of the Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting€¦ · 06/11/2019 · EPE - Economy, Planning and Environment OS - Organisational Services LC - Lifestyle and Community

782

Adopted Report of the

Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting

held

Wednesday 6 November 2019

at

9am

City of Gold Coast Council Chambers 135 Bundall Road, Surfers Paradise

Index

Adopted Report for 782

Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting

Wednesday 6 November 2019 at 9am

Item Direct Div:

File Page Subject

City Development Branch

1 EPE PD05/154/02(P1) Management Of Noise And Vibration Associated With Basement Construction

City Planning Branch

2 EPE PD98/1132/04/58(P1) Introductory Paper – Centre Elements Overlay Code

3# EPE PD98/1132/04/64 Investigation On The Appropriateness And Challenges of Car Stackers And Car Lifts

4 EPE PD98/1132/22/02 Introductory Paper – Integration of Parks Design Guideline Into City Plan

5 EPE PD98/1132/04/39(P1) City Plan Policy Position – Methodology For Review of Building Height Overlay Map (attachment confidential)

City Planning Branch

Closed Session

6# EPE CE196/430/01/01(P3) City-Wide Koala Mapping and Monitoring Report – Key Findings And Proposed Recommendations

Open Session General Business

# Officer’s recommendation changed at Committee Meeting.

KEY: OCEO - Office of the Chief Executive Officer OCOO - Office of the Chief Operation Officer EPE - Economy, Planning and Environment OS - Organisational ServicesLC - Lifestyle and Community TI - Transport and InfrastructureWW - Water and Waste

4

15

19

70

74

93

2 Adopted Report

782nd Council Meeting 12 November 2019 Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting 6 November 2019

ADOPTION BY COUNCIL 12 NOVEMBER 2019

RESOLUTION G19.1112.016 moved Cr Caldwell seconded Cr Vorster

That the Report of the Economy, Planning and Environment Committee’s Recommendations of Wednesday, 6 November 2019, numbered EPE19.1106.001 to EPE19.1106.006, be adopted with the exception of Recommendation Numbers EPE19.1106.001 and EPE19.1106.003 which were specifically resolved.

CARRIED

ATTENDANCE

Cr C M Caldwell Chairperson Cr D Gates Deputy Chairperson Cr W M A Owen-Jones left meeting at 11.33am Cr P J Young Cr G Baildon AM Cr P A Taylor Cr H Vorster left meeting at 11.18am and returned at 11.51am Cr G Tozer

Cr PC Young visitor Cr D McDonald visitor Cr K Boulton visitor

Ms A Swain Director Economy, Planning & Environment Mr M Moran Manager City Development Ms A Sheers Manager City Planning Ms Z Meha Manager Business Support Mr D Wright Principal Building Surveyor Mrs K Adair Executive Coordinator City & Regional Planning Mr L Batton Supervising Planner Mr R Rakich Transport Planner Mr M Garred Senior Planner Ms T Strachan Supervising Conservation Officer Ms A Davidson (Althena) Coordinator Environmental Planner

APOLOGY/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Owen-Jones

That the apology of Cr O'Neill be noted CARRIED

PRESENTATIONS

Development Activity Report September 2019 – Manager City Development Mick Moran

3 Adopted Report


ITEM 1 CITY PLANNING MANAGEMENT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSOCIATED WITH BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION PD05/154/02(P1)

1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As required by Council resolution EPE19.0508.011, this report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current methods of basement retention in use on the Gold Coast with consideration of limiting noise and vibration impacts to neighbouring properties.

Methods of analysis include a review of legislation, local laws, internal discussions, building site visits, meeting with industry contractors and review of other Council practices.

The Building Act and Planning Act carry provisions that restrict the Council of the City of Gold Coast’s (the City’s) involvement in the regulation of building works; this means methods of construction cannot be directly regulated by the City and only the impacts of the basement construction can be controlled.

The findings of this report conclude there are currently a mix of requirements that deal with noise and vibration levels from construction sites; whilst applicable legislation only covers the hours of building work.

Recommendations discussed include:

1 The City engages an external acoustic/vibration engineer to provide specific objectives and criteria relating to noise and vibration for construction sites.

