100407 - ordinary meeting minutes minutes wednesday 7 april 2010 min/07.04.2010 folio 10452 on 25...

FINAL MINUTES

7 April 2010

FINAL MINUTES WEDNESDAY 7 APRIL 2010

MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10447

Table of Contents

Folio Date Particulars 10448 07.04.10 Ordinary Meeting Minutes 10564 12.02.10 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 10560 16.03.10 Mackay Matsuura Sister City Advisory Committee Meeting

Minutes

Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest

Nil.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10448

ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES

1. ATTENDANCE:

His Worship the Mayor, Cr C Meng (Chairperson), Crs G R Christensen, D T Comerford, P F Steindl, D J Perkins, D R Hatfield, D E Camilleri, W A Cameron, G R Thomsen, K J Casey and K L May were in attendance at the commencement of the meeting. Also present was Mr D McKinlay (Acting Chief Executive Officer) and Ms D Jeffery (Minute Secretary). The meeting commenced at 10:04am.

2. OPENING PRAYER:

Reverend Euan McDonald led those present in prayer.

3. ABSENT ON COUNCIL BUSINESS:

Nil.

4. APOLOGIES:

THAT the apology on behalf of Cr Perkins be accepted.

Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

5. CONDOLENCES:

Nil

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:

6.1 ORDINARY MEETING MINUTES - 24 MARCH 2010

THAT the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 24 March 2010 be confirmed.

Moved Cr Comerford Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10449

7. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:

Nil

8. MAYORAL MINUTES:

Nil.

9. CORRESPONDENCE AND OFFICERS’ REPORTS:

9.1 ENGINEERING SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS AND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES MONTH ENDING FEBRUARY 2010

Author DIRECTOR ENGINEERING SERVICES

Purpose

The Engineering Services Highlights and Significant Issues Report, month ending February 2010, is attached for information purposes.

Officer Recommendation

THAT the report be noted. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Casey Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

9.2 EASEMENT CREATION AND LAND EXCHANGE - EMERGENCY SERVICES SITE HOLTS, BEACONSFIELD ROAD

File No Holts Road, Beaconsfield Road Author MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

Purpose

To report to Council on the need to create an easement for stormwater drainage through Lot 3 SP129626 on the basis of a land exchange of a section of Council owned lands (Lot 4 RP732980) and recommend that the easements and associated works be created and approved.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10450

Background/Discussion

During design actions in relation to the culvert upgrade on Holts Road it has been necessary to consider future alignment and stormwater drainage issues in relation to the proposed future Western Connector. As a result, the obvious lack of a defined and legally binding drainage path through Lot 3 SP129626 has become evident. While it is suggested that this should have been undertaken at creation of the Emergency Services site it has not occurred and this oversight needs to be addressed in order to ensure future transfer of stormwater from adjacent catchments through the site to an under road culvert to be created for the Western Connector with ultimate discharge into McCready’s Creek. Following extended negotiations with the Queensland Fire Rescue Service (QFRS) the following course of action and agreement is proposed.

Establish drainage easement A-B. Council to provide / install box culvert structures to transport stormwater and backfill the easement to natural surface levels. Structures can be established over the drainage infrastructure subject to the conditions of the “Building Over or adjacent to Constructed Council Drainage Systems and Easements Policy”.

Establish drainage easement C-D.

Establish drainage easement B-E and construct open drainage system as per section B-B

of drawing number MCC1521A.

Establish drainage easement E-F through Lot 4 RP732980 and cede the surplus 2500m2 to QFRS as compensation for establishment of the easements on Lot 3 SP129626.

Nominal agreement has been reached with QFRS on this matter subject to Council approval. It is understood that dispensation exists under the Local Government Act in land dealings with the State such that Council approval only is required for the land exchange to occur. Council would bear costs of survey and easement preparation.

Consultation and Communication

Director Engineering Services Executive Manager Administration Services Manager Technical Services

Resource Implications

There will be future costs associated with the creation of stormwater infrastructure through Emergency Services site of $185,500 estimated at 2010 rates in association with works on the Western Connector. Current survey and legal costs to be borne by the Holts Road culvert project.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10451

Conclusion

While unfortunate that easements and infrastructure required through Lot 3 SP129626 was not installed on inception to facilitate both the Holts Road culvert upgrading and future Western Connector established, it is necessary to formalise both the drainage path and future upgrading requirements. As such, Council is requested to approve the exchange of the section of Lot 4 RP732980 surplus to future needs as compensation in regard to easements to be established on Lot 3 SP129626.


THAT Council approve the exchange of some 2500m2 of Lot 4 RP732980 surplus to future needs in compensation for drainage easements to be established on Lot 3 SP129626.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Casey Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

9.3 BEACONSFIELD LATM - STAGE 2

Author MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

Purpose

To seek Council’s approval to initiate design and construction of Stage 2 projects within the Beaconsfield Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) overall concept.


Council initiated the LATM Beaconsfield Program through a Public Survey Meeting dated 12 May 2006. A total of twenty-eight (28) residents attended the meeting where the results of the Public Survey and Council’s Traffic Study were presented. Six (6) residents volunteered to be members of the LATM Beaconsfield Working Group. On 9 October 2006, the LATM Beaconsfield Working Group discussed the Public Survey Meeting Notes and Council’s Traffic Study in detail. The working group reviewed the traffic issues identified through the Public Survey and Council’s Traffic Study, and approved a priority list of issues.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10452

On 25 May 2007, the LATM Working Group discussed and made comment on the Minutes of the Working Group Meeting dated 9 October 2006. Council Officers presented the Draft LATM Beaconsfield Concept Treatment. The Working Group reviewed the Concept Treatment and approved the concept without amendment and recommended an installation Priority. On 14 October 2008, the LATM Working Group reviewed the concept treatment and amendments made by Council. The Working Group approved the LATM Beaconsfield Draft Concept Treatment. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting dated 5 November 2008, Council passed a resolution approving the installation of Stage 1 of the LATM Beaconsfield Treatment Scheme subject to a subsequent report being provided to Council to assess the effects of Stage 1 and the need to progress to Stage 2 of the treatments. Treatments proposed within Stage 1 were as follows:- Pittman Street – Mid block slow point (Dell to Lyn) Shiral Drive/Challenger Intersection – Modified tee Mansfield/Nicklin Intersection – Priority Change splitters and blister at exit to roundabout Jarrah/Shiral Intersection – Modified tee At this stage treatments at Jarrah/Shiral and Shiral/Challenger have been installed with designs complete and construction works programmed for the remaining treatments in the immediate future. Traffic counts have been undertaken within the whole precinct and are shown on the appended sheet. Those traffic counts appropriate to the currently installed treatments are summarised as follows:

Location March 2006 March 2010 16 Shiral Drive (Between Treatments)

ADT 364.8 vpd 85th% 58.7 kph Max Speed 92.5 kph % Exceeding 48.93%


37 Shiral Drive (N of Treatments)



22 Jarrah Street (W of Treatments)



36 Jarrah Street (E of Treatments)




MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10453

From review of the speeds around the treatments there is an obvious effect immediately adjacent, however, given that the remaining treatments are yet to be completed, the effect is diluted away from current treatments. This only reinforces the fact and the premise of the LATM in that treatments are undertaken on a precinct basis. The intended effect of the treatments proposed is to encourage traffic flow on specified routes and to reduce ‘rat running’ through residential areas. The system of treatments is proposed to reduce travel speeds on non-specific travel routes to balance overall system performance and improve the overall level of service for the road network. Given the current results, it is recommended that Council undertake Stage 2 of the works as follows:- Nicklin/Telina Intersection – Modified Tee ($40,000) Shiral/Pandanus Intersection – Modified Tee ($40,000) Mansfield/Farquhar Intersection – Modified Tee ($40,000) Nicklin/Jarrah Intersection – Splitter Island ($15,000) Shiral Drive – Single Lane Slow Point ($20,000) Mansfield/Nadine Intersection – Three Way Blister and Splitter Island ($40,000)


Director Engineering Services Manager Technical Services Traffic & Investigations Co-ordinator


Project costs funded from within current $200,000 allocation within 2009/10 Capital Works Traffic &Safety Sub Program.

Conclusion

Stage 1 works undertaken to date of the Beaconsfield LATM Program have identifiable benefits in vehicle average and peak speeds as well as the extent of excess speeds being experienced. This transfers to improvements in resident amenity and road safety. However, the nature of the LATM process is that isolated installations, whilst beneficial in the immediate area of the treatment, they are less ineffective in providing benefits to total precincts. As such, the continuation of the proposed LATM treatments into the identified Stage 2 treatments to continue to address road safety and traffic speed issues in the Beaconsfield Precinct.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10454


THAT Council approve progressing with traffic treatments for Stage 2 of the Beaconsfield LATM process as follows:- Nicklin/Telina Intersection – Modified Tee Shiral/Pandanus Intersection – Modified Tee Mansfield/Farquhar Intersection – Modified Tee Nicklin/Jarrah Intersection – Splitter Island Shiral Drive – Single Lane Slow Point Mansfield/Nadine Intersection – Three Way Blister and Splitter Island

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Casey Seconded Cr May

CARRIED

9.4 COMBINED APPLICATION COMPRISING OF A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR LOCALITY CONCEPT PLAN NO. 10 FOR THE MAJOR NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE & A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR STAGE 3 & STAGE 4 EXTENSION TO SHOPPING CENTRE, SHOWROOM-GENERAL, HARDWARE STORE, HOTEL, CHILD CARE C

Application Number: DA-2008-785

Date Received: 23 December 2008

Action Officer: John Caldwell (Planning Officer) Colin Kelleher (Engineering Officer)

Applicant’s Details: Eulcom Pty Ltd C/-WA Stockwell Pty Ltd PO Box 3144 SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101

Proposal: Combined application comprising a Preliminary approval for Locality Concept Plan No 10 for the Major Neighbourhood Centre AND a Development permit for Stage 3 and Stage 4


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10455

extension to Shopping Centre, Showroom-General, Hardware Store, Hotel, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Special Purpose and Veterinary Hospital Land Uses

Site Address: 13-27 Rosewood Drive, Rural View

Property Description: Lot 2 on SP158456, Lot 2 on SP192059, Lot 43 on SP148331 and Lot 7 on SP159744

Owner’s Details: Eulcom Pty Ltd AB Symons, RG & JA Critchley, DA Goodson on behalf of WRT Testamentary Trust Instrument No. 709455820

Area: Approximately 29.0575 ha

Planning Scheme: Mackay City Planning Scheme (5 September 2008)

Planning Scheme Designations: Locality: Precinct: Zone:

Mackay Frame McCreadys Creek Commercial (majority of site) Higher Density Residential (portion east of Main Street)

Assessment Level: Impact

Submissions: Three (3)

Referral Agencies: Concurrence: Department of Main Roads Trigger: Development adjoins a State Controlled Road (Mackay-Bucasia Road and Eimeo Road

Queensland Transport Trigger: Public Transport Assessment

Advice: Department of Natural Resources & Water Trigger: Acid Sulfate Soils

Attachments: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F:

Locality Plan Locality Concept Plan Proposed Overall Development Sketch 1 - Main Street Sketch 2 - Stormwater


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10456

Attachment G: Attachment H:

Sketch 3 - Sewer Sketch 4 - Road J4 Xsection Sketch 5 - Covered Pedestrian pathways

Recommendation: Approved Subject to Conditions

1. BACKGROUND & DEVELOPMENT OUTLINE This Impact Assessable Material Change of Use application seeks to extend the existing Northern Beaches Central that is located at the south eastern corner of Eimeo Road and Mackay – Bucasia Road. (See Attachment “A”). The proposal represents Stages 3 and 4 of the proposed ongoing development of the Northern Beaches Central and involves an extension of 34,539m2 to the already approved shopping centre comprising 20,606m2 of additional retail floor space, including a discount department store, mini-majors and specialty stores, along with 6,703m2 of commercial office space and 7,230m2 of showrooms. The centre with this application (and unactioned previous approvals) will total 45,872m2. Plans for the development have been circulated separate to this report. The Plan of Development was approved as a Preliminary Approval overriding the Planning Scheme by Mackay City Council in December 2003 as a framework to facilitate the sustainable development of a collection of parcels of land in Eimeo, north of Mackay. This plan of development forms part of the Preliminary approval and is colloquially known as the “Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme” (EPPS) as it effectively overrides the Planning Scheme. Over time, the applicant had numerous discussions with Council to further develop the master plan. The applicant received from Council a verbal brief of Council’s requirements in so far as the issues relevant to any further master planning of the Northern Beaches Central Major Neighbourhood Centre. A presentation of the site master plan, preliminary design drawings, broad retail economic and demographic factors supporting this development proposal were presented by the applicant to Mackay Regional Council and its senior officers as part of the Council’s formal ordinary meeting of 6 August 2008. A further presentation was made to Council in February 2010 by the applicant to make Council aware of its development intents. Approvals have been granted for the Bi Lo shopping centre (Stage 1), Bi Lo extension to the west of the existing building (Stage 2A), a catering shop (McDonalds) at the Main Street/Carl Street/Eimeo Road intersection (Stage 2B) as well as approval of what could be described as a second Shopping Centre and specialty shops (Stage 2C - Woolworths) to the east of Main Street in the south east part of the commercial area on the Eulbertie Park Plan of Development. These applications were approved under Delegated Authority as they were Code Assessable applications generally in accordance with the EPPS. Prior to placing this report before Council, draft conditions were discussed with the applicant to bed down the likely conditions to be applied if Council was to approve this application for the extension. Given Councils consideration of the Macroplan report on the review of the retail hierarchy as well as consideration of the approval of the Homemaker Centre at the corner of Holts Road and Mackay-Bucasia Road, it is considered that the Stage 3/4 extension could be approved as being consistent with the revised retail hierarchy intents.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10457

1,631 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided (including the existing car parking spaces). (See Attachments “B”). The proposal required Impact Assessment and attracted three (3) properly made submissions objecting to the application during the Public Notification Period. Queensland Transport and Department of Main Roads are a Concurrence Referral Agency for the proposal and have recommended approval of the application with conditions. The Mackay Planning Scheme (MPS) does not generally encourage the development of commercial centres outside of a designated hierarchy. The current network of centres is focused on maintaining a structured retail hierarchy within three key areas: City Centre Regional Centre Mt Pleasant Sub-Regional Centre; Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre Each centre performs nominated roles and functions to support the integrity of the network and provide an adequate level of shopping services, convenience and choice to the public. Under these circumstances it is warranted to consider the subject site for a more intense commercial development subject to the relevant consideration of planning issues such as: not compromising the underlying intent of the retail hierarchy and network of centres; topographical constraints; land use constraints; infrastructure servicing; environmental impacts; site and neighbourhood amenity. In assessing the development against the provisions of the Planning Scheme, there are a limited number of code outcome that cannot be complied with. A summary of the areas of non-compliance as contained within this report. Of significance is the apparent departure from the nominated retail hierarchy in terms of intensity of commercial floor area and the shortfall in on-site car parking. There are the two most important areas of conflict for such a proposal would normally precipitate a refusal. A development may conflict with the Planning Scheme codes provided there are sufficient grounds to justify an approval despite the conflict. In other words, there are sound and justifiable reasons why a development should be approved when it conflicts with the scheme. In assessing the application and weighing the community benefits that will accrue from the development against any disbenefit that may result from departing from the Scheme code provisions, it is recommended that the development be approved with conditions. The grounds for an approval are summarised as: The existing Planning Scheme’s commercial strategy and associated network of centres is

based on out-of-date the population and retail projections. The current Planning Scheme’s commercial strategy and associated network of centres is therefore considered


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10458

to be deficient in the sufficient provision of retail floor space – and in particular non-food retail floor space.

A recent study commissioned by Council identified that the Rural View Major Neighbour

Centre warrants reconsideration as a Sub Regional Centre to compliment the Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre.

The Council commissioned Macroplan report which reviewed the Mackay Retail and

Commercial Strategy is a guiding document for Council and identified that the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre should be upgraded to a Sub Regional Centre with a nominal gross floor area of 30,000m2. However the same report also identified that Sub Regional Centres typically have floor areas of between 30,000m2 and 50,000m2. This application is consistent with these parameters and is unlikely to compromise the achievement of the relevant Desirable Environmental Outcome. The proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the role and function of the Mackay City Centre as the principal centre within the city and the Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre as the secondary centre within the city.

The development can function as an adjunct to the current retail hierarchy and designated

network of centres without creating an undue imbalance or fundamentally compromising the nominated roles and functions of the designated centres.

The propose site is considered a suitable location for the development given it is located

within convenient proximity to transport corridors and the existing urban areas and growth areas of the northern suburbs and beaches of Mackay. It can be efficiently serviced with reticulated infrastructure.

Environmental impacts can be effectively managed through conditions of approval. The development can comply with the majority of the specific outcomes associated with

protection of the adjoining Image Corridor through conditions of approval that create appropriate landscaped buffers.

Importantly, in assessing the development, due regard was given to the Planning Scheme Desired Environmental Outcomes and in recommending approval of the development (subject to appropriate conditions) it will not compromise the achievement of the city-wide DEO’s. 2. SUBJECT SITE & SURROUNDS The site is approximately 29.0575 ha in area and is located on Eimeo Road south to Rosewood Drive, adjacent to the Bi Lo Shopping Centre. (See Attachment “A”). The primary portion of the subject site is currently improved by the existing Northern Beaches Central, including associated vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas. The balance of the primary portion of the subject site is currently vacant. The secondary portion of the site is currently improved by a detached dwelling and associated buildings. The existing Shopping Centre use of the subject site is contained within a single storey building which is generally sited in an east-west alignment with the main pedestrian entrance oriented to the north towards Eimeo Road. The existing Shopping Centre (Bi Lo) contains a single supermarket and supporting speciality stores which comprise gross floor areas (GFA) of


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10459

approximately 2,500m2 and 1,100m2 respectively, equating to a total existing GFA for the Northern Beaches Central of 3,600m2. The existing Shopping Centre use is supported by a provision of 240 car parking spaces. The primary portion of the site is adjoined to the north by Eimeo Road. Beyond Eimeo Road to the north lies light/service industry development together with community uses including a Child Care Centre, Eimeo Road State Primary School and the Northern Beaches Police Station. To the east the primary portion of the site directly adjoins vacant land. Further to the east lies land proposed to be developed for the “Plantation Palms Estate” master planned community containing 1,800 residential allotments. To the south the primary portion of the site is bounded by Rosewood Drive. To the west, the site is adjoined by Mackay-Bucasia Road. Beyond Mackay-Bucasia Road to the west are residential uses. The secondary portion of the site is adjoined to the north by Rosewood Drive, the west by Mackay–Bucasia Road, the east by the site of the proposed Rural View State High School, and to the south by McCready’s Creek. Existing and proposed residential estates exist further to the north of Eimeo Road and to the west of Mackay - Bucasia Road. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The applicant lodged a combined application comprising a Preliminary Approval for Locality Concept Plan No 10 for the Major Neighbourhood Centre (see Attachment “B”) AND a Development permit for Stage 3 and Stage 4 extension to Shopping Centre, Showroom-General, Hardware Store, Hotel, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Special Purpose and Veterinary Hospital Land Uses (See Attachment “C”). Access to the proposed development will be provided via a signalised intersection from Eimeo Road and Rosewood Drive to the south. This application will create an additional 34,539 m2 in two stages creating a total centre of 45,872m2. A carparking area of 743 additional spaces is proposed for the development of Stages 3 and 4 with a total of 1,631 car spaces being provided at ground level of which 499 carparks are underground below the proposed buildings. The proposed development contains the following uses, as defined by the Eulbertie Park Plan of Development: Shopping Centre; Hardware Store; Child Care Centre; Educational Establishment; Hotel; Special Purpose Showroom – General; and Veterinary Hospital. The development proposal will see an increased intensity of the development from a nominal 10,000m2 floor area when it was approved in 2003 to the proposed 46,000m2 approximate total


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10460

floor area. This additional floor area was possible in the EPPS but was Impact Assessable and required an economic need assessment to justify the expansion over and above the original 10,000m2 code assessable component of the EPPS. Councils current 2006 Scheme allows a 20,000m2 floor area whereas the current proposal will increase the floor for the total development to about 46,000m2. See the Economic Need Assessment section of this report which agrees that there is a need for additional floor area.

Pursuant to the requirements of the EPPS Plan of Development, a Locality Concept Plan has been prepared to establish a framework to facilitate development of the subject site in accordance with the Plan of Development. The Locality Concept Plan is included as Attachment “B”. In accordance with the requirements of the EPPS Plan of Development, the Locality Concept Plan illustrates: the key pedestrian and vehicular access points and movement corridors; location of public transport facilities; stormwater management concepts; and the footprint of proposed built form. The proposed development is intended to be developed in a series of sequential stages (referred to as Stage 3 and Stage 4). The extent of development within each of these stages is illustrated graphically on Attachment “E” and “F”. The development now being proposed by the applicant for Stage 3 and 4 can be summarised as follows: Stage 3:

Establishment of a substantial built form extension to contain new specialty

stores(7,652m2), a new Discount Department Store (6,884m2), new mini-major tenancies(2 x 1,250m2), offices(2,833m2 ), showrooms (2,070m2) and dining (1,240m2) totalling 23,179m2 to connect the built form of Stage 1 with that of Stage 2;

Establishment of the new basement car parking area; New at-grade car parking; Water and sewer infrastructure works; Stormwater works appropriate to stage requirements; and Electrical distribution from high voltage supply.

Stage 4:

Establishment of additional retail tenancies (2330m2) fronting Main Street,

offices(3870m2) and showrooms (5160m2) totalling 11,360m2; Completion of Main Street construction to Rosewood Drive; Rosewood Drive from Stage 1 to Main Street intersection; Rosewood Drive from Main Street east to first driveway (east of 2nd supermarket); Additional at-grade car parking; Water and sewer to cater to centre extension; Stormwater works appropriate to stage requirements; and


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10461

Electrical distribution from high voltage supply.

The existing GFA of the Northern Beaches Central is 3,600m2. The proposed Stage 2 of the expansion to the centre, which does not form part of this current application, increases the GFA by a further 7,733m2. The proposed development subject to this current development application offers an additional 34,539m2 over two (2) stages, bringing the total GFA of the centre to 45,872m2.

The proposed timeframe by the applicant at the time of submission of this application in December 2008 for implementation of these stages was as follows:

a) Stage 1:

Existing.

b) Stage 2 (for information only – not part of this application):

Detailed Design / Pre-leasing - early 2009 – June 2009; Construction - June 2009 – June 2010.

c) Stage 3:

Development Approval - late 2008 – Mid 2009; Detailed Design / Pre-leasing - Mid 2009 – Mid 2010; Construction - Mid 2010 – End 2011.

d) Stage 4:

Development Approval - Mid 2008 – Mid 2009; Detailed Design / Pre-leasing - Mid 2013 – Mid 2014; Construction - Mid 2014 – Mid 2015.

The applicant advised at the time of the making of the application that this timeframe may be brought forward where sufficient leasing interest illustrates a demand for Stage 4 to be implemented earlier than year 2015.

3.1 Building Design There is concern with the mall design, particularly in relation to the specialty shops facing the car park. It will be conditioned that prior to issuing of a building permit in relation to the specialty shops adjacent to the northern carpark, elevations shall be provided to demonstrate that the specialty shops do not turn their back on the carpark but rather shall provide aesthetically presentable appearance when viewed from the north. The plans shall be submitted and approved prior to issue of a building permit. It will also be conditioned that all air conditioning, ventilation plant and lift motor rooms

located on the roof or external to the building are to be screened by their incorporation into the building design so as to be visually unobtrusive from the road reserve or internal roadways. This shall be demonstrated prior to issue of a building permit.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10462

It will also be conditioned that the western elevation of the Stage 3 Specialty Building adjacent to Mackay Bucasia Road shall be amended to provide greater articulation such as provision of an awning on the western frontage.

