21 December 2018 Our ref: 4463b Chief Executive Officer Somerset Regional Council PO Box 117 Esk QLD 4312 Application Number: DA18074

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE FOR APPLICATION DA18074 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE (RELOCATABLE HOME PARK)

PROPERTY ADDRESS: LOT 11 AND 11 BANKS CREEK ROAD, FERNVALE QLD 4306 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LOT 11 ON SP180657 LOT 1 ON RP71079

We refer to Council’s information request dated the 9th of November 2018 regarding a request for further information for the above application. In accordance with Part 3, Section 13 of the Development Assessment Rules (as referenced in Section 68 of the Planning Act 2016), we would hereby like to formally respond to the information request items, as outlined in further detail within this letter (our response to each item is shown in blue). A meeting was held between our office, the Mayor (Grahame Lehmann) and the Director of Planning (Peter Tabulo) on the 20th November 2018 to discuss the details of the information request and clarify some of the items, as we were concerned that Council had misunderstood what the proposed development is, and how it would operate. Unfortunately, we were not able to clarify our concerns with some of the items listed below, and hence have addressed them in detail within this letter. Firstly, we wish to emphasise the more than one solution is achievable through assessment against the Performance Outcomes of the Planning Scheme. Acceptable Outcomes are considered to be the equivalent of an ‘automatic tick’ in the assessment process, but are not the ‘be all and end all’ for assessment purposes. The intent of performance-based planning is for a proposal to be assessed based on its merits against the relevant codes as a whole (rather than isolating assessment to specific matters only). Secondly, for the assessment of the Relocatable home park, we believe the State Government guideline document “Guidelines on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks” should be used (see attached item 3). This document has been considered as ‘best practice’ in the industry for many years, and was previously called up in the Esk IPA Planning Scheme 2005. It is also useful in providing guidance on particular design aspects where silent in the current Planning Scheme. Thirdly, we note that the proposal plans have been updated slightly based on the items in this information request. The key changes are: - Width of internal road pavement has been increased to 6m - Bulk bin storage locations noted (on separate site plan) - Areas stepped in within the ‘verge’ to allow for street trees within the home park - Setbacks for future houses increased - House designs altered to fit within proposed setbacks

Page 2 of 16

1. Non-compliance with the Planning Scheme

The development proposed represents an over development of the site due to excessive number of lots proposed and the non-standard development provision.

Firstly, we feel it is important to note that the use of the word ‘lots’ in relation to the proposed Relocatable Home Park is technically incorrect. Relocatable Home Parks operate under the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003. Under this act, a ‘residential park’ is defined as “an area of land that includes sites, common areas and facilities for the personal comfort, convenience and enjoyment of persons residing in manufactured homes positioned on sites”.

A relocatable home (manufactured home) is defined in this act as “a structure, other than a caravan or tent, that –

(a) has the character of a dwelling house; and

(b) is designed to be able to be moved from one position to another; and

(c) is not permanently attached to the land”.

The proposal does not involve the subdivision of land and hence does not create additional lots (freehold or community title).

The sites are only ever available for rent under a site agreement. They are not separately titled. The park is managed by the park owner or an appointed manager.

A site agreement is defined in this act as “…an agreement between a park owner and a home owner that –

(a) provides for –

(i) the rental by the home owner of a particular land in a residential park; and

(ii) the positioning on the land of a manufactured home; and

(iii) the home owner’s non-exclusive use of the park’s common areas and communal facilities…”

Therefore, the development cannot be assessed in the same way as a conventional freehold, or community titles scheme residential land subdivision.

Relocatable home parks are an alternative form of accommodation and are becoming increasingly more common across a variety of local government areas in South East Queensland.

The following are some good examples of existing and approved Relocatable home parks, all of which have similar design aspects to our proposal (in terms of site size, internal road widths etc):

- Claremont Resort, 431 Park Ridge Rd, Park Ridge (existing). Photographs are attached to this letter in item 4 (a).

- Highland Street, Esk (approved). Approved plans are attached to this letter in item 4 (b).

