows the site in context with surrounding uses:
Figure 2: Aerial Photo
Source: Nearmap.com
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A % - 219 David Low Wav, Peregian Beach 7
Page 9
5.1 REGIONAL PLANS
The site falls within the Urban Footprint under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 - 2031. The
proposal is consistent with the intent of the Urban Footprint.
5.2 PLANNING SCHEME LOCALITY, ZONING AND OVERLAYS
The site falls within the Eastern Beaches Locality and within the Semi-Attached Housing Zone and Open Space
Recreation Zone under the Noosa Plan. The Eastern Beaches Locality Plan provides the level of assessment tables
for the different types of development. Under this Plan, the proposed uses are subject to impact assessment.
The only applicable overlay for the subject site is the Eastern Beaches Natural Hazard: Bushfire and Acid Sulfate
Soils Overlay (Map OM4.4), which shows the site as Low Potential Acid Sulfate Area 5-20m AHD. Given there are
no earthworks required as part of this development, no further assessment in relation to acid sulphate soils has
been undertaken.
5.3 PLANNING SCHEME CODES & POLICIES
The following codes are applicable to this development application:
n Eastern Beaches Locality Code
n Business Uses Code
n Visitor Accommodation Code
The Overall Outcomes of each of the above codes are addressed in Sections 5.3.1 - 5.3.3 below. Due to the minor
nature of the proposal, a full assessment against the Specific Outcomes and Probable Solutions of each code has
not been carried out as these criteria relate primarily to the establishment of new uses rather than minor
extensions to existing approved uses.
The key issues of design/character and noise impacts are adequately addressed in the responses to the Overall
Outcomes provided below. Compliance with Table 14-10, Specific Outcome 036/Probable Solutions 536.1- S36.3
of the Business Uses Code in relation to design and operation of the proposed outdoor dining area can be
regulated through conditions of approval. Specifically, it is recommended that the eastern outdoor dining area,
fronting David Low Way, be limited to operating hours of 7am - 10pm.
The provisions of Planning Scheme Policy 14 - Outdoor Dining largely relate to the design, construction and
ongoing operation of the outdoor dining activity rather than the assessment of whether the actual use is
appropriate. Notwithstanding, the policy "recognises that outdoor dining is an integral part of the dining
experience offered..." and seeks to encourage outdoor dining areas and structures that are aesthetically pleasing
and user friendly in locations that "will not result in significant adverse impacts on adjacent uses". The design and
overall appearance of the podium area to be used for outdoor dining was assessed as part of the previous
development application approved by the Planning and Environment Court in 2010 (Appeal No. 2587 of 2009).
The current proposal merely seeks approval to allow the inclusion of tables and chairs outside the approved
restaurant use. Any structures or shelters that are used within this area will be fully compliant with the provisions
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A -'.,A - 219 David Low Way. Peregian Bea
Page 10
URBAN
of the policy with respect to appearance and amenity, and public health and safety. The Noise Amenity Review at
Appendix B provides further details on how the proposed outdoor dining will address amenity impacts with
respect to noise.
This development application does not address any engineering codes relating to carparking, landscaping or
stormwater drainage as these aspects of the proposal have been assessed and approved as part of the overall
development and relevant conditions have been included in the existing development approval (Appeal No. 4783
of 2011).
3.1 Eastern Beaches Locality Cod
The proposed juliette balconies and outdoor dining has been assessed against the relevant Overall Outcomes of
the Eastern Beaches Locality Code as follows:
Overall Outcome Response
New uses and works are located, designed and managed to - The proposed juliette balconies are designed to be compatible with
i. be compatible with other uses and works; the approved building form and will provide for increased visual
ii. maintain the safety of people and works; interest and articulation to the upper level of the commercial
iii. avoid significant adverse impacts on the amenity building. The juliette balconies and outdoor dining area will not
enjoyed by users of other premises, including acoustic result in significant adverse impacts on amenity, specifically with
and visual qualities; respect to noise, due to the existing ambient noise levels resulting
iv. avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural from road traffic, existing commercial uses and the surf. For further
environment, including native habitat removal, details on likely noise impacts, refer to the Noise Amenity Review at
fragmentation and attrition; and Appendix B.
v. protect the natural beach experience and overall
visual amenity for beach users. The proposed juliette balconies and outdoor dining area will have
no impacts on the existing natural environment areas on and
adjoining the subject site and will not affect the natural beach
experience.
b) The Eastern Beaches Locality retains its primary role as a The proposal is to enhance the existing approved visitor
residential area, though continues to provide some visitor accommodation and restaurant uses on the site by providing an
accommodation and a range of local retail and commercial improved indoor/outdoor integration for both the residential and
functions at Sunshine Beach, Sunrise Beach and Peregian restaurant uses on the site.
Beach.
c) The scale and form of buildings and other structures are - The proposed juliette balconies are limited in size and serve more
i. designed to be responsive to the informal beachside as a viewing platform for guests to view the bushland setting to the
character of the locality, being low rise buildings, with west and the village/beachside setting to the east. In addition, the
pitched or curved roofs and building materials that juliette balconies will increase the level of interaction between the
blend with the dune and coastal landscape; private and public realms by allowing casual surveillance of the
ii. in keeping with the surrounding streetscape and street and footpath areas below and opposite the site. They also
landscape qualities; provide some "breathing space" for people staying in the visitor
iii. integrated into the topography and native vegetation accommodation.
of the dune system which dominates the locality; and
iv. consistent with the amenity and safety expectations The majority of existing "shop top" housing/visitor accommodation
of the community. in the area incorporates small balconies at the upper level, thereby
making the proposal consistent with existing streetscape character.