It will also be conditioned that the external walls and roof of the buildings shall have a

non-reflective glazing finish as identified on the development plans. It will also be conditioned that verification is to be provided that covered awnings over

pedestrian pathways adjacent to buildings fronting Main Street, the northern, southern and eastern carpark areas and the western side of the specialty shop building facing Mackay Bucasia Road, have been provided.

In addition and not discussed with developer in preliminary negotiations is the need to

provide a covered area over the section of Main Street for Rosewood Drive north to the proposed pedestrian crossing at the northern end of Main Street. It was considered that this was required from an amenity aspect and is in keeping with a modern shopping centre with a mall that this aspect should be incorporated into the design. These aforementioned matters have been applied as conditions of approval.

3.2 Staging of Construction It will be conditioned that:- a) The buildings shall be constructed generally in accordance with the staging shown on the

approval plans. b) All works east of Main Street cannot be constructed until the works associated with the

ground floor retail component of Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) has been substantially constructed.

c) The external works identified elsewhere in these conditions of approval as well as

internal carpark/Main Street works identified elsewhere in these conditions of approval are to be provided at Stage 3 so that the development works are complete except for the Stage 4 building works at the time of completion of Stage 3.

Preliminary discussion with developer support for first two parts of this condition. While initial discussion was to stage external works/ internal works to match timing of construction of the buildings for Stage 3 and Stage 4, it is considered that this is not the appropriate course to apply as the potential exists for stage 4 building works to not proceed thereby delaying certain key infrastructure such as the full extent of Road J4 as well as the full extent of Rosewood Drive and to a lesser extent the footpath about the front of the site in the vicinity of the Bi Lo building. The applicant does not agree with the proposed staging of works as it will affect the financing of the project. The opposition is noted but it is considered that this approach will result in a completed project at Stage 3 in terms of the external and internal site works with only the construction of the buildings at Stage 4 required to complete the project.

4. PLANNING SCHEME -V- EULBERTIE PARK PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT The Mackay City Planning Scheme was introduced on 24 March, 2006, and superseded the previous Mackay City Transitional Planning Scheme.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10463

The proposed development is located with the following Planning Scheme designations: Mackay Frame Locality McCready’s Creek Precinct Commercial Zone The proposed MCU for a Shopping Centre is Impact Assessable application as the scale of the development exceeds the retail hierarchy intents in terms of gross floor area as well the development is over part of the land is zoned Higher Density Residential and also that the Preliminary Approval for Eulbertie Park identifies that the application triggers Impact Assessment where the gross retail floor area exceed 10,000m2. The application is an unbounded assessment against relevant provisions of the entire Planning Scheme and should not be assessed solely against the Eulbertie Park Plan of Development Preliminary Approval as applied for by the applicant. The relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme are considered to be: Overall: Desired Environmental Outcomes Land Use: Mackay Frame Locality Code

McCready’s Creek Precinct – Commercial Zone Stated Purpose: Retail and Commercial Code

Child Care Centre Code General: Environment and Infrastructure Code Constraint Overlays: Bushfire Management Code (Medium Risk)

Landscape Character Code Acid Sulfate Soils Code

Preliminary Approval “Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme” (EPPS) which override the

current Planning Scheme on the Plan of Development and sets its own codes for development

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant nominated codes as indicated above. Code outcomes (both overall and specific outcomes) not mentioned within this report is considered to be not relevant to the proposed development or is considered to be complied with. Reviewing the outcomes that are not complied with, a number of key issues emerge that are fundamental to the proposal and its assessment against the Planning Scheme: 4.1 Desired Environmental Outcomes Part 3 of the Planning Scheme contained the Desired Environmental Outcomes for the Planning Scheme area. The Desired Environmental Outcomes are based on the concept of ecological sustainability (as it is defined for the purposes of the Integrated Planning Act 1997) and are the means whereby the Planning Scheme ultimately seeks to advance the purpose of that Act. The Desired Environmental Outcomes are grouped under the following headings:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10464

a) Biodiversity and Habitat/ Natural Features; b) Cultural Heritage & Landscape Character; c) Economic Development; d) Amenity and Community Well-Being; and e) Infrastructure and Urban Growth. An assessment of the proposed development against this section of the Planning Scheme where a conflict is noted is provided below. 4.1.1 Economic Development (iv) A network of centres is established and maintained according to a hierarchical

arrangement of roles and functions to meet the needs of the population, and includes the following elements, as shown on the Information Map – Network of Centres:

a) the Mackay City Centre (including a core area and a frame area) as the principal

centre for all multi-purpose centre activities in the City and the region; b) the Mt Pleasant Sub-Regional Centre, including Greenfields, Sams Road and

Heaths Road, as the second major focus for shopping, commercial and entertainment in the City, functioning as a supporting role to the City Centre;

c) The Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre as the third major focus for

shopping, community and commercial needs in the City. d) the neighbourhood centres, including Andergrove, Bucasia, Rural View and

Walkerston, providing for weekly or high-frequency shopping, community and commercial needs; and

e) a mixed use centre at North Mackay; and f) the local centres, including the small convenience centres at Bucasia, Blacks

Beach, North Mackay, Mt Pleasant, Slade Point and West Mackay. The proposed development is located within the ‘Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre’ as identified in the Planning Scheme Information Map – ‘Network of Centres’. It is considered that the proposal will not create an imbalance between the City’s hierarchy of Centres and the development will enhance the role of Rural View as a Major Neighbourhood Centre and maintain the locality as the third major focus of shopping and entertainment in the City. While exceeding the gross floor area intended under the code intents, it is considered that the proposed development facilitates the fulfilment of the intended role and function of the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre without conflicting with the role and function of other centres in the hierarchy. The Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre will remain the third major focus for shopping, community and commercial needs in the City and will principally service the Northern Beaches catchment. Refer to the Economic Impact Assessment section of this report


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10465

(v) the growth of centres occurs in step with demonstrated community need recognising the role and function of other centres within the network of centres.

While exceeding the gross floor area intended under the code intents, it is considered that the Economic Need Assessment section of this report has demonstrated that approval of the Stage 3/4 extension is satisfying a demonstrated need. In summary, the proposed development supports and does not compromise the achievement of the stated DEO’s of the Planning Scheme. 4.2 Mackay Frame Locality Code The Mackay Frame Locality Code requires that new commercial uses are located in the ‘Commercial Zone’ in accordance with the overall outcomes of the zone and the Desired Environmental Outcomes of the Planning Scheme. The proposal for commercial development on the site meets the intent of the Mackay Frame Locality Code although it is acknowledged that the intensity of the development exceed the acceptable solutions in terms of gross floor area. Further detail is provided within the Economic Need Assessment section of this report justifying the greater floor area. 4.3 McCready’s Creek Precinct- Commercial Zone The proposed development does not compromise the achievement of the overall outcomes for the McCready’s Creek Precinct of the Mackay Frame Locality although it is acknowledged that the intensity of the development exceed the acceptable solutions in terms of gross floor area. Further detail is provided within the Economic Impact Assessment section of this report justifying the greater floor area. The proposed development: Is located primarily within the Commercial Zone and a designated Major Neighbourhood

Centre; and

Is consistent with the intended role and function of the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre, to meet the needs of the community residing within the McCready’s Creek precinct.

The proposed development is consistent with the overall outcomes for the Mackay Frame Locality (McCready’s Creek Precinct) Commercial Zone as it enables the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre to fulfil its intended role and function within the centres hierarchy and will not generate any adverse environmental effects upon adjoining land. 4.4 Overlays A series of Overlays are included in the Planning Scheme, each of which identifies the extent of a range of constraints throughout the City. According to the Planning Scheme, the site is affected by the following Overlays: Landscape Character; Bushfire Management;


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10466

Acid Sulfate Soils. Development in the Vicinity of Mackay Airport Overlay Code 4.4.1 Landscape Character Overlay Code The proposed development adjoins Mackay-Bucasia Road which is nominated as a Tourist Corridor on the Planning Scheme information map - Image Corridor Map A. As such the development triggers assessment against the Landscape Character Overlay Code. There are a number of overall and specific outcomes that are designed to protect the landscape character of the McCready’s Creek precinct. The overlay code provides specific outcomes that provide some guidance for compliance with the protection of the landscape values (Image Corridor). These are specific outcomes in relation to the standard of landscaping provided to the northern boundary (bordering Eimeo Road). In effect the specific outcome requires a 10m deep barrier that is intended to screen and/or soften the development. However, the “Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme” Preliminary approval prevails in this instance as there are specific codes that override the current scheme in relation to depth of landscaping. The landscaped proposal plan satisfies the EPPS Preliminary approval landscaping code. In effect the proposed development will unavoidably impact on the existing landscape amenity of the nominated image corridor with frontage landscaping treatment ameliorating the impacts. The degree of amelioration will depend on the scale, density and maturity of landscape plantings. In general, the internal site amenity is considered acceptable for what the development purports to be – a large scale retail shopping centre development. The large northern carpark is provided with a degree of landscaping and opportunities for shade with specimen trees. See Attachment “G”. Alternative access points into the development provide an acceptable degree of vehicle circulation while the service and refuse vehicle access area and circulation route is effectively separated from patron vehicles. 4.4.2 Bushfire Management Overlay Code The proposed development achieves compliance with the applicable Specific Outcomes of the Bushfire Management Overlay Code. The proposed development complies with the requirements of this Code. 4.4.3 Acid Sulfate Soils Overlay Code Although greater than 100m3 of soil is expected to be excavated to allow the construction of the basement parking area and infrastructure associated with the development, a detailed management plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of those works to ensure that the risk of exposing acid sulfate soils is appropriately managed. The site has been identified for the possible presence of acid sulfate soils and therefore the potential for environmental harm exists through their disturbance during the construction process. A condition is proposed for the development to prepare and implement an Acid Sulfate Management Plan in accordance with the Planning Scheme Acid Sulfate Soil Overlay Code outcomes. It is recommended that Council accept the Department of Natural Resources


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10467

advice that requires the applicant to undertake site investigations in accordance with State Planning Policy 2/02 Guidelines. 4.4.4 Development in the Vicinity of Mackay Airport Overlay Code The subject site is included in the ‘Development in the Vicinity of Mackay Airport Overlay Code’. The proposed development complies with the requirements of this Code. In addition to the above Overlay Codes, the application has been assessed against the following Codes of the Planning Scheme: 4.5 Retail/Commercial Code The Retail and Commercial Code specifies the requirements for setbacks, service facilities and the scale and intensity of commercial development. The proposed development achieves compliance with the purpose of the Retail and Commercial Code, being the Overall Outcomes sought for the Retail and Commercial Code. Specifically, the proposed development: will enable Northern Beaches Central to fulfil its intended role and function as the third

major focus for shopping, community and commercial needs in the City; is located within a designated centre and is not out-of-centre development; provides for safe, convenient and accessible pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access and

movement; allows the creation of node of activity for the Northern Beaches area; has been designed to be attractive and produce a high quality of urban design; provides for on-site loading and servicing in appropriate locations so as to minimise

impacts upon amenity; contains the types of facilities and services intended to service more than 7,500

households but less than 30,000 households within the primary catchment. The proposal generally complies with the requirements of this Code, with the exception of Specific Outcome P5 which relates to development intensity. Development Intensity P5 Apart from the Mt Pleasant Sub-Regional Centre, Sub Regional Centres, the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre, neighbourhood centres and local centres have floor space for industrial, commercial and retail uses commensurate with their role and function as set out below: (i) a floor area limit of 50,000m2 GFA for a Sub-Regional Centre; (ii) a floor area limit for a Neighbourhood Centre of:

(a) 10,000m2 GFA for all centres except Rural View; (b) 20,000m2 GFA at the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre, of which only

10,000m2 is for shopping facilities; and

(iii) a floor area limit of 2,500m2 GFA for a Local Centre.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10468

S5 No solution specified. The total gross floor area (GFA) of the proposed development of the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre exceeds the 20,000m2 limit specified by the Performance Criteria. The proposed development will ensure that the Major Neighbourhood Centre can service the district level needs of Northern Beaches residents as encouraged by the EPPS Plan of Development. The size of the proposed extensions and composition of uses has been determined to satisfy the demand in response to population growth, particularly in the Northern Beaches area of Mackay .See the Economic Need Assessment section of this report. Even if an alternative view was adopted that the development conflicts with the Retail and Commercial Code, sufficient grounds exist to justify a decision to approve the proposed development despite the conflict as it complies with the purpose of the Retail and Commercial Code. The Macroplan report as well as the Economic Impact Assessment by the applicant identifies that there is a need for more retail floor space area to accommodate the growth in Mackay. 4.6 Environment and Infrastructure Code The development will or will be able to comply with the specific codes. Matters of infrastructure identified in this code are dealt with separately in the Infrastructure section of this report except for the following:-. P1 Lighting Management Any lighting installed in the development will be selected and located so as to not adversely impact upon the amenity of nearby residents. Outdoor lighting from the development must not cause a loss of amenity to adjacent residential properties as a result of the light it emits either directly or by reflection. The applicant has stated that the proposed setback of the building, layout of the development and screening provided by tree plantings are such that outdoor lighting will not result in the loss of amenity to adjacent premises. It shall be conditioned that this be demonstrated by way of a lighting plan, which shall be submitted for approval with the application for operational works. The plan shall demonstrate compliance with Australian Standard AS4282 – Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting and AS1158 – Public Lighting Code. P2 Premises accommodating uses which are likely to generate noise are designed and constructed with noise attenuation measures to avoid noise nuisance to nearby uses. The only use within the proposed development likely to generate noise is the Hotel use. That use has been located towards the centre of the site away from any residential use. Nonetheless noise attenuation measures can be employed to minimise the impacts (if any) from this noise source, if required. No detailed design has been provided to determine whether appropriate noise attenuation has been incorporated into this particular component of the development. It will be conditioned that a noise impact study shall be submitted as part of the Operational Works application to identify the appropriate measures required to ameliorate the impact of air


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10469

conditioning/exhaust plant as well as traffic/heavy vehicle loading dock areas to be within acceptable guidelines of the Environmental Protection Act - Noise Policy Provisions. 4.7 Child Care Centre Code The site for a child care centre has not been identified so assessment against the relevant codes cannot be undertaken. It is envisaged that one of the tenancies will be potentially identified as a future child care centre. It will be conditioned the Preliminary Approval of the Locality Concept Plan will approve the uses to be located in this area but, given the uncertainty of the location, this use will be the subject of a separate Material Change of Use application and not be approved as part of the development permit 4.8 Miscellaneous Planning issues 4.8.1 Hardware Store, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Veterinary

Hospital Uses The Hardware Store, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Veterinary Hospital component for this application is recommended for approval in principle within the Locality Concept Plan to grant a Preliminary approval for the uses in this area but this component cannot proceed until amended plans are provided detailing the exact location as part of a separate Material change of use application. The site for these uses has not been identified so assessment against the relevant codes cannot be undertaken. It is envisaged that some of the tenancies will be potentially identified for these future uses. Given the uncertainty, this use will be the subject of submission of detailed plans identifying the location for separate approval of Council. The applicants preferred position is that the Development Permit allow the uses without the need for a further Material Change of Use application by providing amended plans as a condition of approval. 4.8.2 Special Purpose Use The use for the future community purposes site is contained within one of the buildings located at the north-eastern part of the site next to J4 Road and north of the unit development shown on the Plan of development and which is identified to be built as part of Stage 3. As the building has been nominated for this purpose and will require separate approval of Council as to whether it wishes to purchase this building or part of the building for Community purposes, it is considered appropriate to not only grant Preliminary Approval for the Locality Concept Plan but also grant a development permit to allow the building to be erected as part of Stage 3 works. See Attachment ”C”. If the Council does not take up the opportunity to acquire the Community Purpose building, the building can then be developed for its prime use as a showroom by the developer. 4.9 "Elbertie Park Planning Scheme" The Plan of Development was approved as a Preliminary Approval overriding the Planning Scheme by Mackay City Council in December, 2003 as a framework to facilitate the sustainable development of a collection of parcels of land in Eimeo, north of Mackay. It is colloquially known as the “Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme” (EPPS) as the approval has the effect of being a Planning Scheme for the area which guides/ controls development in this area. The EPPS Plan of Development specifies:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10470

Development criteria which form part of the common material against which subsequent

development applications within the Plan of Development Area will be assessed; The type of development which may take place within the Land Use Areas under the Plan

of Development; Processes that affect the approval of subsequent proposals for development in the Plan of

Development Area; Levels of assessment for subsequent applications for approval of development; The codes applying to development within the Plan of Development Area; and Terms that are used in the Plan of Development, including Use Groups. The Plan of Development is the primary statutory planning instrument under which the development application is to be assessed. The relevant provisions of the Plan of Development applicable to the assessment of the proposed development have been addressed and the proposed development achieved compliance with those applicable provisions, as summarised below: (i) Principal Objectives: The proposed development supports the applicable principal

objectives of the Plan of Development; (ii) Desired Environmental Outcomes: The proposed development promotes each of the

applicable Desired Environmental Outcomes of the Plan of Development; (iii) Strategies: The proposed development achieves compliance with each of the applicable

Strategies to achieve the Principal Objectives of the Plan of Development; (iv) Codes -The codes of the Plan of Development applicable to the proposed development

comprise: Neighbourhood Centre Core Code; Neighbourhood Centre Frame Code; Commercial and Industrial Development Code; Main Street Code; Tramway Code; Land Use Buffering Code; and Vehicle Parking Code.

An assessment of the proposed development against the applicable Performance Criteria and Acceptable Solutions is provided below. Generally, the proposal generally complies with the intent of the above Codes. The areas of non-compliance are discussed below: 4.9.1 Neighbourhood Centre Core Land Use Area: The majority of the primary portion of the subject site is located within the boundaries of the Neighbourhood Centre Core Land Use Area of the Plan of Development Area. The proposed development achieves compliance with the majority of the applicable Acceptable Solutions of this code and each corresponding Performance Criteria. In the following circumstances of non-compliance with the Acceptable Solutions, the proposed development achieves compliance with the corresponding Performance Criteria:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10471

Performance Objective To promote the development of a diverse range of retail, commercial and community

activities in a neighbourhood centre core that is legible, attractive, compact, safe and accessible.

P1 An integrated shopping complex is developed progressively in the centre core,

sufficient to serve the district level needs of Northern Beaches residents. A1 Shopping Centre or Shops are located west of the proposed Main Street shown on

Map 2, and do not exceed a total gross floor area (for Shopping Centre and Shops) for the entire landholding west of the proposed Main Street, of 10,000m2.

The estimated site area required for these purposes is 4.0 hectares. The calculation for these purposes excludes the gross floor area of any catering shop

located in a separate building, health centre or indoor entertainment, and any floor area above ground floor level.

The proposed development exceeds the code requirement but the Code does allow, subject to Impact Assessment, a greater floor area. The applicant has designed this development to accommodate the economic demand for retail and commercial uses to service the district level needs of Northern Beaches residents. Further detail is provided within the Economic Need Assessment section of this report. P3 Complementary facilities that are desirable to be associated with the main shopping facilities of the Major Neighbourhood Centre are located in the neighbourhood centre core. A3.1 Sufficient land is retained within the neighbourhood centre core to accommodate complementary facilities that are desirable to be associated with the main shopping facilities, as determined by reference to the Land Use Budget, in areas identified for such purposes in approved locality concept plans; A3.2 Any development for a community services use group purpose is small scale, and where not integrated with other development, is not located on land exceeding 1000m2 in area The proposed development has been designed to accommodate a number of uses complementary to the Shopping Centre as listed in the Land Use Budget of the Plan of Development. The Locality Concept plan has identified a Special Purpose land use which may be accommodated within one of the buildings on the north and east of Main Street. See Attachment “C” for the location of this use. This site has been the subject of discussion with Council to determine the requirements of Council to use all or part of this building. This will be a matter for separate reporting to Council if council decides to takes up this option. The approval of the use on the Locality Concept Plan will; make subsequent applications code assessable.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10472

4.9.2 Neighbourhood Centre Frame Land Use Area: The balance of the primary portion of the subject site is included within the Neighbourhood Centre Frame Land Use Area. Part of the secondary portion of the subject site (i.e. to the south of Rosewood Drive) is also included within the Neighbourhood Centre Frame Land Use Area. The proposed development complies with the intent of the Neighbourhood Centre Frame Area as it: Contains uses within the Neighbourhood Centre Frame Area which are complementary to

and integrated with, the Neighbourhood Centre Core, including employment generating uses;

enhances convenience for Northern Beaches residents by creating the possibility of multi-purpose trip making;

is designed to integrate with the Neighbourhood Centre Core both physically and visually and further advances the development of a high quality urban area; and

the proposal provides sufficient safe, convenient and equitable vehicular and pedestrian access to and within the site.

The proposed development achieves compliance with the majority of the applicable Acceptable Solutions of this code and each corresponding Performance Criteria. The code is primarily concerned with the design of Main Street and provision of carparking. It should be noted that the carparking code under the EPPS Plan of Development is significantly less than the current Planning Scheme. See the Carparking Provision section of this report which addresses the issue in more detail. It is also considered that the design of Main Street is acceptable in principle. See the Main Street section of this report. 4.9.3 Commercial and Industrial Development Code The proposed development achieves compliance with the majority of the applicable Acceptable Solutions of this code and each corresponding Performance Criteria. The only non-compliances with acceptable solutions are in regard to provision of carparking and the design of Main Street in regard to angled carparking. These differences are considered acceptable to meet the performance intent and are dealt with in the Main Street and carparking sections of this report. 4.9.4 Main Street Code The proposed development achieves compliance with the majority of the applicable Acceptable Solutions of this code and each corresponding Performance Criteria. In instances where no Acceptable Solution is provided, the proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant Performance Criteria. The following circumstances of non-compliance with the Acceptable Solutions are in regard to provision of angled carparking on Main Street and provision of sufficient carparking on site. Sufficient car parking spaces have been provided for the proposed development. Refer to the Parking Provision section of this report. The only on-street car parking being proposed in this instance is located on Main Street. The proposed car parking spaces provide convenient car parking spaces and assist in the activation


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10473

of the Main Street. Angled parking is not required to achieve this outcome. The development of Main Street is not exactly in accordance with the typical cross -section, with the difference being the deletion of a central median. The form of the proposed Main Street is acceptable as it achieve the purpose of the EPPS code as well the intent of the current scheme. The issue of the tenure of Main Street was raised in discussions with applicant. Their preference was that the roadway be contained in an easement rather than a road reserve which was the preference of Council as well as Department of Main Roads. Conditions have been set to allow for either option with the default being the Council position road reserve with easement being allowed if it could be demonstrated that Councils interests could be maintained. In addition, the issue of the design of Main Street with pedestrian crossings/ low speed environment has the potential to reduce the function of the road so it has been conditioned to require a traffic Impact Assessment to demonstrate why Road J4 on the eastern boundary of the site should not be provided as part of this development. See the infrastructure section of this report for more detail. It is considered that the either/or option is not appropriate to apply as a condition of approval, notwithstanding the agreement of the applicant to the initial wording of the condition during negotiations. It is considered that Road J4 and Rosewood Drive be constructed with Stage 3 as a condition of this approval and conditions of approval have been set accordingly. 4.9.5 Land Use Buffering Code The proposed development achieves compliance with the applicable Acceptable Solutions of this code and each corresponding Performance Criteria. This is achieved as adequate buffering is to be provided as a condition of this approval as well as earlier approvals to ameliorate the nose impacts from the commercial use upon the multiple dwelling unit development at the south east corner of the site north of Rosewood Drive. This matter as raised in a submission and a more detailed response is provided in the submissions section of this report. 4.9.6 Vehicle Parking Code The EPPS vehicle parking code over-rides the current 2006 Planning Scheme provisions. It is considered that carparking for the total development may be varied from the current Planning Scheme provisions to a lesser rate based on practise to date. However, the actual carparking provided still needs further consideration. See the Carparking Provision section of this report for more discussion. 5. MAIN ISSUES

The assessment of this application will now deal with the main issues identified by the review of Mackay City Planning Scheme codes and overlays as well as the Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme (EPPS) Codes/Plan of Development. The proposed development has been assessed against these relevant nominated codes. Code outcomes (both overall and specific outcomes) not mentioned within this report is considered to be not relevant to the proposed development or is considered to be complied with.