- Burpengary Pines Village, 764 Morayfield Rd, Burpengary (existing and approved extension). Photos and approved plans are attached to this letter in item 4 (c).

Prior to lodgement of the application, preliminary discussions were held between our office and former Director of Planning Brad Sully in relation to the proposed Relocatable Home Park on the site.

Brad Sully advised (in his email dated 14 December 2017):

“In the broad sense we have no objections to a relocatable home park development in this locality. Please note however that our Tourist Park & relocatable home park code specifies a minimum of 250m2 per house lot. Also there is some flooding issues in this locality which we can provide further detail on. Finally the draft plan shows no on site amenities for future residents. We would be looking for a generous spread of such amenities onsite. Happy to chat further”.

Page 3 of 16

A pre-lodgement meeting was then held on the 13 March 2018 to discuss the proposal in further detail. The main concerns raised by Council were in regards to:

- Generous spread of amenities; and

- The quality of the development.

Other concerns were able to be easily resolved by the other technical consultants in our project team (i.e. stormwater management, landscaping etc).

The plan submitted with the application was amended to address the concerns from Council as part of their pre-lodgement feedback.

The only comment in regard to density was in Brad Sully’s email (as outlined above), whereby he noted that the Planning Scheme prescribes a site area of 250m². Our proposed development achieves this.

As such, we feel the density of the proposal is appropriate, given that it adheres to the minimum site area requirements as prescribed in the Planning Scheme.

In addition to the above, the following are ‘relevant matters’ that Council should consider in assessing whether the density is appropriate on the site.

- Existing approval – Comparatively, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the scale and intensity of the existing approved development on the site. The existing approval is for a 50-lot residential subdivision over Lot 11 only. As discussed in further detail within section 5.2 of the Town Planning Report, each lot has the ability to contain a dwelling house and secondary dwelling (‘as of right’). Other uses such as a Dual Occupancy (duplex) may be able to be achieved on some or all of the lots. A such, we believe the site could contain up to 100 dwellings if the existing approval was exercised (either a house with secondary dwelling or a Dual occupancy).

- Guidelines on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks – The proposal has a density that is in accordance with the acceptable outcomes of the Guideline on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks. S2 (page 14) states that “the density of site in a residential park exceeding no more than 25 sites per hectare, satisfies performance criterion P1”.

- Locational attributes – The locational attributes of the site make it ideal to accommodate increased housing densities due to its accessibility to the town centre (which includes a variety of services, entertainment, recreation etc), Col Powel Park, Fernvale Indoor Sports Centre (which includes a variety of fitness and sporting facilities and programs) and existing public transport facilities. This adheres to overall outcome (2)(b) of the Tourist park and relocatable home park code.

- Affordable housing – The proposed development will assist in providing a mix of housing types to accommodate the changing need of the community and enables existing residents to remain in the area if they are looking to downsize. One of the key benefits (in terms of cost) of living in these parks is that the ongoing cost of living is typically reduced, for the following reasons:

• Car dependency is reduced given the sites accessibility to the town centre and existing public transport facilities.

• The sites and homes are smaller than the larger rural-residential properties in the surrounding area, and as such provide a low maintenance housing option.

• Communal facilities are maintained through the rent paid for each site. The communal facilities are considered adequate, but not unnecessarily oversized, which helps to reduce the ongoing cost of operation and maintenance, which is typically paid by the occupants through their rent.

• The occupants do not pay Council rates for their site.

- Mix of housing types – A relocatable home park provides an opportunity for a different model of accommodation compared to that of other conventional private ownership options (i.e. freehold land, community title land, building unit plan etc). The occupants of the site are able to rent the land under a

Page 4 of 16

‘site agreement’ and purchase a home to put on the site. The occupants never have to purchase the land. The proposed development contributes to providing a diversity of housing types to meet the needs of the broader community.

- Lifestyle choice – Based on other existing relocatable home parks in South East Queensland (particularly Claremont Resort), these parks typically provide a positive community environment with a high-quality built form outcome. A variety of people are attracted to Relocatable Home Parks as an alternative accommodation and lifestyle choice, in particular the ‘over 50s’ community.