In addition, all of the existing restaurant/cafe uses within the
Peregian Beach Village Centre have outdoor dining facilities.
The proposed outdoor dining area will not have any impacts on the
overall scale and form of the building as it is to be accommodated
on the ground/podium level within the approved building envelope.
d) Residential development is characterised by - The juliette balconies have been designed to integrate with the
i. low impact buildings of a domestic scale within existing approved building design. Proposed materials/finishes for
densely landscaped settings: the balconies include:
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Bf
Page 11
W=LW
URBAN
ii. building designs that are well articulated and that use rendered and painted nib walls;
design elements, materials that respect the coastal balustrades to be a mixture of aluminium blade and angle
landscape character; vertical elements with a powdercoat finish. The handrails,
iii. building designs that avoid hard lines and boxy shapes although vertical for compliance requirements, will be
characteristic of Mediterranean/Tuscan influenced similar to the horizontal sunscreen components of the
design; approved building;
iv. Detached Housing and Duplexes as the dominant colours to be in muted tones and hues in keeping with the
development form; existing landscape and vegetation.
v. low rise Multiple Housing development that is limited
to the areas within the vicinity of the Sunshine Beach
neighbourhood centre.
e) Emphasis is placed on the protection and retention of low This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
cost accommodation consistent with maintaining a diversity balconies and outdoor dining.
of accommodation types for visitors to the locality.
f) Where development is not served by sewerage infrastructure, This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
there is no adverse impacts on ground and surface water balconies and outdoor dining.
quality, human health and amenity as a consequence of the
on-site disposal of effluent.
g) The environmental and cultural heritage values of the locality This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
are conserved and well managed. balconies and outdoor dining.
h) Areas of native remnant or regrowth vegetation, including This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
their biodiversity and habitat values are protected. balconies and outdoor dining. There will be no impacts on the
existing biodiversity values of the site or adjoining land.
i) The beaches, watercourses, Weyba Lake system, Noosa This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
National Park, high dunes and wetlands are protected and balconies and outdoor dining. The open space dedication at the
form the basis of an extensive, accessible and usable open rear of the site is part of the existing development approval.
space network extending beyond the locality.
j) Vegetated views from the beach and David Low Way are The proposed juliette balconies and outdoor dining will have no
protected from the potential impacts of development. impacts on views.
k) Aircraft safety is maintained within the operational airspace This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
of the Sunshine Coast Airport. balconies and outdoor dining.
I) For Sunshine Beach ... N/A
m) For Sunrise Beach ... N/A
n) For Castaways Beach ... N/A
o) For Marcus Beach... N/A
p) For Peregian Beach - The existing development approval provides for a mix of visitor
i. Peregian Beach provides a mix of detached houses, accommodation, and retail/restaurant uses on the site.
Multiple housing and Visitor Accommodation for residents
and visitors; The proposal for juliette balconies and outdoor dining will serve to
ii. Multiple housing Type 2 Duplex and Visitor enhance the site's contribution to the village atmosphere by
Accommodation Type 4 Conventional are located in close complementing the existing retail/restaurant/outdoor dining
proximity to the Peregian Beach neighbourhood centre precinct on the eastern side of David Low Way and provide better
shown in the Neighbourhood Centre Zone; interaction between the public and private realms by allowing for
iii. a wide range of local Retail, Commercial and increased casual surveillance of the street and footpath areas both
Entertainment and Dining Uses within the neighbourhood adjoining and opposite the site.
centre serve the immediate needs of residents and
visitors of the locality;
iv. the neighbourhood centre provides an informal village-
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 10
Page 12
9 J it, my 0, .11110,
like atmosphere, with a low key, attractive and safe village
square that engenders a 'sense of place' and a public
focus for local community interaction and activity; and
v. the sense of arrival to the coast communities of Noosa
from the south is emphasised and enhanced.
q) For the Detached Housing Zone... N/A
r) For the Semi-Attached Housing Zone - residents are The proposed juliette balconies will increase the level of residential
accommodated in Detached housing forms or Duplexes that - amenity and design quality of the visitor accommodation and
i. provide a low impact, low density development which contribute to the coastal building style and indoor/outdoor
respects the domestic scale of surrounding detached integration.
housing;
ii. offer a high level of residential amenity, design quality and
safety; and
iii. express a coastal building style that integrates with the
landscape and topography.
s) For the Attached Housing Zone... N/A
t) For the Visitor Mixed Use Zone ... N/A
u) For the Neighbourhood Centre Zone... N/A
v) For the Community Services Zone ... N/A
w) For the Rural Settlement Zone ... N/A
x) For the Open Space Recreation Zone - areas of open space This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
contribute to the desired lifestyle of residents by offering a balconies and outdoor dining.
variety of passive and active recreational experiences that are
conducive to community interaction and wellbeing.
y) For the open Space Conservation Zone... N/A
5.3.2 Business Uses Code
The proposed outdoor dining area has been assessed against the Overall Outcomes of the Business Uses Code as
follows:
Overall Outcome Response
a) Existing and future populations have access to an adequate This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for outdoor
level of goods and services. dining.
b) Business Uses meet the needs and expectations of the Noosa The proposed outdoor dining will be located within the podium
community in terms of providing- adjacent to the existing approved restaurant tenancy(s) fronting
i. Human scale in the building design; David Low Way and will complement the existing Peregian Beach
ii. Development that integrates with natural landforms and Village Centre opposite the site which supports a vibrant
landscape features; retail/restaurant and outdoor dining precinct.
