Original source · versioned page text
Response to amended plans - John Cochrane - MCU21/0110
Subject: MCU21/0110 Noosa Springs Hotel From: john cochrane Date: 2022-06-28T02:43:44+00:00 To: Mailbox Council Mail CAUTION: This email originated outside of Council. Do not open links or attachments if the email is unexpected or unusual. Dear Sir/ Madam, Please find enclosed my response to amended plans submitted by the applicant in support of the above application. This response is pursuant to a properly made submission lodged on 19th December 2021. Regards, John Cochrane Architect RN 4759 NSW/ ACT RN 5857 QLD ph 0432 471503 [Attachment: Response To Amended Plans.pdf] 22nd June 2022 TheAssessment Manager, Noosa Shire Council 9 Pelican St Tewantin Qld. 4565 Re: Application No MCU21/0110 Noosa Springs Hotel Development Lot 2 SP100810 & Lots 3&4 SP 178340 Response To Amended Plans Dear Sir, I wish to submit comment on amended plans and “Response to Submissions” submitted by Adamson Town Planning in respect of the above application. This comment is made as an addendum to a properly made submission lodged with Noosa Council within the statutory period. I am a resident of Noosa Springs. I am also an architect registered in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. I have extensive experience in architectural education, design, architectural heritage and architectural technology. My submission includes • This document • Commented planning report noted as Response to Submissions” by Adamson Town Planning Ref”1602 dated 16th May 2022 • Diagram of Building Height Planes1 I do not believe that the amended plans address the issues raised in my submission, nor do I believe that the proposed design changes will have any effect in mitigating the impacts of the development as noted in my submission. Specifically. 1. The proposed changes are minor in scope and will have little material effect in terms of reducing the bulk and scale of the development. 2. The proposed changes will have little or no effect on the traffic generation or parking requirements of the proposed development. 3. The applicant describes some media reporting as “misinformation”2. This description of an opposing viewpoint is both offensive and unsubstantiated in the text of the document. 1 Based on interpolation of contours included with application 2 Adamson Town Planning -Response to Submissions p2 line 5 JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 1 22 June-22 [OCR of page images] 224 June 2022 TheAssessment Manager, Noosa Shire Council 9 Pelican St Tewantin Qld. 4565 Re: Application No MCU21/0110 Noosa Springs Hotel Development Lot 2 SP100810 & Lots 3&4 SP 178340 Response To Amended Plans Dear Sir, I wish to submit comment on amended plans and “Response to Submissions” submitted by Adamson Town Planning in respect of the above application. This comment is made as an addendum to a properly made submission lodged with Noosa Council within the statutory period. Iam a resident of Noosa Springs. I am also an architect registered in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT. I have extensive experience in architectural education, design, architectural heritage and architectural technology. My submission includes e This document e Commented planning report noted as Response to Submissions” by Adamson Town Planning Ref’1602 dated 16" May 2022 e Diagram of Building Height Planes! I do not believe that the amended plans address the issues raised in my submission, nor do I believe that the proposed design changes will have any effect in mitigating the impacts of the development as noted in my submission. Specifically. 1. The proposed changes are minor in scope and will have little material effect in terms of reducing the bulk and scale of the development. 2. The proposed changes will have little or no effect on the traffic generation or parking requirements of the proposed development. 3. The applicant describes some media reporting as “misinformation”. This description of an opposing viewpoint is both offensive and unsubstantiated in the text of the document. 1 Based on interpolation of contours included with application 2 Adamson Town Planning -Response to Submissions _p2 line 5 JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A 1 22 June-22
Preview the original
The page text is free to read. Previews and downloads of original files need an account.
Log in to previewLog in to download the original (Response to amended plans - John Cochrane - MCU21_0110.msg)
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 49 sections
Section 2
Section 3
4. The verification of building height planes is lacking clarity and rigor. The verification of
height planes is made by reference to assumed Natural Ground Level. I believe that all height
planes should be verified by survey. As access is available there seems to be no impediment
to proper verification.
5. The Application does not adequately support the existing resort facilities. The inclusion of
500 m.sq. of ground level open space and associated kitchen, preparation and storage
facilities are strongly indicative of restaurant and function usage. This potential use is not
defined in the application, nor are the associated impacts arising from this potential use
addressed by way of analysis or mitigation.
6. The amended plans do not reasonably mitigate the impacts identified in my submission of
19th December, 2021. Nor do I believe they address the concerns of the many residents of the
immediate and broader community who have made submissions in respect of this
development proposal.
The table below provides comment on the responses by Adamson Town Planning contained
in Table 1 Issues and Responses
Table 1
Issue (Adamson) Comment
The development extending beyond 1. The issue of whether the land
the TAZ and into the ROSZ zoning is somehow affected by
there being a single parcel of land
is fallacious.
2. The development is not well
located. It lacks public transport
and it is poorly integrated into the
site - it will have major impacts on
the character and amenity of the
area.
3. The proposal does not make
efficient use of anything - it is an
imposition and burden on existing
infrastructure - some of which is
paid for by the individual
residential strata plans
There is a development
opportunity for 200 units at Settlers
Cove – this is currently approved
and will.
4. The economic Impact Assessment
for the proposal is conjectural and
does not provide a substantive
planning argument.
5. The community benefit argument
for the proposal is conjectural and
does not provide a substantive
planning argument.
JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 2 22 June-22
[OCR of page images]
4. The verification of building height planes is lacking clarity and rigor. The verification of
height planes is made by reference to assumed Natural Ground Level. I believe that all height
planes should be verified by survey. As access is available there seems to be no impediment
to proper verification.
5. The Application does not adequately support the existing resort facilities. The inclusion of
500 m.sq. of ground level open space and associated kitchen, preparation and storage
facilities are strongly indicative of restaurant and function usage. This potential use is not
defined in the application, nor are the associated impacts arising from this potential use
addressed by way of analysis or mitigation.
6. The amended plans do not reasonably mitigate the impacts identified in my submission of
19 December, 2021. Nor do I believe they address the concerns of the many residents of the
immediate and broader community who have made submissions in respect of this
development proposal.
The table below provides comment on the responses by Adamson Town Planning contained
in Table | Issues and Responses
Table |
Issue (Adamson) Comment
The development extending beyond 1. The issue of whether the land
the TAZ and into the ROSZ zoning is somehow affected by
there being a single parcel of land
is fallacious.
2. The development is not well
located. It lacks public transport
and it is poorly integrated into the
site - it will have major impacts on
the character and amenity of the
area.
3. The proposal does not make
efficient use of anything - it is an
imposition and burden on existing
infrastructure - some of which is
paid for by the individual
residential strata plans
There is a development
opportunity for 200 units at Settlers
Cove — this is currently approved
and will.
4. The economic Impact Assessment
for the proposal is conjectural and
does not provide a substantive
planning argument.
5. The community benefit argument
for the proposal is conjectural and
does not provide a substantive
planning argument.
JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A 2 22 June-22
Section 4
Section 5
The use of the ROSZ not being for 1. the ownership of the land is
community benefit or being irrelevant to the land use zoning
accessible by the general 2. the land is available for public use
community. and could be sensitively developed
by the owner for recreational uses
by the public
3. The description “some of the land”
when describing the intrusion of
the development into the ROSZ is
somewhat of an understatement.
65% of the proposal floorspace is
on the ROSZ.
4. The conclusion that significant
need and community benefit has
been established is curious. this is
an absolutely incredible conclusion
based on no substantive planning
argument. It is in the developer’s
financial interest. The public
interest is much broader and needs
to be addressed in the context of
the SEQ plan 2040 and the
strategic background to the Noosa
Plan 2020 - none of this has been
done - this is truly the vaguest,
most superficial and slight
argument for a major planning
decision.
Building Height in terms of meters 1. I dispute the building height plane
and stories being excessive for the calculations. They cannot be
land accurately made on the bases of
assumed natural ground level.
2. The issue of the number of storeys
is irrelevant where there are
substantial undercroft areas caused
by site slope. The building is of
excessive bulk and scale.
3. the building is not integrated into
the site topography - it is a pancake
which sticks out like a hernia
because the concept is a resort pool
with a flat pack hotel wrapped
around it
Traffic and car parking impacts 1. I disagree with the proposition that
the traffic study accurately reflects
JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 3 22 June-22
[OCR of page images]
The use of the ROSZ not being for
community benefit or being
accessible by the general
community.
the ownership of the land is
irrelevant to the land use zoning
the land is available for public use
and could be sensitively developed
by the owner for recreational uses
by the public
The description “some of the land”
when describing the intrusion of
the development into the ROSZ is
somewhat of an understatement.
65% of the proposal floorspace is
on the ROSZ.
The conclusion that significant
need and community benefit has
been established is curious. this is
an absolutely incredible conclusion
based on no substantive planning
argument. It is in the developer’s
financial interest. The public
interest is much broader and needs
to be addressed in the context of
the SEQ plan 2040 and the
strategic background to the Noosa
Plan 2020 - none of this has been
done - this is truly the vaguest,
most superficial and slight
argument for a major planning
decision.
Building Height in terms of meters
and stories being excessive for the
land
I dispute the building height plane
calculations. They cannot be
accurately made on the bases of
assumed natural ground level.
The issue of the number of storeys
is irrelevant where there are
substantial undercroft areas caused
by site slope. The building is of
excessive bulk and scale.
the building is not integrated into
the site topography - it is a pancake
which sticks out like a hernia
because the concept is a resort pool
with a flat pack hotel wrapped
around it
Traffic and car parking impacts
I disagree with the proposition that
the traffic study accurately reflects
JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A
22 June-22
Section 6
Section 7
the current actual or proposed
patterns of usage.
Evacuation during a significant 1. The application does not address
bushfire event the exacerbation of risk in an
evacuation due to bushfire posed
by the development.
The proposed bar and dining 1. the whole issue of function use and
facilities will be used by the public intensification of use has not been
and for functions causing adverse dealt with satisfactorily anywhere
impacts in the application. The proposal
has a facility capable of
accommodating 500 guests in a
function mode - this is not dealt
with in any way. The developer is
at liberty to sell the facility to any
operator or to alter their business
model at any time to conduct
functions on site
2. the whole justification for the use
of the open space recreation use for
tourist accommodation is that it
supports the existing use - so
existing users get to use the
facilities they already use. This is
not a justification for ignoring a
properly made zoning overlay.
A lack of integration with the 1. the facility can be independently
existing facilities on the site owned and operated - it can be
slod, its business model altered at
any time - this is a meaningless
statement. The proposal has been
designed as a full service, free-
standing hotel complete with bar,
restaurant and function facilities.