Reviewing the outcomes that are not complied with, a number of key issues emerge that are fundamental to the proposal and its assessment against the Planning Scheme:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10474

5.1 Planning Scheme Growth Assumptions. The current Planning Scheme underlying population growth assumptions for the existing commercial strategy is based on the 2001 report undertaken by Sinclair Knight Merz: IPA Planning Scheme Business Centres Review. That report provides the foundation demographic information upon which the nominated network of centres is based. The subject development does not comply with the current commercial strategy in that it proposes a larger centre than 20,000m2 envisaged under the current strategy, although it is recognised that the function and location is consistent within the current strategy and associated network. A substantial component of the applicant’s justification for this departure from the Scheme’s commercial land use strategy is that current circumstances within the Mackay Region are materially different from the scheme’s underlying forward projections regarding population growth, retail expenditure and retail floor space. Council has recently undertaken a review of the region’s commercial strategy. The report “Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy” was undertaken by MacroPlan Australia and was received by Council in February 2009. It provides the most recent detailed assessment for population growth, retail expenditure and retail floor space. The document provides a useful comparison for the current Planning Scheme’s founding assumptions enabling a determination of the appropriateness of the current Planning Scheme’s commercial strategy. Population Growth:

2011 2016 Mackay Region projected population at 2001 (MRC area) Source: 2001 Business Centre Review

110,324 117,353

Mackay Region projected population at 2009 (MRC area) Source: 2009 Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy

126,552 145,290

Difference 16,228 27,937 14.7% 23.8%

Table 1: Population projection comparison 2011 - 2016

Retail Expenditure:

2011 2016 Mackay Region project retail expenditure at 2001 (WHAM area) Source: 2001 Business Centre Review (includes inflationary influence from 2001 - 2008 at an average 2.5% pa)

$1,086m $1,194m

Mackay Region projected retail expenditure at 2001 (MRC area interpolated from pro-rata application of the average per capita expenditure) Source: 2001 Business Centre Review (includes inflationary influence from 2001 – 2008 at an average 2.5% pa)

$812m $897m


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10475

2011 2016 Mackay Region projected retail expenditure at 2009 (MRC area) Source: 2009 Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy (2008 dollars)

$1,523m $1,870m

Table2: Retail expenditure comparison 2011 - 2016

It is noted that information provided in Table 2 is not directly comparable due to the difference in population areas between the 2001 and 2009 studies and the variations that can be made in the underlying assumptions associated with the economic modelling within each study. The large difference between the 2001 projections and the 2009 projections however would far outweigh any statistical imprecision associated with the comparison methodology. Retail Floor Space:

2011 2016 Mackay Region total projected retail floor space at 2001 (WHAM area) Source: 2001 Business Centre Review (includes inflationary influence from 2001 – 2008 at an average 2.5% pa)

136,323m2 150,414m2

Mackay Region total projected retail floor space at 2009 (MRC area) Source: 2009 Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy (2008 dollars)

198,896m2 233,284m2

Table 3: Retail floor space comparison 2011 - 2016

Again the figures presented in Table 3 are not directly comparable due to the difference in study areas. However, in terms of assessing the validity of the 2006 IPA Planning Scheme commercial strategy assumptions in comparison to recent data, the different areas would under-estimate the difference between the 2001 and 2009 figures (i.e. the 2001 projected area would be significantly lower using the same study area as the 2009 figures). The Council commissioned Macroplan 2009 Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy study is a guiding document for Council and indicates that an additional 11,687m2 of non-food floor space is required in 2011. It projects that this will grow to 31,308m2 in 2016 and from 4,800m2 to 24,000m2 for food related floor space. Overall, the report identifies that the community needs 60,000m2 additional retail floor space including 30,000m2 non-food retail. The report recommended that Rural View change from Major neighbourhood to Sub Regional centre in terms of hierarchy. The same report identified in general terms that sub regional centres have a floor space of between 30,000m2 and 50,000m2. The application before Council when taking the existing Bi Lo shopping centre plus approved shopping centre extensions to date will create a shopping centre with an approximate floor area of 46,000m2. The applicant’s supporting economic impact study indicates that an additional 42,100 to 50,500m2 of retail floor space is required in 2018. This application is consistent with these parameters and is therefore unlikely to compromise the achievement of the relevant Desirable Environmental Outcome. The proposed development is


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10476

unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the role and function of the Mackay City Centre as the principal centre within the city and the Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre as the secondary centre within the city. In summary, the 2006 IPA Planning Scheme commercial strategy underlying growth assumptions for projected population growth, retail expenditure and retail floor space (based on the 2001 Business Centres Review study) are all significantly less than the most current data available (2009 Mackay Retail and Commercial Strategy study). The corollary of this is that significantly more retail floor space is required in future years to adequately serve the Mackay population than was envisaged within the 2006 IPA Planning Scheme. Network of Centres The Planning Scheme establishes a nominated retail hierarchy and associated network of centres through a number of provisions. Those provisions can be summarised into the following tables:

Table 4: Network of centres – quantitative parameters

Centre Hierarchy Status GFA Limitations (m2) Core Function City Centre Regional Centre Not specified Administration

Business & Commercial Services

Comparison Shopping Convenience Shopping

Entertainment and Leisure Community Facilities

Services Trades Mt Pleasant Sub-regional Centre Not specified Comparison Shopping

Convenience Shopping Entertainment and Leisure

Community Facilities Rural View Major

Neighbourhood Centre

20,000 Total incl. 10,000 Shopping facilities.

Comparison Shopping Convenience Shopping Community Facilities

Andergrove Neighbourhood Centre

10,000 Comparison Shopping Convenience Shopping

Walkerston Neighbourhood Centre

10,000 Comparison Shopping Convenience Shopping

North Mackay Mixed Use Not specified Commercial Uses Residential Uses

Table 5: Network of centres – quantitative parameters

Centre Function: Qualitative Parameters

City Centre including a core area and a frame area as the principal centre for all multi-purpose centre activities in the City and the Region.

Mt Pleasant including Greenfields, Sams Road and Heaths Road, as the second major focus for shopping and entertainment in the City, functioning in a supporting role to the City Centre;

new development in the Sub-Regional Centre occurs within the boundaries defined within the Goosepond Creek Precinct;

(except in Sams Road/Heath Road area) provides highly developed shopping, limited entertainment and leisure facilities, health care


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10477

Centre Function: Qualitative Parameters services, smaller-scale business and commercial services, small scale service industries, local convenience shopping facilities and higher density residential development and visitor accommodation adjacent to but not accessible from the Bruce Highway;

Mt Pleasant Shopping Centre provides highly developed shopping facilities;

Greenfields Estate provides bulky goods comparison shopping, limited entertainment and leisure and commercial services;

Sams Road/Heaths Road area provides a range of mostly small to medium scale, non-retail, mixed use commercial and highway-related facilities and services, the relocated Mater hospital complex and medical service functions to support the hospital.

Rural View providing the third major focus for shopping, community and commercial needs in the City.

Andergrove weekly or high-frequency shopping, community and commercial need.

Walkerston weekly or high-frequency shopping, community and commercial need.

North Mackay

Mixed use development.

Having established that a significant amount of additional retail floor space is required within the Mackay Region, an assessment of the existing network of centres is required to determine its most appropriate location. Considering the City Centre is unsuitable for the type of development proposed for both practical and planning considerations (including the existing lack of expansion opportunities, fragmentation of land tenure, traffic issues and inappropriate centre function), the next major centre within the hierarchy is the Rural View Centre – nominated as a major neighbourhood centre within the scheme. Under the current scheme provisions and existing network of centres hierarchy however, this centre has been established for the proposed development function and is limited in size to 10,000m2 under the original approval and Transitional Planning Scheme although 20,000m2 is possible under the current 2006 Planning Scheme allocated to “shopping facilities”. The Planning Scheme defines shopping facilities as:

“a catering shop, hardware store, retail showroom, shop, shopping centre and the retail component of a plant nursery”

The current scheme therefore encourages the Rural View Centre to expand to incorporate the proposed uses. A key provisions that is specific to the new larger proposed development that is located within the current designated network of centres is the Retail and Commercial Code – Specific Outcomes P6:

P6 Development of additional facilities not anticipated in a designated centre meets the following criteria for community need:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10478

(i) the proposed use does not alter the role and function of a designated centre in the network;

(ii) population has increased in the trading catchment of the centre since the commencement of this scheme such that the population is able to support the proposed services;

(iii) the proposed use contributes to convenient access to a range of centre services and facilities for residents;

(iv) residents in the City have a choice of services and facilities without unnecessary duplication, particularly for shopping, entertainment and leisure, business and commercial services and service trades; and

(v) residents in the urban areas of the City have access to the different levels of facilities within the travel times nominated in the Table below.

City

Centre Mt Pleasant

Sub-Regional Centre

Major Neighbourhood

Centre

Neighbourhood Centres

Local Centres

Driving Times (mins)

>20 <20 <15 <10 <5

Assessing the proposed development against these provisions: (i) The proposed development size (approx. 46,000m²) places it within a sub-regional centre

classification from a total GFA perspective (Retail and Commercial Code – Specific Outcome P5). From a centre role and function perspective however, (Retail and Commercial Code Overall Outcome (d)), a sub-regional centre provides the core services of comparison shopping, convenience shopping, entertainment, leisure and community facilities.

The development will potentially alter the role and function of the existing network in a structured hierarchical sense i.e. it will create a new centre that directly competes with the other sub-regional centre (Mt Pleasant Centre) across the entire range of roles and functions required of a sub-regional centre. The Council commissioned Macroplan report identified that Rural View should change its retail hierarchy from a Major Neighbourhood centre to a Sub Regional centre. It is considered that the larger Rural View centre will not fundamentally alter the existing centre hierarchy functions and will compliment the Mt. Pleasant Sub Regional centre.

ii) It has been previously established that the population of the Mackay Region has increased

significantly from the underlying population projections upon which the current retail and commercial strategy is based (the 2001 Business Centre Review). This increase, along with other revised economic model assumptions, has lead to a demonstrated increase in the need for both overall retail floor space and the non-food sector. The Macroplan report identified that there was a need for an additional 30,000 m2 of retail in the Rural View Centre to accommodate the expected demand for retail uses in this area. The report recommended that Rural View change from Major neighbourhood to Sub Regional centre in terms of hierarchy. The same report identified in general terms that Sub Regional centres have a floor space of between 30,000m2 and 50,000m2. The application before Council when taking the existing Bi lo shopping centre plus approved shopping centre extensions to date will create a shopping centre with an approximate floor area of 46,000m2. This application is consistent with these parameters and is unlikely to


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10479

compromise the achievement of the relevant Desirable Environmental Outcome. The proposed development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the role and function of the Mackay City Centre as the principal centre within the city and will compliment the Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre as the secondary centre within the city.

iii) While not strictly considered a centre that accords to the nominated retail hierarchy (due to the limited market sector), this provision provides some guidance as to the balance between function, trade catchment and travel convenience. The general compliance test of this provision is an assessment of the location of the centre with reference to its trade catchment (i.e. is it central or skewed - thereby allowing convenient access for the whole catchment or disadvantaging one particular area with excessive travel times).

Considering that the development will draw on a market catchment comparable to a subregional centre the core trade catchment is considered to be the residential areas north of the Pioneer River. This is the area that will absorb the vast majority of Mackay’s future residential expansion under the current Planning Scheme and in a general sense, is the catchment that was identified within the scheme to be serviced by future retail showrooms and shopping centres The proposed centre is conveniently located within that catchment and is considered within the nominated travel times (< 20min for a sub-regional centre).

In summary, The proposed development is located within the Rural View Major Neighbourhood

Centre which is identified as being intended to function as the third major focus for shopping, community and commercial needs in the City;

The size of the proposed extensions and composition of uses has been determined to

satisfy the demand in response to population growth, particularly in the Northern Beaches area of Mackay which comprises the primary catchment for the centre; and

The intended role and function of the Major Neighbourhood Centre and its relationship to

the role and functions of other centres within the network of centres will remain unchanged.

There is a demonstrated need for significant additional retail floor space in the Mackay

Region. The proposed centre does not compete with existing centre’s in the entire range of

supporting services and facilities of the other designated centres; The proposed development will not fundamentally alter the existing centre hierarchy

functions; The existing centres are unable to expand significantly due to practical land constraint

considerations; The development is conveniently located for patron and service vehicle access;


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10480

Given these considerations, it is considered that the proposed development can be incorporated within the current retail hierarchy (network of centres) without creating an undue imbalance or fundamentally altering the nominated roles and functions of the designated centres. In summary, the proposed development supports the commercial centres key strategic element of the strategic framework for the Planning Scheme. These matters are addressed in detail within the Economic Need Assessment section of this report. 5.2 Economic Need Assessment The applicant has submitted an Economic Need Assessment. Key planning issues to address in the development of proposals for new centres or extensions to existing centres, include: (a) whether any impacts will be generated upon the viability of existing centres within the

catchment; (b) whether sufficient community need and demand can be demonstrated; and (c) whether the role and function of the centre will change and subsequently impact upon the

role and function of existing centres within a network or hierarchy of centres. Although there is a direct correlation between these key planning issues of impact, need and role/function, for the purposes of this planning assessment it is relevant to address these issues separately, whilst acknowledging their association. The issues identified above will now be dealt with in turn: 5.2.1 Whether any impacts will be generated upon the viability of existing centres within

the catchment In addressing and responding to the first issue, the applicant commissioned expert economists Foresight Partners Pty Ltd to undertake a detailed Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed expansion. The assessment undertaken by Foresight Partners describes how economic impact is the probable reduction in retail turnover resulting from the introduction of competitive development. According to Foresight Partners, although no universally accepted standards of impact exist, a frequently adopted benchmark is that an impact of 15% or more on turnover should be cause for concern. The Economic Impact Assessment reveals the level of impacts to be generated by the proposed Stage 3 extensions upon the relevant centres, is as follows: Caneland Central: -7.5%; Mt Pleasant Shopping Centre: -8.1%; Mackay CBD: -2.4%; and Greenfields – Northpoint: -1.4%. This demonstrates that the levels of impact upon the relevant centres are well below the benchmark of 15% and therefore are negligible. Specifically, the Economic Impact Assessment states that:

“The impact of the Stage 3 centre additions is the difference between the forecast $114.96 million with Stage 3 and forecast centre sales of $60.26 million without the additions at


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10481

2012. The difference, $54.70 million, represents the dollar impact upon the retail network in 2012. The single largest sales transfer to Northern Beaches Central ($27.35 million or 50%) is forecast to come from Caneland Central. Around $16.41 million or 30% of the increase is expected to be transferred from Mt Pleasant Shopping Centre. The remaining $10.94 million is expected to be transferred from other trade area centres, including the Mackay City Centre, Greenfields–Northpoint and other centres within Mackay City. The $12.95 million in turnover generated by the main street retail component within Stage 4 is unlikely to result in any material effect on other retail centres within Mackay City’s network of centres. The competitive impact of the retail showroom centres $22.73 million turnover as part of Stage 3 and 4, less any sales derived from trades’ sources, is likely to be widely distributed across similar stores in Mackay, depending upon its ultimate composition of tenancies. The forecast dollar impacts of the Stage 3 and 4 additions will not jeopardize the vitality or viability of impacted centres, or threaten their functional roles and levels of service they currently provide to Mackay City. Most centres will recover sales transferred to Northern Beaches Central quickly due to continuing population growth.”

In summary, the proposed Stage 3 and Stage 4 extensions to Northern Beaches Central will not result in the generation of any adverse impacts upon the viability of existing centres in the catchment. 5.2.2 Whether sufficient community need and demand can be demonstrated Directly related to the issue of impacts generated upon the viability of existing centres is the demonstration of sufficient community need and demand for the extensions to Northern Beaches Central within the catchment. The Economic Impact Assessment describes how the Mackay region has experienced significant population growth in recent times and is forecast to continue to grow significantly over the next twenty years to 2026. Within the defined trade catchment, Foresight Partners have forecast an increase in population from an estimated 50,585 people in June 2008 to: 59,040 people by June 2012 (assumed first full year of trading for Stage 3); 63,540 people by June 2014; and 67,700 people by June 2016 (assumed first full year of trading for Stage 4). This forecast increase represents approximately 53% of the Queensland Government’s Planning Information and Forecasting Unit (PIFU) forecast increase of 31,790 people over ten years to 2016 for Mackay City. This forecast growth demonstrates that the majority of Mackay City’s future growth is expected to occur in the Northern Beaches area. The findings of the Economic Impact Assessment conclude that community need and demand for the Stage 3 and Stage 4 extensions of Northern Beaches Central are demonstrated and supported by:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10482

A need for the Northern Beaches Central retail centre to grow in response to population growth. Over the next ten years, Northern Beaches Central trade area residents will expand the pool of available retail expenditure by $252.6 million. This is theoretically capable of sustaining an additional 42,100–50,500 m² of retail floor space by 2018 (at an overall average productivity level of $5,000–$6,000/m²).

Meeting customer needs and desires, both now and in future years. Shopper surveys undertaken at Northern Beaches Central asked for opinions on what additional shops and services are needed at Northern Beaches Central, with significant (unprompted) nominations being a post office/mail box, fashion stores, Woolworths, coffee shops/cafes and a Big W.

Creating a multi-functional retail and commercial area generating significant employment for the Northern Beaches area. The Stage 3 and 4 additions will encourage multi-purpose trips by consolidating major retail, commercial and community activities in a single destination. It will also promote a greater level of vitality and synergy among the various centre components.

The Stage 3 and 4 additions will also benefit the community by:

o increasing the level of choice and the range and depth of goods and services available at a convenient and accessible location to most trade area households and visitors;

o increased competition should help keep prices low and raise customer service as a

point of competitive difference; o improved shopper amenity and satisfaction with the centre, and enabling it to meet

customer demand and expectations for modern shopping facilities in the future; o create further employment opportunities, equivalent to about 900 full-time, part-

time and casual positions. The approximate 7,000 m² of commercial floor space could also generate employment of between 350 and 500 people; and

o create short term employment during the construction phase of the centre expansion

benefiting the broader Mackay economy. The existing provisions of the Mackay City Planning Scheme and the Plan of Development nominate a floor area limit of 10,000m2 for the retail component of the Major Neighbourhood Centre and 20,000m2 in total including community and commercial uses. Such a limit may have been appropriate at the time in which those planning provisions were drafted, but have since been overtaken by the rapid population growth in the Northern Beaches area such that 10,000m2 is considered no longer sufficient to service the needs of the growing population of the Northern Beaches area which, according to the Economic Impact Assessment is theoretically capable of sustaining an additional 42,100–50,500m² of retail floor space by 2018. According to these findings, a 10,000m2 limit is prohibitive to the Major Neighbourhood Centre fulfilling its intended role to service the Northern Beaches area and strict adherence to same may result in inappropriate out-of centre development to accommodate the apparent need. A more appropriate planning outcome is for the Major Neighbourhood Centre to grow in step with the catchment of which it is intended to service.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10483

5.2.3 Whether the role and function of the centre will change and subsequently impact

upon the role and function of existing centres within a network or hierarchy of centres.

The final issue to address is whether the role and function of the Northern Beaches Central centre will change and impact upon the role and function of existing centres within a network or hierarchy of centres. There are widely accepted planning principles which underpin planning strategies which seek: (a) the organised arrangement of centres into coordinated hierarchies (or networks); and (b) the consolidation of those centres, as opposed to their fragmentation. These planning principles underpin the planning for centres at a local and regional scale in Queensland, including the current Mackay City Planning Scheme. The Strategic Framework section of the Mackay City Planning Scheme outlines the nominated hierarchy of centres and their roles as follows:

“A network of centres based on roles and functions and meeting the needs of the City and the region has been established. The City provides a wide range of facilities and services from its centres to meet the needs of the population of the City, and the Whitsunday and hinterland areas. However, a sustainable balance is required between the development of the City’s centres and the needs of the growing City and regional populations by managing the character, rate, scale and intensity of development in each centre."

The network of centres in the City includes the following elements: i) Mackay City Centre – Regional Centre as the principal centre for all multi-purpose centre

activities in the City and the region; ii) Mt Pleasant Sub-Regional Centre, including Greenfields, Sams Road and Heaths Road,

as the second major focus for shopping, commercial and entertainment in the City, functioning as a supporting role to the City Centre;

iii) Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre, functioning as the third major focus for

shopping, community and commercial needs in the City. iv) Neighbourhood centres, including Andergrove and Walkerston, providing for weekly or

high-frequency shopping, community and commercial needs; v) Mixed use centre at North Mackay; and vi) Local centres, including the small convenience centres at Bucasia, Blacks Beach, North

Mackay, Mt Pleasant, Slade Point and West Mackay. Please note that Council varied from the existing commercial hierarchy of centres due to the established need for greater commercial floor space and approved a homemaker centre for non –food retail large showroom shopping at the corner of Holts Road and Mackay-Bucasia Road. This approval is currently under appeal.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10484

The network of centres and their intended roles and functions within the network are repeated in the Desired Environmental Outcomes for the City and filter through to the Locality, Precinct and Zone provisions of the Planning Scheme. The distribution of the different types of centres defined in the hierarchy is shown on the Information Map – Network of Centres to the Mackay City Planning Scheme. Northern Beaches Central is shown on this map as being the intended location of the Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre. The provisions of the Mackay City Planning Scheme identify that the Northern Beaches Central is intended to fulfil a Major Neighbourhood Centre role, growing in step with and servicing the needs of the McCready’s Creek precinct (i.e. northern beaches). The Major Neighbourhood Centre is intended to be the third major focus for retail, community and commercial needs in the City behind the Mt Pleasant/Greenfields Sub-regional Centre and the Mackay City Regional Centre. The Plan of Development of the EPPS also identifies the majority of the primary portion of the site as being intended to be developed as a Major Neighbourhood Centre, with the balance of the primary portion included in the Neighbourhood Centre Frame Land Use Area. According to the Plan of Development and specifically the intent for the Neighbourhood Centre Core Land Use Area, the area is intended to be developed:

“…as the main shopping centre for Eulbertie Park and for all of the Northern Beaches suburbs of Mackay. The area shall include the main shopping centre for the Northern Beaches, and also complementary activities that will add to the vitality and range of services of the centre. It is in the neighbourhood centre core that the main objectives identified in the Mackay Strategic Plan for the Northern Beaches Major Neighbourhood Centre will be met. The neighbourhood centre core’s location on the south-east quadrant of the junction of the Mackay-Bucasia Road with the proposed Eimeo Road re-alignment provides a prominent and accessible location for these facilities that are to provide for the district- level needs of Northern Beaches residents."