2 The objectives and criteria are developed into a guideline for noise and vibration considering factors such as neighbouring building use, time of day, distance, duration of works and intensity of works.

3 The guideline is referenced into development controls available to the City including the standard planning conditions.

4 The City’s standard noise management plan condition is amended to require monitoring by the applicant for the basement stage of construction to verify the noise and vibration levels approved by the City are not being exceeded.

5 Amend the City’s after hours permit system for building work by conditioning the use of the guideline requirements.

The report notes the fact that the analysis conducted has limitations. Some of the limitations include:

Technical knowledge required to fully understand the implications of noise andvibration which requires an acoustic engineer.

Limited data on extent of noise complaints relating to basement construction. Assumptions of the number of new buildings that may be affected each year due to

being unable to clearly filter available building records.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report responds to committee recommendation EPE19.0508.011

4 Adopted Report


ITEM 1 (Continued) MANAGEMENT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSOCIATED WITH BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION PD05/154/02(P1)

4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS

At the 773rd Council meeting of 14 May 2019 committee recommendation EPE19.0508.011 moved Cr Caldwell seconded Cr Vorster was carried.

The resolution reads:

“That a report be brought to future Economy Planning and Environment Committee addressing problems to neighbouring properties arising from basement construction methods such as sheet piling and provide recommendations on Council’s ability to address this issue through the Development Application process via its conditions and compliance provisions.”

5 DISCUSSION

Basement construction methods such as sheet piling are the retention of soil as a permanent or temporary measure during construction; it may also be referred to as basement retention, foundation walling, ground retention or shoring.

The term “basement retention” will be used in this report.

Basement retention is ground support to allow excavation of a site and basement construction usually to provide for car-parking. Typically multi storey buildings have between one to four stories below ground requiring extensive basement retention.

Problems associated with basement retention such as sheet piling in the context of the committee recommendation have been taken as noise and vibration. These are both detailed fields of study that would require separate external consultant reports to fully detail and discuss all aspects impacting on construction; this report is generalised and does not discuss any of the technical details involved.

From this review of the available information it has become apparent the method of piling is not the problem itself, rather it is the overarching issue of noise and vibration control from building sites generally where piling methods are often the most significant source of noise and vibration.

Basement retention types

Sheet piling is only one of many methods that can be used in basement retention.

The two main types of basement retention methods can be generally broken into “displacement” and “non-displacement” types.

Displacement type force the soil out of the way as the pile is driven into the ground making this the more intrusive and disruptive type, sheet piling falls into this category.

Non-displacement types have the soil removed first which is then replaced by another material such as concrete.

There are a large number of systems available for basement retention; the main methods in use on the Gold Coast are discussed briefly as follows.

5 Adopted Report


ITEM 1 (Continued) MANAGEMENT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSOCIATED WITH BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION PD05/154/02(P1) Displacement pile methods: Sheet Piling can be installed by:

Impact - uncommon due to the noise and vibration. Vibration - most commonly installed by excavator or crane with a vibrating head of

various designs. Press in - uncommon and an emerging technology

Photo 1 – sheetpiling prior to basement excavation Sheet piling is profiled steel sections driven into the ground to retain soil at depths of up to 20 metres. Dependant on the design the piling may be interlocked or overlapped. Sheet piling is well suited for the dense sandy environment of the Gold Coast, whilst being unsuitable for other areas (such as Sydney) due to rock. Sheet piling is not only used for basement retention but may be used on other construction components including trench shoring and lift wells where the impacts on neighbours may be lessened due to the greater distance to neighbouring buildings. Non-Displacement type: The main systems in use on the Gold Coast involve rotary bored piling. Rotary bored pilings are drilled piles where the excavated soil is replaced by concrete or other stabilising material; these may be drilled with or without a steel casing. CFA (Continuous Flight Auger) piles describes a technique to install rotary bored piling utilising the augured soil as support to be replaced by concrete pumped through a hollow auger. The soil condition, depth and water table will determine what type of wall is constructed by rotary bored piling; these can generally be broken into two main groups being secant walls and soldier piles.

6 Adopted Report



Photo 2 - Secant wall with excavation completed

Photo 3 - Soldier piles with excavation completed

Cost differences between displacement and non-displacement methods

Rawlinson’s 2019 construction handbook provides cost guides for construction in Australia by state, Queensland values for basement retention have been reviewed.