2. the building is not integrated into
the site and its bulk and scale are
so gross that the notion of any
continuity of design language is
laughable. The only true statement
here is a nod to the Frank Lloyd
Wright adage " a doctor can bury
his mistakes; an architect can only
advise his clients to plant trees".
The allowable site cover being 1. I dispute the application and
exceeded for the site numeric derivation of the site cover
calculations. These would need to
JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 4 22 June-22
[OCR of page images]
the current actual or proposed
patterns of usage.
Evacuation during a significant
bushfire event
The application does not address
the exacerbation of risk in an
evacuation due to bushfire posed
by the development.
The proposed bar and dining
facilities will be used by the public
and for functions causing adverse
impacts
the whole issue of function use and
intensification of use has not been
dealt with satisfactorily anywhere
in the application. The proposal
has a facility capable of
accommodating 500 guests in a
function mode - this is not dealt
with in any way. The developer is
at liberty to sell the facility to any
operator or to alter their business
model at any time to conduct
functions on site
the whole justification for the use
of the open space recreation use for
tourist accommodation is that it
supports the existing use - so
existing users get to use the
facilities they already use. This is
not a justification for ignoring a
properly made zoning overlay.
A lack of integration with the
existing facilities on the site
the facility can be independently
owned and operated - it can be
slod, its business model altered at
any time - this is a meaningless
statement. The proposal has been
designed as a full service, free-
standing hotel complete with bar,
restaurant and function facilities.
the building is not integrated into
the site and its bulk and scale are
so gross that the notion of any
continuity of design language is
laughable. The only true statement
here is a nod to the Frank Lloyd
Wright adage " a doctor can bury
his mistakes; an architect can only
advise his clients to plant trees".
The allowable site cover being
exceeded for the site
I dispute the application and
numeric derivation of the site cover
calculations. These would need to
JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A
22 June-22
Section 8
Section 9
be graphically verified to be of any
meaning.
Adverse noise impacts being caused 1. The acoustic report is flawed. It
by the proposed development must be redone based on correct
design assumptions. Specifically, it
is based on the wrong location of
the service courtyard; the numbers
used for calculation of pool area
population are grossly inadequate;
and there is no assessment of
recorded or live music.
2. The proposed service court and
waste collection is not as
described. The drawings clearly
locate the service court adjacent
the proposed hotel directly
opposite the residential areas of
Parkridge.
The use of the land for a hotel
development meant for the Parkridge 1. Notwithstanding any comment by
site amounts to a “double dipping”, the developer, the land set aside for
tourist accommodation in the
original Noosa Springs
Development Plan was sold for the
residential development of
Parkridge. This was the choice of
thew owner based on commercial
reasons.
2. The use of the Parkridge site for
residential use to the exclusion of
tourist accommodation was a
choice of the owner.
3. There is no demonstrable
community benefit - no it amounts
to a gross land grab for a parcel of
land set aside for open space and
recreation.
4. The double dip is to increase the
site development area by specious
argument that somehow there is
benefit to the community.
A reduction in the number of tennis 1. The maintenance of the status quo
courts being currently available in terms of the number of tennis
courts is hardly a compelling
argument for ignoring the zoning
overlay.
JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 5 22 June-22
[OCR of page images]
be graphically verified to be of any
meaning.
Adverse noise impacts being caused
by the proposed development
The acoustic report is flawed. It
must be redone based on correct
design assumptions. Specifically, it
is based on the wrong location of
the service courtyard; the numbers
used for calculation of pool area
population are grossly inadequate;
and there is no assessment of
recorded or live music.
The proposed service court and
waste collection is not as
described. The drawings clearly
locate the service court adjacent
the proposed hotel directly
opposite the residential areas of
Parkridge.
The use of the land for a hotel
site amounts to a “double dipping”,
development meant for the Parkridge
Notwithstanding any comment by
the developer, the land set aside for
tourist accommodation in the
original Noosa Springs
Development Plan was sold for the
residential development of
Parkridge. This was the choice of
thew owner based on commercial
reasons.
The use of the Parkridge site for
residential use to the exclusion of
tourist accommodation was a
choice of the owner.
There is no demonstrable
community benefit - no it amounts
to a gross land grab for a parcel of
land set aside for open space and
recreation.
The double dip is to increase the
site development area by specious
argument that somehow there is
benefit to the community.
A reduction in the number of tennis
courts being currently available
The maintenance of the status quo
in terms of the number of tennis
courts is hardly a compelling
argument for ignoring the zoning
overlay.
JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A
22 June-22
Section 10
Section 11
A lack of sustainability and energy 1. The addition of additional solar
efficiency generation is welcome. However, it
will probably be required in order
to satisfy NCC/BCA requirements.
It does not fully mitigate the poor
room orientation and power and
water consumption requirements of
the resort pool.
The development does not accord 1. I am a part of the community and I
with reasonable community say it does not.
expectations for the site 2. Despite the claims by the
applicant, a hotel can be built on
the TAZ. It is achievable - I can
prove this fact.
3. It is avoidable for a hotel to extend
into the ROSZ. The intrusion by
65% of the hotel floor area is
excessive by any measure.
4. The presence of Parkridge is only
relevant in terms of the impact this
development will have on the
residents’ peaceful enjoyment of
their property.
5. There is no argument that the
collective weight of the planning
scheme would support the
proposal. The suggestion that the
hotel -will have minimal impacts is
an outrageous understatement.
6. The community have expressed
their reasonable expectations by
submission.
Yours sincerely,
John Cochrane Architect QLD Rn 5857 NSW/ACT Rn 4759
314/61 Noosa Springs Drive
Noosa Heads
Qld 4567
JC-NSH-amended plans– Issue A 6 22 June-22
[OCR of page images]
A lack of sustainability and energy
efficiency
The addition of additional solar
generation is welcome. However, it
will probably be required in order
to satisfy NCC/BCA requirements.
It does not fully mitigate the poor
room orientation and power and
water consumption requirements of
the resort pool.
The development does not accord
with reasonable community
expectations for the site
Iam a part of the community and I
say it does not.
Despite the claims by the
applicant, a hotel can be built on
the TAZ. It is achievable - I can
prove this fact.
It is avoidable for a hotel to extend
into the ROSZ. The intrusion by
65% of the hotel floor area is
excessive by any measure.
The presence of Parkridge is only
relevant in terms of the impact this
development will have on the
residents’ peaceful enjoyment of
their property.
There is no argument that the
collective weight of the planning
scheme would support the
proposal. The suggestion that the
hotel -will have minimal impacts is
an outrageous understatement.
The community have expressed
their reasonable expectations by
submission.
Yours sincerely,
John Cochrane Architect QLD Rn 5857 NSW/ACT Rn 4759
/
314/61 Noosa Springs Drive
Noosa Heads
Qld 4567
JC-NSH-amended plans- Issue A
22 June-22
Section 12
Section 13
15°
15°
19 X CARPARKS DA4.02 2
34 39520 39520
2.5 OU CONTOUR +RL 18.60
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
MECH PLANT
15°
+RL 20.12
1
+RL 20.12
12°
LI VE
FT R
°
O
15
R
U
N
SO
LA
R
6
PA
N
EL
S
1
2
M LA
EC NT
2
P
H
3915° °
23
12
+RL 20.12
1 1
2
5 15°
22 34
DA4.03 2 MECH
PLANT 1
2 19 x CARPARKS
36 (INCLUDES 4xPWD) 33
2
12 +RL 18.05
36180
1
12
°
VIEWING
DECK
35350
18
°
N
U
R
O IFT
R
VE
L
12°
40 40 40 40 MECH
PLANT
33690
34900
34200
31710
15 1 10
DA4.02
1
18°
40 40
3
20
3 4
19 27
14
DA4.02 DA4.02
MPORTANT NOTES: REVISION DATE DESCRIPTION BY
18 CLIENT DRAWING T
NOOSA SPRINGS REAL ESTATE PTY
1 04/09/20 FOR INFORMATION ST
o not scale from drawings. All dimensions to be checked
n site before commencement of work. All discrepancies to 2
3
22/09/20
25/09/20
FOR INFORMATION
DA APPROVAL
ST
ST ROOF
LTD
e brought to the attention of the Architect. Larger scale
rawings and written dimensions take preference. This 4 09/10/20 DA APPROVAL REVISED ST
[OCR of page images]
KR Ut Ih A LM TL
Eaves-assume ~ Eaves-assumed
DA4.0 CER oe OO ee WR 38 000 AREA OF THE
19 X CARPARKS . 34 Hit : qe } i i se PROPOSAL
He | ee NOT
2:5 OU TOUR ae ae ne ir <= COMPLYING
;
;
Ars,
+
WITH THE 12
M HEIGHT
a)
%.
i ARERR i aes 7 ~ _Eaves-assumed
RRR HAR RARE tf i Ne VA Qe —— =
Eaves assumed a e R.L. 38
R.L. 37 00
—
~-R.L. 29 000
—
L. 28 000 ____—
Eaves-assumed— AREA OF
SSS THE
: aa yPian PRL. 34 900
wh ne nt 27600 COMPLYING
mn Oe .
Weg \
8A WITH THE
9 OST MAXIMUM
Oe 19 x CARPARKS HIEGHT
S -RL.26000--. ~~ (INCLUDES 4xPWD PLANE
BOUNDARY OF <N J oo
ZONING - ALL L. 25000-—-_
AREA ABOVE
THE DOTTED
LINE IS ZONED
OPEN SPACE/ 7 IF THE
RECREATION CORRECT
— HEIGHT
PLANES
WERE
ARL. oO aaa SS APPLIED TO
_ So “a : L. THE
N \ ge rats : 5 ZONINGS, WE
NOTE - NATURAL Eaves-assume “DECK Sy BELIEVE THA
GROUND LEVEL x Z. . ‘ 0
R.L. 31 690 EN <i SES 50% OF THE
ASSUMED AT THIS R.L. 22 000 sep He S i ! FETS 0 BUILT AREA
POINT. saat el -L. S
INDICATED ON SECTION HY se panne UES B © Rey. aS YO. EXCEED THE
tt
AS RL. 21 980 : i SHU 5 650 SS
HOWEVER, BASED 2s f EH Eaves-assumed HEIGHT
COUNTORS PROVIDE AE : MEE nity 34900 SSS
BY THE APPLICANT SLANT ie ice NE oe R.L. 31 500 CONTROL
Baa WOULD APPEAR TO B . NU
CLOSER TO CAR
FINISHED G.L.