Both the Mackay City Planning Scheme and the EPPS Plan of Development identify Northern Beaches Central as being intended to fulfil a Major Neighbourhood Centre role to service the growing needs of the northern beaches area. The Economic Impact Assessment prepared by Foresight Partners demonstrates that the proposed extensions facilitate Northern Beaches Central to fulfil its intended role as the third major focus for retail, community and commercial needs in the city and primarily to service the growing population of the northern beaches area. Furthermore, the proposed extensions will not elevate the centre to impact adversely upon the role or function of the higher order centres in the network. Importantly, the defined primary and secondary trade catchments for the expanded centre encompass only the northern beaches area (also referred to as the McCready’s Creek Precinct). It is considered that the proposed extensions, which will increase the total retail (including showrooms) gross floor area of Northern Beaches Central by 34,539m2 to 45,872m2 will not threaten the dominance of both: the Mt Pleasant/Greenfields Sub-regional Centre which contains approximately

90,840m2; and


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10485

the Mackay City Regional Centre which contains approximately 117,110m2. Furthermore, the mix and size of uses proposed will not adversely impact upon those higher order centres, including the Mt Pleasant/Greenfields Sub-regional Centre which has a large showroom focus. The findings of the Economic Impact Assessment conclude that community need and demand for the Stage 3 and Stage 4 extensions of Northern Beaches Central are demonstrated and supported. Significant population growth has occurred in the northern beaches area in recent times and is forecast to continue with the area expected to contain the majority of growth in the next 20 years. The findings of the Economic Impact Assessment also conclude that the proposed extensions will not adversely impact upon the economic viability or the role and functions of existing centres in the catchment, including the higher order centres of Mt Pleasant/Greenfields Sub-regional Centre and the Mackay City Regional Centre. The report demonstrates that there is a sufficient Trade Area Catchment and population growth to support the development. 5.3 Car Parking Provision The carparking numbers under the EPPS plan of development over-ride the current scheme provisions although Council required the applicant to justify the carparking numbers against the parking code of the 2006 Planning Scheme to demonstrate that the actual usage will not create detrimental impacts upon the area, especially with the increased intensity of the development from a nominal 10,000m2 floor area when it was approved in 2003 to the proposed 46,000m2 approximate total floor area. This additional floor area was possible in the EPPS but was Impact Assessable and required an economic need assessment to justify the expansion over and above the original 10,000m2 code assessable component of the EPPS. Councils current 2006 Scheme allows a 20,000m2 floor area whereas the current proposal will increase the floor for the total development to about 46,000m2. Accordingly, a corresponding increase in the number of carparks to service the development is required. The Mackay City Planning Scheme requires carparking spaces for a shopping centre development at the following rate;

“Where having a total GFA of greater than 700m2, 1 space per 20m2 of GFA for the first 700m2 GFA and then an additional 1 space per 10m2 GFA”.

For the total development of Stages 1 to 4 (45,872m2) and treating the total gross floor area as a shopping centre rather than breaking up into individual components, the requirement equates to 35 spaces for the first 700m2 GFA and 4,517 spaces for the remaining 45,172m2 of GFA, or a total of 4,552 spaces. This rate equates to 1 space per 10.1m2 or 9.92 spaces per 100m2. The applicant is proposing 1,631car parking spaces, which equates to 1 space per 28.1m2 of GFA, or 3.55 spaces per 100m2 of GFA. While this rate may be too high, Council has not gone below 5 spaces per 100m2 in recent years for similar projects. Big box retailing has been afforded a lower rate as evidenced by the Homemaker Centre approval which required only 2.69 spaces per 100m2.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10486

As the proposed development comprises a mix of uses which collectively should not be described as a shopping centre for the purposes of calculation of carparking, it is more appropriate to calculate the carparking by the three main uses. Retail Use includes a Shopping Centre and also includes the following retail uses shown

on the Plans of Development described as new specialty stores, a new Discount Department Store, new mini-major tenancies, and dining on the plan of development.

Commercial Use includes offices shown on the plan of development. Showroom General Use includes showrooms and hardware store shown on the plan of

development. 5.3.1 Analysis of carparking for Stage 3 and 4 An analysis of the carparking report from the applicant will now be considered for Council’s consideration. The provision of a sufficient supply of car parking spaces for the Northern Beaches Central Major Neighbourhood Centre is required to ensure that the centre can accommodate the expected demand for parking on-site. This will ensure that no off-site parking impacts are generated and that the centre remains viable through attracting customers and visitors with accessible and convenient parking available. As identified earlier in this report, the applicant has proposed that as the majority of the proposed floor space is to be occupied by the Shopping Centre, Showrooms and Commercial Premises uses, it is appropriate to group the proposed floor area and uses under these categories for the purposes of calculating a minimum car parking provision for Stage 3 and 4, as follows:

Use Area EPPS Car rate

EPPS Car Spaces

required

Current Planning Scheme rate

MRC Car

Spaces required

Car Spaces

provided

Retail (Shopping Centre, Hotel, Educational Establishment, Child Care Centre, catering shop and Veterinary Hospital):

Retail: 20,606m2

GFA

1 space per 50m2 GFA

413 1 space per 20m2 of GFA for the first 700m2 GFA and then an additional 1 space per 10m2

GFA

2,026

Showrooms (including Hardware Store)

Showrooms: 7,230m2 GFA


181 1 space per 40m2 GFA

181

Commercial Premises

Commercial: 6,703m2 GFA



135


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10487

Use Area EPPS Car rate

EPPS Car Spaces

required

Current Planning Scheme rate

MRC Car

Spaces required

Car Spaces

provided

Total (stage 3& 4)

total GFA of 34,539m2

729 spaces. Equates to a provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 47m2 or 2.1 spaces per 100m2.

2,342 Equates to a provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 14.7m2 or 6.8 spaces per 100m2.

743 Equates to a provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 46.5m2 or 2.15 spaces per 100m2

Stage 3 - 564 spaces Stage 4 - 179 spaces

The EPPS Vehicle Parking Code for a shopping centre only requires that a rate of 1 car park per 50m2 or 2 per 100m2 is required. The developer has met this requirement. It should be noted that the EPPS Neighbourhood Centre Core Code also discounts the floor area above ground floor level so that this above ground floor area is not included in the calculation of floor area. This above ground floor area is occupied by the commercial premises (6,703m2 for Stage 3/4) meaning that they are providing technically 2.67 spaces per 100m2 of qualified floor area complying with the EPPS rate of 2 per 100m2. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that carparking for this development needs to be assessed against realistic carparking generation rates. 5.3.2 Carparking for Stages 1-4 The existing Northern Beaches Central (referred to as Stage 1) contains 3,600m2 of GFA and provision of 240 car parking spaces at a rate of 6.7 spaces per 100 m2 whereas Stage 2 of 7,733m2 has made provision for 648 spaces at a rate of 8.4 spaces per 100m2. As can be seen, the preceding stages are over the minimum accepted rate of 5 spaces per 100m2 for retail shopping centres so it is considered that the “under and overs” are easier to analyse when looking at the total commercial development. As the proposed development comprises a mix of uses which collectively should not be described as a shopping centre for the purposes of calculation of carparking, it is more appropriate to calculate the carparking by the three main uses with the following generation rates. Retail Use includes a Shopping Centre and also includes the following retail uses shown

on the Plans of Development described as new specialty stores, a new Discount Department Store, new mini-major tenancies, and dining on the plan of development- Use shopping centre rate of 5 per 100m2 instead of current Planning Scheme rate of 1 per 20m2 for first 700m2 plus 1 per 10m2 for floor area greater than 700m2 or the EPPS rate of 1 per 50m2. This rate was chosen as this is the minimum rate accepted to date for retail uses in a shopping centre.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10488

Commercial Use includes offices shown on the plan of development – use current Planning Scheme and EPPS rate of 1 per 50m2.The applicant advises that this use would be included in the shopping centre definition for carparking purposes and the peak generation rate for this use would be less than the peak for shopping centre. That is, there would not need to be a dedicated carparking for this specific use. Please note the EPPS Vehicle Carparking Code discounts this above ground floor area so it is not counted in the calculation of floor area.

Showroom General Use includes showrooms shown on the plan of development.- Use

current Planning Scheme and EPPS rate of 1 per 40m2 shown on the plan of development.

For information, the following uses shown on the plan of development have been considered but are not likely to trigger the need for additional parking dedicated to the particular use as they will not generate more carparking than the peak generated by the main carparking generators:- Catering Shop Use includes dining. - Use current Planning Scheme and EPPS rate of 1

per 15m2 instead of applicant offer of 1 per 20m2. It is considered in either case that the peak generation rate would be less than the peak for shopping centre. That is, there would not need to be a dedicated carparking for these specific uses.

Hardware Store, Child Care Centre Educational Establishment and Veterinary Hospital

Use location are not defined and are assumed to be located in a potential specialty store tenancy so they are not included in the calculation of carparking. It is likely that these uses would be included in the shopping centre definition for carparking purposes and the peak generation rate for these uses would be less than the peak for shopping centre. That is, there would not need to be a dedicated carparking for these specific uses.

Special Purpose use includes the Special Purpose use shown on the plan of development.

This use is for a Community Centre which may be available for use by Council if it wishes. It is likely that this use would be included in the shopping centre definition for carparking purposes and the peak generation rate for this use would be less than the peak for shopping centre. That is, there would not need to be a dedicated carparking for this specific use.

Hotel Use includes Hotel shown on the plan of development-Use current Planning

Scheme car parking rate of 1 per 10m2 licensed area rather than 1 per 15m2 proposed by applicant. It is likely that this use would be included in the shopping centre definition for carparking purposes and the peak generation rate for this use would be less than the peak for shopping centre. That is, there would not need to be a dedicated carparking for this specific use.

Having regard to the total GFA areas for the total development, including existing and separately proposed stages 1-4, the following parking requirements are generated:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10489

Use Area Alternative Car rate by Broad Use definition

Car Spaces required

Current Planning

Scheme rate

MRC Car Spaces

required

Car Spaces

provided

Retail 30,458m2 GFA


1,523 1 space per 20m2 of GFA for the first 700m2 GFA and then an additional 1 space per 10m2

GFA

3,011 Does not meet MRC rate but see Section 5.3.3 for carparking comparison of other shopping centres

Showrooms

7,230m2 GFA 1 space per 40m2 GFA


181 Complies

Commercial Premises

8,184m2 1 space per 50m2 GFA

164 #


164 Complies but see note # below

Total (stage 1-4)

total GFA of 45,872m2

1,868 spaces less 164 equals 1,704 spaces. The applicant then argues that there is 10% cross utilisation (171 spaces) which leaves a grand total of 1,533 spaces required. Based on the total GFA figure of 45,872m2, this equates to a provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 29.9 m2 or 3.34 spaces per 100m2.

3,356. Equates to a provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 13.7m2 or 7.3 spaces per 100m2.

This rate is considered excessive. See section 5.3.3 of this report on carparking comparison which concludes that the MRC rate is not appropriate and a lesser figure can be and has been applied.

1631 Equates to provision ratio of approximately 1 space per 28.1m2 or 3.55 spaces per 100m2.

The applicant did not count Commercial Premises as the Retail peak rate is the main generator and offices are unlikely to be operating to create a greater peak than at the time of the same Retail peak. This matter was reviewed by Councils traffic engineer and advised that this approach has traffic planning merit. The 10% cross utilisation was an accepted industry figure accepted by traffic engineers and may in fact be greater possibly up to 25% but it is accepted that the discount adopted is conservative. The difference between the 1,631 spaces provided and the notional rate of 1,868 spaces equates to a cross utilisation of 12.7%. The issue that still remains is that the development requires the provision of 1868 spaces versus the 1631 spaces provided. While some cross utilisation can be considered, this should be applied to the Retail component not the total uses. By using 10%, this means that 1523 spaces for Retail uses can be reduced to 1371 spaces. In effect, the development should provide 1716 spaces not 1631 spaces as offered by the developer. This shortfall of 85 spaces is of concern to Council and it is considered that Council should not agree to the developer's proposal and will need to either provide the shortfall on-site or reduce the floor area to match. For example, this could mean that they reduce the Retail area by 1,700m2, reduce the Showroom area by 3,400m2 or reduce the Commercial premises by 4,250m2 or any combination. The approval will be conditioned accordingly.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10490

5.3.3 Carparking Comparison An analysis of other shopping centres in Townsville and Cairns that operate with a much lesser rate of parking than that proposed in this development has been canvassed. Further, the carparking rates required by similar regional Queensland cities (Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton) have been submitted and the following table shows the required rates of carparking for the different local government areas and/or projects approved in Mackay:- Local Government Area/ Development Site

Carparking Rate Required Carparks for this Development

Northern Beaches Central Stage 1 (3,600m2/240 parks)

6.7 spaces per 100m2 lettable area

3,073

Northern Beaches Central Stage 2 (7,733m2/648 parks)

8.4 spaces per 100m2 gross floor area

3,853

Andergrove Woolworths 5.8 spaces per 100m2 lettable area

2,660

Homemaker Centre, Holts Road/Mackay-Bucasia Road (big box retail showrooms) 38,317m2/1,034 parks

2.69 spaces per 100m2 gross lettable area

1,234

Canelands Regional Centre existing Mangrove Road 42,315m2/2,021 parks

4.78 spaces per 100m2 2,193

Canelands Regional Centre overall 67,209m2/2,800 parks

4.15 spaces per 100m2 overall 1,904

Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre existing 21,000m2/1,354 parks

6.45 spaces per 100m2 2,959

Mt Pleasant Sub Regional Centre proposed 36,667m2/1,737 parks

4.74 spaces per 100m2 overall proposed but still to be decided by Council

2,174

Cairns City Council 1 space per 16m2 of Net Lettable Area 6.25 per 100m2)for a Shopping Centre, with an NLA between 1,001m2 and 20,000m2

2,867

Townsville City Council 1 space per 20m2 of GFA for a Shopping Complex (5 spaces per 100m2)

2,294

Rockhampton City Council 1 space per 25m2 of GFA for a Shop use (4 spaces per 100m2)

1,835

Mackay City Council

1 space per 20m2 GFA for the first 700m2, and an additional 1 space per 10m2 GFA

4,552

This table shows that the required carparking rates for Mackay City are significantly higher than the other local government areas quoted. As this mixed use development has a mix of retail, commercial premises and showroom uses, then it is considered that the Council can be confident to not insist on applying the current Planning Scheme rate for carparking for


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10491

ostensibly a shopping centre. It is appropriate to apply the minimum carparking rate of 5 spaces per 100m2 for the retail use and to then require the other components to provide carparking at the current Planning Scheme rates with a further discount for cross utilisation of between 10% and 20%. On balance, it is considered that the carparking to be provided for the total development will be sufficient. 6. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Infrastructure Contributions The following contribution policies are applicable to the development: 16.01 Transport Network Contributions Policy – Developer Contributions The proposal is subject to a developer contribution for the transport network as detailed in Planning Scheme Policy 16.01. The proposal is for a ‘Shopping Centre’ with a gross floor area for Stage 3 and 4 of 34,539m2, which attracts a developer contribution at a rate of 40 vehicles per day (vpd) per 100m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the retail shopping centre component(2,7836m2) and 20 vpd per 100m2 for the commercial premises component(6,703 m2). The development shall receive a credit of 6.5 vpd for each of the existing 3 lots. Therefore, the developer contributions equates to:- Retail Shopping Centre’ = 40vpd / 100m2 GFA = 40 vpd x 278.36 – 3 x 6.5 vpd = 11114.9 vpd x $365/vpd = $4,056,939 Commercial premises = 20vpd/100m2 GFA =20vpd x 67.03 =1,340.6 x $365/vpd = $489,319 Total = $4,546,258 It should be noted that the schedule of roads listed to be funded by the transport network contribution policy includes the intersection of Rosewood Drive/Reid Street as well as Main street north to Eimeo Road with the former being planned for 2013-2014 and the latter for 2018-2021. If Main Street does not in fact become a road reserve as is the preferred position of the developer but rather be covered by an easement in favour of Council, then it is considered that the developer is responsible for Main Street between Rosewood Drive and Eimeo Road. With regard to the intersection of Main Street/Rosewood Drive/Reid Street intersection, then part of the cost of this intersection can be theoretically attributable against the Transport Network Contribution. In any case, the developer would still need to meet any bring forward costs which would reduce any potential exposure to cost sharing. However, the conditions of approval for this intersection have been applied as the minimum required by the developer to provide a safe intersection now to service their development, hence meaning that the Council is not liable for any sharing of costs. All contributions and charges must be paid prior to the commencement of the use at the rate applicable at the time of payment or as otherwise agreed by Council and the developer.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10492

16.02 Parkland Contributions Policy – Public Parks and Community Land The proposed development attracts a parkland contribution at a rate of 25.2 Equivalent Persons (EP) per hectare. The proposal will attract a credit of 2.8 EP’s per existing Lot (3 lots). Therefore, the proposed development area of 63,509m2 will attract a contribution of:- 6.3509 hectares x 25.2 EP – 3 x 2.8 EP = 151.64 EP’s 151.64 EP x $1,381 = $209,415 All contributions and charges must be paid prior to the commencement of the use at the rate applicable at the time of payment or as otherwise agreed by Council and the developer. 16.03 Water Supply and Sewerage Contributions The proposed development will attract Water Supply and Sewerage headworks charges. The charges are applied at a rate of 1 Equivalent Tenement (ET) per 200m2 of floor area for the shops(26,596 m2), 15 ET per hectare for the Commercial premises component(6,703 m2) and 1 ET per 100m2 for the catering shop component (1,240 m2). Shops = 26,596/200 =132.98 ET Commercial = 6,703/10000 x15 =10.05 ET Catering shop = 1,240/100 = 12.4 ET The components total 155.43 ET’s. The development will attract a credit of 1 ET per existing lot (3 lots) which equates to a nett figure of 152.43ET. The current charges for this area are:- Water Supply - $5491 x 152.43ET = $836993. Sewerage Services - $4992 x 152.43ET = $760,931 The above figures will not be realised in total as the developer is required to put in some trunk infrastructure which will be partly offset against the contribution and was agreed to by Mackay Water in the preliminary negotiations. See the infrastructure section of this report for more details. All contributions and charges must be paid prior to the commencement of the use at the rate applicable at the time of payment or as otherwise agreed by Council and the developer. 6.2 Infrastructure Requirements The engineering aspects of servicing this proposal have been assessed and it is considered that appropriate conditions can be imposed on the development. 6.2.1 Water & Sewer The subject site is currently connected to necessary basic infrastructure services i.e. water, electricity supply, sewer, stormwater discharge, and telecommunications. This infrastructure services the existing Northern Beaches Central (Stage 1). The applicant engineering report identified the following in relation to water supply:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10493

Existing infrastructure available to the site is the 300 mm main which runs along the

eastern side of Mackay-Bucasia Road and part of Rosewood Drive; It is estimated that a 150 mm network will be minimum size required for the water

reticulation network with multiple connection points to the 300 mm main accommodating for breakages and fire flow paths;

The large building size required for the Discount Department Store may require a larger

fire flow (for Special Use Building) than the current commercial 30 L/s. An increase in fire flow demand for the building could impact on the reticulation network sizing;

It is unclear as to the extent of the spare capacity of this main or the infrastructure from

the point of treated water supply source. A detailed analysis of the external infrastructure would be required to supply the site is beyond the scope of this report and will be required to be undertaken via the Mackay Regional Council Alliance.

Following consultation with Mackay Water, it will be conditioned to provide the following as conditions of approval: Water and Sewerage Hydraulic Analysis

Council will undertake an analysis of the water and sewerage network to determine what augmentation is required to be provided by the developer to comply with Council’s standard of service. The analysis and augmentation will be at the developer’s cost and must be included with the Operational Works application for Stage 3.

a) The developer must extend the existing 300mm dia. water main along the northern

side of Rosewood Drive to service the development. b) Any temporary water services provided for Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C

(DA-2008-339) must be removed and these developments connected to the new permanent main in Rosewood Drive.

c) Council will contribute to the supply and lay cost difference between the

developer’s required mains for the ultimate development, and the size of water main required by Council. The cost difference is to be confirmed and approved by Council prior to undertaking the works.

Direct Pumping from Mackay Water’s Reticulation System

Pumping direct from Council water mains for potable or fire fighting supply is not permitted and break tanks must be installed in accordance with Mackay Water and Fire Authority requirements, if required. The location of the tanks must be approved by Council as part of the operational works approval.

6.2.2 Sewer The applicant engineering report identified the following in relation to sewerage:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10494

The existing development on the western side of the site is serviced by a 150/225/300 gravity main to the Symonds Farm SPS According to Mackay Regional Council the 150 mm section of gravity main is at maximum capacity;

Northern Beaches Central can be serviced by a 150/225 mm gravity sewerage network

which is proposed to discharge into existing manhole PL2/2-1/05; Detailed analysis of the sewerage network beyond manhole PL2/2-1/05 is outside the

scope of this report and will be required to be undertaken via the Mackay Regional Council Alliance.

The following sewerage arrangements will be conditioned in addition to the Water and Sewerage Hydraulic Analysis referred to earlier:- a) Sewer connection for Stages 3 and 4 of the development including permanent

connections for the proposed Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) must be provided by the developer. In accordance with Condition 42 (Water and Sewerage Hydraulic Analysis condition), the Council will undertake an analysis to confirm whether the proposed existing sewer main is of sufficient size to cater for the additional load.

b) Any augmentation required to Council infrastructure as a direct result of the developer’s

additional load will be at the developers expense. c) The existing 225mm dia. sewer main, 200mm sewer rising main and 63mm dia. sewer

pump station water service must be relocated by the developer if any of these mains conflict with the final stormwater drainage reserve and wetland area. The existing 150mm sewer main from Rosewood Drive north must be relocated by the developer if there are conflicts with the proposed underground stormwater drainage. The areas affected are from manholes 3/2-1 to 8/2-1 and manholes 7/2-1 to 7A/2-1 as shown on Sketch No. 3 (see attachment “O”)or a Council approved alternative based on the final design of the SQID’s and drain. These works must be provided as part of Stage 3 of the development.

6.2.3 Stormwater The portion of the subject site which currently contains Stage 1, Northern Beaches Central is generally flat, exhibiting little topographical variation. The balance portion of the primary site then rises gently east towards a ridge before then falling towards the eastern boundary of the site. The site also falls gently toward the south, with the lowest point of the subject land contained on Lot 7 on SP159744, adjacent to McCready’s Creek It will be conditioned that all stormwater for the approved development must be controlled, with provision being made for the following: a) External catchments; b) Inter-allotment drainage; c) Downstream Drainage to a lawful and practical point of discharge which has been

nominated as McCready’s Creek at the outlet of the proposed drainage channel shown on over-marked Drawing A1-10091 Sheet 2 – Sketch 2.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10495

It will be conditioned that prior to submission of Operational Works applications for Stages 3 and 4 the developer must submit the ultimate hydraulic drainage design for the stormwater drainage system to McCready’s Creek. The design must include the fully developed site and all upstream catchments. The McCready’s Creek Stormwater Drainage Study – 9 June 2006 can be referenced for tail water levels in McCreadys Creek. The drainage design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines and Queensland Urban Drainage Manual. Rosewood Drive road levels, the top of ramp levels and the finished floor levels must be designed to achieve the required immunity. It will also be conditioned that drainage easement and reserves are to be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines. The developer must provide the following drainage easements and reserves: a) A drainage easement shall extend over the Q100 underground drainage system from

Eimeo Road to Rosewood Drive. The section of easement under the proposed building works must be gazetted as an easement for the drainage structure. The developer must provide Council with a volumetric easement or similar document detailing responsibilities and liabilities associated with maintenance and/or repairs to the drainage system under the building.

b) A drainage easement shall extend over the positive overland flow path to be provided

around the western side of the existing development for flows greater than Q100. c) Drainage reserves shall extend over the Q100 drainage channel from Rosewood Drive to

McCreadys Creek. d) Any drainage reserves are to be transferred to Council in fee simple. 6.2.4 Building Design over Drainage Structure As part of the Operational Works application, the developer must submit the design for the section of the building over the drainage structure so that it is independent of the drainage structure in terms of support and maintenance. Details of the design of piers, beams and footings must be certified by a qualified RPEQ Structural Engineer. The developer must also demonstrate compliance with Council’s Policy No. 029 “Building over or adjacent to constructed Council Drainage Systems and Easements” or provide acceptable solutions which uphold the intent of the policy. The entry/exit to the underground carpark is to be designed to achieve a 1 in 100 year

ARI + 50mm local flooding immunity to ensure the carpark is protected from such flooding events.