Using the Rawlinson’s values and based on a typical basement retention walling for a medium size basement, shows savings for sheet piling may be $100,000 - $300,000 compared to bored type piling methods dependant on the thickness of the sheet piling.

Cost saving may then be a consideration when comparing sheet piling and its disadvantages to bored pile methods.

Extent of the noise and vibration complaints

Complaints kept by the City that relate to basement retention issues are grouped into a class known as a “breach of condition”; this grouping is used for a lot of common issues meaning basement retention items cannot be reported on separately with sufficient accuracy to provide meaningful information.

Data is captured by the City from archiving of building approvals, whilst this does not detail the number of basements, it is expected buildings 6 stories and above would utilise basements as part of the foundation design and car-parking. This provides some guidance on the number of projects that may require basement retention.

7 Adopted Report



Table 1 - Building Approval data

Year Approvals over six

stories 2010 162011 212012 182013 342014 422015 572016 352017 17

From this data, an average of 30 buildings a year is a general estimate that would utilise basements piling methods as part of the construction.

A number of Gold Coast sites that have recently constructed basement retention were visited to determine the methods in use and what complaints had been received by the City.

Table 2 - Summary table of site visits and noise complaints to the City

Method Site area m2 Basement levels

Stories high

Noise complaints (excluding out of hours)

Sheet piling 1821 4.5 44 Breach of approval - Vibration from building site

Scant piles 647 4 19 Breach of approval - Noise Scant piles 1214 4 27

Scant piles 3833 3 74 Breach of approval – two noise complaints

Scant piles 1032 2 31 No complaints

Soldier piles 825 3 20 Breach of approval – two noise complaints

Sheet Piling/ Bored Piles 599 2 9 Breach of approval - Noise

Five of the seven sites have complaints relating to construction noise (excludes out of hours noise complaints).

Five of the seven sites used rotary bored piling as opposed to vibratory sheet piling; one site used a mixture of methods.

The reasons cited by the onsite representatives for the choice of basement retention include: Structural issues, sheet piling cannot be used to support loads. Permission, not able to be obtained from neighbouring property for ground anchors

required for sheet piling. Water is harder to keep out with sheet piling Sheet piling may be out of alignment at depth Depth too great for sheet piling

Whilst this is a small sample size, it does illustrate complaints are received on both sheet piling and rotary bored piling methods, while rotary bored methods are more commonplace.

8 Adopted Report


ITEM 1 (Continued) MANAGEMENT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSOCIATED WITH BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION PD05/154/02(P1) Noise levels Australian Standard 2436-2010 provides technical framework for estimating sound levels from construction sites, the following table is information derived from this standard to compare sound levels, in part extracted from City of Melbourne “noise and vibration management guidelines”. Note: the sound levels indicated in the table are based on equipment operating at ground level and are provided only for a general impression of likely noise impacts. The two main methods of basement retention are in bold. Table 3 – Summary from City of Melbourne noise and vibration management guidelines

Equipment Distance 15m Distance 30m Distance 60m

Excavators 200 – 300kW 82 – 86 76 – 80 70 – 74

Generators 250 kVA 80 – 87 74 – 81 68 – 75

Loaders (Tracked)200 – 300kW 86 – 90 80 – 84 74 – 78

Piling Rotary bored 80 – 92 74 – 86 68 – 80

Piling Vibratory system (sheet piles) 87 – 98 81 – 92 75 – 86

Pumps Concrete pumps 70 – 75 64 – 69 58 – 63

Trucks Concrete mixer 75 – 84 69 – 78 63 – 72

Power Tools Electric drill < 62 < 56 < 50

Power Tools Hammer drill 69 – 80 63 – 74 57 – 68

Power Tools Grinder 69 – 74 63 – 68 57 – 62 Note: The values are in dB, t To understand the impacts of decibel ratings it broadly corresponds that for every 10 dB increase there is a doubling in loudness; this is due to decibels being a logarithmic scale and not linear. Comparing the rotary bored piling to vibrated sheet piles there is a consistent 65% increase in loudness for vibratory sheet piling over rotary bored systems. The table shows the choice of basement construction method can have a significant impact on the amount of construction noise and vibration during this stage of works. What are the construction noise limits?