- Relocatable Home Parks in the Planning Scheme – A Relocatable home park use triggers impact assessment in every zone within the Planning scheme. Although the use triggers impact assessment, it does not mean that it is not a suitable use on the land. Impact assessment is a merits-based assessment, against the assessment benchmarks and any other relevant matter. Relevant matters under the Planning Act 2016 should not be confused with the sufficient grounds test under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, whereby decisions were to not conflict with the planning scheme unless there were “sufficient grounds to justify the decision”. The ‘relevant matter’ test is now a balancing act between conflicts with a Planning Scheme and good planning grounds for approval.

- ‘Intended development’ options within the General Residential Zone – The General Residential Zone has a variety of uses that are intended to occur in the zone, considering the Level of Assessment table and the Zone Code. One alternative land use to consider is a Retirement facility, which triggers code assessment on the site. Code assessment is a bounded assessment only (our emphasis) against the applicable planning requirements (which are the assessment benchmarks within the Planning Scheme only, not any State guideline or policy, unless specifically called up within the assessment benchmarks). The assessment manager must approve the development application to the extent it complies with the assessment benchmarks, or otherwise can condition compliance if required. A refusal is only intended to be allowed in the instance where a development application cannot be conditioned to meet the assessment benchmarks. The density prescribed in the Retirement facility and residential care facility code is:

• 1 dwelling per 250m² of site area for independent units

• 1 dwelling per 150m² of site area for semi-dependant units

• 1 dwelling per 100m² of site area for dependant units

Based on the above, it is considered that other uses can be achieved on the site at a similar (or greater) scale and density to our proposal.

2. Traffic and Connectivity issues

Council does not support internal roads to be used as a shared space for vehicles and pedestrians.

a. Please provide a traffic report prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) in accordance with Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 4 – Design Standards and includes (but not limited to):

• Traffic impacts at the entrance to the site and the intersection of Banks Creek Road and the Brisbane Valley Highway;

Please see attached the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Burchills Engineering Solutions (item 5) which assesses the impacts at the entrance of the site and the intersection of Banks Creek Road and the Brisbane Valley Highway. In summary, it was concluded that the impact of the proposed development traffic on the functionality of the Brisbane Valley Highway intersection is comfortably within acceptable limits while maintaining through priority for the Brisbane Valley Highway.

• 5.5m wide internal access roads are considered insufficient and will not provide sufficient space for traffic to pass safely and may create pedestrian and vehicular conflict. Please amend proposal plan to include 7m wide roads or provide further supporting information.

Page 5 of 16

The internal road pavement has been widened to 6m, which is in accordance with the acceptable outcome of the ‘Guidelines on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks’. A 7m wide road pavement is not considered necessary for this type of development.

• Provide sufficient verge on internal roads for landscaping, street lighting, and pedestrian footpath (allowed to accommodate people with disabilities) use while allowing for two-way traffic (this typically has been minimum 2.5m verge widths for Relocatable Home Parks with 2.5m building setbacks);

This type of development typically doesn’t show verges in the conventional way it would be shown on a Council road design.

The ‘sites’ are typically up to the pavement (or close to). In our case, the sites are 1m from the road pavement. A setback of 3m is now proposed for the future dwellings, which provides a ‘verge’. The proposed servicing of the sites involves private infrastructure only (not QUU assets).

• Provide considerations that refuse collection vehicle can service the development (typically a minimum of 6m sealed width is required for internal roads);

The internal road has been widened from 5.5m to 6m. The internal road layout suitably accommodates a refuse collection vehicle (designed at a HRV standard).

• The internal roads can be used by two-way traffic, vehicles passing-by each other without conflict at the same time;

A 6m wide road pavement accommodates two-way car traffic.

• Vehicles can turn into the residential dwellings without causing conflict with other road users; and

As above. A 6m wide road pavement accommodates two-way car traffic.

• The access is sited appropriately along Banks Creek Road.

The point of access is considered appropriate, as it provides adequate separation from Burns Street.

b. Banks Creek Road is a Collector Street with minimum requirements as per Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 4 – Design Standards and will be required to be constructed to a Collector Street Standard.

c. The development does not make and demonstrate appropriate provisions for bicycle parking.