The developer shall provide pumping arrangements/emergency arrangements to mitigate against water ponding in the underground carpark in accordance with the relevant standards.

6.2.5 Stormwater Quality It will be conditioned that a Site Based Stormwater Management Plan - High Risk be required as follows:-


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10496

Council’s Stormwater Quality Risk Classification has classified this development as high risk as defined in Section 1.3 of Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines “Soil and Water Quality Management - Planning Scheme Policy No.15.07.” The developer must undertake the following in relation to the above policy and Council’s standards and requirements: a) A Site Based Stormwater Management Plan (SBSMP) for the proposed complete and

final development of Lot 2 on SP192059 including upstream external catchments must be submitted to Council for approval at the time of submission of the Operational Works application. Council’s proposed new Stormwater Quality Design Objectives of 75% TSS, 60% TP 40% TN and 90% Gross Pollutants can be used for the revised SBSMP. An electronic copy of the MUSIC modelling must be submitted with the SBSMP. Assessment of other components of Operational Works application cannot be finalised until the SBSMP is approved.

The proposed stormwater treatment devices south of Rosewood Drive must treat the existing Bi-Lo, this proposed development, Stage 2A (DA-2006-103), Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) and part of the external catchments as agreed with Council. The site does have an external catchment but the exact extent has not been determined so this aspect will be dealt with at operational works stage plus it needs to be determined what Council is responsible for in regard to water quality compared to the developers responsibilities. The exact location and extent of the proposed sediment basin, wetland area, or alternatives as approved by Council including any proposed high flow by-pass and trunk drainage channel between Rosewood Drive and McCreadys Creek must be submitted to Council prior to the application for Operational Works. The ultimate approved SBSMP must be constructed as part of the Operational Works for proposed Stages 3 and 4 of the development.

b) The developers’ on-site (GPT’s) and proposed off-site stormwater quality improvement

devices (SQID’s) will be of a private nature and the owners of the land and their successors in title must be aware that the cost and maintenance of the SQID’s as per the final approved SBSMP are their responsibility. A note to this effect must be placed on Council’s Rates Data Base at the time of sealing the Survey Plan or prior to the intended use of the site.

c) The private (SQID’s) south of Rosewood Drive referred to in the above conditions is to

be tied in Title to Lot 2 on SP192059 such that the aforementioned area cannot be disposed of separately to the commercial development area north of Rosewood Drive.

6.3 External Roadworks 6.3.1 Roadworks General The issue of the tenure of Main Street was raised in discussions with applicant. Their preference was that the roadway be contained in an easement rather than a road reserve which was the preference of Council as well as Department of Main Roads. Conditions have been set to allow for either option with the default being the Council position road reserve with easement being allowed if it could be demonstrated that Councils interests could be maintained.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10497

In addition, because of the design of Main Street with pedestrian crossings/low speed environment, the function of the road has been reduced so that it will not provide for through traffic. Therefore the engineering/traffic planning assessment has concluded that Road J4 needs to be constructed along with Rosewood Drive all at the same time when Stage 3 is developed. The following requirements will be applied as conditions of approval:- Traffic Impact Assessment The developer must provide an amended traffic Impact Assessment for the assessment and approval of Council which addresses the following: a) Projected traffic volumes for J4 Road and intersection design for J4 Road and Eimeo

Road, and J4 Road and Rosewood Drive.

b) Analysis of the proposed offset tee intersection of Main Street/Rosewood Drive/Reed Street.

c) The assessment must include projected external traffic from the surrounding existing network, future connection to proposed residential development to the east (Plantation Palms), Reed Street extension to Golflinks Road and the High School site and connection of the north east carpark areas to J4 Road. The proposed accesses onto Rosewood Drive must also be included in the assessment.

d) The Main Street roundabout must also be included in the assessment. In particular the vehicle queuing lengths from the roundabout back to the Eimeo Road signalised intersection and the central pedestrian crossing Main Street and linking the two malls must be assessed in conjunction with the signalised intersection.

e) Main Street roundabout, in particular, the vehicle queuing lengths from the roundabout back to the Eimeo Road signalised intersection.

f) Main Street between the roundabout and Rosewood Drive, in particular, the pedestrian

crossing linking the two malls, other pedestrian movements and road surface treatments. 6.3.2 Roadwork External Vehicular access to the site is currently gained via: Mackay–Bucasia Road, via an established left in, left out crossing and driveway; Rosewood Drive via an established left in, right out crossing and driveway; and Eimeo Road via an established all-movements crossing and driveway. Pedestrian access to the subject site is currently gained via an established sealed pedestrian pathway along part of the Mackay–Bucasia Road frontage of the site.

The negotiations with the developer resulted in a requirement for conditions that allowed contributions/works to be done as stages of the development proceeded. This was because of the financial implications on the developer to undertake works up front rather than staging such works. While it was noted that a variation to this negotiation would be not to the developers


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10498

preference, it is considered appropriate to require these works as part of Stage 3 so that the only works required for the developer at Stage 4 is to construct the building and associated carparking areas. The issue of the design of Main Street with pedestrian crossings/low speed environment has the potential to reduce the function of the road so it was initially proposed to require a Traffic Impact Assessment to demonstrate amongst other matters why Road J4 on the eastern boundary of the site should not be provided as part of this development. However, this either/or option is considered to be not warranted as Councils engineering/traffic planning assessment has concluded that Road J4 needs to be constructed along with Rosewood Drive all at the same time when Stage 3 is developed. The following requirements will be applied as conditions of approval:- 6.3.2.1 J4 Road The developer must: a) Provide a minimum 24 metre wide road reserve from Eimeo Road and Rosewood Drive

along the eastern boundary of the site, in accordance with the Council, the Department of Main Roads and Queensland Transport requirements.

Subject to agreement with owner of the adjoining land, the road reserve may be provided partly or wholly within the developers land or adjoining land to the east in accordance with Council and the Department of Transport and Main Road requirements.

b) The developer must design and construct J4 Road with the Operational Works for Stage 3

(including the intersection of Eimeo Road and south to the Future Link to J4 Road as shown on 4-DA-001). The balance of J4 is also to be designed and constructed with the Operational Works for Stage 3 as well.

The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and cross section shown on attached Sketch No. 4. (See Attachment "G"). The intersection design for J4 Road with Eimeo Road must be approved by Department of Transport and Main Roads prior to submission of Operational Works application. Street lighting must be provided for J4 Road in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines and relevant current Australian Standards.

6.3.2.2 Signalised Intersections a) The developer must design and construct a signalised intersection at the Main

Street/Eimeo Road/Carl Street intersection as per the Department of Main Roads conditions.

b) The developer must design and construct a signalised intersection at the Main

Street/Rosewood Drive/Reed Street intersection as part of the Stage 3 Operational Works.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10499

6.3.2.3 Rosewood Drive (to be provided as part of Stage 3) Rosewood Drive is a major collector street on the southern side of the development site. Rosewood Drive provides access to the existing Stage 1 development, the bowls club, service station and other retail/offices and currently terminates some 120m east of Mackay-Bucasia Road. In the future it will be extended to provide access to Plantation Palms Estate, a state school and Stage 3 and 4 of the Northern Beaches Central development. Rosewood Road currently has a two-way two lane carriageway with a speed limit of 50km/h. It will be conditioned that the following arrangements in regard to Rosewood Drive be incorporated:- a) The developer must provide a road reserve widening along the full frontage with Lot 2 on

SP151924. The width required is that to achieve a minimum 24m wide major collector road reserve. Additional road reserve width may be required to accommodate storage or turn lanes at intersections central medians or other infrastructure not usually located within road reserve. This shall be confirmed at the Operational Works stage.

b) The developer must design and construct Rosewood Drive from Mackay-Bucasia Road to

the eastern side of J4 Road and must be designed and constructed by the developer as part of Stage 3. The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and major collector street cross section Drawing No. A3-3615.

c) The northern side of Rosewood Drive and the southern side of Rosewood Drive west of

Reed Street must be line marked to provide an emergency breakdown lane only with no on-street parking permitted.

d) The developer must provide a 2.5 metre off-road shared path along the northern side of

Rosewood Drive from Mackay-Bucasia road to the eastern side of J4 Road. e) Street lighting must be provided for Rosewood Drive in accordance with Council’s

Engineering Design Guidelines and relevant current Australian Standards. 6.3.2.4 Eimeo Road/Mackay-Bucasia Road Eimeo Road is a state controlled road located immediately north of the subject site and provides the primary east-west connection between Mackay-Bucasia Road and Eimeo, Dolphin Heads and Blacks Beach. In the vicinity of the site, Eimeo Road comprises of a four lane, two-way, median divided road with sealed shoulders. Eimeo Road currently has a posted speed limit of 60km/h and carries approximately 9,800 vehicles per day (vpd) estimated from manual traffic surveys conducted in 2008. Eimeo Road is defined in the Mackay Regional Council’s (MRC) Road Hierarchy Plan as an arterial road. At the intersection of Eimeo Road and Old Eimeo Road, a roundabout is constructed. This will allow access to the Plantation Palms Estate to be gained at this intersection. Mackay-Bucasia Road is a state controlled road located along the western edge of the subject site providing the primary connection between the northern suburbs of Mackay City and the CBD via the Bruce Highway. In proximity to the development site, Mackay-Bucasia Road


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10500

comprises a two-way, four lane median divided road. Mackay-Bucasia Road is defined as an arterial road in the Mackay road hierarchy and has a posted speed limit of 60km/h. It carries approximately 17300vpd south of Eimeo Road estimated from manual traffic surveys conducted in 2008. Construction works have been undertaken between Phillip Street and Mackay-Habana Road to duplicate the existing carriageway. See the referral agency section of this report for the Department’s requirements. The developer must provide a 1.5m wide path on the southern side of Eimeo Road from the eastern side of J4 Road to the Carl Street intersection and a 2.5m shared path on the southern side of Eimeo Road and the eastern side of Mackay-Bucasia Road from Carl Street to the existing 2.5m path on Mackay-Bucasia Road. These paths are to be provided as part of the Stage 3 development. 6.4 Main Street - Road or Easement The issue of the tenure of Main Street was raised in discussions with applicant. Their preference was that the roadway be contained in an easement rather than a road reserve which was the preference of Council as well as Department of Main Roads. Conditions have been set to allow for either option with the default being the Council position road reserve with easement being allowed if it could be demonstrated that Councils interests could be maintained. 6.4.1 Roadwork Internal It will be conditioned that the following arrangements in regard to Main Street and the carparking areas within the site be incorporated:- 6.4.1.1 Main Street It will be conditioned that the following arrangements apply in respect of Main Street:- a) The developer must provide a minimum 24m wide road reserve from Eimeo Road to

Rosewood Drive. Alternatively, Council is prepared to agree to the developer providing either of the following alternatives subject to assessment at Operational Works application stage:

i) a 10 metre wide road reserve over the two 3.5m wide traffic lanes and the

two 1.5m wide bike lanes; or ii) an easement covering the full width of the final design of Main Street.

Main Street centreline alignment must extend from the centreline intersection of Eimeo Road and Carl Street to the centreline of the roundabout and then on the proposed alignment south to a point where the alignment can be adjusted to realign with the intersection of Reed Street and Rosewood Drive to provide a cross intersection. Alternatively, Council is prepared to agree to the developer’s proposal of a staggered T signalised intersection provided the amended Traffic Impact Assessment demonstrates safe, effective and efficient operation for the proposed intersection geometry.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10501

b) The developer must provide the final design and construction of Main Street from Eimeo Road to Rosewood Drive as part of Stage 3 operational works. The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and typical cross sections on attached Sketch No. 1. (See Attachment "M”).

c) A 1.5m wide shared path must be provided on the eastern side on Main Street from

Eimeo Road to the southern side of the roundabout then connect to a 2m wide pedestrian clearway to be provided within the verges on both sides of Main Street between the roundabout and Rosewood Drive.

d) Street lighting must be provided in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design

Guidelines and the relevant current Australian Standards.

6.4.1.2 Easement Documentation for Main Street versus Road Reserve The applicant wants to have Main Street covered by an easement as it gives then greater control and certainty in regard to the design and intent of Main Street. The conditions of approval have been set to require that Main Street be provided in a road reserve but allows an alternative to be considered if Council is satisfied that an easement will still maintain Council intents for the road network. The easement documentation referred to in the conditions of approval over Main Street is to address, amongst other matters, the following: a) Scope and extent of easement. b) Footpath dining in terms of approval/compliance responsibilities. c) Maintenance and responsibility for Council and Developer in regard to roadway/footpath. d) Maintenance and responsibility for Council and Developer in regard to services/traffic

signage/on-street parking/temporary road closure. e) Demarcation of liability between Council and the developer in regard to

compliance/enforcement/policing traffic matters. f) Duty to pass on obligations of easement upon successors in title. g) Who is using the easement – public, agents, Council, developer, etc. h) Dispute resolution. 6.4.1.3 Covered Pedestrian Pathways in Carpark Area It will be conditioned that the main spine pedestrian pathways through the carpark areas as shown on the Plan of Development shall be covered. The covered areas shown on the Plan of Development are to be amended to include the additional aisles as annotated Sketch 5. (See attachment “Q”). Details of the covered pathways are to be submitted for approval at the time of submission of the relevant Operational works for Stage 3. It is advised that Stockwell will agree to provide additional covered pathways subject to the amendment of the condition to remove the requirement for a 2.5m wide footpath from the Main Street/Eimeo Road/Carl Street intersection west. This is not considered acceptable as the pathway will provide a hard edge to the development and will contribute to the pedestrian circulation particularly for school children in the area.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10502

6.4.1.4 Carpark Design It will be conditioned that prior to submission of Operational Works applications for Stages 3 and 4 the developer must provide redesign of carparking layouts and accesses on the Rosewood Drive side of the development to include the following: i. The ingress/egress ramps and the spatial separation of underground stormwater drainage

and services in the vicinity of the western entry/exit is to be redesigned as necessary to ensure that practical construction can occur without detriment to existing and proposed services and buildings.

ii. The conflicts between customer and service vehicle movements and parking at the south western corner of the development as shown on the Masterplan – Ground Level plan of development 4-DA-001 is not acceptable. An alternative to the proposed parking layout could be to restrict customer access and parking in this area and designate carparking for staff only.

iii. The through movement of vehicles between the northern and southern carpark along the western boundary of the site must be restricted to staff and service vehicles only.

iv. The access off Rosewood Drive to the carpark west of Main Street must be designed as left in/left out only and the western end of this carpark must end in a cul-de-sac.

v. The eastern access to Rosewood Drive must be redesigned to allow for full movement of customer and service vehicles.

7. REFERRAL AGENCIES The development application triggered referral to: Department of Main Roads as a Concurrence Agency for State Controlled Road matters; Queensland Transport as a Concurrence Agency for public passenger transport and

railways matters; and The Department of Natural Resources and Water as an Advice Agency for acid sulfate

soils matters. The development application did not trigger referral to any other Advice or Concurrence

Agency. A summary of the agency requirements are as follows:- 7.1 Department of Main Roads They required a constructed signalised Eimeo Road/Carl Street/Main Street intersection

prior to opening of Stage 3 or 4 in accordance with applicant’s traffic report whichever comes first.

Restrict the current access arrangement to the Bi Lo shopping centre to a left in -left out intersection prior to opening of Stage 3 or 4 whichever comes first.

Either upgrade Bucasia Road/Eimeo Road/Wallmans Road roundabout by 2018 or earlier by accident history in accordance with applicant’s traffic report or provide security to the


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10503

Department for the total cost of upgrading works via an infrastructure agreement with the Department.

Upgrade Bucasia Road/Rosewood Drive/Sologinkins Road intersection before Stage 4 is opened in accordance with applicant’s traffic report.

7.2 Queensland Transport Construct the Bus stop shown on Stage 3 plan on Main Street prior to commencement of

Stage 3 in accordance with Department standards. Construct the Bus stop shown on Stage 4 plan on Main Street prior to commencement of

Stage 4 in accordance with Department standards. Main Street to be designed to accommodate a 12.5 metre bus. Construct pedestrian and bicycle network as shown on the proposal plans. Provide six taxi ranks as per proposal plan prior to use commencing. Provide a Queensland Transport Infrastructure Construction Timetable for approval of

Queensland Transport. 7.3 Department of Natural Resources and Water As Advice Agency, they recommended that acid sulphate soil testing be undertaken prior to operational works occurring. (See Attachment “U”). This has been conditioned and is a standard requirement. 8. SUBMISSIONS The application was publicly notified in accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997, and as a result of this process, three (3) written submission were received. The submissions received expressed opposition to the proposal. As is standard practice, a copy of the submissions was provided to the applicant to seek their comments. The applicants comments have been provided and included in this report. An assessment of the matters raised by the submissions, the applicant’s response to the matters raised and the assessment manager’s comments are summarised and discussed below: 8.1 Economic Need Submitters Concerns There is no need for the proposed development. The proposed development is in direct conflict with the retail hierarchy described in the Mackay City Planning Scheme and will compromise the achievement of the Desired Environmental Outcomes. The proposed development will have unacceptable impacts on existing higher order centre and is likely to compromise the further development of those centres to achieve the Desired Environmental Outcomes for the provision of employment opportunities and retail services as the Planning Scheme contemplates.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10504

The proposed development is in direct conflict with the Mackay City Planning Scheme in relation to the existing retail hierarchy as set out in the: Mackay Frame Locality Code and Commercial Zone Code

The economic Impact Assessment report by the applicant is an inaccurate assessment of the proposal and its impacts as: The trade area is too extensively defined. The economic Impact Assessment does not assess the impact of the approved

development of the homemaker centre for approximately 38,000m2 predominantly showroom uses approved at the corner of Holts Road and Mackay Bucasia Road.

The applicant’s economic Impact Assessment does not provide justification for the extent of the development provided without Conflicting with the trade area restrictions of the Scheme for the Major Neighbourhood

Centre at this location. Detrimentally impacting on the existing traditional centres retail hierarchy. Ignoring significant approved development within its proposed trade area. Applicant’s Response Please note to assist in responding to the Submitters Concerns, the items provided in bold italic below have been extracted from the Submitters Concerns with the Applicants Response provided below. “The proposed development is in direct conflict with the Mackay City Planning Scheme…..” The application to expand Northern Beaches Central is assessable against the Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of Development (the “Plan of Development”). The Plan of Development was approved by Council in 2003 to guide development within the 330Ha Eulbertie Park Estate. The structure of the Plan of Development is such that in instances where the Plan of Development is inconsistent with the Planning Scheme, the Plan of Development prevails. A principal objective of the Plan of Development is to develop a Major Neighbourhood Centre to serve the needs of the residents of the Northern Beaches of Mackay. Northern Beaches Central is also identified as the designated Major Neighbourhood Centre in Council’s Retail Hierarchy. Expansion of Northern Beaches Central is consistent with the intent of the Plan of Development as approved by Council and Retail Hierarchy. Importantly, expansion of the centre beyond 10,000m2 is contemplated by the Plan of Development and is the trigger from Code to Impact Assessment. The Plan of Development states:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10505

“Where development is not identified in a Table of Development, the development becomes impact assessable… “Some development may be anticipated in certain Land Use Areas (within the Plan of Development area) as per the strategic intent of the Plan of Development and yet remain as impact assessable. For example, the following development is not identified in a Table of Development as a consequence is subject to Impact Assessment: 1. The development of a shopping centre or shop where the proposal:

– Exceeds a gross floor area of 10,000sqm; and – Is located within the Neighbourhood Centre Core Land Use Area and west of the

proposed Main Street…..” (Section 3.2.7 Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of Development Revised 2003)

As provided, expansion of Northern Beaches Central is not in direct conflict with Council’s planning intent for the area as purported by the Submitter. “The economic Impact Assessment report by the applicant is an inaccurate assessment of the proposal and its impacts as…. The economic Impact Assessment does not assess the impact of the approved development of the homemaker centre for approximately 38000m2

predominantly showroom uses approved at the corner of Holts Road and Mackay Bucasia Road.” The Economic Impact Assessment submitted in support of the application correctly identified any proposed retail developments in the surrounding area. A number of these proposed retail developments were included in the economic assessment based on their likely approval by Council and their actual or likely delivery. The 38,000m2 Holts Road development was not included within the assessment as: – The application had not been assessed by Council.

The application for Stage 3 and 4 of Northern Beaches Central was lodged on 23 December 2008. A Negotiated Decision Notice for the Holts Road development was issued by Council on 10 September 2009; and

– The application was an out of centre proposal in direct conflict with Council’s Planning Scheme.

Whilst a Decision Notice has been issued by Council for an approval, the approval has not taken affect as the application is currently being appealed by a number of parties. Accordingly, the Holts Road development has not been approved as purported by the Submitter and was excluded from the Economic Impact Assessment as it was not considered likely of receiving support from Council due to its direct conflict with the Retail Hierarchy. Officers Comments: The site is appropriately zoned for commercial development. See Economic Need Assessment section of this report. The needs report concludes that there is a need for the greater floor area proposed by this development.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10506

8.2. Traffic Issues Submitters Concerns Road J4 is shown on the plans of development adjacent to the eastern bounds of the shopping centre extension application and are not required by the developer of the residential estate Plantation Palms, nor the applicant nor the Department of Main Roads. The submitter wants the road removed. The Reed Street/Main Street intersection offset along Rosewood Drive is not good traffic engineering and wants the kink made right angle intersection. The timing of the construction of Rosewood Drive by the applicant until Stage 4 is constructed is not good traffic planning as the road is a major collector and the shopping centre cannot be expected to function up to stage 3 with only one signalised intersection to Eimeo Road and one left-in left- out access off Mackay Bucasia Road near the service station Applicant’s Response: The items raised in the Submitters Concerns above have been appropriately addressed by both the Cardno Eppell Olsen Traffic Report submitted with the application and the conditions of development. Officers Comments: The Traffic Report prepared by applicant clearly demonstrated there were no traffic planning issues associated with the development and that appropriate conditions could be applied. See infrastructure section of report on design issues. However it will be conditioned that a traffic Impact Assessment is required to address matters of concern in terms of justifying certain design matters. It was concluded that road J4 and Rosewood Drive needs to be constructed as a result of this development for their full length as part of Stage 3 works. 8.3. Application material piecemeal Submitters Concerns The application is piecemeal as the application assumes stage 2 has been approved. The public scrutiny file does not contain all of the material including the Plan of development approved by Council relied upon by the applicant, without which the ability of those members of the community considering making submissions about the application is unduly restricted.