Queensland Council’s administer noise complaints through the EPA (Environmental Protection Act); this provides limits on the hours of work between 6.30 am – 6.30 pm; however, the EPA allows the City to prescribe noise standards by local law. If a local law noise standard is prescribed, it then applies as a noise standard instead of the Environmental Protection Act default noise standard.

The City’s current Local Law No. 8 (Public Health, Safety and Amenity) 2008 (LL8) makes provision for a noise standard where a permit for building work noise is given for regulated works (out of hours building work) only.

9 Adopted Report



For normal building work the default standard in the EPA for hours of work only.

Environmental Protection Act section 440R

The City’s standard development conditions, version 30, includes for various management plans to address construction issues including a noise management plan requirement.

The noise management plan condition requires submission of a management plan for noise to the City. This is triggered for planning development approvals after consideration of the scale, location and density of the development.

Reports received from acoustic consultants in response to the noise management plan condition provide acceptable sound and vibration levels for the construction.

Where it is known that there is a non-compliance with an approved noise management plan, the City would undertake development compliance action.

A revision to the current condition to require monitoring would provide City officers with a greater ability to ensure compliance with this condition.

City of Gold Coast standard noise condition, version 30.

Noise Management Plan

a Prepare and submit for approval a Noise Management Plan addressing construction activities prior to any works commencing.

b The Noise Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified professional and include in particular:

i Provide details of expected noise sources.

ii Identify the measures and work practices to be implemented to ensure noise from construction activities does not cause an ‘environmental nuisance’ (within the meaning of the term set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1994) at any sensitive receptor stated in schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008.

iii Identify the measures and work procedures to monitor noise emissions.

iv Provide details of complaint response procedures.

v Identify procedures to monitor and review the Noise Management Plan.

Implement the Noise Management Plan prior to any works commencing at no cost to Council.

10 Adopted Report


ITEM 1 (Continued) MANAGEMENT OF NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSOCIATED WITH BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION PD05/154/02(P1) 6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND

OPERATIONAL PLAN A review of the Operational Plan under City Planning, Land Management and Development Control provides the following Service description: Enhance the city's liveability through management of the land development process and implementation of the City Plan and associated policies. This includes both planned and reactive assessment and compliance functions 7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Budget/Funding Considerations The recommendations within this report require change to set the framework for noise and vibration limits, this will require the engagement of external consultants and legal review. The estimated cost for this work would be approximately $60,000.00. Costs for Capital Works and Service Proposals Not applicable People and Culture No additional staffing is expected to be required. 8 RISK MANAGEMENT Not applicable 9 STATUTORY MATTERS There is a clear principle that planning and building aspects are not intertwined despite sharing the same approvals process; this is dealt with legislatively through the Planning Act and the Building Act. Because of this separation of powers, the City Plan, development conditions and local laws cannot be used to prohibit building work such as sheet piling. Noise created on construction sites is unlikely to be assessed as an environmental nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act (unless it is a deliberate act not reasonably required for construction). The Environmental Protection Act provisions cannot then be used to regulate the amount of noise from construction sites, only the hours of work. The City of Gold Coast Local law 8 administers out of hours noise through a permit system. Unless an application is made, the hours of building work are 6.30am – 6.30pm Monday to Saturday. There is an opportunity to strengthen the local law provisions to set objectives and criteria relating to construction noise to regulate noise produced on construction sites.

11 Adopted Report



10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not Applicable

11 DELEGATIONS

Not Applicable

12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Rob Smith – Manager Health Regulatory & Lifeguard Services

COGC Yes

Michael Moran – Manager City Development

COGC Yes

13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

External / community stakeholder Impacts Potential for improved amenity to neighbours of construction sites through a

reduction of noise and vibration impact. May limit the options available to builders for basement construction particularly

those seeking the lowest cost, this may result in increased construction costs. The effects can be mitigated with transparency of the requirements supported by an

online guideline for noise and vibration within the City of Gold Coast.

Internal (Organisational) Stakeholder Impacts The changes recommended are improvements to the already established process,

this does not require a systemic change and so any impacts internally are limited toawareness of the new criteria and implementation through affected areas.