NGL assumed
aoe A a
R.L. 19 50
tit “AREAL +t
tf
tf
_ Eaves-assumed _
R.L. 30 000
(14> Functi
\SK11/ Scale: 1:
NOOSA SPRINGS HOTEL BUILDING HEIGHT OVERLAY
BASED ON AMENDED PLANS
Section 14
[Attachment: Response to Submissions -commented.pdf]
Court Appeals & Dispute Resolution
Applications & Assessment
Due Diligence & Compliance
Project Management
General Development Advice
Monday, 16th May 2022
Our Ref: 16022
Council Ref: MCU21/0110
Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin, QLD 4565
By Email: [email protected]
Attention: Patrick Murphy, Coordinator Planning
Dear Patrick,
Response to Submissions and a Minor Change - Proposed ‘Boutique Hotel’, Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort, 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads, described as Lot 4
on SP178340
Reference is made to our discussions and emails about the applicant’s intent to respond to
the submissions received during the public notification period. Further, undertake a “minor
change” to the proposal plans in response to some of the issues raised in the submissions
received, which have been considered.
This letter addresses the key issues raised in the submissions and the changes made to the
proposal plans in response. A complete set of the proposal plans has been provided for
clarity, given the changes already made in response to the information request, with some
additional changes now proposed. Further, the letter addresses the request for further
information in the emails received from Council on 14 February 2022 and 18 March 2022,
with respect to bushfire, odour, traffic, and parking.
The applicant has also responded to issues raised by the State Assessment Referral Agency
(SARA), primarily with respect to internal traffic management for the development. The
referral agency response was received on 5 May 2022 providing for conditions of approval,
which have been considered and accepted by the applicant.
The letter includes the following attachments:
Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd
(ACN: 163 798 374 | ABN: 73 163 798 374)
M| 0437 754 420 Mail: PO Box 894, Cooroy QLD 4563
‘Noosa Boardroom’, 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville QLD 4566
Email| [email protected] Web| www.adamsontownplanning.com.au
[OCR of page images]
Court Appeals & Dispute Resolution
Applications & Assessment
A a i i i S O Nn Due Diligence & Compliance
Project Management
TY p Town P | a nn i n g General Development Advice
SPECIALIST SERVICES, PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS
Monday, 16" May 2022
Our Ref: 16022
Council Ref: MCU21/0110
Chief Executive Officer
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Tewantin, QLD 4565
By Email: patrick. [email protected]
Attention: Patrick Murphy, Coordinator Planning
Dear Patrick,
Response to Submissions and a Minor Change - Proposed ‘Boutique Hotel’, Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort, 61 Noosa Springs Drive, Noosa Heads, described as Lot 4
on SP178340
Reference is made to our discussions and emails about the applicant's intent to respond to
the submissions received during the public notification period. Further, undertake a “minor =
change” to the proposal plans in response to some of the issues raised in the submissions
received, which have been considered.
This letter addresses the key issues raised in the submissions and the changes made to the
proposal plans in response. A complete set of the proposal plans has been provided for
clarity, given the changes already made in response to the information request, with some
additional changes now proposed. Further, the letter addresses the request for further
information in the emails received from Council on 14 February 2022 and 18 March 2022,
with respect to bushfire, odour, traffic, and parking.
The applicant has also responded to issues raised by the State Assessment Referral Agency
(SARA), primarily with respect to internal traffic management for the development. The
referral agency response was received on 5 May 2022 providing for conditions of approval,
which have been considered and accepted by the applicant.
The letter includes the following attachments:
Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd
(ACN: 163 798 374 | ABN: 73 163 798 374)
M| 0437 754 420 Mail: PO Box 894, Cooroy QLD 4563
‘Noosa Boardroom’, 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville QLD 4566
Email| [email protected] Web| www.adamsontownplanning.com.au
Section 15
Section 16
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
• a complete set of the proposal plans providing for some additional minor changes
made since the response to the information request and for completeness –
Attachment 1
• a response to the koala issues raised in the submissions, including correcting the
misinformation portrayed in the media and providing an additional environmental
offset prepared by Gondwana Ecology – Attachment 2
• a response to the traffic, parking and onsite manoeuvring issues prepared by Traffic
and Transport Plus (TTP) – Attachment 3
• a response to the bushfire issues raised prepared by Rob Friend and Associates –
Attachment 4
• an updated Landscape Concept Plan provided by the Place Design Group to reflect
the minor changes made to the proposal plans and to reflect the bushfire mitigation
measures – Attachment 5
• further advice about the odour issue provided by Katestone – Attachment 6
• updated and additional photomontages for the development, prepared by Design &
Visual Communication – Attachment 7; and
• additional advice about energy efficiency and increased solar power provision
prepared by EMF Griffiths – Attachment 8.
Requested further advice
Council has requested further advice about some aspects of the development with respect to
the following:
• Bushfire issues in terms of the proposed landscaping within the eastern buffer area,
and more information about the site access and evacuation procedure in case of a
bushfire emergency
• additional information with respect to the outdoor recreation areas exceeding the 2.5
odour unit criterion and the 2.5 odour units being predicated at the façades of the
accommodation buildings nearest to the Noosa Waste Water Treatment Plant
(WWTP); and
• further clarification about the use of the resort facilities by the general public,
management of the hotel guests who travel by private car, the need for a travel
management plan and the use of alternative modes of transport, and parking
demand and supply.
These and other issues raised in the submissions have been addressed below.
Changes to the Proposal Plans
The applicant has made some changes to the proposal plans generally as follows:
• the removal of 6 units from Building 2 located closest to the porte-cochere. Apart
from reducing the overall number of rooms from 112 to 106 (which also assists in
lowering the parking demand) the height of the proposed hotel has also been
substantially reduced in this location to be mostly below the 12m height requirement
2|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
|
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
e acomplete set of the proposal plans providing for some additional minor changes
made since the response to the information request and for completeness -
Attachment 1
e a response to the koala issues raised in the submissions, including correcting the
misinformation hrayed in the media and providing an additional environmental
offset prepared by Gondwana Ecology — Attachment 2
e aresponse to the traffic, parking and onsite manoeuvring issues prepared by Traffic
and Transport Plus (TTP) — Attachment 3
e a response to the bushfire issues raised prepared by Rob Friend and Associates —
Attachment 4
e an updated Landscape Concept Plan provided by the Place Design Group to reflect
the minor changes made to the proposal plans and to reflect the bushfire mitigation
measures — Attachment 5
e further advice about the odour issue provided by Katestone — Attachment 6
e updated and additional photomontages for the development, prepared by Design &
Visual Communication — Attachment 7; and
e additional advice about energy efficiency and increased solar power provision
prepared by EMF Griffiths — Attachment 8.
Requested further advice
Council has requested further advice about some aspects of the development with respect to
the following:
e Bushfire issues in terms of the proposed landscaping within the eastern buffer area,
and more information about the site access and evacuation procedure in case of a
bushfire emergency
e additional information with respect to the outdoor recreation areas exceeding the 2.5
odour unit criterion and the 2.5 odour units being predicated at the facades of the
accommodation buildings nearest to the Noosa Waste Water Treatment Plant
(WWTP); and
e further clarification about the use of the resort facilities by the general public,
management of the hotel guests who travel by private car, the need for a travel
management plan and the use of alternative modes of transport, and parking
demand and supply. ea
These and other issues raised in the submissions have been addressed below.
Changes to the Proposal Plans
The applicant has made some changes to the proposal plans generally as follows:
e the removal of 6 units from Building 2 located closest to the porte-cochere. Apart
from reducing the overall number of rooms from 112 to 106 (which also assists in S
lowering the parking demand) the height of the proposed hotel has also been
substantially reduced in this location to be mostly below the 12m height requirement
2|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 17
Section 18
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
within the Tourist Accommodation Zone (TAZ) (refer – Figure 1 Extrapolated 8m &
12m above NGL Plane, Drawing No. DA4.01, Rev 10)
Figure 1 – Extrapolated 8m & 12m about NGL
• a viewing deck has been added to the location which occupied the 6 units within
Building 2, which also has had the effect of lowering the roof. It is not intended that
the viewing deck will be used for any other purpose other than viewing the golf
course and surrounds from this location. This change has also reduced the
dominance of the built form at the entry near the porte-cochere (refer Dwg No.
DA4.05. Rev 8) – Refer image comparison below
Current 3D View of Entry Proposed 3D View of Entry
3|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Ad T Planning, ialising i iding high der t lanni
amson own Fianning, spectattsing tn proviatng higher order town planning Adamson
advice e
Town Planning
within the Tourist Accommodation Zone (TAZ) (refer — Figure 1 Extrapolated 8m &
12m above NGL Plane, Drawing No. DA4.01, Rev 10)
Figure 1 — Extrapolated 8m & 12m about NGL
e a viewing deck has been added to the location which occupied the 6 units within
Building 2, which also has had the effect of lowering the roof. It is not intended that
the viewing deck will be used for any other purpose other than viewing the golf
course and surrounds from this location. This change has also reduced the
dominance of the built form at the entry near the porte-cochere (refer Dwg No.
DA4.05. Rev 8) — Refer image comparison below =
Proposed 3D View of Ent
Current 3D View of Entry
3|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 19
Section 20
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
• alterations to the roof over Buildings P1, P2, P4 and P5, with the centre areas
removed from Buildings P4 & P5, to lower the height and provide a flat central area
for additional solar panels (refer Roof Plan, Dwg No. DA1.08, Rev 10). The appearance
of the pitched roofing from the street and publicly assessable places will not be
affected. Further, the change also substantially reduces the height of the built form
located on a higher portion of the site (refer Figure 1)
• the ceiling heights of the rooms have been increased to 2.7m given a 5-Star resort is
proposed, which has resulted in an increase in the height of Building 3 by about 1m;
however, the remaining buildings have reduced in height because of the different
roof design
• increased building setbacks for Building 5 to Resort Drive with the removal of the
outdoor terrace areas to the east
• other changes include the addition of a fourth tennis court located over the upper
level carpark to the north, which maintains the current number of tennis courts
already provided. The additional tennis court is an elevated structure located about
15m from Resort Drive, which will be well screened from the frontage in this location
(refer Tennis Court Elevation and Section, Dwg No. DA2.04, Rev 2). The tennis court is
3m in height and provides cover for the existing sealed parking below. The fencing
for the tennis court extends a further 4.5m, with the total height not exceeding 7.5m
from the existing carpark level. No lighting is proposed for this additional tennis
court; and
• a relatively small tennis pavilion has also been added beside Tennis Court 1 (refer
Proposed Tennis Pavilion, Dwg No. DA1..13, Ver 3), providing for some undercover
outdoor seating, which is an equivalent size to the existing pavilion.