Applicant’s Response: Please note to assist in responding to the Submitters Concerns, the items provided in bold italic below have been extracted from the Submitters Concerns with the Applicants Response provided below. The application is piecemeal as the application assumes stage 2 has been approved. Application for Stage 2 of Northern Beaches Central was subject to Codes Assessable procedures and therefore consistent with the Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10507

Development (refer Applicants Response to Item 1 above for detail on the Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of Development). The application for Stage 3 and 4 clearly identified the proposed staging of the centre expansion within the site development plans to allow an appropriate assessment of the application.

Officers Comments: Stage 2 was broken up into three sub stages and have been approved as these applications were code assessable. These applications were approved after the public notification period for the current application had been completed. The application file includes the relevant sections of the EPPS as supporting documentation with the application. The application identified extracts of the relevant material as supporting documentation to the application which was considered to be acceptable to allow assessment of this application. A complete design has been provided with the application so that Council has a complete picture of what is proposed so it is considered that the application is not piecemeal. 8.4 Application material misleading or not detailed Submitters Concerns The Plan of development preliminary approval is in conflict with the intention and objectives of the Neighbourhood centre frame Land use area as only

10,000m2 is envisaged by that approval and the Plan of development gives no assurance that a more intense development o supported by the earlier approval as it is Impact Assessable

the DEO’s of the Plan of Development Performance objective P1 as the proposed development exceeds the economic demand

for retail and commercial uses for the plan of development Neighbourhood centre Core code acceptable solution A1 for the Performance criteria P1

in that the shopping centre west of Main Street is to not exceed 10,000m2.Stage 3 exceeds this criteria alone being 16,884m2 .

The land use buffering code in that there should be a 40 metre separation from the approved residential development in the south east of the site off Rosewood Drive. No explanation is given how that acceptable solution has been overcome.

The commercial and Industrial Development code particularly A1.2, A1.3, A2 and A4.1. No substantiation is given except for a statement to that effect by saying it meets the performance Criteria.

The application is misleading in the range of uses applied for and the architectural form of the development are not fully explained or nominated on the plans. That part of the application seeking preliminary approval for Material Change of Use for the locality concept Plan is not a use of the land. Applicant’s Response: The Plan of development preliminary approval is in conflict with:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10508

The intention and objectives of the Neighbourhood centre frame Land use area as only 10,000m2 is envisaged by that approval and the Plan of Development.

As stated in the Applicants Response to Item 1 above, the Plan of Development does in fact contemplate a centre in excess of 10,000sqm by stating: “Where development is not identified in a Table of Development, the development becomes impact assessable… “Some development may be anticipated in certain Land Use Areas (within the Plan of Development area) as per the strategic intent of the Plan of Development and yet remain as impact assessable. For example, the following development is not identified in a Table of Development as a consequence is subject to Impact Assessment: 2. The development of a shopping centre or shop where the proposal:

– Exceeds a gross floor area of 10,000sqm; and – Is located within the Neighbourhood Centre Core Land Use Area and west of the

proposed Main Street…..” (Section 3.2.7 Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of Development Revised 2003)

As stated, expansion of Northern Beaches Central beyond 10,000sqm is anticipated by the Plan of Development. Officers Comments: The EPPS identified that a larger floor area could be considered as part of an impact assessable application. The submitter is merely stating the obvious that the development does not comply with the original 10,000m2 intent of the EPPS code assessable component of the Preliminary approval. The Locality Concept Plan is requirement of the EPPS preliminary approval over the site which requires that approval of a Locality Concept Plan be approved as well the development of the site via the Material Change of use development permit component of the application. The proposed development has been setback a sufficient distance from the proposed Higher Density Residential Area in the south-eastern corner of the site. Openings in the southern elevation of the development adjacent to the future residential use has been minimised and the setback will be landscaped with dense vegetation to provide an appropriate buffer. It will be conditioned that a noise impact study shall be submitted as part of the Operational Works application to identify the appropriate measures required to ameliorate the impact of air conditioning/exhaust plant as well as traffic/heavy vehicle loading dock areas to be within acceptable guidelines of the Environmental Protection Act - Noise Policy Provisions. 8.5. Lack of Adequate Parking Submitters Concerns The proposal for 1631 spaces for a total gross floor area of 45,872m equates to overall ratio of 1 bay per 28m2 floor area or 3.55 spaces per 100m2 floor area. A rule of thumb is that shopping centre developers normally provide 6-8 spaces per 100m2 for non CBD shopping


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10509

centre development which equates to 2,752 spaces to 3,670 spaces respectively. The current Planning Scheme would require 4,552 spaces. While the latter could be reduced to take into account the proposed commercial; office floor area, the provision of 1,631 spaces is totally inadequate even if it meets and exceeds the rate allowed under the Preliminary Approval for the Plan of development of Eulbertie Park. Applicant’s Response A total of 1,631 carparks have been provided, which is 639 spaces in excess of minimum requirements set by the code requirements of the Eulbertie Park Estate Approved Plan of Development. Notwithstanding this the provision of 1,631 carparks is consistent with the industry acceptable peak carparking rates. A breakdown of this calculation is as follows: – Retail: 1 space per 20m2, – Showroom: 1 space per 40m2 – Commercial Office: 1 space per 30m2

For the purposes of calculating the peak parking demand, the commercial requirement has been excluded as it is unlikely the commercial use will be operating at the peak retail times being Saturday and Thursday evening.

– Tavern: 1 space per 15m2 – Fastfood: 1 space per 20m2 Based on the above industry accepted rates, the total parking demand is calculated at 1,597spaces. A total of 1,631 spaces have been provided. For further detail please refer: – Section 7.0 of Cardno Eppell Olsen’s Traffic Impact Assessment of December 2008

provided in support of the application – Item 31 of Cardno Eppell Olsen’s Design Note of 24 June 2009 provided in response to

Council’s request for additional information. Officers Comments The application satisfies the EPPS codes for vehicle parking. See the Carparking Provision section of this report which concludes that the carparking is generally adequate for the intended users of this shopping centre development although some increase in carparking will be required or a reduced floor area provided to match the car spaces provided. 8.6. Stormwater Drainage Submitters Concerns The capacity of the underground drainage structure under the proposed buildings is queried.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10510

The treatment of stormwater on the adjoining downstream land appears to be contrary to council policy and sets a precedent for all other developers in Mackay. Applicant’s Response Please note to assist in responding to the Submitters Concerns, the items provided in bold italic below have been extracted from the Submitters Concerns with the Applicants Response provided below. The capacity of the underground drainage structure under the proposed buildings is queried. A stormwater drainage report was submitted with the application titled Northern Beaches Central Drainage Analysis. The analysis presented the results of detailed modelling which demonstrated the ability to effectively and safely drain runoff beneath the buildings. A subsequent letter was drafted by Cardno dated 24 June 2009 which addressed a number of items of Councils request for additional information. This letter included a further drainage study which determined that the proposed system could effectively accommodate an extreme event, such as the February 2008 event, without adverse impact. In addition, design of the underground drainage structure is subject to further refinement and design by a suitably qualified civil engineer and is subject to approval by Council engineers at the time of Operational Works. The treatment of stormwater on the adjoining downstream land appears to be contrary to council policy and sets a precedent for all other developers in Mackay. The treatment of stormwater is proposed to occur on the adjoining downstream land referred to as Lot 7 on SP159744. Accordingly, Lot 7 on SP159744 was included within the application and the registered owners consent submitted at the time of lodging the application. Officers Comments The submitter has misunderstood the application material as the downstream owner south of Rosewood Drive has consented to the inclusion of this land in the application. There is no precedent as this part of the site is part of the application area and the proposed water treatment area can be appropriately sited here. This treatment are has been conditioned to design of the usual quality/ quantity criteria as well as the need to ensure that existing Council infrastructure conflicts, if any, are dealt with at Operational Works stage. The proposed underground drainage under the building is considered to be acceptable and has been conditioned to ensure that the capacity issues raised by the submitter as well as other issues are adequately addressed. See the Infrastructure section of this report. 8.7. Building Aesthetics and Design Submitters Concerns While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the conceptual plans for a mall with a uniform width for nearly 350 metres east to west seems very unimaginative and may be commercial unsustainable in the long term.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10511

An active frontage to the mall is required and it is unlikely that the shops on the northern section of the mall facing the carpark will have an active frontage only to the carpark not the mall. There is insufficient detail provide with application to demonstrate the mall will provide a vibrant and economically viable feature of this development and will either end up with blank walls/obscure glazing to the shops facing the mall or the carpark. Applicant’s Response The Submitters Concerns will be addressed during detailed design by incorporating architectural features to further articulate the building and in accordance with conditions as imposed by Council. Officers Comments The comments are noted and have been appropriately conditioned to require shops front facing the carpark amongst other matters. 9. RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS There are no resource implications with regard to the approval of this planning application. The applicant has requested in negotiations that an Infrastructure Agreement be a condition of approval to be entered into to cover both cost sharing with Council as well as amended timing of when infrastructure contributions are required to be paid. The conditions of approval have been framed to clearly identify what and when and to what standard infrastructure is to be provided to service the development. Hence, an infrastructure agreement is not required. 10. CONSULTATION External Applicant-Eulcom Pty Ltd Department of Main Roads Internal The application was discussed with representatives from various Departments at the Development Assessment Review Team on a number of occasions with this application as well as intervening Code Assessable applications for Stage 2 A, B, and C of the development. Mackay Water Mackay Water representatives have been actively involved in the setting of conditions in regard to the provision of water and sewerage. Written confirmation to the proposal conditions has been provided. Community Services The issue of the community purpose building was discussed and conditions have been set to allow the Council the opportunity to take up this option but this is a matter for separate approval of Council.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10512

Development Assessment- Engineering They have been actively involved in the setting of appropriate infrastructure conditions as well as review and assessment of various building/engineering/traffic engineering aspects of this development. Strategic Planning Input was given from the traffic engineering section as well as drainage/water quality section especially as well as planning advice. 11. STATUTORY ASSESSMENT The IPA requirements regarding the assessment manager’s decision in relation to Impact Assessable applications are contained within s3.5.14. It states that: (2) If the application is for development in a Planning Scheme area, the assessment

manager’s decision must not—

(a) compromise the achievement of the desired environmental outcomes for the Planning Scheme area; or

(b) conflict with the Planning Scheme, unless there are sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

Dealing with S3.5.14(2)(b) – Compliance with the Planning Scheme is demonstrated through compliance with the relevant development codes. Compliance with a particular development code is achieved through compliance with the specific outcomes of the code and overall outcomes of the code. Despite any identified issues of code non-compliance (i.e. conflict with the Planning Scheme), S3.5.14(2)(b) permits the assessment manager to approve the development provided there are “sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict”. These key issues are addressed in the preceding section which forms the background material for the “sufficient grounds” required to justify the assessment manager’s decision despite any identified conflict with the Planning Scheme. In summary, the proposed development has been assessed against all relevant Planning Scheme codes (as identified previously). In terms of assessment against the overall and specific outcomes of each code, the proposed development either complies can be conditioned to comply or a decision to approve the development despite the scheme conflict can be justified by the following grounds: (i) The existing Planning Scheme’s commercial strategy and associated network of centres is

based on the population and retail activity projections with the 2001 Business Centre Review Study. Projections within that study have been exceeded by the actual growth figures achieved in the intervening period and by current projections for future years.

(ii) The current Planning Scheme’s commercial strategy and associated network of centres is

therefore considered to be deficient in the sufficient provision of retail. Accordingly there is a demonstrated need for significant additional retail floor space in the Mackay Region.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10513

(iii) In seeking to accommodate the additional floor space within the designated retail

hierarchy and network of centres, the existing centres are either unable to expand significantly due to practical land constraint considerations (Mackay City Centre and Mt Pleasant Sub-Regional Centre) or are not encouraged to expand within the existing centres hierarchy (Rural View Major Neighbourhood Centre).

(iv) It is considered that the proposed development can be incorporated within the current

retail hierarchy and designated network of centres without creating an undue imbalance or fundamentally compromising the nominated roles and functions of the designated centres.

(v) The proposed development is located within convenient proximity to transport corridors

and the existing urban areas and growth areas of Northern Mackay. (vi) The site is considered suitable for the purpose proposed from an infrastructure

perspective. It is provided with safe and convenient access from adjoining major transport corridors for both private and pubic transport (bus services). Existing trunk infrastructure for water and sewerage services, located in proximity to the site, has sufficient capacity to adequately service the development with the necessary reticulation improvements required to connect to the site to be undertaken at the expense of the developer. No publicly funded capital infrastructure upgrades are therefore required.

(vii) The development can be conditioned to effectively manage stormwater discharge from

the site in accordance with current development standards (both from a quantity and quality perspective).

(viii) The development can be managed to effectively manage environmental impacts in

accordance with current regulatory standards. This includes drainage discharge, acid sulfate soils and construction impacts.

(ix) The development can be conditioned to comply with the majority of the specific

outcomes associated with protection of the adjoining Image Corridor (Landscape Character Overlay Code: Image Corridor Specific Outcomes – P1 and P2).

The IPA S3.5.14 (2) (b) does not permit the assessment managers decision to compromise the achievement of the Desired Environmental Outcomes (DEO’s). Section 3.1(3) of the Planning Scheme provides some context for interpretation of the DEO’s: The Desired Environmental Outcomes are to be read as a whole. Each Desired Environmental Outcome is to be achieved to the extent practicable having regard to the other Desired Environmental Outcomes. In summary, the proposed development (subject to implementation of approval conditions) does not compromise the achievement of the shire wide Planning Scheme DEO’s relevant to this proposal. 12. CONCLUSION The proposal is a significant development of a prominent commercial site. The development complies with the intent of the Mackay City Planning Scheme’s 'Commercial' zoning of the


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10514

site. The applicants own need report as well council Macroplan report have concluded that there is demonstrated need for additional retail floor area. The subject site is able to contain the increased floor area of the shopping centre extension and can be serviced from the existing council infrastructure. The requirements of the ‘Retail and Commercial Code’ as amended by the increased floor area and ‘Environment and Infrastructure Code’ can generally be satisfied, The issues raised in the submissions are either not valid planning grounds or can be addressed by conditions. It is recommended that the application be granted an approval, subject to conditions. In reaching this recommendation due regard have been given to the Planning Scheme provisions especially matters concerning the development of land within the designated network of centres at a greater intensity than envisaged by the Planning Scheme. Approval of such developments is not taken lightly and should only be considered only where there is an over-riding and demonstrated community need to depart from the scheme. The Planning Scheme DEO (v) neatly summaries the balance that must be achieved when considering development such as that proposed: (v) ‘out of sequence’ urban growth occurs only where a need for additional land is

demonstrated and the need is balanced against the cost of providing infrastructure, including community facilities and services, and the impacts on the environment. Any such growth must be ecologically sustainable and is limited to areas in the McCready's Creek, Goosepond Creek and Pioneer River and Southern Streams precincts, which are most easily and economically serviced, providing that the interface with agricultural and other incompatible land uses can be managed appropriately and effectively and the landscape and heritage values of the City are not diminished.

The development will not compromise the achievement on this DEO. It is considered that in the circumstances associated with the proposed development, sufficient community need has been demonstrated to justify an approval despite the conflicts with Planning Scheme provisions. This over-riding need is substantiated from assessment and consideration of the community benefits that will accrue from the development against any disbenefit that may result from departing from the scheme code provisions. The development is located within the McCready’s Creek precinct in convenient proximity to existing and future urban areas. The development can be efficiently serviced, can be effectively conditioned to limit adverse impacts on the environment and can be conditioned to meet an acceptable standard of ecologically sustainability (with reference to the definition provided within the Planning Scheme). The development can be conditioned to provide landscape buffers that limit the impact of the visual intrusion. It is considered that the development will not significantly diminish the overall landscape character of the Mackay City area.


A. THAT Council approve the combined application comprising a Preliminary Approval for Locality Concept Plan No 10 for the Major Neighbourhood Centre AND a Development Permit for Stage 3 and Stage 4 extension to Shopping Centre,


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10515

Showroom-General, Hardware Store, Hotel, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Special Purpose and Veterinary Hospital Land Uses by Eulcom Pty Ltd located at 13-47 Rosewood Drive, Rural View described as Lot 2 on SP158456 Lot 43 on SP148331, Lot 2 on SP192059 and Lot 7 on SP159744, subject to the following conditions:

Locality Concept Plan No. 10 Preliminary Approval 1. Plan of Development

The approved Locality Concept Plan No. 10 for Major Neighbourhood Centre for Stage 3 and Stage 4 extension to Shopping Centre, Showroom-General, Hardware Store, Hotel, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment, Special Purpose and Veterinary Hospital Land Uses development must be completed and maintained generally in accordance with the Plan of Development (identified in the Table below) and supporting documentation which forms part of this application, except as otherwise specified by any condition of this approval. For the sake of simplification, the Negotiated Decision Notice issued 17th December 2003 and associated documents shall be referred to as the Eulbertie Park Planning Scheme (EPPS).

Project Number

Drawing Number

Revision Prepared by Date

Northern Beaches Central Application Stage 3 & 4 Locality Concept Plan

SK_1000 1 The Buchan Group

26 June 2009

2. The use groups on the Plan of Development are approved as being consistent

with the EPPS.

3. The Special Purpose Use identified in all or a part of the building on the proposal plan is approved and will not require a further Material Change of Use application to be made as it is self assessable under this preliminary approval. If this use does not proceed then the alternative use identified on the plan of development (showroom) may proceed under this approval as a self assessable development.

4. The Hardware Store, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment,

Veterinary Hospital component for this application is approved but this component cannot proceed until amended plans are provided detailing the exact location of the uses. Until this is provided and approval given by Council, this use cannot commence until a separate Material Change of Use development permit is obtained.

5. The stormwater management system, future pedestrian/cycle circulation, and

internal vehicle circulation routes shown on the Locality Concept Plan are to be amended in accordance with the conditions of approval of Material Change of Use. The existing bus stop is to be shown in the correct location.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10516

These are to be amended and approved by Council prior to the lodgement of the Operational Works application.

6. Numbering of Locality Concept Plan

The plan of development is to be numbered Locality Concept Plan No. 10 for ease of identification.

7. Amended Plans Required

An amended Locality Concept Plan, which addresses the conditions of this approval, is to be submitted for separate approval.

8. Relevant Period

This approval for Stage 3 shall lapse at the expiration of 4 years from the date of the approval taking effect if the Material Change of Use has not happened and site development has not substantially started. The approval for Stage 4 shall lapse at the expiration of 6 years from the date of the approval taking effect if the Material Change of Use has not happened and site development has not substantially started.

Material Change of Use – Stage 3 & 4 - Development Permit

1. Plan of Development

The approved development must be completed and maintained generally in accordance with the Plan of Development (identified in the Table below) and supporting documentation which forms part of this application, except as otherwise specified by any condition of this approval.

Project Number

Drawing Number

Rev Prepared by Date

Stage 3 Stage 3 – Ground Plan 3-DA-001 The Buchan Group 26 June 2009 Stage 3 – Level 1 Plan 3-DA-002 The Buchan Group 26 June 2009 Stage 3 – Tenancy Plan

3-DA-003 The Buchan Group 26 June 2009

Stage 3-Pedestrian Network Plan


Stage 3 Garbage Collection Plan


Stage 3 – Basement Plan


Stage 4 Master Plan Ground Level


Master Plan – Level 1 Plan


Masterplan – Tenancy 4-DA-003 The Buchan Group 26 June 2009


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10517

Plan Masterplan – Pedestrian Network Plan


Masterplan – Garbage Collection Plan


General Stage 3 – Site Masterplan

DA-2007 1 The Buchan Group November 2008

Stage 4 – Site Masterplan

DA-2008 1 The Buchan Group November 2008

Landscape Concept 26042 SK03

C Jeremy Ferrier October 2008

Landscape Concept 26042 SK04

A Jeremy Ferrier October 2008

Landscape Concept - Sections

26042 SK05

C Jeremy Ferrier October 2008

Sections DA-4000 to DA-4005

1 The Buchan Group November 2008

Elevations DA 5000 to 5007


Perspectives DA 6000 to DA6004


Perspectives 1 and 2 1 The Buchan Group November 2008

Proposed Water Reticulation Network

3502-35 Figure 5-1

1 Cardno 27 November 2008

Proposed Sewerage Network

3502-35 Figure 6-1

1 Cardno 27 November 2008

2. Amended Plans Required

Prior to the lodgement of Operational Works application, the approved plans of development must be amended to comply with the following matters:

a) The above plans are to be amended as necessary to identify that the

previously approved Stage 2A (DA-2006-103), 2B (DA-2007-467) & 2C (DA-2008-339) developments do not form part of this approval.

b) The Hardware Store, Child Care Centre, Educational Establishment,

Veterinary Hospital components of this application are not approved. A separate Material Change of Use development permit application is to be made detailing the exact location of these intended uses.

c) The Special Purpose Use identified in all or a part of the building on the

proposal plan is approved and will not require a further Material Change of Use application to be made as it is self assessable under this preliminary approval. If this use does not proceed, then the alternative use identified on the plan of development (showroom) may proceed under this approval as a self assessable development.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10518

d) Carpark layout and number of spaces as amended by conditions of this

approval.

e) Prior to issuing of a building permit in relation to the specialty shops adjacent to the northern carpark, detailed elevations and sections shall be provided to demonstrate that the specialty shops do not turn their back on the carpark but rather shall provide aesthetically presentable shop front appearance when viewed from the north. The plans shall be submitted and approved prior to issue of a building permit.

f) The Stage 3 plans must show the ultimate layout for Main Street, the

intersection with Rosewood Drive and Reed Street and the extension of Rosewood Drive to this intersection. In addition, the plans are to show an awning or similar structure extending over Main Street between the buildings extending from Rosewood drive to the proposed pedestrian covered awning at the northern end of Main Street.

g) The Stage 3 plans must show the extension of Rosewood Drive to the

intersection with J4 Road and the ultimate layout for J4 Road from Rosewood Drive to Eimeo Road.

h) Change reference from Eimeo Bypass Road to Eimeo Road on all

relevant drawings.

i) The locations and configuration of accesses to Rosewood Drive for service and customer vehicles must be revised to reduce internal conflicts and disruption to through traffic on Rosewood Drive extension.

j) Proposed water reticulation network drawing number 3502-35 figure 5-1

and proposed sewerage network drawing number 3502-35 figure 6-1 as amended by conditions of this approval.

3. Building Form

a) All air conditioning, ventilation plant and lift motor rooms located on

the roof or external to the building are to be screened by their incorporation into the building design so as to be visually unobtrusive from the road reserve or internal roadways. This must be demonstrated prior to issue of a building permit.

b) The western elevation of the Stage 3 Specialty Building adjacent to Mackay Bucasia Road must be amended to provide greater articulation such as provision of an awning on the western frontage.

c) The external walls and roof of the buildings are to have a non-reflective glazing finish as identified on the development plans.

d) Covered awnings over pedestrian pathways adjacent to buildings fronting Main Street, the northern, southern and eastern carpark areas


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10519

and the western side of the specialty shop building facing Mackay Bucasia Road, must be provided.

e) When Stage 4 is developed, an awning or similar structure to provide shade and rain protection shall be provided across Main Street extending from the southern alignment of the buildings to the proposed pedestrian covered way shown on the plans of development.

4. Amalgamation of Lots

The developer must amalgamate Lot 2 on SP 158456, Lot 43 on SP148331, and Lot 2 on SP192509. The new lot must be registered prior to the commencement of construction for Stage 3.