iii. Development that is compatible with the existing
character and amenity of the streetscape and surrounding The proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts on
area; amenity, particularly with respect to noise impacts, given its
iv. Visual and physical connectivity between indoor and location adjacent to the Peregian Beach Hotel and the existing
outdoor spaces; ambient background noise eminating from David Low Way traffic
v. High levels of visual and acoustic amenity; and the existing retail village precinct as well as the surf. Refer to
vi. A low key, informal atmosphere; the Noise Amenity Review at Appendix B for further details on
vii. Safety and security for property owners, employees and noise impacts.
patrons;
viii. Logical traffic arrangements without congestion or The addition of outdoor dining will also provide for increased safety
lengthy delays; and due to integration between indoor and outdoor areas and the
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Wav. P
Page 13
ix. For the protection of environment and heritage values. public street/footpath, and adjoining Hotel carpark by creating
casual surveillance opportunities.
Sufficient carparking is provided within Stage 1 of the overall
development to cater for the increased floor area resulting from the
outdoor dining. This carparking has been formalised as part of the
previous development approval and has been demonstrated to
meet Council's requirements.
c) Business Uses contribute positively to the Shire's economy The proposed outdoor dining will increase employment
and employment. opportunities within the Peregian Beach locality.
d) Business Uses are located where there is an appropriate level This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for outdoor
of infrastructure and a wide range of functions to support dining as additional infrastructure is not required to support the
those uses. use.
e) Business development has high levels of accessibility and The proposed outdoor dining area is directly accessibly from the
functionality. David Low Way footpath and the nearby Peregian Beach Village
Centre. A bus stop exists directly outside the development on David
Low Way.
f) Business development recognises and protects Noosa's This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for outdoor
natural resources and environmental values and seeks to dining as no building work is proposed.
provide sustainable economic and employment growth across
a range of industry sectors.
g) Business development is consistent with the hierarchy of The minor increase in floor area to accommodate the proposed
centres across Noosa; and outdoor dining will have no material impact on the existing
hierarchy of centres.
h) Business Uses are energy and water efficient. This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for outdoor
dining.
5.3.3 Visitor Accommodation Code
The proposed juliette balconies on the upper level of the commercial building have been assessed against the
Overall Outcomes of the Visitor Accommodation Code as follows:
Overall Outcome Response
a) Visitor accommodation is compatible with and benefits from The proposed juliette balconies will not have any impacts on the
Noosa's natural environmental values. existing environmental values of the site and adjoining areas.
b) Visitor accommodation located near permanent residents The closest permanent resident to the proposed juliette balconies is
does not detract from the residential amenity enjoyed be 46m (diagonally opposite the site on David Low Way). It is argued
permanent residents. that the proposed juliette balconies will not detract from the
amenity of this and other nearby permanent residents, specifically
in terms of noise impacts due to the existing ambient background
noise levels eminating from the traffic on David Low Way and the
existing retail/restaurant/outdoor dining areas of the Peregian
Beach Village (which existing within 20m of the same resident) as
well as the ambient surf noise. In addition, the small size of the
proposed juliette balconies, being 3.84m2 only, will limit their use to
a maximum of two persons at a time.
A Noise Amenity Review has been carried out to demonstrate the
above and is included at Appendix B.
c) The density and design of Visitor accommodation integrates The proposed juliette balconies will complement the existing
with the urban or landscape fabric of its particular locality. character of the village and will integrate with the approved
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 12
Page 14
commercial building. Proposed materials/finishes for the juliette
balconies include:
• rendered and painted nib walls;
• balustrades to be a mixture of aluminium blade and angle
vertical elements with a powdercoat finish. The handrails,
although vertical for compliance requirements, will be
similar to the horizontal sunscreen components of the
approved building;
n colours to be in muted tones and hues in keeping with the
existing landscape and vegetation.
d) Visitor accommodation is energy and water efficient. This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
balconies.
e) Visitor accommodation is compatible with surrounding land This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
uses. balconies.
f) Visitor accommodation is suitable to the needs of visitors and This criteria is not relevant to the current proposal for juliette
is accessible to services and facilities or valued features within balconies.
the Shire.
5.4 REFERRAL. AGENCY ISSUES
In accordance with Schedule 7 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, the proposed development triggers referral
to the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) for the following matters:
n All or part of the premises is in an area for which an area management advice has been given for
unexploded ordnance (UXO) - Concurrence Agency
n Part of the land is within 100m of a conservation estate under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 - Advice
Agency
n Part of the land is situated in a wetland management area - Advice Agency
The application for Extension to Restaurant (to include outdoor dining) and Extension to Visitor Accommodation
(to include juliette balconies) has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Noosa Plan and is found to
be generally compliant.
The key issues arising from the assessment are design/character and noise impacts. These matters have been
addressed in detail in this report and within the Noise Amenity Review in Appendix B of this report.
Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the proposal be approved, subject to reasonable and relevant
conditions.