Submit amended plans to provide bicycle parking for residents’ and visitors bicycles in accordance with Table SC6.5.10.3.2.1 – Minimum car parking, bicycle parking and service vehicle requirements of Planning Scheme Policy 4 – Design Standards.

We are of the opinion that separate bicycle parking is not necessary as it can be easily accommodated within each site. Bicycle parking within communal areas can be provided later if warranted by demand.

d. Please provide further information and/or plans regarding the type of footpath network is proposed. Such as connections to Council’s existing network, internal network, connection to the main nodes of the development and local shops/services.

Please see Table SC6.5.10.1.12.1 – Footpath and Cyclepath Requirements by Road Type for further information. As the internal road will be servicing up 100 sites, Council considers this as an Access Street standard.

The development only includes private roads and hence the footpath and cyclist requirements mentioned above are not relevant. The private road does not need to adhere to an Access Street standard for a Council road.

e. Please confirm the verge widths for internal roads as the proposed verge widths appear insufficient for the proposed landscaping depicted in the Landscape Concept Plan.

Page 6 of 16

As explained above, the ‘sites’ are typically up to the pavement (or close to). In our case, the sites are 1m from the road pavement. A setback of 3m is now proposed for the future dwellings, which provides a ‘verge’.

Street trees are to be accommodated in a ‘stepped in’ area between the site and the road pavement.

f. The proposed plans show internal roads with no dedicated access or marked delineation for safe pedestrian passage within the development site. The internal paved areas must be signed and delineated in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices – Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Submit amended plans to show how pedestrians and cyclists will have access to the site which is designed to provide safe movement and avoid unnecessary conflict between pedestrians, pedestrians with disabilities, cyclists and motor vehicles. Details must include but not be limited to pavement finishes, speed control devices, signage and appropriate landscaping within verges which does not prevent pedestrian access from roadways (which is necessary due to the narrow road widths proposed).

Please see attached the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Burchills Engineering Solutions (item 5).

The internal roads are private and will be designed as a shared zone with vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, sharing the 6m wide road. A speed limit of 10km/hr and traffic calming in the form of speed humps every 40m is proposed, in order to maintain low speeds through the site.

g. Please confirm that all internal pathways/roads will comply with AS1428.1-4:2010 Design for Access and Mobility.

The internal roads can comply with AS1428.1-4:2010 Design for Access and Mobility.

3. Flooding issues

Council has concerns regarding the flooding issues affecting the development.

3.3.11.1 Specific Outcome for Element – Flooding of the Strategic Framework states:

“Land subject to inundation during the defined flood event is protected from increased residential development and other sensitive land uses that require a higher level of flood protection except… only where the impacts of flood on the development can be mitigated such that there is no foreseeable risk to life or property”.

Council identifies Relocatable home park as a sensitive land use development.

The State Planning Policy – state interest guidance material for natural hazards, risks and resilience – Flood also identifies Relocatable home park as a vulnerable use.

h. Council has previously described vulnerable uses should be outside the 0.2% (or Q500 AEP level). The applicant’s mapped the 0.2% in the provided flood study, but did not consider flooding from the Brisbane River to the 0.2%. In addition, the proposed earthworks may not protect the development to the 0.2% flood level.

Please clarify whether the Relocatable Home Park would be outside 0.2% flood level or consider changes to the application and design.

Alternatively, please provide any alternative solution to further mitigate future flood risk.

It appears that Council are reading parts of some material in isolation and hence are incorrectly applying a Q500 AEP requirement. This particular land use has historically only needed to adhere to the flood requirements for the Q100 AEP. This is also reflected in the Guidelines on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks document (see S1 – page 4).

Another important point to note, is that the existing approval on Highland St, Esk (see attached item 4 (b)), only needed to adhere to the Q100 flood level, as reflected on the approved plan of development and in the conditions of approval.

Page 7 of 16

Somerset Region Planning Scheme v. 3

The current version of the Somerset Region Planning Scheme (v.3) commenced on the 27/04/2018. The previous version (v.2) was amended on the 03/07/17, to align with the Planning Act 2016. The original planning scheme came into force on the 1 March 2016.