5. Uses not part of this approval

The previously approved Stage 2A (DA-2006-103), Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) shown on the Plan of Development are separately approved and do not form part of this approval.

6. Screening of Site

Any goods, materials and machinery stored on site is to be contained within the building or screened from view from any roadway (private or public) or adjoining land (i.e. Plantation Palms) by effective landscaping or screening structures. This shall be demonstrated prior to issue of a building permit.

7. Outdoor Storage

The outdoor storage of any equipment or material and any service area shall be aesthetically screened so as not to be visible from Eimeo Road, Rosewood Drive, J4 Road, proposed residential area and internal roads within and external to the site. This shall be demonstrated prior to issue of a building permit.

8. Garbage Storage

Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view or adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Council. This shall be demonstrated prior to issue of a building permit.

9. Landscape Plan Required

A detailed site footpath and buffer landscaping plan must be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect and must be submitted with the Operational Works application. The plan must show for all areas identified on the approved plan of development the following: a) Landscape specification of sufficient detail so that landscape works are

to be carried out;


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10520

b) Plant schedule detailing number of plants, species, pot size and height at planting;

c) Details of soil and mulch types, including depths, areas of turf, garden edges and paving finishes;

d) Details of the irrigation system; and e) Landscaping for Stage 3 is to include temporary landscaping of areas

eventually to be occupied by Stage 4 buildings/caparking areas with sign posting details advising of temporary landscaping measures.

10. Completion of Landscaping

All of the landscaping works shown on the approved plan must be completed before the commencement of the use on the site.

11. Acoustic Amenity for Adjoining Residential Uses

A noise impact study shall be submitted as part of the Operational Works application to identify the appropriate measures required to ameliorate the impact of air conditioning/exhaust plant as well as traffic/heavy vehicle loading dock areas to be within acceptable guidelines of the Environmental Protection Act - Noise Policy Provisions for existing and future noise sensitive uses.

12. Compliance with Conditions

All conditions must be complied with prior to the occupancy of the building for the approved use, unless specified in an individual condition.

13. Maintenance of Development

The approved development (including landscaping, carparking, driveways and other external spaces) must be maintained in accordance with the approved drawings(s) and/or documents, and any relevant Council engineering or other approval required by the conditions of this permit.

14. Conflict between plans and written conditions

Where a discrepancy or conflict exists between the written conditions(s) of the approval and the approved plans, the requirements of the written condition(s) will prevail.

15. Notice of Intention to Commence the Use

Prior to the commencement of the use on the site, written notice must be given to Council that the use (development and / or works) fully complies with the decision notice issued in respect of the use (please see attached notice for your completion).

16. Staging of Construction


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10521

a) The buildings shall be constructed generally in accordance with the staging shown on the approval plans.

b) All works east of Main Street cannot be constructed until the works

associated with the ground floor retail component of Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) has been substantially constructed.

c) The external works identified elsewhere in these conditions of approval

as well as internal carpark/Main Street works identified elsewhere in these conditions of approval are to be provided at Stage 3 so that the development works are complete except for the Stage 4 building works at the time of completion of Stage 3.

17. Water and Sewerage Headworks

Headworks contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services must be paid in accordance with Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services. The applicable catchment is Northern Beaches. Headworks will be applied based on:

Stage Infrastructure Use Calculation of Units

Area (sqm)

Number of Units

Stage 3

Water Supply

Shops 1 ET per 200sqm FA

19,106 95.53

Commercial 15 ET / ha 2,833 4.25

Caterers Shop1 ET per 100sqm FA

1,240 12.40

Sewerage Supply


19,106 95.53



1,240 12.40

Stage 4

Water Supply


7,490 37.45



- 0

Sewerage Supply


7,490 37.45



- 0

18. Parkland Contribution


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10522

A parkland contribution must be paid in accordance with the Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Parkland. The parkland contribution will be applied based on:

Stage Infrastructure Catchment Calculation

of Units Area (m2)

Number of Units

Stage 3 Parks

Rural View, Eimeo, Blacks Beach, Dolphin Heads

25.2 EP per ha

49,514 124.78

Stage 4 Parks


25.2 EP per ha

13,995 35.27

19. Transport Network Contributions

A transport network contribution must be paid in accordance with Councils Policy on Transport Network Contributions. The transport network contribution will be applied based on an additional 40 vpd’s per 100m² for the supermarket/speciality shops/showroom and 20 vpd per 100m² GFA for the commercial premises as follows:

Infrastructure Use Calculation

of Units Area (sqm)

Number of Units

Stage 3 Transport Network

Retail 40 vpd per 100sqm gfa

20346 8138.4

Commercial 20 vpd per 100sqm gfa

2833 566.6



7,490 2996


3,870 774

20. Contributions Payment Timing

All contributions and charges must be paid prior to the commencement of the use at the rate applicable at the time of payment or as otherwise agreed by Council and the developer.

21. Damage

Any damage which is caused to Council’s infrastructure as a result of the proposed development must be repaired immediately.

22. Compliance with Council Standards

All design and construction for the development must be in accordance with Council’s Policies, Engineering Design Guidelines, Standard drawings and standard specifications.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10523

23. Floor Level

The minimum floor level of the proposed development must be the higher of: 300 mm above the 1 in 100 year ARI flood level; 225 mm above site ground level; a level which allows the connection of all sanitary fixtures to the

designated sewer connection point by means of sanitary drainage which complies with AS3500.

24. Acid Sulphate Soils

Where the works required involve the following;

Land below RL 20m AHD and the development will involve the

excavation of 500m³ or more of soil or sediment at or below RL 5m AHD, or

Land at or below RL 5m AHD and the development will involve filling the site with 500m³ or more of material.

Then the proposal must be assessed for acid sulphate soils in accordance with SPP 2/02 Planning and Managing Development involving Acid Sulphate Soils. If acid sulphate soils are identified, treatment and management measures must be implemented in accordance with SPP 2/02 Planning and Managing Development involving Acid Sulphate Soils.

Stormwater

25. Stormwater - General

All stormwater for the approved development must be controlled, with provision being made for the following: a) External catchments; b) Inter-allotment drainage; c) Downstream Drainage to a lawful and practical point of discharge which

has been nominated as McCreadys Creek at the outlet of the proposed drainage channel shown on over-marked Drawing A1-10091 Sheet 2 – Sketch 2 (attached).

26. Stormwater Design

Prior to submission of Operational Works applications for Stages 3 and 4 the developer must submit the ultimate hydraulic drainage design for the stormwater drainage system to McCreadys Creek. The design must include the fully developed site and all upstream catchments. The McCreadys Creek Stormwater Drainage Study – 9 June 2006 can be referenced for tail water levels in McCreadys Creek. The drainage design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines and Queensland Urban Drainage


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10524

Manual. Rosewood Drive road levels, the top of ramp levels and the finished floor levels must be designed to achieve the required immunity.

27. Ponding and Diversion of Stormwater

Ponding of stormwater resulting from the development must not occur on adjacent sites and stormwater formerly flowing onto the site must not be diverted onto other sites without the expressed consent of the adjoining landowner. The site shall be graded so that it is free draining.

28. Drainage Easement & Reserves

Drainage easement and reserves are to be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines. The developer must provide the following drainage easements and reserves: a) A drainage easement shall extend over the Q100 underground drainage

system from Eimeo Road to Rosewood Drive. The section of easement under the proposed building works must be gazetted as an easement for the drainage structure. The developer must provide Council with a volumetric easement or similar document detailing responsibilities and liabilities associated with maintenance and/or repairs to the drainage system under the building.

b) A drainage easement shall extend over the positive overland flow path

to be provided around the western side of the existing development for flows greater than Q100.

c) Drainage reserves shall extend over the Q100 drainage channel from

Rosewood Drive to McCreadys Creek. d) Any drainage reserves are to be transferred to Council in fee simple.

29. Building Design over Drainage Structure

As part of the Operational Works application, the developer must submit the design for the section of the building over the drainage structure so that it is independent of the drainage structure in terms of support and maintenance. Details of the design of piers, beams and footings must be certified by a qualified RPEQ Structural Engineer. The developer must also demonstrate compliance with Council’s Policy No. 029 “Building over or adjacent to constructed Council Drainage Systems and Easements” or provide acceptable solutions which uphold the intent of the policy.

Stormwater Quality

30. Site Based Stormwater Management Plan - High Risk

Council’s Stormwater Quality Risk Classification has classified this development as high risk as defined in Section 1.3 of Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines “Soil and Water Quality Management - Planning Scheme


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10525

Policy No.15.07.” The developer must undertake the following in relation to the above policy and Council’s standards and requirements: a) A Site Based Stormwater Management Plan (SBSMP) for the proposed

complete and final development of Lot 2 on SP192059 including upstream external catchments must be submitted to Council for approval at the time of submission of the Operational Works application. Council’s proposed new Stormwater Quality Design Objectives of 75% TSS, 60% TP 40% TN and 90% Gross Pollutants can be used for the revised SBSMP. An electronic copy of the MUSIC modelling must be submitted with the SBSMP. Assessment of other components of Operational Works application cannot be finalised until the SBSMP is approved.

The proposed stormwater treatment devices south of Rosewood Drive must treat the existing Bi-Lo, this proposed development, Stage 2A (DA-2006-103), Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) and part of the external catchments as agreed with Council. The exact location and extent of the proposed sediment basin, wetland area, or alternatives as approved by Council including any proposed high flow by-pass and trunk drainage channel between Rosewood Drive and McCreadys Creek must be submitted to Council prior to the application for Operational Works. The ultimate approved SBSMP must be constructed as part of the Operational Works for proposed Stages 3 and 4 of the development.

b) The developers’ on-site (GPT’s) and proposed off-site stormwater quality improvement devices (SQID’s) will be of a private nature and the owners of the land and their successors in title must be aware that the cost and maintenance of the SQID’s as per the final approved SBSMP are their responsibility. A note to this effect must be placed on Council’s Rates Data Base at the time of sealing the Survey Plan or prior to the intended use of the site.

c) The private SQID’s south of Rosewood Drive referred to in the above

conditions is to be tied in Title to Lot 2 on SP192059 such that the aforementioned area cannot be disposed of separately to the commercial development area north of Rosewood Drive.

External Roadworks

31. Traffic Impact Assessment

The developer must provide an amended traffic Impact Assessment for the assessment and approval of Council which addresses the following: a) Projected traffic volumes for J4 Road and intersection design for J4

Road and Eimeo Road, and J4 Road and Rosewood Drive.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10526

b) Analysis of the proposed offset tee intersection of Main Street,/Rosewood Drive/Reed Street.

c) Projected external traffic from the surrounding existing network, future

connection to proposed residential development to the east (Plantation Palms), Reed Street extension to Golflinks Road and the High School site and connection of the north east carpark areas to J4 Road.

c) Proposed accesses from the development onto Rosewood Drive.

d) Main Street roundabout, in particular, the vehicle queuing lengths from

the roundabout back to the Eimeo Road signalised intersection.

e) Main Street between the roundabout and Rosewood Drive, in particular, the pedestrian crossing linking the two malls, other pedestrian movements and road surface treatments.

32. J4 Road

The developer must as part of Stage 3:

a) Provide a minimum 24 metre wide road reserve from Eimeo Road and

Rosewood Drive along the eastern boundary of the site, in accordance with the Council, the Department of Main Roads and Queensland Transport requirements.

Subject to agreement with owner of the adjoining land, the road reserve may be provided partly or wholly within the developers land or adjoining land to the east in accordance with Council and the Department of Transport and Main Road requirements.

b) The developer must design and construct J4 Road with the Operational

Works for Stage 3 (including the intersection of Eimeo Road and south to the Future Link to J4 Road as shown on 4-DA-001). The balance of J4 is also to be designed and constructed with the Operational Works for Stage 3 as well.

The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and cross section shown on attached Sketch No. 4. The intersection design for J4 Road with Eimeo Road must be approved by Department of Transport and Main Roads prior to submission of Operational Works application. Street lighting must be provided for J4 Road in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines and relevant current Australian Standards.

33. Signalised Intersections


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10527

a) The developer must design and construct a signalised intersection at the Main Street/Eimeo Road/Carl Street intersection as per the Department of Main Roads conditions.

b) The developer must design and construct a signalised intersection at the

Main Street/Rosewood Drive/Reed Street intersection as part of the Stage 3 Operational Works.

34. Rosewood Drive (to be provided as part of Stage 3)

a) The developer must provide a road reserve widening along the full

frontage with Lot 2 on SP151924. The width required is that to achieve a minimum 24m wide major collector road reserve. Additional road reserve width may be required to accommodate storage or turn lanes at intersections central medians or other infrastructure not usually located within road reserve. This shall be confirmed at the Operational Works stage.

b) The developer must design and construct Rosewood Drive from

Mackay-Bucasia Road to the eastern side of J4 Road and must be designed and constructed as part of Stage 3 Operational Works. The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and major collector street cross section Drawing No. A3-3615.

c) The northern side of Rosewood Drive and the southern side of

Rosewood Drive west of Reed Street must be linemarked to provide an emergency breakdown lane only with no on-street parking permitted.

d) The developer must provide a 2.5 metre off-road shared path along the

northern side of Rosewood Drive from Mackay-Bucasia road to the eastern side of J4 Road.

e) Street lighting must be provided for Rosewood Drive in accordance

with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines and relevant current Australian Standards.

35. Eimeo Road/Mackay-Bucasia Road

The developer must provide a 1.5m wide path on the southern side of Eimeo Road from J4 Road to the Carl Street intersection and a 2.5m shared path on the southern side of Eimeo Road and the eastern side of Mackay-Bucasia Road from Carl Street to the existing 2.5m path on Mackay-Bucasia Road. These paths are to be provided as part of the Stage 3 development.

Internal Roads

36. Main Street

a) The developer must provide a minimum 24m wide road reserve from

Eimeo Road to Rosewood Drive. Alternatively, Council is prepared to


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10528

agree to the developer providing either of the following alternatives subject to assessment at Operational Works application stage:

i) a 10 metre wide road reserve over the two 3.5m wide

traffic lanes and the two 1.5m wide bike lanes between the roundabout and Rosewood Drive; or

ii) an easement covering the nominal road reserve width as

shown on Sketch No. 1.

Main Street centreline alignment must extend from the centreline intersection of Eimeo Road and Carl Street to the centreline of the roundabout and then on the proposed alignment south to a point where the alignment can be adjusted to realign with the intersection of Reed Street and Rosewood Drive to provide a cross intersection. Alternatively, Council is prepared to agree to the developer’s proposal of a staggered T signalised intersection provided the amended Traffic Impact Assessment (refer to Condition 31) demonstrates safe, effective and efficient operation for the proposed intersection geometry.

b) The developer must provide the final design and construction of Main Street from Eimeo Road to Rosewood Drive as part of Stage 3 operational works. The design must be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines, road hierarchy requirements and typical cross sections on attached Sketch No. 1.

c) A 1.5m wide shared path must be provided on the eastern side on Main

Street from Eimeo Road to the southern side of the roundabout then connect to a 2m wide pedestrian clearway to be provided within the verges on both sides of Main Street between the roundabout and Rosewood Drive.

d) Street lighting must be provided in accordance with Council’s

Engineering Design Guidelines and the relevant current Australian Standards

Carparking

37. Minimum Parking Spaces for Cars/Bikes

i) Council requires the following car parking rates to be applied:

a) Retail - 5 spaces per 100m2 gfa, less 10% for cross utilization. b) Showrooms - 2.5 spaces per 100m2 gfa. c) Commercial Premises - 2 spaces per 100m2 gfa.

ii) Based on the floor areas, the carparking area must be constructed,

sealed, linemarked and drained for the following:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10529

a) Stage 3 to provide a minimum of 628 carparking spaces. b) Stage 4 to provide a minimum of 200 carparking spaces. c) 131 bike parks of which 88 medium secure parks to be provided

in basement carpark and 43 low security spaces are provided near the building entrance. Nine end of trip shower facilities are to be located in the casement car park as shown on the Plan of Development.

d) In relation to Clause (a) and (b) of this condition, these carparking

spaces can be reduced by reducing the floor area relevant components referred to in Condition 37(i) to match the practiced provision of carparking on-site.

38. Carparking Design

a) The carparking classification is Class 3A for internal parking and is to

be designed in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS2890.1:2004 Part 1: Off-street carparking. All car parking spaces and aisle widths shall be accessible by B99 design vehicles.

b) Carparking for People with Disabilities

A minimum of 17 car spaces, or as required by the Building Act, must be provided for the exclusive use of disabled persons as shown on the Plan of Development. The car space(s) must be provided as close as practicable to a suitable entrance of the building and must be clearly marked with a sign to indicate that the space(s) must only be utilised by disabled persons. A minimum of 17 Parent and Pram spaces are to be provided as shown on the Plan of Development. The carparking bays must be designed in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2896.6:2009 Part 6 Off-street parking for people with disabilities. The aforementioned spaces form part of the carparks required by Condition 37.

c) Parking Signs and Linemarking

i) A sign/signs to the satisfaction of the Council must be provided directing drivers to the area(s) set aside for car parking and must be located and maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. The area of each sign must not exceed 0.3 m².

ii) Linemarking and signage is to be provided to designate loading

areas and to delineate retail consumer traffic to be clear of the path of loading vehicles. These details are to be provided in the Operational Works application.

d) Protection of Landscape areas from Carparking


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10530

The landscaped areas adjoining the car parking area must be protected from vehicles by a 125mm high vertical concrete kerb or similar obstruction.

e) Lighting of Carparking areas

Install and maintain a suitable system of lighting to illuminate car parking areas. The carpark lighting system and any other outdoor lighting, must comply with Australian Standard AS4282-1997 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting.

f) Internal Carpark Drainage Works

Kerb and channelling and underground drainage must be provided in accordance with plans approved by Council. The system is to be designed in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines.

g) Covered Pedestrian Pathways in Carpark Area

The main spine pedestrian pathways through the carpark areas as shown on the Plan of Development shall be covered. The covered areas shown on the Plan of Development are to be amended to include the additional aisles as annotated Sketch No. 5. Details of the covered pathways are to be submitted for approval at the time of submission of the relevant Operational works for Stage 3.

h) Flood Immunity

The entry/exit to the underground carpark is to be designed to achieve a 1 in 100 year ARI + 50mm local flooding immunity to ensure the carpark is protected from such flooding events.

i) Pumping Arrangements

The developer shall provide pumping arrangements/emergency arrangements to mitigate against water ponding in the underground carpark in accordance with the relevant standards.

j) Layout and Accesses

Prior to submission of Operational Works applications for Stages 3 and 4 the developer must provide redesign of carparking layouts and accesses on the Rosewood Drive side of the development to include the following:

i) The ingress/egress ramps and the spatial separation of

underground stormwater drainage and services in the vicinity of the western entry/exit is to be redesigned as necessary to ensure that practical construction can occur without detriment to existing and proposed services and buildings.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10531

ii) The conflicts between customer and service vehicle movements and parking at the south western corner of the development as shown on the Masterplan – Ground Level plan of development 4-DA-001 is not acceptable. An alternative to the proposed parking layout could be to restrict customer access and parking in this area and designate carparking for staff only.

iii) The through movement of vehicles between the northern and

southern carpark along the western boundary of the site must be restricted to staff and service vehicles only.

iv) The access off Rosewood Drive to the carpark west of Main

Street must be designed as left in/left out only and the western end of this carpark must end in a cul-de-sac.

v) The eastern access to Rosewood Drive must be redesigned to

allow for full movement of customer and service vehicles.

39. Carpark Use

a) The areas set aside for parking, vehicle manoeuvring and loading and unloading, must not be used for the storage or placement of goods or materials.

b) The loading and unloading of vehicles and the delivery of goods to and

from the premises must at all times be undertaken entirely within the site and be so conducted as to cause minimum interference with other vehicular traffic.

Water 40. Water and Sewerage Hydraulic Analysis

Council will undertake an analysis of the water and sewerage network to determine what augmentation is required to be provided by the developer to comply with Council’s standard of service. The analysis and augmentation will be at the developer’s cost and must be included with the Operational Works application for Stage 3.

41. a) The developer must extend the existing 300mm dia. water main along

the northern side of Rosewood Drive to service the development.

b) Any internal temporary water services provided for Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) must be removed and these developments connected to the new permanent main in Rosewood Drive.

c) Council will contribute to the supply and lay cost difference between

the developer’s required mains for the ultimate development, and the size of water main required by Council. The cost difference is to be confirmed and approved by Council prior to undertaking the works.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10532

42. Direct Pumping from Mackay Water’s Reticulation System

Pumping direct from Council water mains for potable or fire fighting supply is not permitted and break tanks must be installed in accordance with Mackay Water and Fire Authority requirements, if required. The location of the tanks must be approved by Council as part of the operational works approval.

Sewer 43. a) Sewer connection for Stages 3 and 4 of the development including

permanent connections for the proposed Stage 2B (DA-2007-467) and Stage 2C (DA-2008-339) must be provided by the developer. In accordance with Condition 40, the Council will undertake an analysis to confirm whether the proposed existing sewer main is of sufficient size to cater for the additional load.

b) Any augmentation required to Council infrastructure as a direct result of

the developers additional load will be at the developers expense. c) The existing 225mm dia. sewer main, 200mm sewer rising main and

63mm dia. sewer pump station water service must be relocated by the developer if any of these mains conflict with the final stormwater drainage reserve and wetland area. The existing 150mm sewer main from Rosewood Drive north must be relocated by the developer if there are conflicts with the proposed underground stormwater drainage. The areas affected are from manholes 3/2-1 to 8/2-1 and manholes 7/2-1 to 7A/2-1 as shown on Sketch No. 3 or a Council approved alternative based on the final design of the SQID’s and drain. These works must be provided as part of Stage 3 of the development.

44. Sewers Policy

All construction work must comply with Council’s Policy MW16 – “Clearances to Water and Sewer Assets”.

45. Live Connections

Mackay Water is to carry out all water connection and live sewer work at the developer’s expense.

Electricity and Telephone

46. Electricity Services

Infrastructure necessary for the provision of underground reticulated power to the development must be provided and written evidence of a service agreement from the infrastructure provider to demonstrate compliance must be provided to Council.

47. Telecommunications Services


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10533

The development must be connected to telecommunications and written evidence from Telstra to demonstrate the connection must be provided. Above ground switching station cubicles are to be located clear of footpath areas and parkland areas.

B THAT applicant be provided with the following Assessment Managers Advice:

1. Local Laws

The approved development must also comply with Council’s Local Laws under the Local Government Act 1993 from time and other controls.

2. Hours of Work

It is the applicant/owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with Section 440R of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, which prohibits any construction, building and earthworks activities likely to cause nuisance noise (including the entry and departure of heavy vehicles) between the hours of 6:30pm and 6:30am from Monday to Saturday and at all times on Sundays or Public Holidays.

3. Dust Control

It is the applicant/owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with Section 319 General Environmental Duty of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 which prohibits unlawful environmental nuisance caused by dust, ash, fumes, light, odour or smoke beyond the boundaries of the property during all stages of the development including earthworks and construction.

4. Sedimentation Control

It is the applicant/owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with Chapter 8 Part 3C of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to prevent soil erosion and contamination of the stormwater drainage system and waterways.

5. Noise During Construction and Noise in General

It is the applicant/owner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with Chapter 8 Part 3B of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

6. General Safety of Public During Construction

It is the principal contractor’s responsibility to ensure compliance with Section 31 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. Section 31(1)(c) states that the principal contractor is obliged on a construction workplace to ensure that work activities at the workplace are safe and without risk of injury or illness to members of the public at or near the workplace. It is the responsibility of the person in control of the workplace to ensure compliance with Section 30 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10534

Section 31(1)(c) states that the person in control of the workplace is obliged to ensure there is appropriate, safe access to and from the workplace for persons other than the person’s workers.