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 215A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach
Page 15
Im I ;R4,00
, 7
.w
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A 2 5A- 219 David Lc:- ^\
[OCR of page images]
—UFOP
URBAN
PLANNING REPORT — Revision A
Page 16
mm"
All
URBAN
APPENDIX A -ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A __'3A - 219 David Low Wav. Pereeian Beach 15
Page 17
STAGE 2 STAGE 3
-------------------41ro
%\ ( •' N+^
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
PARK I j
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESERVE
i
STAGE 7
S17
S16
h^_J
UILDIk.B
0
z
0
STAGE 2
SUBJECT AREA OF
TOWN PLANNING
APPLICATION
1=-- -----------------------
n
R
STAGE 3 ^
201010
Tp 1001
Page 18
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
GENERAL LEGEND
iw«
,ooq arn.a
00 0
r }
a
SIAN No D
INTERNAL VOUJAR UMONS SCHEDULE
n .c..avnauaarww,rswsaw..
a,.awwortwc
tl1 a.
^`nawwr
ru.
ROOF LEGEND
DRIVEWAY
RDGE NOTES
,ub ra^ear.1Krw.^oa^a.ea a,^s swe^ce.run
tir.r.arvr:.^wraroewwvnum.n.aatimze.«
CEILING LEGEND
CARP RKING DRIVEWAY
i,Cevs er.<araa
w
MNOTE
N. ^ T T T T T au « ^'" ^ T T T ter'.
ve^mrao•'•m.,a.m En
En
}
As d d
13 9 W
u AAA
a
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - Basement Floor Level 201010
^.]fT^l!APF essence TP 2001
LALA : - 0. " v'Gir+LW
Page 19
+
INTERNAL WALLSIPARTITIONS SCHEDULE
ire
STAIR HR.3 '
PODIUM
ROOF NOTES
RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL
TENANCY 1 TENANCY2 TENANCY3 x«r^
xw..a^ araanrneNUaxnnw,axw.ana. oaxxwao
ro^ nxm mr. xe+ne^n r wnamrx ^ mai xxnxu.xmo a, nexex
,.,°^rma®®nmexye.'wtcawas xwaROmxwxxc
CEILING NOTES
.w.uw.,,n.^.wK V a.x+x.esw
LANDSCAPING nex^wnwx^^x^^i^^rxraa., ^w.or„w
a xucaowa
aLri
j-L
e-i
FLOOR PLAN .@mrdFloooLevel
Q KEY PUN
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - Ground Floor Level 201010
SCO T 1100
SCINLON RROPERIY GROW E: SC'iCC RIO TP 2002
SRYJ.0Y' OU' FEREGPN
Page 20
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
GENERAL LEGEND
MawPMRn
O©O tPx. Yw„w ^ «v.,.w,.waa
N n- r•
tvr^ 1n.r
in :n`uwr.wn Mo-au^n^ru noarw
` Mrrl.ssv
y nnvxn^nrwwptf0
.4
' R n ,RPSeA'PIMM
w^! MM'n1
y1 u.!•.•Pt1.RU•R^P.Yi,ERMRMMiMRN.
Ik ,.v. •s r,MnPnwco+u
1111JqNY N4IMMTM ON S SCIEDLEE
RMw11 n t^wM R n o^ati••
P MMN RPVmw^Pi
wuMrwn ww-1.M•V,nMV
UM1 III ^UNIi 0 UNIT 11 . UNIT /N
i
GANES' n EDIAROOM ROOF NOTES
.,.^., tP,^.,.l^t!•
nAMrP..YS,YlP...lR,
sMrtt..t
_ n .R n 0.NtMMMMAtM
wn,n.. rwsrn roawnwmun•aera.Mnouclt raw
M,•^m n •MVM,'P P PuM tlgPlp.irtmM u n omi
wtu m trnMPW POMPMVa[WPnPenVMOMf
,uMwnmif.^mMPt o,MMMiONMW1YMYMMMWtM6PflMM
UNIT 10
CEILING LEGEND
12 Z =1 X I I c.
-
^7 " ,M. , , ^,l..lMrz.mrPMMMPMP
•. ..R,ora,a.
® rr nn, ,u urn IWMnYIn'+IpM,RF
u,uMPPRMW.t.oPRw^ w
.„ ,tn, n h nn
CE LING NOR S
I I
w al.m nnuros,PUMVe r.MMmwe,uan
--------- I -------
r
^:.. fir, ti .. 4t.LN{Mr ,}.
f LEGEND
PROPOSEDJULETTE SALCONES
•u, s -.J^
I I^
ROIIRMM AIMPNmUN
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN - First Floor Level 201010
uu
essence TP 2003
SAN:2 >w-P.»Ea*
Page 21
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
GENERAL LEGEND
l.waJMA(r+N.(wR.n..Valn^n W tM ^xlMMrmlWr.
INTERNAL NALLNIARTITIONE SCHEDULE
ELEVATION-NNN
m mnww,rt...n.•tnvrrrn•a
Q0 G?.
obxtAC -
oa^tLI- - - ROOF LEGEND
i
orlNr
ROOF NOTES
w . aN,nnnwar.rWnwv.MMrartnwuwn
rrm^Mro.,:wnwwtWwm nil.V.wawl^
L=" a awn"wW"
^J'nrbnnl:M1l- -
w^t
Wlwn,IW °AVYM1Pr^W M.ronlnwW
n M
,. r, °n .W "`
wrrwmro.wrnn
o. •n re..w iw u+iwra sn rotwu evarw: r m.. o nv.•w
,unM V..IMncw.wwn
M1c.wmwu.r..w ewVwwya. 9M..wn.rwe.. Ww
CEILING LEGEND
• n.••,° n^in M 6Mr111..n M{YM9..MpRnM11
ELEVAT1N-Ea .: :wMM. LIMO M1•PrnnrVO.M•.WM.