Firstly, it is important to note that a ‘vulnerable land use’ is not defined in the Somerset Region Planning Scheme.

Secondly, it is important to note that a vulnerable land use, or vulnerable person is not the same as a ‘sensitive land use’ in the planning scheme (the term vulnerable person is explained in further detail below). The term sensitive land use typically applies to any residential land use that needs to be protected against unreasonable amenity impacts from incompatible development.

Element 3.3.11 (d) of the Strategic Framework (Element – Flooding) states that: “Land subject to inundation during the defined flood event is protected from increased residential development and other sensitive land uses that require a high level of flood protection except in the following circumstances and only where the impacts of flooding on the development can be mitigated such that there is no foreseeable risk to life or property”. The defined flood event in the Somerset Region Planning Scheme is the Q100. All buildings and structures will be situated above the Q100. The clause above does not specify (nor imply) a higher level of flood protection than the Q100 is required for sensitive land uses. The Flood Hazard Overlay Code does not specify this either, particularly in regards to Relocatable home parks. State Planning Policy (SPP)

The State Planning Policy (SPP) applies when a Council makes, or amends their local planning instruments. If there is an inconsistency between a local planning instrument and the current SPP, a local government will assess development applications against the SPP to the extent of any inconsistency. The Somerset Region Planning Scheme has been adopted post SPP and as such is deemed to have integrated the SPP principles into the Planning Scheme.

SPP Guidance Material Each of the state interests in the SPP (i.e. natural hazards) is supported by a guidance document. These are intended to help Council’s in preparing their policy. The state government does not mandate how the state interests should be addressed. When a local planning scheme has not yet been updated to incorporate the SPP state interests, the Council will assess a development application using the assessment

Page 8 of 16

benchmarks in the SPP. The assessment benchmarks for natural hazards, risk and resilience are on page 52 of the SPP, as shown below.

The current SPP commenced on the 3 July 2017 and replaced the previous versions of the SPP (from 2014). Council has had ample opportunity to incorporate the state interests into their new planning scheme since the original planning scheme came into force on 1 March 2016. The SPP guidance material is intended to be read in conjunction with the SPP. The SPP guidance material is not a statutory document and does not contain any policy requirements. It is not mandatory for local governments to use the SPP guidance material. It is only provided to assist with the interpretation and application of the state interest policies and the assessment benchmarks contained in the SPP. Page 44 of the SPP guidance material is the only part of this document that refers to a relocatable home park (as shown below).

Page 9 of 16

This particular section is for ‘isolated areas/flood islands’ under the ‘Optional flood hazard overlay code provisions’. The site is not within an isolated area or on a flood island. Therefore, this section of the document is not applicable to our proposed development. Page 48 of the SPP guidance material gives minimum flood immunity standards for certain uses. A relocatable home park is not included in this table. Uses involving ‘vulnerable persons’ are to be located above the Q500 flood event. These uses are: - Retirement village - Residential care facility - Facility where an education and care service under the Education and Care Services National Law (Queensland) is operated or a child care service under the Child Care Act 2002 is conducted - Correctional facility - Education establishment Whilst the term ‘vulnerable persons’ is not defined in the SPP guidance material, the term ‘vulnerable’ (in regards to a person) typically means someone in need of special care, support, or protection because of age or disability. Our proposed development was not designed to accommodate vulnerable persons, particularly persons of a certain age. Based on the above, we are of the opinion that a relocatable home park does not need to be above the Q500 AEP.

It is also emphasised that the site would have full flood immunity for events up to the Q200 (in both local and regional events).

i. It is noted the entrance to the development is impeded by mapped flood hazard.

Please amend the plans identifying an alternative location of the main access or provide additional alternative emergency and evacuation routes/accesses capable of servicing emergency services vehicles and the like.

Our proposed access location is considered acceptable for the reasons discussed below.