14 TIMING

As the changes rely on a number of steps the following milestones are suggested: a Engage external consultant to develop objectives and criteria for a new guideline on

noise and vibration – twelve weeks. b Amend the City’s development controls to support the new guideline on noise and

vibration – 12 weeks (may be concurrently with previous items). c The City’s standard noise management plan condition is amended to support the

recommendations – four weeks.

A period of four to six months following approval by Council is a suggested timeframe.

15 CONCLUSION

This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current methods of basement retention in use on the Gold Coast with consideration of limiting noise and vibration impacts to neighbouring properties.

12 Adopted Report



The Building Act and Planning Act carry provisions that restrict the City of Gold Coast’s (the City’s) involvement in the regulation of building works; this means methods of construction cannot be directly regulated by the City and it’s only the impacts of the basement construction that can be controlled.

The findings of this report conclude there are currently a mix of requirements that deal with noise and vibration levels from construction sites; whilst applicable legislation only covers the hours of building work.

The prospect of compliance by the City regulating noise and vibration can be improved by strengthening current practices including clearer guidelines.

16 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1 The City engages an external acoustic / vibration engineer to provide specific objectives and criteria relating to noise and vibration for construction sites, at an estimated cost of $60,000, with funding request to be submitted as part of the December 2019 Budget Reviews.

2 The objectives and criteria are developed into a guideline for noise and vibration considering factors such as neighbouring building use, time of day, distance, duration of works and intensity of works.

3 The guideline is referenced into development controls available to the City including the standard development approval conditions.


5 The City’s after hours permit system for building work is amended by conditioning the use of the guideline requirements.

Author: Authorised by:

Darren Wright Alisha Swain Principal Building Surveyor Director Economy, Planning and

Environment 29 October 2019

13 Adopted Report



Committee Recommendation Adopted At Council 12 November 2019 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.1106.001 moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Vorster 1 The City engages an external acoustic / vibration engineer to provide specific

objectives and criteria relating to noise and vibration for construction sites, at an estimated cost of $60,000, with funding request to be submitted as part of the December 2019 Budget Reviews.

2 The objectives and criteria are developed into a guideline for noise and vibration considering factors such as neighbouring building use, time of day, distance, and duration of works and intensity of works.


4 The City’s standard noise management plan condition is amended to require

monitoring by the applicant for the basement stage of construction to verify the noise and vibration levels approved by the City are not being exceeded.

5 The City’s after hours permit system for building work is amended by

conditioning the use of the guideline requirements.

CARRIED ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 12 November 2019 RESOLUTION G19.1112.014 moved Cr McDonald seconded Cr Vorster That Committee Recommendation EPE19.1106.001 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:- 6 The City engages an external acoustic / vibration engineer to provide specific

objectives and criteria relating to noise and vibration for construction sites, at an estimated cost of $60,000, with funding request to be submitted as part of the December 2019 Budget Reviews.

7 The objectives and criteria are developed into a guideline for noise and vibration considering factors such as neighbouring building use, time of day, distance, and duration of works and intensity of works.



10 The City’s after hours permit system for building work is amended by conditioning the use of the guideline requirements.

CARRIED

14 Adopted Report


CITY PLANNINGITEM 2INTRODUCTORY PAPER – CENTRE ELEMENTS OVERLAY CODE PD98/1132/04/58(P1)


Not Applicable.

2 PURPOSE OF PAPER

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Centre elements overlay code project identified in the work program for the Major update 5 amendment package. In accordance with the Council’s resolution made on 5 December 2018, the Major update 4 & 5 amendment package will be sent to State once the Major update 2 & 3 amendment package (Our City Our Plan) is adopted.


Council resolved on 13 June 2017 (CP17.0607.006) as follows:

4. That urban elements mapping be investigated and presented to Council at a futuremeeting to determine how it could be implemented to guide outcomes for higherdensity development.

Council resolved on 5 December 2018 (EPE18.1205.011) as follows:

6. The previous resolutions relating to the timing of Major updates to City Plan arereplaced with the following:

a Major update 4, including Light Rail, is progressed after Major update 2 & 3 commences as a new version of City Plan;

b Major update 5 is progressed concurrently with Major update 4 and the scope be set at a future Economy Planning and Environment Committee meeting;

c Future Major updates are submitted for State interest review once previous Major updates have commenced as new versions of City Plan; and

d Minor, Administrative and City Plan Policy updates are undertaken on an as needs basis, with an opportunity for Tailored or Qualified State Interest Amendments for specific matters.