There are no other changes proposed other than minor alterations to the kerbing and the
access road within the porte-cochere to satisfy the requirements of SARA, which forms part
of the approval issued on 5 May 2022. Another change includes two (2) additional
environmental offset planting areas on the adjoining golf course, which is discussed further
below.
Development Assessment Rules
Under part 26.1(a) of the Development Assessment Rules, it is stated for a change that is not a
“minor change”, the development assessment process does not stop if the assessment
manager is satisfied the change is response to a matter raised in a properly made
submission.
The changes that have been made to the proposal plans have been made in response to the
issues raised in the submissions, primarily with respect to the height of the building. Further,
with respect to the inclusion of an additional tennis court, which is consistent with the
existing number of tennis currently provided and used by members and the general public.
4|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
|
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
e alterations to the roof over Buildings P1, P2, P4 and P5, with the contfS areas
removed from Buildings P4 & P5, to lower the height and provide a flat central area
for additional solar panels (refer Roof Plan, Dwg No. DA1.08, Rev 10). The appearance
of the pitched roofing from the street and publicly assessable places will not be
affected. Further, the change also substantially reduces the height of the built form
located on a higher portion of the site (refer Figure 1)
e the ceiling heights of the rooms have been increased to 2.7m given a 5-Star resort is
proposed, which has resulted in an increase in the height of Building 3 by about 1m; =
however, the remaining buildings have reduced in height because of the different
roof design
e increased building setbacks for Building 5 to Resort Drive with the removal of the
outdoor terrace areas to the east
e other changes include the addition of a fourth tennis court located over the upper
level carpark to the north, which maintains the current number of tennis courts
already provided. The additional tennis court is an elevated structure located about
15m from Resort Drive, which will be well screened from the frontage in this location
(refer Tennis Court Elevation and Section, Dwg No. DA2.04, Rev 2). The tennis court is
3m in height and provides cover for the existing sealed parking below. The fencing
for the tennis court extends a further 4.5m, with the total height not exceeding 7.5m
from the existing carpark level. No lighting is proposed for this additional tennis
court; and
e a relatively small tennis pavilion has also been added beside Tennis Court 1 (refer
Proposed Tennis Pavilion, Dwg No. DA1..13, Ver 3), providing for some undercover
outdoor seating, which is an equivalent size to the existing pavilion.
There are no other changes proposed other than minor alterations to the kerbing and the =
access road within the porte-cochere to satisfy the requirements of SARA, which forms part
of the approval issued on 5 May 2022. Another change includes two (2) additional
environmental offset planting areas on the adjoining golf course, which is discussed further
below.
Development Assessment Rules
Under part 26.1(a) of the Development Assessment Rules, it is stated for a change that is not a &
“minor change”, the development assessment process does not stop if the assessment
manager is satisfied the change is response to a matter raised in a properly made
submission.
The changes that have been made to the proposal plans have been made in response to the
issues raised in the submissions, primarily with respect to the height of the building. Further,
with respect to the inclusion of an additional tennis court, which is consistent with the
existing number of tennis currently provided and used by members and the general public.
4|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 21
Section 22
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Despite the above, the proposed changes are considered a “minor change” as defined under
Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016. There are no changes proposed to the intended uses
and the changes do not trigger referral to additional referral agencies. The proposed
development is not substantially different because it does not dramatically change the built
form in terms of its scale, bulk, and appearance. The changes will also have no bearing on
traffic flow or parking and does not introduce any new impacts or increase the impacts on
infrastructure, given there is no change to the scale and intensity of the development. It is
noted the deletion of six rooms also reduces the parking demand for the development. The
changes do not affect the proposed environmental offset, in fact, it is now proposed to
include additional koala habitat planting on the adjoining golf course (discussed below).
Submissions Received
A relatively large number of submissions were received following public notification of the
proposal, some of which raise valid planning concerns. It is noted that a number of the
submissions received were on a proforma letter, with a relatively large number of
submissions not being properly made. While a number of planning issues have been raised,
some of the issues are based on incorrect information about the proposal.
The key planning issues that stem from the submissions include the following:
• the development extending beyond the Tourist Accommodation Zone and into the
Recreation and Open Space Zone
• the use of the Recreation and Open Space Zone not being for community benefit or
being assessable by the general community
• building height in terms of meters and storeys being excessive for the land
• vegetation removal, in particular the removal of koala habitat trees
• traffic and carparking impacts
• evacuation during a significant bushfire event from Noosa Springs
• the proposed bar and dining facilities within the hotel being used by the general
public and for functions, causing adverse impacts
• a lack of integration with the existing facilities on the site
• the allowable site cover being exceeded for the site
• adverse noise impacts being caused
• use of the land for a hotel development meant for the “Parkridge Noosa” site,
amounts to “double dipping”
• a reduction in the number of tennis courts being currently available
• a lack of sustainability and energy efficiency; and
• the development does not accord with reasonable community expectations for the
site.
With respect to the key issues raised in submissions comments have been provided Table 1
(attached). The application has been changed in response to the submissions received, to
minimise any adverse impacts upon the character and amenity of the area and to improve
environmental outcomes.
5|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning ,
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
Despite the above, the proposed changes are considered a “minor change” as defined under
Schedule 2 of the Planning Act 2016. There are no changes proposed to the intended uses =
and the changes do not trigger referral to additional referral agencies. The proposed
development is not substantially different because it does not dramatically change the built
form in terms of its scale, bulk, and appearance. The changes will also have no bearing on
traffic flow or parking and does not introduce any new_impacts or increase the impacts on
infrastructure, given there is no change to the scale intensity of the development. It is
noted the deletion of six rooms also reduces the parking demand for the development. The
changes do not affect the proposed environmental offset, in fact, it is now proposed to
include additional koala habitat planting on the adjoining golf course (discussed below).
Submissions Received
A relatively large number of submissions were received following public notification of the
proposal, some of which raise valid planning concerns. It is noted that a number of the
submissions received were on a proforma letter, with a relatively large(—=|mber of
submissions not being properly made. While a number of planning issues have been raised,
some of the issues are based on incorrect information about the proposal.
The key planning issues that stem from the submissions include the following:
e the development extending beyond the Tourist Accommodation Zone and into the
Recreation and Open Space Zone
e the use of the Recreation and Open Space Zone not being for community benefit or
being assessable by the general community
e building height in terms of meters and storeys being excessive for the land =
e vegetation removal, in particular the removal of koala habitat trees
e traffic and carparking impacts
e evacuation during a significant bushfire event from Noosa Springs
e the proposed bar and dining facilities within the hotel being used by the general
public and for functions, causing adverse impacts
e alack of integration with the existing facilities on the site
e the allowable site cover being exceeded for the site
e adverse noise impacts being caused
e use of the land for a hotel development meant for the “Parkridge Noosa” site,
amounts to “double dipping”
e areduction in the number of tennis courts being currently available
e alack of sustainability and energy efficiency; and
e the development does not accord with reasonable community expectations for the
site.
With respect to the key issues raised in submissions comments have been provided Table 1
(attached). The application has been changed esponse to the submissions received, to
minimise any adverse impacts upon the character and amenity of the area and to improve
environmental outcomes. S
5|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 23
Section 24
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Impact on Koala Habitat
One of the key issues raised in the submissions is in respect to the impact upon koala
habitat. This issue has been considered by Gondwana Ecology with the majority of the issues
being raised largely unfounded on the evidence already provided by an experienced and
qualified ecologist. The further advice by Gondwana Ecology is provided as Attachment 2.
The Gondwana Ecology has confirmed given the context of the site, the mapping and the on
ground environmental values, the proposed development will have a negligible adverse
impact on koalas. Importantly, the development is compliant with both Council and the
State’s relevant koala assessment benchmarks.
In accordance with the Schedule 10 under the Planning Regulation 2017, the application was
referred to SARA because the proposed development is partly located within the Koala
Habitat Area under State mapping. The SARA provided its referral agency response on 5 May
2022, imposing conditions of approval with respect to the impact upon the identified koala
habitat (removal of 19 NJKHTs). The conditions of approval generally provide for the
following:
• the development is to be carried out generally in accordance with the Tree Removal
Plan, prepared by Marchese Partners, dated 2 September 2020, Revision 1
• prior to development proceeding a Koala Management Plan is to be prepared prior
any tree clearing, while noting that Gondwana Ecology has confirmed that there is no
evidence to suggest that koala are utilising the site
• a requirement to deliver an environmental offset in accordance with Environmental
Offset Act 2014, for the removal of the 19 NJKHTs as proposed by the applicant; and
• a requirement to retain the existing fencing around the perimeter of the property as
koala exclusion fencing in accordance with the Koala Sensitive Design Guideline (Ver
2) prepared by the Department of Environment and Science.
Gondwana Ecology has also made a number of recommendations which go beyond what is
required to meet State requirements. While the applicant is providing the required financial
environmental offset, additional koala habitat planting is now proposed within the adjoining
golf course in two (2) locations shown on Attachment B in the report, which provides for an
additional 60 trees, at a replacement ratio of 3:1 (refer Attachment 2).
Gondwana ecology advises … the planting of trees in these areas will provide additional koala
feed trees, a variety of habitat tree species and “close gaps” between existing koala habitats.
The golf course and planting areas are also adjacent to conservation land, a further benefit to
planting and enhancing the area. Locally refined koala habitat is also mapped along the
southern and south eastern portions of the golf course, contiguous with a planting area.
Further, that … the golf course supports the most intact and valuable koala habitat in the local
landscape, notably large open space area with a diversity of koala habitat trees for feed, refuge
and movement opportunities and generally free from dangers such as dogs and cars. Planting
6|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
|
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
Impact on Koala Habitat
One of the key issues raised in the submissions is in respect to the impact upon koala
habitat. This issue has been considered by Gondwana Ecology with the majority of the issues
being raised largely unfounded on the evidence already provided by an experienced
qualified ecologist. The further advice by Gondwana Ecology is provided as Attachment 2.
The Gondwana Ecology has confirmed given the context of the site, the mapping and the on
ground environmental values, the proposed development will have a negligible adverse
impact on koalas. Importantly, the development is compliant with both Council and the
State's relevant koala assessment benchmarks.