® V(Vi^t rtl MnK..rur'nni V.^VM.•t 1M
n twwnrw
w.nw.rsmmutuan.
.nawm.ws
a
RPAT04-SI.N
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS 201010
TP 2008
Page 22
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
GENERAL LEGEND
P.oc...® w.w4wrww.ma
aor.
ww .^
w.w r -
+..w4+.Pawn
., :.,,v .swwrro
I I iq
- rwcN.aga4PrYma4+rero4
r.w ^rwi:3wa=^w^•urrxrow.rr.P
n re nw^4r+^aw..rrr m^mwe
p)ELEVATON-West
,.. ^..a ^.nvx, r ww^ew wm ar
a xanxrwn.mrsxro
Q(8) QJ QI p q op ®© ®
t, I
RGCE LEGEND
RGGE MOTES
ra rc"'Y4^t
__4aAY6a4osrLY
trc,^.aanu.mM
bWIP0.TY1W..wM.Pn44..anYM
otw,44a wp4RJC4
uleM®4m wM4M,y
u4r4.w ro.' r afrN64.f.4wmPa 4<n4ftW4fm
ar Wa4¢gW w.ea.wnrowYUawwWwexa W,arormr
CEILING LEGEND
wWa..nr
,„u.useam.wwrwr4^an4.4ram4n4r
e SECDMA-A
. <ac4u.am
.r asatauw
.r^ arw'®n.awfl,UE alfNr. Sfl.[W
® ® ©®®®©® CEILING LDlE3
4uvr..r+CaKO^Y.Y^.
4!4-famo,4aq >JaY,Or.4rww4aatAlVw
a ^o.OMPMaPMarP
:4rP4YM rmai.P
5
w
E
V
ME
%3 4ZT=
p
Da n
Cr
vww
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS A,B 201010
((Ni
SUYDN RRDiRR'N GROJ essence TP 2009
WC AW WY REREDWI
Page 23
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
GENERAL LEGEND
Ems..
w `;,;fir
- awu^..ue^u.owaan
- ta',u:nw.alsM1lr t..bi/ul
OR
Ptp a{almN.a
NRRNALNALLSIARTRIONS SCHEDULE
a 3a,Mal. an.Ca.t.^m.+we wu.,.envai.{
• ey:gptl5'3.aWn.vra .nwvvx..: t.eM UY.i W:w. ♦
SECTION C-C
p
V
rov A.CM.WYIpm.a..4
0 0 000 O©
\ I/
ICI
LJ1111.OO:NI 7 ^J tai,m",RF- -
ROOF NOTES
aP.vdglL]aPLn4Ym'm^:W.P1
tatm{.aa^mP WBI.H M.r..nW.i
uovan afl ♦c..:.a
♦W.Y,it..Iw.OMtCS1aW@
Vyr.uU.cTa
UNI
♦
^, i[(aw[Exn^Y
♦..nP^uM^in. ♦ AtN.LYW YM
O lYRP1AdNIM1F ♦ 1 v w-pi^ia:FC
uwwt►nb ;^^wtmtunmre.nl {rmlm
r: wx,axnwanwaucnawtumnnimronwaa.a
Mewnmw..xM.. oul.:aeo.ar.rtawww.rxouea.m
-'SECTION NJ1
-e ,:.,.=.'v.. ia.,w:wlai.naeuseomnrw ♦P
bna{.ww..l
.w :... a..u,mtao..wrwuua
ma.aa=,ocw.w.
,.a^.^tn«^R,amNa.«m
Q1LNL:Rr - - - -
I II
ESSENCE OF PEREGIAN COMMERCIAL BUILDING SECTIONS C,D,E 201010
1l 1`I
SCNAUN PRIYLRI GROUP essence TP 2010
MYIC IOIfWr PLRLGWI
Page 24
m6mm
URBAN
APPENDIX B - NOISE AMENITY REVIEW
PLANNING REPORT - Revision A I 5.A - 219 David Low Way, Peregian Beach 16
Page 25
Ref: L03812/PAK/09-047
20 February 2012
mwa ENVIRONMENTAL
JFP Urban Consultants
PO Box 6
MAROOCHYDORE QLD 4558
Attention: Ms Leanne Simpson
Dear Leanne
Re: Development Application
Essence of Peregian - Outdoor Dining and Balconies
Noise Amenity Review
This assessment considers the noise amenity aspects of:
(i) Proposed Outdoor Dining Areas at the Commercial Building; and
(ii) Proposed Juliette Balconies to Level 1 accommodation - Commercial
Building.
To prepare this assessment I conducted an inspection of the site and surrounding
areas on the night of Tuesday 31 January 2012 between 8.15pm and 10.05 pm.
During this inspection I undertook a series of noise measurements adjacent to the
nearest off-site residence being the residence to the Southeast across David Low
Way and concurrently undertook traffic counts of passing traffic on David Low Way
and Grebe Street. Weather conditions during the noise measurements were fine,
with still to light wind conditions.
I also note that on Tuesday night during my inspection that 3 restaurants with outdoor
dining were trading within the retail centre off Grebe Street and one restaurant on the
northern side of Heron Street. The Peregian Beach Hotel was operating with outdoor
dining. I note that the Hotel had approximately 40 seats in the outdoor dining area.