Our Hydraulic Consultant has extracted the 1% AEP depths and velocities over Banks Creek Road at this location and the values comply with QUDM's requirements. The details are as follows:

• Velocities are less than 1.2 m/s • Depths are less than 0.2 m • Depth-Velocity Product is less than 0.24 m2/s

Page 10 of 16

Therefore, flooding over Banks Creek Road at the site access complies with QUDM's flow limits for transverse flow during a major storm (see image below).

In addition to the above, a pedestrian pathway is provided between site 90 and 91 to provide safe pedestrian egress in the time of flood (if the Banks Creek Road access is inundated enough to inhibit the movement of vehicles and pedestrians through this location). This is shown in the figure below. However, given that the likelihood of needing to solely rely on this path is low, pedestrian emergency egress is considered to be more than appropriate (rather than also needing to accommodate vehicles). Signage can be provided near the pathway and in the communal building to show where the pathway is, if deemed to be necessary by Council.

4. Stormwater issues

j. Please clarify what measures have been included in the development to account for high stormwater flows from the upstream development.

Please find attached the response from Burchills Engineering Solutions responding to this item.

5. Refuse Storage and Collection

Further details on the proposed waste management is required.

k. Please identify location of bin bays/bulk storage points. The proposed waste management will need to satisfy AO12.3 of the Transport, access and parking code and AO1.4 of the Tourist park and Relocatable home park code.

Where compliance with the Acceptable Outcomes cannot be achieved, provide alternative solutions demonstrating PO12 of the Tourist park and Relocatable home park code can be achieved.

Please note, any bulk bin storage points should be:

• Adequate screened from public view, the neighbouring property, and be adequately landscaped or integrated within the building design;

Page 11 of 16

• Not located near habitable areas on-site or nearby buildings for health and amenity reasons (i.e. odour and noise);

• Refuse collection vehicle can access the area in forward motion;

• Location of bins must be free of obstructions at all times (i.e. not behind car parking spaces or landscaping area) and

• The storage points are located at the same grade as the internal road.

The amended site plan shows the nominated bin storage and collection points. All sites will be serviced by multiple bulk bins within the site.

The site will enter into a waste servicing agreement with a private contractor. A range of different types of refuse vehicles are normally available to access developments all across the region. The site may be serviced by either side, front or rear loader trucks, as the bins will need to be brought out of the storage area for collection.

l. How will the bulk bin storage points be drained and cleaned?

The bin storage areas will be impervious and provided with a drain and hose connection. The park will be privately managed by either the park owner or an appointed manager and as such private cleaners will be organised by the park manager to clean communal areas on the site, which include the bin storage points. Procedures will be put in place to specify how often the bin storage points will need to be cleaned.

6. Connectivity

m. The proposed development has the potential to provide inter-allotments vehicle and pedestrian connections to adjoining lots/developments.

Provide amended plans demonstrate any inter-allotments vehicle and pedestrian connections to adjoining Lots 2 to 9 on RP28843 and existing and proposed developments.

It is our opinion that this request is not reasonable, or relevant and unduly onerous on the development. We also note that inter-allotment connections were not conditioned within the previous approvals on this site (Reconfiguring a Lot) or the adjoining lots 2 to 9 on RP28843 (Shopping centre), and it is not a requirement of the Planning Scheme.

It is difficult to provide permanent inter-allotment vehicle and pedestrian connections from one site to the next (through private property) via internal private roads. Easements will be required to make this legally work. It is difficult to differentiate between privately owned land that can and cannot be accessed by the general public.

The other issue this causes is one of safety. Relocatable home parks are typically safe communities and normally gated. Allowing public access through the land affects the actual and perceived safety of residents. Possible concerns may relate to traffic (with an increase in vehicles moving through the site) and crime.

Each development (approved and proposed) on this site and the adjoining land, can suitably function independently of each other and therefore the plans remain unchanged in this regard.

7. Amenity and Open space issues

Council has concerns regarding the amenity and privacy for future residents of the proposed Relocatable home park with the following issues:

n. It is considered by Council that lack of front boundary setback and the proposed 1m rear and side boundary setbacks for the proposed dwelling units will be impede on the level of amenity and privacy of future residents of the Relocatable home park.