In accordance with the Schedule 10 under the Planning Regulation 2017, the application was
referred to SARA because the proposed development is partly located within the Koala
Habitat Area under State mapping. The SARA provided its referral agency response on 5 May
2022, imposing conditions of approval with respect to the impact upon the identified koala
habitat (removal of 19 NJKHTs). The conditions of approval generally provide for the
following:
e the development is to be carried out generally in accordance with the Tree Removal
Plan, prepared by Marchese Partners, dated 2 September 2020, Revision 1
e prior to development proceeding a Koala Management Plan is to be prepared prior
any tree clearing, while noting that Gondwana Ecology has confirmed that there is no
evidence to suggest that koala are utilising the site
e arequirement to deliver an environmental offset in accordance with Environmental
Offset Act 2014, for the removal of the 19 NJKHTs as proposed by the applicant; and
e¢ arequirement to retain the existing fencing around the perimeter of the property as
koala exclusion fencing in accordance with the Koala Sensitive Design Guideline (Ver
2) prepared by the Department of Environment and Science.
Gondwana Ecology has also made a number of recommendations which go bess what is
required to meet State requirements. While the applicant is providing the required financial
environmental offset, additional koala habitat planting is now proposed within the adjoining
golf course in two (2) locations shown on Attachment B in the report, which provides for an
additional 60 trees, at a replacement ratio of 3:1 (refer Attachment 2).
Gondwana ecology advises ... the planting of trees in these areas will provide additional koala
feed trees, a variety of habitat tree species and “close gaps” between existing koala habitats.
The golf course and planting areas are also adjacent to conservation land, a further benefit to
planting and enhancing the area. Locally refined koala habitat is also mapped along the =]
southern and south eastern portions of the golf course, contiguous with a planting area.
Further, that ... the golf course supports the most intact and valuable koala habitat in the local
landscape, notably large open space area with a diversity of koala habitat trees for feed, refuge
and movement opportunities and generally free from dangers such as dogs and cars. Planting
6|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 25
Section 26
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
koala habitat trees in this area will enhance the existing environment for koalas. Consequently,
having regard to the advice and recommendations provided by Gondwana Ecology, and the
approval that has issued by SARA, the proposed development will provide a net benefit to
the koala in the locality and the community more generally.
Given the golf course is currently owned and maintained by the applicant and a covenant
provides that both Lots 3 and 4 cannot be sold separately, it is reasonable for a condition to
be included requiring the additional koala habitat planting within the golf course, which
provides for some real benefit. Further, the additional koala habitat planting will be
maintained as part of the current management of the golf course into perpetuity, which is
highly desirable and is consistent with this existing use.
Carparking
Another key issue raised in the submissions is with respect to carparking. Further, Council’s
traffic consultant has requested further advice about aspects of the development in the email
received on 18 March 2022. The parking and other issues raised by Council have been
considered by Traffic & Transport Plus (TTP) with additional advice provided as Attachment
3.
While a range of uses have been applied for including a Resort Complex, Bar and Food and
Drink Outlet, as stated in the application material1 the operation of bar and café areas are
ancillary to the Resort Complex as defined. The Sport and Recreation use has been applied
for to maintain the existing four (4) tennis courts.
The Resort Complex definition includes … tourist and visitor accommodation that includes
integrated leisure facilities (examples of integrated leisure facilities—bars, meeting and
function facilities, restaurants, sporting and fitness facilities) … . Despite this, Council insisted
that the uses be applied for separately.
It is intended that the bar and café components of the “Boutique Hotel” would primarily be
used for guests. It is noted that TTP has advised that in their experience is it not routine for
significant numbers of externally based patrons to frequent an internal resort restaurant,
while this might occur to a limited degree, at the design level this is considered insignificant2.
The proposed development is to be integrated with the existing facilities of the Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort, which includes the “Relish” restaurant, pro-shop and health spa
and gymnasium. The existing four (4) tennis courts on the site are to be reconstructed in a
different location. The existing tennis courts are currently available for use by the general
public which has also been considered in the parking surveys undertaken.
1
Town planning report, page 21
2
TTP Advice Letter, para 3
7|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning ,
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
koala habitat trees in this area will enhance the existing environment for koalas. Consequently,
having regard to the advice and recommendations provided by Gondwana Ecology, and the
approval that has issued by SARA, the proposed development will provide a net benefit to
the koala in the locality and the community more generally. S
Given the golf course is currently owned and maintained by the applicant and a covenant
provides that both Lots 3 and 4 cannot be sold separately, it is reasonable for a condition to
be included requiring the additional koala habitat planting within the golf course, which
provides for some real benefit. Further, the additional koala habitat planting will be
maintained as part of the current management of the golf course into perpetuity, which is
highly desirable and is consistent with this existing use.
Carparking
Another key issue raised in the submissions is with respect to carparking. Further, Council's
traffic consultant has requested further advice about aspects of the development in the email
received on 18 March 2022. The parking and other issues raised by Council have been
considered by Traffic & Transport Plus (TTP) with additional advice provided as Attachment
3.
While a range of uses have been applied for including a Resort Complex, Bar and Food and
Drink Outlet, as stated in the application material' the operation of bar and café areas are
ancillary to the Resort Complex as defined. The Sport and Recreation use has been applied
for to maintain the existing four (4) tennis courts.
The Resort Complex definition includes ... tourist and visitor accommodation that includes
integrated leisure facilities (examples of integrated leisure facilities—bars, meeting and
function facilities, restaurants, sporting and fitness facilities) ... . Despite this, Council insisted
that the uses be applied for separately.
It is intended that the bar and café components of the “Boutique Hotel” would primarily be
used for guests. It is noted that TTP has advised that in their experience is it not routine for
significant numbers of externally based patrons to frequent an internal resort restaurant, S
while this might occur to a limited degree, at the design level this is considered insignificant?.
The proposed development is to be integrated with the existing facilities of the Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort, which includes the “Relish” restaurant, pro-shop and health spa
and gymnasium. The existing four (4) tennis courts on the site are to be reconstructed in a
different location. The existing tennis courts are currently available for use by the general
public which has also been considered in the parking surveys undertaken.
=
1 Town planning report, page 21
2 TTP Advice Letter, para 3
7|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 27
Section 28
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Two (2) parking surveys have now been relied upon to quantify the current and expected
demand for parking for the mixed use development as an integrated Resort Complex. The
first parking survey was conducted in June-July of 2017, and the second was conducted
January-February 2022. The surveys involved monitoring the parking areas on site at various
times during the day, at 7am, midday, 3pm & 7pm and counting the cars that were parked at
those times.
The advice from TTP is that both surveys show the parking onsite is significantly under-
utilised. The peak parking times are midday on a weekday, with weekend midday parking
being less than midday parking from Monday to Friday. Parking at 3pm is the next busiest,
with parking demand at 7am and 7pm being the lowest.
The consultant has advised the expected peak parking demand for the hotel synchronises
well with the existing uses on the site. The survey data demonstrates that the existing uses
have the highest parking demand during the middle of the day on weekdays and the
proposed hotel will have its highest parking demand overnight on weekends, which makes
for efficient use of infrastructure.3
The consultant has considered the parking numbers having regard to the peak operating
times and under two (2) different scenarios assuming a parking demand of one space per 1.5
rooms, which is considered a generously high provision rate for a resort (refer Figure 3 –
Attachment 3). Having regard to Figure 3, the exceedance cases occur on a small number
times on the Monday to Friday midday period. The demand for parking for the hotel is
maximised overnight and therefore would not interfere with the parking provided for the
other uses onsite4.
Despite, the parking being adequate under the former proposal, the applicant has provided
another carpark which provides for a further 48 spaces. This stems from concerns raised in
the information request and also by members of the Noosa Springs Golf and Spa Resort,
about a lack of onsite parking for the integrated development. Having regard to the advice
provided by TTP, it is suggested the additional 48 parking spaces are not needed, with
effectively one space being provided per room when considering Figure 4 (Attachment 3).
Under this scenario, even less of the non-hotel uses parking demand would exceed the
residual capacity that is available5.
In summary, the traffic expert has advised that based on the carparking survey data that has
been collected, the parking is more than adequate for the proposed development. This is not
to suggest that the proposed alternative modes of transport, including the provision of a
shuttle bus and at least five (5) electric bikes and mopeds will not be provided. The applicant
intends to actively encourage alternative forms of transport for the development consistent
with the Noosa Plan.
3
TTP Advice Letter, paras 21-23
4
TTP Advice Letter, paras 24-25
5
TTP Advice Letter, paras 26-27
8|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning ,
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
Two (2) parking surveys have now been relied upon to quantify the current and expected
demand for parking for the mixed use development as an integrated Resort Complex. The
first parking survey was conducted in June-July of 2017, and the second was conducted
January-February 2022. The surveys involved monitoring the parking areas on site at various
times during the day, at 7am, midday, 3pm & 7pm and counting the cars that were parked at
those times.
The advice from TTP is that both surveys show the parking onsite is significantly under-
utilised. The peak parking times are midday on a weekday, with weekend midday parking SS
being less than midday parking from Monday to Friday. Parking at 3pm is the next busiest,
with parking demand at 7am and 7pm being the lowest.
The consultant has advised the expected peak parking demand for the hotel synchronises
well with the existing uses on the site. The survey data demonstrates that the existing uses
have the highest parking demand during the middle of the day on weekdays and the
proposed hotel will have its highest parking demand overnight on weekends, which makes
for efficient use of infrastructure.?
The consultant has considered the parking numbers having regard to the peak operating S
times and under two (2) different scenarios assuming a parking demand of one space per 1.5
rooms, which is considered a generously high provision rate for a resort (refer Figure 3 —
Attachment 3). Having regard to Figure 3, the exceedance cases occur on a small number
times on the Monday to Friday midday period. The demand for parking for the hotel is
maximised overnight and therefore would not interfere with the parking provided for the
other uses onsite’.
Despite, the parking being adequate under the former propoststhe applicant has provided
another carpark which provides for a further 48 spaces. This stems from concerns raised in
the information request and also by members of the Noosa Springs Golf and Spa Resort,
about a lack of onsite parking for the integrated development. Having regard to the advice
provided by TTP, it is suggested the additional 48 parking spaces are not needed, with
effectively one space being provided per room when considering Figure 4 (Attachment 3).
Under this scenario, even less of the non-hotel uses parking demand would exceed the
residual capacity that is available®.
In summary, the traffic expert has advised that based on the carparking survey data that has!
been collected, the parking is more than adequate for the proposed development. This is not
to suggest that the proposed alternative modes of transport, including the provision of a
shuttle bus and at least five (5) electric bikes and mopeds will not be provided. The applicant
intends to actively encourage alternative forms of transport for the development consistent
with the Noosa Plan.