1.0 Ambient Noise Levels
To assess the potential impact of the outdoor dining uses and additional residential
balcony uses I undertook a series of noise measurements . Tuesday night was
selected as being one of the quieter nights of the week in terms of local
restaurant/retail and traffic activity. On this basis, ambient noise level measurements
would be representative of lowest noise conditions through the week with ambient
noise levels expected to be higher over the weekend period with higher visitor
numbers and restaurant and hotel activity. On this basis, the assessment provided is
representative of the low ambient noise conditions, whilst on busier nights such as
during holiday periods and around weekend periods, when restaurant uses are
busier, the ambient noise levels would be higher. The noise measurement location is
shown on Figure 1.
Max Winders & Associates Pty Ltd tas MWA Environmental
Level 15, 241 Adelaide St, Brisbane GPO BOX 3137, Brisbane Qld 4001
P 07 3002 5500 F 07 3002 5588 E maii(c mwaenviro.com.au
W wevw mwaenviro com au
ABN94 010 833 084
Page 26
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
Figure 1 also demonstrates the location of the commercial building where outdoor
dining and Juliette Balconies are proposed in relation to the nearest off-site
residences.
The noise measurements are summarised in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Short-term Noise Monitoring Results - dB(A)
31 January 2012
RECORDED STATISTICAL NOISE LEVEL -
dB(A) TRAFFIC ON
# LOCATION TIME
DAVID LOW WAYS
L1 Lip L so L, LaQ
2015-
61.6 54.9 48.2 46.6 51.8 37cars, 2 bus
2025
2035-
59.4 54.9 49.5 46.8 51 . 6 34 cars
2045
2047-
62.5 57.7 51.4 49.5 54.8 Not counted
2057-
Carpark to
2057-
immediate 57.5 54.0 50.2 48.5 51.5 38 cars
2107
north of
nearest
2108-
residence to 59.5 54.6 50.2 48.1 52.5 Not counted
2118
South East.
2120
66.8 56.8 50.0 47.8 55.5 38 cars, 2 bus
2130
2135-
55 . 6 50 . 8 48.4 47.1 49 . 5 21 cars
2145
2155-
57.0 51.4 48.6 47.2 49 . 9 13 cars
2205
The above monitoring demonstrates that the average background noise level (L90)
between 8.15pm and 10.05pm was 47.7 dB(A) whilst the average intrusive noise
level (L10) was 54.5 dB(A).
A graphical representation of noise level over the period 8.47pm to 9.18pm is
provided below at a 1 minute sample save frequency.
Page 27
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
70
Noise Level versus Time
55
60
4
v
^ 55
J
v
--f- LA10
0
Z 50 - LA90
45
40 -
The above demonstates the variability in noise levels with respect to the LA10 whilst
the background noise level LA90 remains relatively constant by comparison.
The variability in the LA10 levels is primarily due to noise from passing traffic on
David Low Way. Traffic counts during noise measurements ranged from 38 cars and
2 buses in 10 minutes down to 13 cars in 10 minutes at 10pm. The reduction in
traffic as the evening progressed is to be expected.
The noise data demonstrates little variation in the ambient background noise level
over the measurement period. This is typical of a coastal location where noise from
surf is a significant influence on the ambient noise environment.
The intrusive noise levels (L10) are shown to decrease as time progresses in the
evening/night. On my inspection, this was predominantly due to decrease in traffic
movements over time.
In summary, the ambient noise environment is typical of a coastal location with
ambient background noise levels primarily influence by surf and breezes.
2.0 Noise Assessment
2.1 Inclusion of Outdoor Dining Areas (total 70 square metres)
The architectural plans which depict the proposed changed (Drawing
WD2002) show two shaded areas proposed for outdoor dining. A 30 square
metre area is proposed on the eastern facade of the restaurant tenancy area
at the northern end of the site fronting David Low Way whilst a separate 40
square metre area is proposed on the northern facade of the same restaurant
tenancy area.
3
Page 28
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
In terms of noise amenity impacts, outdoor dining areas generate noise
primarily from voices and general noise from movement of chairs and
associated items.
I have considered the Noosa Planning Scheme Policy 14 - Outdoor
Dining which includes:
1.7 Amenity
a) Outdoor dining is to be in keeping with the character and amenity
of the locality.
b) In existing well established commercial and tourists precincts such
as Hastings Street, Sunshine Beach, Noosa Junction and Gympie
Terrace, outdoor dining is encouraged.
c) In other areas assessment of outdoor dining will consider the
impact the proposal will have on adjoining residential and other
land uses.
With respect to the above policy the following is relevant:
The location of the proposed outdoor dining areas is at the northern end of
the frontage, nearest to the Peregian Beach Hotel which has established
outdoor dining areas. The surrounding land uses to the east and north of the
site include retail/commercial uses which include restaurant type uses with
outdoor dining. Hence, the proposed outdoor dining will be in keeping with
established uses in the locality.
The impact of the outdoor dining proposed upon adjoining residential and
other land uses is considered as follows:
o The location of the outdoor dining areas is separated from the nearest
existing off-site residential areas which are to the southeast by at least
50 metres and separated from the site by the David Low Way.
o Proposed on-site residential accommodation will be located
immediately above the outdoor dining areas on Level 1 of the
commercial building as well as to the west in the proposed Building B.
o The primary influence on the ambient noise environment is traffic on
the David Low Way which is a well trafficked roadway which results in
elevated noise levels at residential areas with frontage to this
roadway. Second to traffic noise on the David Low Way is noise
generated from existing retail and commercial operations to the north
and east including the Peregian Beach Hotel. A further influence on
the local noise environment is the weather and surf, being a coastal
location, ambient noise levels are elevated due to these sources.