4 DISCUSSION

The aim of this project is to investigate the introduction of a new overlay code to improve the way in which individual development proposals integrate with and contribute to the public realm, which will support our liveability – a critical component of being a lifestyle city. The new overlay code will focus on specific design outcomes for the interface between private development and the public realm in key focus areas throughout the city.

4.1 Why the project has been initiated

The project was initiated following Phase One of the Community Benefits Bonus Elements Policy Review (endorsed by Council on 13 June 2017 (CP17.0607.006)).

During this review, it was identified that there is currently an absence of overarching public realm and urban design guidance in City Plan. This has the potential to result in poor legibility, duplication and/or lost opportunities for public realm and centre design elements, such as plazas, pedestrian links, etc.

15 Adopted Report


ITEM 2 (Continued) INTRODUCTORY PAPER – CENTRE ELEMENTS OVERLAY CODE PD98/1132/04/58(P1)

The introduction of centre elements mapping could assist to inform positive, coherent public realm and urban design outcomes within activity centres and other key focus areas where additional growth is planned.

The key drivers for this investigation include:

supporting walkable neighbourhoods, through identifying existing/future activetransport networks, laneways, cross block links, arcades and green bridges;

promoting economic development and vibrancy within activity centres;

ensuring the public realm is responsive to the role, function and amenity of specificactivity centres;

ensuring additional growth in key focus areas (i.e. targeted growth areas – identifiedin the City Plan Major update 2 and 3) is supported by improvements to the publicrealm;

supporting changes to the City Plan to introduce high quality urban designbenchmarks for the public realm within the regulatory planning framework; and

deliver a consist approach to other major urban centres within Australia includingBrisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, which already have well established streetscapemapping and overlays.

4.2 Proposed centre elements

The following centre elements will be investigated for inclusion in the proposed overlay code:

Primary active frontages; Boardwalks; Cross block links; Laneways; Arcades; Awnings; Street trees; Gateway focal points; Corner focal points; and Development interface to green bridges.

The above centre elements have been identified for the initial introduction of the overlay code for the higher order activity centres.

The project may also be expanded to cover a greater variety of public realm elements such as boulevards, civic parks and plaza locations. This will ensure a consistent approach to both the public realm and streetscape design, and allow the city to coordinate urban design outcomes across the focused growth areas.

16 Adopted Report



4.3 Proposed application

Initially, the overlay code will apply to:

i specific higher order activity centres, such as: o Surfers Paradise;o Broadbeach; ando Coolangatta.

Following the initial implementation of this overlay code, it is anticipated that the same process may be rolled out to other mixed use centres across the city, as part of further amendments to the City Plan.

There is separate projects being undertaken to investigate the implementation of a neighbourhood elements overlay and urban elements overlay in the City Plan. Amongst other things these overlays may be used to guide urban design and public realm outcomes within the Light Rail Stage 3A Corridor.

4.4 Alignment with citywide design principles

The proposed Centre elements overlay code will be drafted to align with the six (6) key design principles (Figure 1) to guide architectural and urban design in the City, proposed to be introduced through the City Plan major update 2/3 amendment package.

Figure 1: Key design principles

4.5 Next steps

It is anticipated that the proposed updates to City Plan content, as a result of this project, will be presented to the Economy Planning and Environment Committee in mid-2020 for consideration.

These updates are targeted for inclusion in the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package.

5 RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolve as follows:

1 That the contents of the report be noted.


Liam Morris Alisha Swain Strategic Planner – City Planning 14 October 2019

Director Economy, Planning and Environment

17 Adopted Report



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.1106.002 moved Cr Tozer seconded Cr Baildon That the contents of the report be noted.