3 TTP Advice Letter, paras 21-23
4 TTP Advice Letter, paras 24-25
5 TTP Advice Letter, paras 26-27
8|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 29
Section 30
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Bushfire and Landscaping
With respect to bushfire risk and mitigation, Rob Friend and Associates has provided further
advice, which is provided as Attachment 4. This includes an updated Bushfire Hazard
Assessment, which incorporates an Emergency Response Plan to be used by the hotel
management to respond to a bushfire emergency.
With respect to the request for further information by Council’s consultants, the Landscape
Concept Plan has been updated by the Place Design Group (refer Attachment 5), which
provides for a 5m wide turfed area (identified as 31 on the Landscape Concept Plan, Dwg No.
LCP5, Rev D). It is noted that changes have been made to the building setbacks from Resort
Drive to Building 5, with the removal of the outdoor terrace areas. This area now provides for
the 5m wide turfed area described above, for improved bushfire separation to the bushland
to the east, which is to remain as a managed grass area.
The bushfire consultant has confirmed that emergency services will access the site from
Cooyar Street, into Noosa Springs Drive and Links Drive, which is not required to be
upgraded, and would be an unreasonable imposition placed on the development. The
development relies on onsite evacuation in accordance with the Emergency Response Plan,
which is to be implemented by hotel management as required. The Bushfire Hazard
Assessment acknowledges constraints in terms of vehicle access to the site and has made
recommendations including the removal of some vegetation from the verge within Resort
Drive.
While the submissions have raised the issue of an alternative access to be provided for the
Noosa Springs area as a whole, this is a matter that is beyond the development proposal.
The bushfire expert has confirmed that onsite management of the risk associated with
bushfire is the best option for the proposed development and made a number of
recommendations under the Bushfire Hazard Assessment. The recommendations made
include building location, landscaping, access, water supply, future planning in terms of a
Bushfire Management Plan and an Emergency Response Plan, provided in the updated
Bushfire Hazard Assessment (Attachment 4).
The Landscape Concept Plan has been updated to reflect the changes made to the proposal
plans including the additional tennis court (30) and the 5m wide turfed area (31) discussed
above (refer Attachment 5).
Odour from the Noosa Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
With respect to odour issue Katestone has provided further advice about this issue (refer
Attachment 6). The further advice confirms the assessment that has been undertaken on the
basis that the hotel operates 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week, with the outdoor
recreational areas operating from 7am to 8.30pm for the tennis courts and 7am to 7pm for
the pool.
9|Page
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
y
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
on Adamson
advice
Town Planning
Bushfire and Landscaping
With respect to bushfire risk and mitigation, Rob Friend and Associates has provided further
advice, which is provided as Attachment 4. This includes an updated Bushfire Hazard
Assessment, which incorporates an Emergency Response Plan to be used by the hotel
management to respond to a bushfire emergency.
With respect to the request for further information by Council's consultants, the Landscape
Concept Plan has been updated by the Place Design Group (refer Attachment 5), which
provides for a 5m wide turfed area (identified as 31 on the Landscape Concept Plan, Dwg No.
LCP5, Rev D). It is noted that changes have been made to the building setbacks from Resort
Drive to Building 5, with the removal of the outdoor terrace areas. This area now provides for
the 5m wide turfed area described above, for improved bushfire separation to the bushland
to the east, which is to remain as a managed grass area.
The bushfire consultant has confirmed that emergency services will access the site from
Cooyar Street, into Noosa Springs Drive and Links Drive, which is not required to be
upgraded, and would be an unreasonable imposition placed on the development. The
development relies on onsite evacuation in accordance with the Emergency Response Plan,
which is to be implemented by hotel management as required. The Bushfire Hazard
Assessment acknowledges constraints in terms of vehicle access to the site and has made
recommendations including the removal of some vegetation from the verge within Resort
Drive.
While the submissions have raised the issue of an alternative access to be provided for the =
Noosa Springs area as a whole, this is a matter that is beyond the development proposal.
The bushfire expert has confirmed that onsite management of the risk associated with
bushfire is the best option for the proposed development and made a number of
recommendations under the Bushfire Hazard Assessment. The recommendations made
include building location, landscaping, access, water supply, future planning in terms of a
Bushfire Management Plan and an Emergency Response Plan, provided in the updated
Bushfire Hazard Assessment (Attachment 4).
The Landscape Concept Plan has been updated to reflect the changes made to the proposal
plans including the additional tennis court (30) and the 5m wide turfed area (31) discussed
above (refer Attachment 5).
Odour from the Noosa Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)
With respect to odour issue Katestone has provided further advice about this issue (refer
Attachment 6). The further advice confirms the assessment that has been undertaken on the
basis that the hotel operates 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week, with the outdoor
recreational areas operating from 7am to 8.30pm for the tennis courts and 7am to 7pm for
the pool.
9|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 31
Section 32
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
The assessment confirmed that the concentrations of odour for the accommodation are
predicted to comply with the odour guideline at the façade closest to the Noosa WWTP.
Given the hours of operation for the outdoor recreation areas, the odour concentration at
ground level for these facilities also complies with the guideline.
The further analysis undertaken by the consultant has revealed the odour concentrations are
highest when the wind speed is less than 2 m/s and from the north and northeast. The peak
odour concentrations are higher overnight between 5pm to 5am and very low during the
day. The majority of the odour predications are below the odour guideline. The adverse
meteorological conditions are predicted to occur for approximately 3% of the time.
Photomontages
Given the changes made to the design of the proposed Resort Complex, in terms of lowering
the roof for Buildings 4 and 5, by removing the centre portion and adding solar panels,
removing six (6) rooms from Building 2, and altering the roofline for Building 1, an updated
photomontage package is provided as Attachment 7.
The proposed development sits below the tree line and does not protrude into the skyline.
The most prominent part of the development is Building 2 facing southwest, as shown in the
original photomontage provided (refer Drawing VP01 – Attachment 5). An extract of the
original photomontage for the development before the reduction in building height is
provided as Figure 2, below.
Figure 2 – Original photomontage for the development (extract from VP01 – Attachment 5)
10 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
&
Adamson
Town Planning
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
The assessment confirmed that the concentrations of odour for the accommodation are
predicted to comply with the odour guideline at the facade closest to the Noosa WWTP.
Given the hours of operation for the outdoor recreation areas, the odour concentration at
ground level for these facilities also complies with the guideline.
The further analysis undertaken by the consultant has revealed the odour concentrations are
highest when the wind speed is less than 2 m/s and from the north and northeast. The peak
odour concentrations are higher overnight between 5pm to 5am and very low during the
day. The majority of the odour predications are below the odour guideline. The adverse
meteorological conditions are predicted to occur for approximately 3% of the time.
Photomontages
Given the changes made to the design of the proposed Resort Complex, in terms of lowering
the roof for Buildings 4 and 5, by removing the centre portion and adding solar panels,
removing six (6) rooms from Building 2, and altering the roofline for Building 1, an updated
photomontage package is provided as Attachment 7.
The proposed development sits below the tree line and does not protrude into the skyline.
The most prominent part of the development is Building 2 facing southwest, as shown in the
original photomontage provided (refer Drawing VPO1 — Attachment 5). An extract of the
original photomontage for the development before the reduction in building height is
provided as Figure 2, below.
Figure 2 — Original photomontage for the development (extract from VPO1 — Attachment 5)
10|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
Section 33
Section 34
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Building 2 Roof of Building 3
End of Building 4
Figure 3 – Photomontage showing the reduced building height of the development (using
the original photo from VP01, as cropped)
A new photomontage showing the reduced building height has been prepared, which shows
the development is less visually prominent, being well integrated within the site, and does
not protrude above the existing tree line (refer Figure 3).
By way of comparison, another photomontage has been prepared from a slightly different
angle, providing a comparison of the proposed development and the existing “Parkridge
Noosa” development (refer Figure 4).
Resort Hotel Parkridge Noosa
Figure 4 – Photomontage of proposed development and ‘Parkridge Noosa” (new photo – as
cropped)
11 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
&
Adamson
Town Planning
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Building 2 Roof of Building 3
End of Building 4
t
Figure 3 — Photomontage showing the reduced building height of the development (using
the original photo from VP01, as cropped)
A new photomontage showing the reduced building height has been prepared, which shows
the development is less visually prominent, being well integrated within the site, and does
not protrude above the existing tree line (refer Figure 3).
By way of comparison, another photomontage has been prepared from a slightly different
angle, providing a comparison of the proposed development and the existing “Parkridge
Noosa” development (refer Figure 4).
Figure 4 — Photomontage of proposed development and ‘Parkridge Noosa” (new photo — as
cropped)
11|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
Section 35
Section 36
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
The views used in the photomontages are considered to be the most important view having
regard to the site characteristics, location of vegetation within the golf course, with the
development effectively being not visible off the site, including from the residential
properties in Noosa Springs to the west. This includes having a minimal if any impact when
viewed from Lake Weyba, as shown in the existing photomontages provided as Attachment
5 with the application material.
In terms of impact and visibility, the proposed development is far less prominent when
compared to the existing “Parkridge Noosa” development which extends above the treeline
and into the skyline (refer Figure 4).
Summary
In summary, the changes made to the proposal plans are in response to the submissions
received. The primary change is with respect to the height of Buildings 1, 2, 4 & 5. These
changes have had the effect of reducing the visibility and prominence of the built form. The
reduced height of Building 2 has also reduced the dominance of the built form near the
entry to the hotel at the porte-cochere. An additional tennis court and pavilion have also
been added to maintain the current status quo.
The applicant has provided further advice with respect to the risk of bushfire and in relation
to the proposed landscaping concept. Further, has provided additional advice about the
parking demand generated by the resort hotel and with respect to the impact of odour from
the Noosa WWTP.
Importantly, the applicant has further considered the concerns expressed by the community
about the removal of 19 NJKHTs. In response, the applicant sought further advice from
Gondwana Ecology and is now proposing to provide 60 additional trees in two (2) selected
locations in the adjoining golf course. The planting of additional koala food trees will provide
a net benefit in terms of koala habitat in a known koala location. The additional planting is of
real benefit to the community, given the financial environmental offset is also being
provided.
The applicant has also addressed the concerns raised by SARA and has received the referral
agency response providing conditions of approval. Consequently, pursuant to part 21 of the
Development Assessment Rules, parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 are completed. The Decision Stage (Part 5)
for the application commenced on 6 May 2022.
12 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning ,
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
The views used in the photomontages are considered to be the most important view having
regard to the site characteristics, location of vegetation within the golf course, with the
development effectively being not visible off the site, including from the residential
properties in Noosa Springs to the west. This includes having a minimal if any impact when
viewed from Lake Weyba, as shown in the existing photomontages provided as Attachment
5 with the application material.