Provide amended design plans mitigating issues raised above.

The site plan now includes a setback table, which differs slightly from what was originally put forward in the Town Planning Report. The setbacks for the future dwellings on each site have been increased.

Page 12 of 16

New house plans have also been provided (3 different designs with a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings). Please note, the dwelling designs provided are indicative only and are subject to slightly change at Building Approval stage, to give more flexibility for future residents.

The setbacks proposed are as follows (as shown on the site plan):

Boundary Minimum Setback

Front (primary and secondary internal road frontage)

3m to OMP

Side 1.5m to OMP (one side or both sides) Built to boundary (one side only)

Rear 1.5m

In addition to the above setbacks, we note the following (which can be added in as conditions of approval):

• Setbacks are measured from the site boundary, not the internal road pavement.

• Built to boundary walls are permitted on one side only.

• Where a built to boundary wall is not utilised, both boundary setbacks are to be 1.5m.

• No two built to boundary walls are to be constructed along a common boundary.

o. Although the total site cover for the proposed development complies with the site cover stipulated in the AO3 of the General residential zone code, being not exceeding 50%, the average site cover of individual dwellings on their respective individual lots do not.

Provide revised design plans demonstrating compliant with AO3 of the General residential zone code.

Where compliance with the Acceptable Outcomes cannot be achieved, provide alternative solutions demonstrating PO3 of the General residential zone code can be achieved.

All the revised house designs do not exceed a 50% site cover for each site.

p. Pursuant to SC6.5.14.3 Open Spaces – Parks Landscaping Design Standards – General of the Planning Scheme Policy 4 – Design Standards states that:

“vi. Constructed Stormwater Drains are not suitable for parkland”.

Council therefore cannot accept the stormwater drainage area along the north-eastern boundary as part of the total Outdoor Space and bio-retention area.

Submit information detailing the percentage of the total Outdoor Space provided for the development. As stipulated by AO1.4 of the Tourist park and relocatable home park code, the minimum recreation space is 10% of the total site area.

SC6.5.14.3 Open Spaces – Parks Landscaping Design Standards – General of the Planning Scheme Policy 4 – Design Standards only applies to parkland, not private developments. Therefore, this section of the Planning Scheme is not relevant.

Firstly, we wish to note that there is no definition for what ‘recreation space’ is in the Planning Scheme.

Recreation is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “activity done for enjoyment when one is not working”. Recreation can come in many forms, including space for passive or active recreation, and also in the form of the appreciation of the natural environment.

The area used as our stormwater drainage area provides an open space for the communal recreation building to overlook. It breaks up the mass of the built form within the site.

The other thing to note, is the 10% recreation space requirement outlined in Table 8.2.21.3.B is technically not called up in the code (it is not specifically referenced in the acceptable outcomes of performance outcomes).

AO1.4 states that that the proposal complies with the provisions in Table 8.2.21.3.B with respect to:

(a) Minimum site area for each accommodation type;

Page 13 of 16

(b) Setbacks to internal road frontages;

(c) Distances to amenities; and

(d) Distance from refuse storage areas.

Despite the above, we feel our communal recreation space is suitable given the expectations of visitors and residents, having regard to the nature of the accommodation use and the existing facilities within the locality.

Col Powel Park and the Fernvale Indoor Sports Centre is located across from the site on Banks Creek Road. These facilities provide many different types of passive and active recreation for the residents of the Relocatable home park. Therefore, additional recreation space within the park will be simply oversized and unnecessary.

q. Please provide further details on noise attenuation measures along the south-western boundary adjoining Lots 2 to 9 on RP28843.

The current comments made against PO4 and 6 of the General residential zone code are not acceptable as they rely on the adjoining properties proposed and anticipated development.

The existing approval on the adjoining sites (for Shopping centre) required a 2.5m high acoustic barrier to be constructed along the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the development.

The Relocatable home park approval can be conditioned to provide this 2.5m high acoustic barrier, if development was to commence on this site first. This also protects the site against any potential road traffic noise, although it is noted that only a small part of the south-western boundary is mapped as being within a Category 1 area under the QDC MP 4.4.