Figure 2 provides an overlay on an aerial photo of the proposed ground floor plan of
the commercial building with the proposed outdoor dining areas shaded.
I have been advised that the 30 square metre outdoor dining area fronting David Low
Way would seat a maximum of 26 persons, whilst the 40 square metre outdoor dining
area would seat a maximum of 30 persons. The Restaurant tenancy area on the
ground level will likely be subdivided into up to 3 separate tenancies with the outdoor
dining areas linked to two of these tenancies.
4
Page 29
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
In considering the noise impact of outdoor dining upon residential amenity I have
prepared the following calculations.
Noise Criteria
To ensure amenity of noise sensitive receptors is maintained, noise from outdoor
dining (ie voices, clattering of plates/cutlery and glassware) should not exceed
ambient background noise level by more than 5 dB(A).
On the basis of the measured ambient noise levels in the evening period which
averaged 47.7 dB(A) with a minimum of 46.6 dB(A) I propose an assessment
criterion of 47 + 5 = 52 dB(A) to 10pm and 44 + 5 = 49 dB(A) to 12 midnight.
These criteria are considered appropriate for residential areas in proximity to the
south/east and north of the site.
Noise Predictions (At Nearest Residence)
Previous studies of outdoor dining areas with up to 50 persons seated, provides a
source noise level of 55 dB(A) at 30 metres.
Calculating the resultant noise level at the nearest residence being the house to the
southeast across the David Low Way, provides the following:
Eastern 30 m2 Outdoor Dining Area
Distance: 50 metres from closest point of outdoor dining area.
Resultant Noise Level from 30 m2 outdoor area at residence;
Resultant Noise Level = 50.5 dB(A)
This is thus below the adopted conservative criterion of 52 dB(A) to 10pm and above
the 49 dB(A) criterion to 12 midnight. Hence my recommendation is that this outdoor
dining area is not used after 10pm.
Northern 40 m2 Outdoor Dining Area
For the 40 m2 outdoor dining area on the northern facade, the resultant noise level
is calculated to be:
Distance = 70 metres
Screening from building = 8 dB(A)
Resultant Level = 39.6 dB(A)
This is thus below the adopted conservative criterion of 52 dB(A) to 10pm and 49
dB(A) to 12 midnight.
To further the calculations, I have considered the additive noise of the internal areas
of two adjacent restaurant tenancies both with doors open to David Low Way, in
addition to the 30 m2 and 40 m2 outdoor dining areas. My predictions are as follows:
5
Page 30
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
Noise from in door restaurant areas (open doors )
Source level 60 dB(A) at 30 metres
Attenuation Directivity and building opening -9 dB(A)
Resultant level at nearest residence to southeast 46.5 dB(A)
Add outdoor dining area noise =
46.5 + 50.5 + 39.6 = 51 dB(A).
Thus complying with the 52 dB(A) noise limit to 10pm.
With the 30 m2 outdoor dining area closed after 10pm the resultant noise level with
the northern 40m2 outdoor dining area operating and restaurants with doors open
operating the resultant level would be:
46.5+39.6 = 48 dB(A)
Thus complying with the 49 dB(A) noise limit to 12 midnight.
In summary, detailed noise measurements on a relatively quiet weeknight have
provided conservative noise limits for assessment. The predicted noise levels with
outdoor dining areas demonstrate the noise limits can be readily achieved at the
nearest residence to the south. I have also assessed the impact at residence to the
north which is located beyond the Peregian Beach Hotel at further setbacks than the
house to the southeast considered above. My findings are that resultant noise levels
from restaurant uses with outdoor dining on the site will also comply at the nearest
residences to the north as identified on Figure 1.
Further, in considering the noise from dining in terms of the existing intrusive noise
levels recorded, shows that the 51 dB(A) predicted to 10pm is less than the average
intrusive L10 noise levels of 54.5 dB(A), thus causing minimal impact upon
residential amenity.
On this basis, I confirm my previous advice that on the basis of my assessment I
consider that outdoor dining uses are appropriate on the subject site and are a use
which exists in the local area and is a use which can operate without adverse impact
upon residential amenity.
However, it is my recommendation that the eastern outdoor dining area (30 square
metres) should be restricted in operating hours of 7am 10pm only. The northern
outdoor dining area (40 square metres) has minimal potential to impact upon off-site
residential areas with respect to noise and hence does not require any trading hour
restrictions other than the existing approved trading hours. This statement applies to
residences to the north and south/east with the residences to the north situated at
greater distances and screened by the hotel to the north of the subject site.
6
Page 31
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
2.2 Proposed Additional Balconies to Commercial Building Level 1
Accommodation
It is my understanding that a change proposed to the development relates to addition
of small balconies off the accommodation rooms on Level 1 of the Commercial
Building.
These balconies are shown on Figure 3 on the first floor plan overlaid on an aerial
photo base.
I note that the approved plans for the development, as per the 2010 Court Order had
a single balcony off a communal area fronting David Low Way as well as balcony
areas to the rear.
The proposal under consideration is to construct small Juliette style balconies
attached to individual accommodation rooms to provide a private balcony space.
Thus limiting the use to the specific room to which the balcony is attached..
I have considered the noise impact of use of 3.84 m2 balconies and consider that at
this size only two persons could use each balcony. The small size of the Juliette
balconies would be such that very limited noise would be generated on each balcony
and would be limited to 2 persons talking, not for loud parties or groups of people.
The resultant noise at residences to the south/east would be only marginally higher
than if persons were talking within the accommodation rooms with windows open.