In terms of impact and visibility, the proposed development is far less prominent when
compared to the existing “Parkridge Noosa” development which extends above the treeline
and into the skyline (refer Figure 4).
Summary
In summary, the changes made to the proposal plans are in resperive to the submissions
received. The primary change is with respect to the height of Buildings 1, 2, 4 & 5. These
changes have had the effect of reducing the visibility and prominence of the built form. The
reduced height of Building 2 has also reduced the dominance of the built form near the
entry to the hotel at the porte-cochere. =) additional tennis court and pavilion have also
been added to maintain the current status’ quo.
The applicant has provided further advice with respect to the risk of bushfire and in relation
to the proposed landscaping concept. Further, has provided additional advice about the
parking demand generated by the resort hotel and with respect to the impact of odour from
the Noosa WWTP.
Importantly, the applicant has further considered the concerns expressed by the community
about the removal of 19 NJKHTs. In response, the applicant sought further advice from
Gondwana Ecology and is now proposing to provide 60 additional trees in two (2) selected —&
locations in the adjoining golf course. The planting of additional koala food trees will provide
a net benefit in terms of koala habitat in a known koala location. The additional planting is of
real benefit to the community, given the financial environmental offset is also being
provided.
The applicant has also addressed the concerns raised by SARA and has received the referral
agency response providing conditions of approval. Consequently, pursuant to part 21 of the
Development Assessment Rules, parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 are completed. The Decision Stage (Part 5)
for the application commenced on 6 May 2022.
Se
12|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 37
Section 38
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Please advise if further information is required or if Council has any concerns about the
proposal.
Yours faithfully
Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA, MQELA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director - Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd
13 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
‘
Adamson
Town Planning
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Please advise if further information is required or if Council has any concerns about the
proposal.
Yours faithfully
_—_
Shane Adamson (BEngTech, GDURP, MPIA, MQELA)
Town Planning Specialist
Director - Adamson Town Planning Pty Ltd
13|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 39
Section 40
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Table 1 – Issues and Responses
Issue Response
The development extending beyond The proposed hotel development is defined as a
the Tourist Accommodation Zone “Resort Complex” which is a consistent use within the
and into the Recreation and Open TAZ, being for short-term accommodation, which is
Space Zone. encouraged.
It is accepted that the proposed development
extends into the ROSZ and is not consistent in that
zone; however, is on the same parcel of land, and is
to be integrated with the existing Noosa Springs Golf
and Spa Resort facilities.
The development is well located within Noosa Heads,
has been integrated within the site and will not cause
any significant off site impacts upon the character or
amenity of the area. Further, makes for efficient use
of land and infrastructure, which from a town
planning perspective is highly desirable. This is
particularly the case in the Noosa area, where there
are very limited development opportunities.
The Economic Impact Assessment confirms there is a
significant lack of luxury, full service hotel experiences
in the Noosa area, which suffers from a shortage of
short-stay accommodation rooms and chronic
shortage of high-end luxury accommodation 6 . The
only other full service hotel in Noosa is the Sofitel,
which was constructed in 1989.
There are a number of relevant matters that warrant
approval of the proposal, including a significant need
and considerable community benefit including
economic benefits in the short and long term. The
economic benefits are substantial, including provision
of 202 jobs and $25.7M (in GPR terms) during
construction and 14.3M (in GRP terms) and 158 jobs
once operational7.
The use of the Recreation and Open While part of the subject land is included within the
Space Zone not being for ROSZ, the land is privately owned, and not available
6
Economic Impact Assessment, part 6, page 24
7
Economic Impact Assessment, part 6, page 24
14 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
a
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
on Adamson
advice
Town Planning
Table 1 - Issues and Responses
Issue Response
The development extending beyond | The proposed hotel development is defined as a
the Tourist Accommodation Zone | “Resort Complex” which is a consistent use within the
and into the Recreation and Open | TAZ, being for short-term accommodation, which is
Space Zone. encouraged.
It is accepted that the proposed development
extends into the ROSZ and is not consistent in that
zone; however, is on the same parcel of land, and is
to be integrated with the existing Noosa Springs Golf
and Spa Resort facilities. eS
The development is well located within Noosa Heads, S
has been integrated within the site and will not cause
any significant off site impacts upon the character or
amenity of the area. Further, makes for efficient use
of land and _ infrastructure, which from a town =
planning perspective is highly desirable. This is
particularly the case in the Noosa area, where there
are very limited development opportunities.
The Economic Impact Assessment confirms there is a
significant lack of luxury, full service hotel experiences
in the Noosa area, which suffers from a shortage of
short-stay accommodation rooms and_ chronic
shortage of high-end luxury accommodation®. The
only other full service hotel in Noosa is the Sofitel,
which was constructed in 1989.
There are a number of relevant matters that warrant
approval of the proposal, including a significant need
and considerable community benefit including
economic benefits in the short and long term. The
economic benefits are substantial, including provision
of 202 jobs and $25.7M (in GPR terms) during
construction and 14.3M (in GRP terms) and 158 jobs
once operational’.
The use of the Recreation and Open | While part of the subject land is included within the
Space Zone not being __for | ROSZ, the land is privately owned, and not available eS
© Economic Impact Assessment, part 6, page 24
7 Economic Impact Assessment, part 6, page 24
14|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 41
Section 42
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
community benefit or being for general public use. The use of some of the land
assessable by the general included within the ROSZ for the proposed integrated
community. hotel development is logical in the circumstances,
given the location of the TAZ. This is because of the
location of the existing facilities onsite, the existing
site constraints, and the identified significant need
and community benefit.
Building height in terms of meters The proposed building height of the development
and storeys being excessive for the has been lowered for Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 in
land. response to the submissions already explained above.
As shown on the plan provided (Extrapolated 8m &
12m Above NGL Plane – Dwg No. DA4.01, Rev 10 –
Figure 1), small portions of Building 2 exceed 12m in
height with generally small portions of Buildings 3 &
4 exceeding 8m in height.
The development remains predominantly three (3)
storeys in height but is integrated into the slope to
present as two (2) storeys to Resort Drive and when
viewed off the site (refer Dwg No. DA4.08, Rev 8).
Vegetation removal, in particular the This issue has been discussed above, with additional
removal of koala habitat trees. offset planting for 60 habitat trees to be provided
within the golf course as shown in the attached plan
(refer Attachment 2). Further, SARA has conditioned
the payment of an environmental offset for the
removal of the 19 NJKHTs, this being the requirement
to meet the relevant State assessment benchmarks.
Further, a condition has been imposed by SARA for
the existing fencing to be retained to discourage
koala from entering the site, which is appropriate in
the circumstances.
Traffic and carparking impacts The matter of traffic impacts and the provision of
parking for the development has been addressed by
TTP. The proposed development will not cause
adverse traffic impacts upon the existing road
network in the locality. Further, as discussed above,
the parking is more than adequate for the proposed
development, essentially equating to 1 carparking
space per room, when having regard to the parking
surveys that have been undertaken.
15 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
y
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
on Adamson
advice
Town Planning
community benefit or being | for general public use. ‘Whe use of some [==the land
assessable by the general | included within the ROSZ for the proposed integrated
community. hotel development is logical in the circumstances,
given the location of the TAZ. This is because of the
location of the existing facilities onsite, the existing
site constraints, and the identified significant need
and community benefit. =
Building height in terms of meters | The proposed building height of the development
and storeys being excessive for the | has been lowered for Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 in
land. response to the submissions already explained above.
As shown on the plan provided (Extrapolated 8m &
12m Above NGL Plane — Dwg No. DA4.01, Rev 10 -
Figure 1), small portions of Building 2 exceed 12m in =
height with generally small portions of Buildings 3 &
4 exceeding 8m in height.
The development remains predominantly three (3)
storeys in height but is integrated into the slope to
present as two (2) storeys to Resort Drive and w
viewed off the site (refer Dwg No. DA4.08, Rev 8).
Vegetation removal, in particular the | This issue has been discussed above, with additional
removal of koala habitat trees. offset planting for 60 habitat trees to be provided
within the golf course as shown in the attached plan
(refer Attachment 2). Further, SARA has conditioned
the payment of an environmental offset for the
removal of the 19 NJKHTs, this being the requirement
to meet the relevant State assessment benchmarks.
Further, a condition has been imposed by SARA for
the existing fencing to be retained to discourage
koala from entering the site, which is appropriate in
the circumstances.
Traffic and carparking impacts The matter of traffic impacts and the provision of
parking for the development has been addressed by
TTP. The proposed development will not cause 5
adverse traffic impacts upon the existing road
network in the locality. Further, as discussed above,
the parking is more than adequate for the proposed
development, essentially equating to 1 carparking
space per room, when having regard to the parking
surveys that have been undertaken.
15|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 43
Section 44
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
Evacuation during a significant The issue of bushfire risk, including a Bushfire
bushfire event from Noosa Springs Management Plan and Emergency Evacuation Plan
for the development have been considered by the
bushfire expert. The bushfire expert has made a
number of recommendations that are to be
implemented. The provision of alternative emergency
access for the whole of Noosa Springs is not a
relevant or reasonable condition that could be
imposed on the proposed development.
The proposed bar and dining As discussed above, the uses that have been applied
facilities hotel will be used by the for was at the bequest of Noosa Council and not
general public and for functions, because it is intended the general public would utilise
causing adverse impacts the facilities within the hotel. These uses are to
remain ancillary to the hotel, forming part of the
Resort Complex as applied for, to be used primarily
by quests of the hotel. The existing uses at the Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort will remain available to
the general public as is currently the case.
A lack of integration with the It is not agreed there is a lack of integration between
existing facilities on the site the proposed Resort Complex and the existing
facilities. The proposed development relies on the
integration with the existing uses on the site. The
addition of the 5-Star hotel component,
complemented by the existing facilities, provides for
new full service resort hotel which has not occurred in
the Noosa area for many years.
The proposed development has many similar design
elements such as roof tiling and forms and a design
that is in keeping with existing Noosa Springs
character, while also having regard to the
requirements under the planning scheme. Further, the
five buildings or pavilions have been integrated into
the site with substantial landscaping provided, which
is also in keeping with the existing landscaped theme
of Noosa Springs.
The allowable site cover being The proposed development has a site cover of 9.65%
exceeded for the site for the resort hotel and an overall site cover of
17.84% for the development as a whole. The site is
unusual in that it has a split zoning, with the
allowable site cover within the TAZ being 40%. While
16 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
y
advice” Adamson
Town Planning
Evacuation during a_ significant | The issue of bushfire risk, including a Bushfire
bushfire event from Noosa Springs
Management Plan and Emergency Evacuation Plan
for the development have been considered by the
bushfire expert. The bushfire expert has made a
number of recommendations that are to be
implemented. The provision of alternative emergency
access for the whole of Noosa Springs is not a
relevant or reasonable condition that could be
imposed on the proposed development.