7. Contaminated Land

It is strictly the applicant/owner’s responsibility to source information regarding contaminated land from the Environmental Protection Agency, Contaminated Land Section as Council has not conducted detailed studies and does not hold detailed information pertaining to contaminated land.

8. Easement Documentation

The easement documentation referred to in the conditions of approval over Main Street is to address, amongst other matters, the following: a) Scope and extent of easement. b) Footpath dining in terms of approval/compliance responsibilities. c) Maintenance and responsibility for Council and Developer in regard to

roadway/footpath. d) Maintenance and responsibility for Council and Developer in regard to

services/traffic signage/on-street parking/temporary road closure. e) Demarcation of liability between Council and the developer in regard to

compliance/enforcement/policing traffic matters. f) Duty to pass on obligations of easement upon successors in title. g) Who is using the easement – public, agents, Council, developer, etc. h) Dispute resolution.

9. Summary of Developer Contributions

Note: Contributions paid at the time nominated in the relevant condition

will be re-calculated at current applicable rate, at that time. Water and Sewerage Headworks

Headworks contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services must be paid in accordance with Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Water Supply and Sewerage Services. The applicable catchment is Northern Beaches. Headworks will be applied based on:


Area (sqm)

Number of Units

Stage 3 Water Supply


19,106 95.53


Caterers Shop

1 ET per 100sqm FA

1,240 12.40

Sewerage Supply


19,106 95.53


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10535


Area (sqm)

Number of Units


Caterers Shop

1 ET per 100sqm FA

1,240 12.40

Stage 4

Water Supply


7,490 37.45


Caterers Shop

1 ET per 100sqm FA

- 0

Sewerage Supply


7,490 37.45


Caterers Shop

1 ET per 200sqm FA

- 0

A credit of 1 ET per existing lot (3 lots)is applicable totaling 3 ET’s. Parkland Contribution A parkland contribution must be paid in accordance with the Council’s Policy on Developer Contributions for Parkland. The parkland contribution will be applied based on:

Stage Infrastructure Catchment Calculation

of Units Area (m2)

Number of Units

Stage 3 Parks


25.2 EP per ha

49,514 124.78

Stage 4 Parks


25.2 EP per ha

13,995 35.27

A credit of 2.8EP per existing lot (3 lots)is applicable totaling 8.4 EP’s. Transport Network Contributions A transport network contribution must be paid in accordance with Councils Policy on Transport Network Contributions. The transport network contribution will be applied based on an additional 40 vpd’s per 100m² for the supermarket/speciality shops/showroom and 20 vpd per 100m² GFA for the commercial premises as follows:


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10536

Infrastructure Use Calculation

of Units Area (m2)

Number of Units



20346 8138.4


2833 566.6



7,490 2996


3,870 774

A credit of 6.5vpd per existing lot(3 lots) is applicable totaling 19.5vpd’s. In order to calculate the quantum of the contribution at the time you wish to pay, please refer to Council’s website for the indexed Policy Contribution rates

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED

9.5 RV FACILITIES AND DUMP POINTS

Author Manager Economic Development

Purpose

This report requests a transfer of operational budget for capital works being the installation of waste dump points, to service the growing motorhome and caravan tourist drive market.


Following a recent briefing to council about RV tourism, the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) advised that additional funding is now available for the installation of dump points. An attachment to this report outlines potential benefits from the RV tourist market and the facilities required to service these visitors, including the provision of blackwater dump points. CMCA currently offers to provide a Gough Plastics “Dump Ezy” (dump point cover), where a free dump point is accessible to RV travellers. Now, in partnership with Department of Transport and Main Roads, an additional subsidy of up to $3000 per point is being administered through CMCA. Up to two dump point subsidies are applicable for the Mackay region.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10537

Council approval is sought to apply operational budget funds for capital works, for the installation of up to three dump points, located at Mackay Visitor Information Centre (VIC), Sarina, and Mirani. The proposed dump point locations will offer water tap and direct connection to reticulated sewerage, to avoid ongoing maintenance associated with holding tanks/pump out facility. Mackay Visitor Information Centre: The proposal for the Mackay VIC at Nebo Road will require minor engineering works to ensure vehicle accessibility. Plans are attached showing the proposed works. Engineering works are costed at $23,080, plus up to $5,000 for hydraulics. Where dump points are able to be installed without additional engineering work, costs are much reduced. Railway Square at Sarina: For example: the proposed new upgrade to Railway Square at Sarina, allows installation of a dump point, accessible using forward gear, within the upgrade design. Other locations investigated at Sarina, including Brewers Lane do not allow forward gear access or suitable hardstand surface for vehicle manoeuvring. Upgrade work at Sarina’s Railway Square was due to be complete by end of March however wet weather has held the schedule back a week or so, allowing potential to co-locate an accessible dump point. A plan showing Railway Square is attached. Costs for hydraulic works for a dump point at Sarina’s Railway Square are estimated at $3500 - $4,000. Mirani: Potential exists to install a dump point in Victoria Street on the roadside verge in the vicinity of the old Railway station. Installation cost is estimated between $5,500 – $6,500 plus engineering works to reconstruct an area of the road shoulder, for a parking bay and taper. Cost for the road shoulder reconstruction is in the order of $10,240. Vehicles using this bay would be able to enter and exit in forward gear. Other services required by RV Tourists The focus of this report is specifically on Dump Points, however CMCA also lists other facilities to service and attract RV tourists, including:

Good tourism information that clearly shows all attractions and facilities. Ideally, tourist facilities should be easily accessible and open seven days a week.

Short-term parking within close proximity of the general shopping area. Somewhere to park and stay longer term that is both safe and quiet and slightly away

from the main population. Locating dump points in proximity to visitor information services (and Mirani council office) offers access to toilets and information and offers casual surveillance to prevent misuse of facilities. In Sarina and Mirani the proposed dump points are in reasonable walking distance to shops and main street services and parking is available. Contact has also been made with selected shopping centres to request short term parking within existing shopping centre carparks for use by RV shoppers. Mt Pleasant Shopping Centre currently has an agreement with Caravan Association Qld, and welcomes RV tourists to park and shop. Signed parking in the vicinity of the Mackay Showground, for RVs is also in progress. Through the CMCA web network it is possible to post GIS co-ordinates giving the location of parking facilities – this is popularly used by RV travellers.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10538

New Local Laws being developed through council’s Planning Services Department seek to address parking in the region for recreational vehicles under 7.5m in length and weighing less than 4.5GMV tonnes (heavy vehicles over this capacity are subject to specific State legislation, limiting parking to 1 hour within an urban area). 75% of RVs fall under 7.5m and 4.5 tonnes. Botanic Gardens masterplanning also offers future consideration for parking RVs and encouraging these visitors to make greater use of gardens facilities.


Consultation includes Mackay Tourism Ltd, and council’s Water and Waste Services and Engineering Services program.


Funds to cover the installation of the Mirani, Sarina and Mackay dump points are available within Economic Development program operational budget. The transfer of economic development operational budget funds for amount totalling $50,000 (with potential to recoup up to $6,000 via cash subsidy) to capital funds for the installation of three dump points at Mackay VIC, Sarina Railway Square and at Mirani (Victoria Street) is requested.

Conclusion

Installation of dump points at the three locations, Mackay, Sarina and Mirani offers a reasonable level of service for RV travellers in the region. The subsidy of $3000 from CMCA in conjunction with DTMR is a once –off subsidy – installation costs are unlikely to be less in the future and to install now would allow council to take advantage of the current funding offer.


THAT Council approve the transfer of $50 000 from the economic development operational budget to capital funds to cover the cost of installation of three dump points located at Mackay, Sarina and Mirani.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Comerford Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10539

9.6 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE

Author Chief Executive Officer

Purpose

This report is to request that Council nominate the following representatives as its delegates to attend the following conferences in the near future:- Cr Darryl Camilleri to attend the 2010 CQ Regional Summit, to be held in Dysart between

15-16 April 2010; and Cr Dave Perkins to attend the Royalties for Regions Queensland Workshop, to be held in

Brisbane on 6 May 2010.


2010 CQ Regional Summit Council is currently considering becoming a member of the CQ Local Government Association and as the Mayor is unavailable to attend, it is considered appropriate for the Deputy Mayor to attend on his behalf. Royalties for Regions Queensland Workshop The workshop has been arranged by Western Downs Regional Council in response to the rapid growth and development of the energy sector throughout Regional Queensland. The Mayor received a specific invitation to attend but is unfortunately unavailable hence the recommendation is for Cr Perkins to attend.


Costs of attendance are catered for in the current budget.

Conclusion

It is proposed that Council nominate:- Cr Darryl Camilleri to attend the 2010 CQ Regional Summit, to be held in Dysart between

15-16 April 2010; and Cr Dave Perkins to attend the Royalties for Regions Queensland Workshop, to be held in

Brisbane on 20 May 2010.


THAT Council approve:- Cr Darryl Camilleri to attend the 2010 CQ Regional Summit, to be held in Dysart

between 15-16 April 2010; and


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10540

Cr Dave Perkins to attend the Royalties for Regions Queensland Workshop, to be held in Brisbane on 20 May 2010.

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Casey

CARRIED

9.7 FLUORIDE TREATMENT - REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SITES

File No 61036 - Fluoridation Treatment - Regional Water Supply Sites Author Water and Waste Services - Manager Infrastructure Delivery

Purpose

To seek Council approval for the commitment to a budget for the fluoridation of the regional water supply sites as legislated for completion by the 31 December 2010.


Under the Water Fluoridation Regulation (2008) the following sites within the Mackay Regional Council have been legislated to be fluoridated by 31 December 2010;

Midge Point (Kelsey Creek) Water Treatment Plant Mirani Water Treatment Plant Mt Blarney Water Treatment Plant (Sarina) Northern Beaches Water Treatment Plant (Sarina)

An exemption has been applied for from Queensland Health (QH) for the Midge Point location as the serviced population does not meet the required minimum of 1,000 EP. The current Midge Point population serviced by the Kelsey Creek Treatment Plant is approximately 700 EP. With regards to the Mirani Water Treatment Plant site, a variation to the legislation has been requested from QH for fluoridation to be implemented at the Marian bores only until the new water treatment plant is operational. If the new plant was not operational by 31 December 2012 then fluoridation would also be undertaken at the Mirani bores, prior to that date. QH is currently reviewing both the exemption and variation to the legislation for these two sites. The Fluoridation Concept Design Report (FCDR) has been submitted to the Infrastructure Project Management Group (IPMG) and is currently under review. The review and the acceptance of the FCDR is the basis for funding approval from the QLD State Government. The FCDR covers the following sites;

Marian Bores Mt Blarney Water Treatment Plant (Sarina) Northern Beaches Water Treatment Plant (Marwood Bores - Sarina)


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10541

The fluoridation plants proposed for all locations are to be standardised, utilising the two (2) plants that were installed at the Nebo Rd Water Treatment Plant in December 2009 (as temporary installations). The delivery of these plants is proposed to be undertaken by the MIA, with the same delivery team from the Nebo Rd installation works. The delivery program is estimated at 7 months and subject to agreed funding arrangements being in place.


The FCDR has been developed by the project team responsible for the delivery of the temporary fluoride plants at the Nebo Rd Water Treatment Plant. Feedback from the Treatment Plant Operators has been included in the development of the concept design from all sites. Queensland Health (Dr Greg Jackson, Director Water Quality Unit) has been consulted regarding the requested exemption to fluoridate at Midge Point and the variation to the legislated fluoridation at the Mirani Water Treatment Plant to be implemented at the Marian Bore. The IPMG has been consulted in development of the FCDR with regards to its content. Further communication is being undertaken with the IPMG to provide feedback on points raised in the report. The queries are clarifications by nature and do not appear to have any major bearing on the overall concept design that has been submitted. Notification will be required to be provided to the affected residents a minimum of one (1) month prior to the water supply being fluoridated.


The cost estimate for these three (3) locations is $1.8M, a subsidy application for the full amount is to be issued to IPMG for assessment. The FY09/10 Capital Budget currently has $40K funding for these works. Further funding of $97,500 is required for the planned works this year and will be transferred in the March Budget Review (within the current budget), for a total forecast spend of $122,500 of FY09/10. The FY10/11 Water and Waste Services capital budget will require allocation of funding of $1,672,500. The full budget allocation will be offset by the subsidy from the State. As part of the subsidy approval process from the State a formal council resolution is required committing to the works proceeding within the water capital program. The associated fluoride capital works are to be 100% subsidised by the State. Once operational, council will incur the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for the respective sites. Resources have been identified in the Alliance for the delivery of these works.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10542

Conclusion

To meet legislated requirements to fluoridate regional water supplies in accordance with the Water Fluoridation Regulation 2008 (based on the exemption and variation currently under review by Queensland Health) the fluoridation plants need to be fully operational at Sarina, Marwood Bores and Marian Bores by 31 December 2010. To achieve this legislated outcome, funding approval is required to be endorsed by council as part of the process.


THAT the Council endorse the budget commitment of $1.8M for the Fluoridation Treatment of the following sites by the 31 December 2010.

Marian Bores Mt Blarney Water Treatment Plant (Sarina) Northern Beaches Water Treatment Plant (Marwood Bores - Sarina)

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. AND THAT a further report be completed on the fluoridation of Midge Point in relation to the future availability of subsidy.


CARRIED

10. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS:

10.1 DRAFT MINUTES MACKAY MATSUURA SISTER CITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Author Manager Community Development and Libraries

Purpose

Attached is a copy of the Mackay Matsuura Sister City Advisory Committee minutes of 16 March 2010 for information purposes.


THAT the minutes be received.


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10543

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Steindl Seconded Cr Hatfield

CARRIED

10.2 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES - 12.02.10

Purpose

To present to Council the draft minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on 12 February 2010.


THAT the minutes be received. Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Cameron

CARRIED

11. RECEIPT OF PETITIONS:

Nil.

12. TENDERS:

12.1 MRC 2010-056 - EXPRESSION OF INTEREST - PANEL OF SUPPLIERS FOR THE PROVISION OF ASPHALT, SPRAY SEAL SURFACING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

File No MRC 2010-056 Author MANAGER PROCUREMENT & PLANT

Purpose

To present a report to Council demonstrating the benefit to the residents of the Mackay Region, of calling Expressions of Interest in creating a Panel of Suitably Qualified Suppliers for the


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10544

Provision of Bitumen Products and Associated Works as per section 487 of the Local Government Act 1993


Due to the continued high level of construction work required by Mackay Region Council and associated demand for bitumen sealing. The formation of a panel of Suppliers to supply and perform bitumen works would be of great benefit. The considerable timeframe and costs involved with tendering for the provision of bitumen sealing works can cause significant delays in the completion of these projects and the construction program. Due to limited numbers of suitable suppliers available to perform these services it is anticipated that the panel would consist of all available suppliers and therefore mitigate any possible or perceived reduced competition. The proposed panel would contain suitably qualified bitumen sealing suppliers to Mackay Regional Council. The creation of such a panel would reduce the approval timeframes involved and therefore ensure that Construction projects progress according to program.


Manager of Construction, Construction Coordinator and Procurement & Plant Contracts Officer.


The proposed panel will only be used for works that have been approved through Councils budgeting process. Increased risk management, reduced administrative time and reduced delay in project delivery.

Conclusion

That calling Expressions of Interest would be of benefit to the community of Mackay Regional Council on the basis that construction projects would be delivered earlier and the quoting costs would be negated.


THAT Expressions of Interest be called from suitably qualified suppliers of bitumen sealing works with the intention of creating a panel of suitable suppliers as per section 487 of the Local Government Act 1993


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10545

Council Resolution

THAT the Officer Recommendation be adopted. Moved Cr Casey Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED

13. CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTIONS

Nil.

14. LATE BUSINESS:

14.1 LEAVE OF ABSENCE - CR KEVIN CASEY

THAT Cr Casey be granted leave of absence for the Meetings on 28 April, 5, 12 and 19 May 2010.


CARRIED

15. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Nil.

16. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS:

16.1 AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNCONFIRMED MINUTES 19 MARCH 2010

Council Resolution

THAT the minutes be received. Moved Cr Comerford Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10546

16.2 SARINA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY ARRANGEMENTS

Council Resolution

THAT Council consider funding an additional economic development officer as part of its upcoming budget and if that position is approved Council form a Sarina Business Improvement Advisory Committee, chaired by the Economic Development and Tourism Portfolio Councillor, to meet quarterly, or as needed, with appropriate representation.

Moved Cr Comerford Seconded Cr May

CARRIED

16.3 LAND RESUMPTION

Council Resolution

THAT Council resolve to issue upon the owners of Lot 2 on SP140434 a Notice of Intention to Resume for Road purposes over the area of 3.43 ha as identified in the attached Resumption Plan.

Moved Cr Casey Seconded Cr Thomsen

CARRIED

16.4 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL NO. 83. OF 2010 - AJK CONTRACTING PTY LTD - 143 KOCHS ROAD, THE LEAP (200351-003-DA-2008-469)

Council Resolution

THAT the Chief Executive Officer and Director Development Services be delegated to: A. Retain legal representation and appropriate experts as required. B. Settle the appeal in consultation with the Mayor and/or Planning Portfolio

Councillor should an acceptable solution arise. Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Steindl

CARRIED


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10547

16.5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COURT APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2010 - ELLIOT & OTHERS V MRC AND PROPERTY & PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD - 239 NEBO ROAD, WEST MACKAY (000915-020-DA-2008-614)

Council Resolution

THAT the Chief Executive Officer and Director Development Services be delegated to: A. Retain legal representation and appropriate experts as required. B. Settle the appeal in consultation with the Mayor and/or Planning Portfolio

Councillor should an acceptable solution arise.

Moved Cr Hatfield Seconded Cr Camilleri

CARRIED

17. MEETING CLOSURE

The meeting closed at 10:51am.

18. FOR INFORMATION ONLY

18.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INFORMATION - 14.03.10 to 20.03.10

For Council Information Only - No Decision Required. Development Application Received

App no Address Applicant Description Officer

ROLC-2010-58 154 Ridolfis Road, FARLEIGH

Adrian M Donnelly

Boundary Re-alignment Sonia Cannell

ROLC-2010-67 L 4 Landing Road, KOUMALA

WS Group Boundary Realignment Josephine McCann

MCUC-2010-73 5 Griffin Street, MACKAY

Alexander P Sorbello

5 Multi-Dwelling Units Dean Appleton

MCUI-2010-70 11 Wheeler Drive, GLENELLA

Vision Patios Pty Ltd

Residential Storage Shed (Carport) in excess of 10% Site Coverage

Julie Brook

ROLC-2010-78 L 1 Sarina Homebush Road, MUNBURA

Humphreys Reynolds Perkins North Queensland

Boundary Realignment Darryl Bibay

ROLC-2010-77 43 Mezin Road, HABANA

WS Group Boundary Realignment Sonia Cannell

MCUC-2010-74 33 Milton Street, MACKAY

Mark Nicholls Architect Pty Ltd

Commercial Premises (CFMEU Refurbishment)

Simon Halcrow

OW-2010-21 L 12 Mountney Road, SARINA

Ocean View Estate

Roadworks, Drainage Works and Signage Renan Solatan


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10548

App no Address Applicant Description Officer

MCUIMP-2007-286

70-90 Beaconsfield Road East, ANDERGROVE

Andergrove Lakes Pty Ltd

Change of Development Approval - Material Change of Use - Preliminary Approval for a proposed development generally consistent with the Preliminary Structure Plan and the Site Plan including:- i) Integrated Tourist Facility comprising two (2) Cable Water Ski Parks with ancillary Ski Lodges, Motel, Villas and Apartments, Backpacker Resort, Restaurants and Shops; ii) Residential Purposes including standard dwelling houses on separate lots at a density commensurate with that sought by the Planning Scheme for the Urban Residential Zone, and terraced dwellings and high density units at an overall density commensurate with that sought by the Planning Scheme for the Higher Density Residential Zone; iii) Commercial purposes including local shops, medical centre, gym and offices; iv) Child Care Centre Plus Overriding the Planning Scheme so development relating to the proposed concept is regulated as if the land is located in the Special Activities (Tourism) Zone for the Integrated Tourism Facility component, the Urban Residential for the standard residential component; the Higher Density Residential Zone for the terraced dwellings and High Density Residential components; and the Commercial Zone for the local shops, gym, medical centre and offices; and no overlays apply in certain circumstances as detailed in Conditions of Approval..

John Caldwell

Development Application Finalised

App No Location Applicant Description Officer

Approved Subject to Conditions

OW-ASPA-2010/10

L 920 Whitehaven Drive BLACKS BEACH QLD 4740

TATE Professional Engineers

Operational Works - Road Works, Stormwater, Earthworks, Water Infrastructure, Sewerage Infrastructure

Colin Kelleher

CON-ASPA-2010/19

7 Pagoda Court EAST MACKAY QLD 4740

Andrew G Borg Side Boundary Fencing Relaxation Darryl Bibay

MCUC-ASPA-2010/33

133 Heaths Road GLENELLA QLD 4740

Bagley Produce Bulk Store Julie Brook

MCUCD-IDAS-2007/339A

39A Bourke Street BLACKS BEACH QLD 4740

David Harney Construction Pty Ltd

Amendment - Material Change of Use - 20 Multiple Dwelling Units

Julie Brook

MCUI-ASPA-2010/5

19 Rae Street EAST MACKAY QLD 4740

Alexander D Doll Residential Storage Shed (120 m2) Julie Brook

MCUIMP-IDAS-2009/349

132 Courtney Gap Road SARINA QLD 4737

Kemp Grazing Pty Ltd

Material Change of Use - Industry - High Impact (Rendering Plant)

Julie Brook

MCUCD-IDAS-2009/353

L 4 Farrellys Road PAGET QLD 4740

Mackay Regional Council

General Industry and ERA No 21 - Paget Depot

Leah Sorohan

OW-ASPA-2010/12

66-68 Maggiolo Drive PAGET QLD 4740

BOMA Group Southgate Industrial Park - Stage 5C - 2 Industrial Lots

Ray Gould


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10549

App No Location Applicant Description Officer

OW-ASPA-2010/17

34-38 Mulherin Drive MACKAY HARBOUR QLD 4740

Marina International Pty Ltd

Kitchen relocation, dining bar and amenities extension

Ray Gould

CON-ASPA-2010/24

15 Norris Road MOUNT PLEASANT QLD 4740

Justine E Linderberg

Side Boundary Relaxation Simon Halcrow

OW-ASPA-2010/3

98 Broad Street SARINA QLD 4737

Karl Fuchs Roadworks, Drainage Works, Landscaping, Stormwater, Earthworks, Water Infrastructure, Sewerage Infrastructure - MCU-00032 (ASS29)

Trina Saunders

Application Lapsed

CON-ASPA-2010/18

23 Banksia Avenue ANDERGROVE QLD 4740

Mackay and Whitsunday Building Certification

Carport Boundary Setback Julie Brook

Confirmed on Wednesday 14 April 2010.

………………………………………

MAYOR


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10550


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10551


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10552


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10553


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10554


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10555


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10556


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10557


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10558


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10559


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10560


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10561


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10562


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10563


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10564


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10565


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10566


MIN/07.04.2010 FOLIO 10567

APPENDIX / ATTACHMENTS

100407 - ordinary meeting minutes minutes wednesday 7 april 2010 min/07.04.2010 folio 10452 on 25...

Documents