minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
Engineering Comment
The following comment was made by the City’s Engineering Design section in relation to the
retrospective application:-
“It is noted that the supporting Transport Statement has not been provided by a
qualified traffic consultant. However, it is acknowledged that the WAPC Guidelines do
not require these Statements to be prepared by specialists in transport planning or
traffic engineering.
The Transport Statement covers the recommended WAPC Guidelines for such a
Statement but it is uncertain whether daily traffic volumes are based on surveys of
existing land uses or based on trip generation rates for each specified land use. The
description of trips to the Music Academy indicates that students do not contribute to
parking demand as they are dropped off and picked up. However, these still require
the use of parking bays to do so and vehicle trips in and out of the site.
Notwithstanding the above, it is unlikely that the traffic volumes generated by these
specific land uses will have an adverse impact on the operation of the existing roads
and access points.
I understand from your preliminary assessment that there is a 36 - bay shortfall on site
based on the current land uses (14 bays provided and approximately 50 bays
required). Engineering Design generally does not make comment on parking
shortfalls, as this is a matter that is determined by Approvals. However, there is also
no supporting documentation in the Transport Statement to indicate whether the
current parking provision is sufficient for these land uses and how often these bays are
fully utilised, thus requiring the use of parking bays within adjacent properties.
I understand that this is a retrospective development application, and the ‘proposed’
land uses may have been in operation for some time.”
Environmental Health Comment
Various acoustic consultant reports have been prepared in relation to the existing Music
Academy due to issues/concerns from adjoining residents pertaining to noise emissions.
The most recent report submitted by acoustical consultants in May 2012 was referred to the
City’s Environmental Health section for comment. An extract from the comment received
reads:-
“The report refers to an acoustic upgrade to the rear tutoring room six (6) years ago.
The report prepared by Gabriels Environment Design in December 2006 included
recommendations for an acoustic upgrade “representing the requirements to meet the
assigned levels” and also recommendations for an interim upgrade predicted to
achieve a relatively minor reduction in noise levels. As far as I am aware none of the
recommended works have been undertaken. A submission from Whelans received in
May 2012 included a list of noise attenuation works that will be undertaken upon
receipt of planning approval – the works listed are basically the same as those
recommended for the interim upgrade in 2006.
It is reasonable to expect a business of this type, as a minimum standard, to be able to
fully comply with the requirements with respect to noise emitted from the premises
contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection
(Noise) Regulations 1997. To date the applicant has not provided evidence of being
able to meet these requirements.”
206