The proposed bar and_ dining
facilities hotel will be used by the
general public and for functions,
causing adverse impacts
As discussed above, the uses that have been applied
for was at the bequest of Noosa Council and not
because it is intended the general public would utilise
the facilities within the hotel. These uses are to
remain ancillary to the hotel, forming part of the
Resort Complex as applied for, to be used primarily
by quests of the hotel. The existing uses at the Noosa
Springs Golf and Spa Resort will remain available to
the general public as is currently the case. =
A lack of integration with the
existing facilities on the site
It is not agreed there is a lack of integration between
the proposed Resort Complex and the existing
facilities. The proposed development relies on the
integration with the existing uses on the site. The
addition of the 5-Star hotel component,
complemented by the existing facilities, provides for
new full service resort hotel which has not occurred in
the Noosa area for many years.
The proposed development has many similar design
elements such as roof tiling and forms and a design
that is in keeping with existing Noosa Springs
character, while also having regard to the
requirements under the planning scheme. Further, the
five buildings or pavilions have been integrated into
the site with substantial landscaping provided, which
is also in keeping with the existing landscaped theme
of Noosa Springs.
The allowable site cover
exceeded for the site
being
The proposed development has a site cover of 9.65%
for the resort hotel and an overall site cover of
17.84% for the development as a whole. The site is
unusual in that it has a split zoning, with the
allowable site cover within the TAZ being 40%. While
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
16|Page
Section 45
Section 46
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
the allowable site cover for the ROSZ is 10%, the site
cover for the proposed development is not excessive.
The site cover is well below what is reasonably
considered acceptable for this type of development,
in an urban area, not forgetting the clubhouse could
be located within the ROSZ.
Adverse noise impacts being caused The potential noise impacts from the development
by the proposed development. have been considered by ASK consultants and
provided with the application material (refer
Attachment H). The Noise Impact Assessment
considered the potential noise impacts from the
various sources and made a number of
recommendations, including:
• the use of the tennis courts and pools to have
limited hours of operation
• mechanical plant is to be designed to prevent off
site impacts
• deliveries and waste management is expected to
occur near the existing clubhouse between 7am
and 6pm and not impact upon sensitive receivers
• the use of the carparking and the traffic
generated also being compliant with current
standards.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposed
development will not cause significant off site noise
impacts.
The use of the land for a Hotel The proposal is for a new Resort Complex on land
development meant for the partly located within the TAZ with this use being a
“Parkridge Noosa” site, amounts to consistent use. The proposal is to be integrated with
“double dipping” the existing facilities already provided within the TAZ.
As explained in the Town Planning Report (page 12),
it was originally intended that a Resort Hotel would
be provided in Precinct F under the former Noosa
Springs Plan of Development. This site is now
improved by the “Parkridge Noosa” development,
which is for multiple dwellings, providing
predominantly for permanent residential living, and
not necessarily for visitor accommodation.
Under the current development approval for the
“Parkridge Noosa” development, while short term
17 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
y
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
on Adamson
advice
Town Planning
the allowable site cover for the ROSZ is 10%, the site
cover for the proposed development is not excessive.
The site cover is well below what is reasonably
considered acceptable for this type of development,
in an urban area, not forgetting the clubhouse could
be located within the ROSZ.
Adverse noise impacts being caused | The potential noise impacts from the development
by the proposed development. have been considered by ASK consultants and
provided with the application material (refer =
Attachment H). The Noise Impact Assessment
considered the potential noise impacts from the
various sources and made a number of
recommendations, including:
e the use of the tennis courts and pools to have
limited hours of operation
e mechanical plant is to be designed to prevent off
site impacts
e deliveries and waste m ement is expected to
occur near the existing house between 7am
and 6pm and not impact upon sensitive receivers
e the use of the carparking and the traffic
generated also being compliant with current
standards.
Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposed
development will not cause significant off site noise
impacts.
The use of the land for a Hotel The proposal is for a new Resort Complex on land
development meant for the partly located within the TAZ with this use being a
“Parkridge Noosa” site, amounts to | consistent use. The proposal is to be integrated with
“double dipping" the existing facilities already provided within the TAZ.
As explained in the Town Planning Report (page 12),
it was originally intended that a Resort Hotel would
be provided in Precinct F under the former Noosa I
Springs Plan of Development. This site is now
improved by the “Parkridge Noosa” development,
which is for multiple dwellings, providing
predominantly for permanent residential living, and
not necessarily for visitor accommodation. Se
Under the current development approval for the
“Parkridge Noosa” development, while short term
17|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
Section 47
Section 48
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
accommodation is to be promoted and managed,
there is no restriction on the number of units being
used for permanent residential living 8 . Under the
planning scheme the “Parkridge Noosa” development
is located within the TAZ and is intended for visitor
accommodation, which now is unlikely to be realised.
In contrast, the proposed development is for purely
visitor accommodation, to the exclusion of
permanent residential living, which will provide
substantial community benefit for reasons already
explained. The proposed development is for a
different development providing visitor
accommodation and does not amount to “double
dipping”.
A reduction in the number of tennis The changes made to the proposal plans include an
courts being currently available additional tennis court to maintain the status quo, all
of which are located within the ROSZ, and a
consistent Sport and Recreation use. Further, the
existing tennis pavilion has also been replaced.
A lack of sustainability and energy A Sustainability Design Report has been provided as
efficiency Attachment 4 in the application material. The changes
made to the proposal plans in terms of reducing the
height of Buildings 4 & 5 has provided areas for
additional solar panels, which substantially increase
the amount of solar power (50kVA PV System) able to
be generated as stated in the advice provided (refer
Attachment 8).
A number of sustainability and other energy
efficiency measures are being adopted for the
development as explained in the Superior Design
Outcomes Report (Attachment 8). The applicant is
committed to providing a high level of sustainability,
which reduces cost in the long term, by achieving a
high stand of energy efficiency.
The development does not accord It is not agreed that the proposed development does
with reasonable community not accord with reasonable community expectations.
expectations for the site The subject land was partly included within the TAZ
8
Refer condition 4 of the development approval issued 23 June 2020
18 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
y
Adamson
Town Planning
accommodation is to be promoted and managed,
there is no restriction on the number of units being
used for permanent residential living®. Under the
planning scheme the “Parkridge Noosa” development
is located within the TAZ and is intended for visitor
accommodation, which now is unlikely to be realised. =
In contrast, the proposed development is for purely
visitor accommodation, to the exclusion § of
permanent residential living, which will provide
substantial community benefit for reasons already
explained. The proposed development is for a
different development providing visitor
accommodation and does not amount to “double
dipping’. =
A reduction in the number of tennis
courts being currently available
The changes made to the proposal plans include an
additional tennis court to maintain the status quo, all
of which are located within the ROSZ, and a
consistent Sport and Recreation use. Further, the
existing tennis pavilion has also been replaced. S
A lack of sustainability and energy
efficiency
A Sustainability Design Report has been provided as
Attachment 4 in the application material. The changes
made to the proposal plans in terms of reducing the
height of Buildings 4 & 5 has provided areas for
additional solar panels, which substantially increase
the amount of solar power (SO0kVA PV System) able to
be generated as stated in the advice provided (refer
Attachment 8).
A number of sustainability and other energy
efficiency measures are being adopted for the
development as explained in the Superior Design
Outcomes Report (Attachment 8). The applicant is
committed to providing a high level of sustainability,
which reduces cost in the long term, by achieving a
high stand of energy efficiency.
The development does not accord
with reasonable community
expectations for the site
It is not agreed that the proposed development does
not accord with reasonable community expectations. =]
The subject land was partly included within the TAZ
8 Refer condition 4 of the development approval issued 23 June 2020
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”
18|Page
Section 49
Section 50
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
advice”
under the Noosa Plan 2020; however, the location of
the zone is mostly over land where the existing
Noosa Springs Golf and Spa facilities are provided.
Under the planning scheme it is reasonably expected
a Resort Complex would be provided within the TAZ,
this being a consistent use in that zone. While the
Resort Complex extends into the ROSZ, this is
unavoidable, given the location of existing facilities
which are to be retained and integrated as part of
proposed development.
It also a relevant consideration that “Parkridge
Noosa” is a multiple dwelling development, which
provides mostly for permanent residential living.
While some of the dwellings might be used for visit
accommodation, the development is not for purely
visitor accommodation as intended under the
planning scheme. The proposed development is
consistent with that intent and is located beside this
site.
It is noted technically the existing clubhouse facilities
could be located within the ROSZ, which is a relevant
consideration for the overall development of the site.
The proposed new four (4) tennis courts and pavilion
(Outdoor sport and recreation use) are located within
the ROSZ, which is also a consistent use.
When the site and the proposal are considered
collectively under the planning scheme, having regard
to the existing facilities, the site constraints, the
minimal adverse impacts being caused, if any, the
proposed development accords with reasonable
community expectations for land within the Noosa
Heads locality.
19 | P a g e
16022 – Noosa Springs “Boutique Hotel”
[OCR of page images]
|
“Adamson Town Planning, specialising in providing higher order town planning
, Adamson
advice
Town Planning
under the Noosa Plan 2020; however, the location of
the zone is mostly over land where the existing
Noosa Springs Golf and Spa facilities are provided.
Under the planning scheme it is reasonably expected
a Resort Complex would be provided within the TAZ, =
this being a consistent use in that zone. While the
Resort Complex extends into the ROSZ, this is
unavoidable, given the lof==pn of existing facilities
which are to be retained and integrated as part of
proposed development.
It also a relevant consideration that “Parkridge
Noosa” is a multiple dwelling development, which
provides mostly for permanent residential living.
While some of the dwellings might be used for visit
accommodation, the development is not for purely
visitor accommodation as intended under the
planning scheme. The proposed development is
consistent with that intent and is located beside this =
site.
It is noted technicall=je existing clubhouse facilities
could be located within the ROSZ, which is a relevant
consideration for the overall development of the site.
The proposed new four (4) tennis courts and pavilion
(Outdoor sport and recreation use) are located within
the ROSZ, which is also a consistent use.
When the site and the proposal are considered
collectively under the planning scheme, having regard
to the existing facilities, the site constraints, the S
minimal adverse impacts being caused, if any, the
proposed development accords with reasonable
community expectations for land within the Noosa
Heads locality.
19|Page
16022 — Noosa Springs "Boutique Hotel”