8. Noise and lighting issues

r. Council has concerns regarding the impact of noise and lighting amenity of nearby existing sensitive land uses, of particular concerns are Lot 5 RP28844 and Lot 3 RP171617.

Please provide further information how the noise and lighting impacts generated by the development to 5Rall surrounding land uses will be mitigated further.

Lighting

The approval can be suitably conditioned to ensure that outdoor lighting within the premises complies with AS4282:1997 Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting. Certification can be provided to Council from a suitably qualified person if necessary.

Page 14 of 16

Noise

The proposed setbacks to the north west boundary will not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents (Lot 5 on RP28844 - directly adjoining proposed site 19 and 20, Lot 3 on RP171617 – directly adjoining site 88, 89 and 90 plus open space). Although a 1.5m high retaining wall (maximum) is proposed on the common boundary, a 1.8m high timber fence will be erected on top of the retaining wall to ensure the private space (patio) connected to the proposed dwellings will not impact on the privacy of the adjoining residents. Further, all the proposed dwellings are only single storey and as such, cannot overlook into the private space of adjoining residences.

Another important point to note is that majority of the adjoining sites are affected by flood and hence unlikely to be developed for residential purposes. Therefore, our considerations regarding amenity have been limited to Lot 5 RP28844 and Lot 3 RP171617 (as shown in red below).

The noise impact of the development is considered to be minimal, given the nature of the use (being a residential use). A solid fence (double lapped timber or other material) can be conditioned for the lots adjoining the sensitive uses to further mitigate noise if considered necessary by Council

The proposed use is considered to maintain an expected level of amenity for residents in the area. It is considered that the residential context of the site is compatible with the nature of the use proposed.

We also note that complaints regarding noise for residential activities (i.e. parties) are dealt with outside of the planning process.

9. Landscaping issues

s. In the Site Perspective Plans provided as part of the application, it appears a solid boundary fence has been proposed along the Banks Creek Road frontage.

However, the current comment made against PO8 of the Landscaping Code states “fences are not proposed along the Banks Creek Road frontage”.

Please provide further clarification on this matter.

To clarify, a solid boundary fence is not proposed along the Banks Creek Road boundary of the site. Timber fences are proposed at the rear of sites along Banks Creek Road. A landscaping buffer separates

Page 15 of 16

the fences from the front boundary to break up the mass and scale of the fence and provide visual interest on the streetscape.

10. Staging

t. Please clarify when associated infrastructures to the development (i.e. the Communal Indoor Building, roads, drainage, car parking areas, landscaping etc.) will be constructed as part of the overall development.

Council does not support the building of associated infrastructure on a demand basis.

Alternatively, please provide any alternative solutions.

The main components of the development will be constructed up front (i.e. office, communal indoor building etc), plus also major infrastructure. The staging will only really occur for the construction of each dwelling.

11. Water and Sewer

u. Council does not undertake water and sewer assessment of any planning applications. Please contact Queensland Urban Utilities regarding the provision of the water supply and sewer networks and provide advice and water approval from QUU.

A request for a Service Advice Notice has been submitted to QUU. Please also note, the proposed servicing of the sites involves private infrastructure only (not QUU assets).

Page 16 of 16

We believe that we have fully responded to Council’s information request and the application will now enter into the public notification stage (once all responses to assessing authorities have been submitted). We also request that Council now proceed with their assessment. We then look forward to receiving an approval with reasonable and relevant conditions.

Attached are the following:

1. Council’s Information Request letter, dated 9 November 2018; 2. Proposal plans (site plan, floor plans, elevations and proposed bin locations) prepared by Verve; 3. Guidelines on Good Design for Caravan Parks and Relocatable Home Parks 4. Example Relocatable Home Parks

4 (a). Claremont Resort 4 (b). Highland Street Esk 4 (c). Burpengary Pines

5. Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Burchills Engineering Solutions; 6. Email from Burchills in regards to item 4.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Yours faithfully, SOMERVILLE Consultants

Erin Brooks RiskSmart Accredited Consultant BRTP (Hons) Senior Town Planner E | erin@roysom.com.au