The proposal is for nine additional balconies on the southern wing and four on the
northern wing. It is noted that the previously approved balcony on the eastern face of
the southern wing is now proposed to be divided into two balconies, each serving a
single room.
It is my opinion that use of the additional Juliette Balconies will not result in adverse
noise impact at residential areas on the basis of the following:
Small size, limiting the number of persons on each balcony;
Each balcony serves a single room;
The existing noise environment is dominated by noise of the surf and traffic
noise which from the noise measurements undertaken is quite elevated; and
Noise from persons talking on the small balconies will not generate significant
nor adverse noise at residential areas.
On this basis, I consider that use of the Juliette Balconies will not result in adverse
noise amenity impact.
In summary, the proposal for outdoor dining and Juliette balconies will not result in
adverse noise amenity impact. Please contact the undersigned for any clarification
as required.
Yours sincerely
Paul King
Senior Engineer
Page 32
Ms Leanne Simpson, JFP 20/02/12
Re: Essence of Peregian - Development Application L03812/PAK/09-047
FIGURES
Page 33
LEGEND
Nearest Residence to North 0 Noise Monitoring Location
(90m from proposed outdoor dining area)
k`^^ ;ate ^^^• - ^ -.• - - ^ -^ - .^^^^
^^,
W-4 MAW tz^ 701,
'.F ) -yam ' .f
ti a•
AA,
I^^ .c 4 ^. ^ ^- 1. ^ _ n ^ _ 'fir -
6 S
Awlp
OIL ' ,1
it P. RY ^t
7 A, L
1 - -! 1 411k ,. , -
Qom.
V-j
PROPOSED
61IDOQ9DI41NG ._ R ►
.l" ^^^ :.
'f^ .^- ,.1§i .'2 . E^ 1
E_.
CaVMERaAi
29120NC V'.V1 B ail o no 0•
IF I
r. 1 4
r { CLIENT
^• i # ^{.
SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP
a Rr
^. ^^+"^ ^ • 1 ft " 1+ra ill PROJECT
'4;
'k_ ^^^^.^`^ } , ^;^ •,r '' /^yl
'? y PEREGIAN BEACH
NOISE AMENITY REVIEW
*v *t DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
ilk
," :,` ^'^ { {^ TITLE
P _ ' ► ' GENERAL
jF# SITE LOCATION
j :.C '' ''`^` ' , j • ^^ : JOB PEREGIAN BEACH
)
rx FIGURE 1
4 ,r•^ t ?. ^^..' ,'' '; d JOB NO 09-041
- DATE 20102!12 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE 1:2.500 (A4
09-047-DAI
SCALE:@ A3 I ISM
0 '1 b N N N '4' SITE PLAN 42,358 0 11 A REV.
TM SCAAL{S$O ORIGINAEDRAW1NGSCALE (A3W SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP 1OF1
W;.P11f1,1:NYM nI,f WOhrONwM11gtl0.1Y00.11N.Yi•pIY
ntC_ED LS
215-219 DAVID LOW WAY ,
ti
M73SIdtA PP&"
DE,IDwD DATUM
AMK^ °"' PEREGIAN BEACH °'''
134 Ynw,'lOll
DRAWN 714 APPROVED ue LA SVNS.IW COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL nwC. DEURS DwE ;b. mwa
Max Winders 8 Associates Pry Ltd las MWA Environmental
Level 15.241 Adelaide SI. Bnsbane. GPO BOX 3137, Brisbane Old 4001
P 07 3002 5500 F 07 3002 5588 E marEwaenviro.corn.au
W wwwmwaenvro.DDm.au
ABN 94 010 833 084
Page 34
DRAWING REFERENCE
Aerial Basemap: JFP Site Plan M2358 0 11 A
Floor Plan . Carl Brunskill Architects
Floor Plan - Ground Floor Level 201010 WD 2002
CLIENT
SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP
PROJECT
PEREGIAN BEACH
NOISE AMENITY REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
TITLE
PROPOSED OUTDOOR
DINING AREAS
JOB NO 09-047
DATE 20/02/12
SCALE 1:500 (A4)
REV.
mwa
Max Wrbem & Auaiates Pry Lid tas MWA EnvYOnn nW
Level 15 241 Adelaide St, Bmere GPO BOX 3137, Bmare Old 4001
P 0730025500F 07 3002 5588 E mM@mw&envim.com.au
W www.mwaenvro.com.au
ABN 94 010 833 084
Page 35
DRAWING REFERENCE
Aerial Basemap JFP Site Plan M2358 0 11 A
Floor Plan : Carl Brunskill Architects
Floor Plan - First Floor Level 201010 WD 2003
CLIENT
SCANLON PROPERTY GROUP
PROJECT
PEREGIAN BEACH
NOISE AMENITY REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
I TITLE
PROPOSED FIRST
FLOOR BALCONIES
R(saidance PEREGIAN BEACH
FIGURE 3
JOB NO. 09-047
DATE 20102112 DRAWING NUMBER
SCALE 1:500 (A4)
09-047-DA3
Max Winders & Associates Ply Ltd tas MWA Environmental
Lend '5 241 Adelaide SI. Bnsbene. GPO BOX 3137. Brisbane Old 4001
P 07 3002 5500 F 07 3002 5588 E [email protected]
W www.mwaenviro.comau
ABN 94 010 833 084
Used in these records
MCU12/0023 Development Application Part 2 of 2 Town Planning ReportRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 8.1 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.