CARRIED

18 Adopted Report


ITEM 3 CITY PLANNING INVESTIGATION ON THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CHALLENGES OF CAR STACKERS AND CAR LIFTS PD98/1132/04/64

Refer 38 page attachment

Attachment 1: Mechanical Parking Systems Discussion PaperAttachment 2: Examples of policies from other councils addressing mechanical parking systems

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report responds to the General Business item (EPE19.0605.00106) raised at the Economy, Planning and Environment Committee held on 5 June 2019, requesting:

“That Officers from City Planning and Transport and Traffic undertake an investigation on the appropriateness and challenges of car stackers and lifts to meet the car parking requirements of City Plan and report back to the Economy, Planning and Environment Committee.”

The investigation has produced a discussion paper on mechanical parking systems – refer attached Mechanical Parking Systems Discussion Paper prepared by Transport and Traffic and dated 26 September 2019 (Attachment 1). The Discussion Paper addresses various types of car stackers and car lift systems and has been prepared based on information from the Transport Planning and Policy and Transport Assessment team, other councils, a manufacturer and a building manager.

This report presents the key findings of the Discussion Paper and identifies the appropriateness and challenges of mechanical parking systems, in particular:

the benefits, opportunities for and reasons that may give rise to the use of mechanicalparking systems; and

the challenges including identified issues and risks associated with mechanicalparking systems.

It is important to note:

limited quantifiable data is kept by councils on such systems; and

few councils have implemented provisions within their planning schemes to regulatemechanical parking systems, instead they are reviewed and assessed on a case bycase basis.

As discussed herein, mechanical parking systems present opportunities to utilise constrained sites for development.

Based on the review, few councils have implemented provisions within their planning schemes to regulate mechanical systems.

The City has received approximately 25 development applications in the past 13 years that proposed mechanical parking systems. This represents a small proportion of the approximately twelve thousand material change of use applications lodged with Council over that timeframe.

Of the 25 development applications that included mechanical parking systems, eight have been constructed or are being constructed.

In consideration of this report and the Discussion Paper, Council could choose to:

1 Make minimal changes to City Plan – Continue to assess and manage these development applications on a case by case basis, as is currently occurring. Changes could include adding to reference the 2017 Australian Standard (AS5124 Safety of Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages).

19 Adopted Report


ITEM 3 (Continued) INVESTIGATION ON THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CHALLENGES OF CAR STACKERS AND CAR LIFTS PD98/1132/04/64

Monitor the situation to determine if further management of mechanical parking systems is required; or

2 Undertake a detailed investigation on how to regulate mechanical parking systems and incorporate relevant requirements into City Plan; or

3 Restrict the use of mechanical parking systems on the Gold Coast, through future major updates to City Plan.

In consideration of the infrequent take-up of mechanical parking systems, the current assessment regime and limited reported issues with the systems, it is recommended the first option be adopted, being minimal changes to the City Plan, but to continue to monitor the situation to determine if further management is warranted.

Changes could include contemporising references to relevant standards. These changes would need to be done through a future update package.

2 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council on the appropriateness and challenges of car stackers and lifts to meet car parking requirements, supported by the investigation presented in the Car Stackers Discussion Paper prepared by Transport and Traffic and dated 26 September 2019 (Attachment 1).

This report provides options to Council on how City Plan could manage mechanical parking systems moving forward.


There are Council resolutions addressing mechanical parking systems from 2019, 2006 and 2002.

Council resolution EPE19.0605.00106, from 5 June 2019:

“That Officers from City Planning and Transport and Traffic undertake an investigation on the appropriateness and challenges of car stackers and lifts to meet the car parking requirements of City Plan and report back to the Economy, Planning and Environment Committee.”

Council’s City Planning Committee at a meeting held on 8 May 2006 resolved to adopt an earlier resolution on mechanical parking systems made in 2002, as follows:

“Ex Minute S02.1119.014

1 Note the report on stack parking systems.

2 To restrict the use of stack parking systems in Gold Coast to only those locations where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that stack parking is necessary to achieve the parking requirements of the Planning Scheme.

3 That stack parking systems will not be approved as a means to enable additional development to be provided.

4 That stack parking system will not be approved for situations where they would be accessible by the general public.

5 That the technical details of any stack parking systems are to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate.”

20 Adopted Report



Council resolution (S02.1119.014), from 22 November 2002:

“1 Note the report on stack parking systems.

2 To restrict the use of stack parking systems in Gold Coast City to only those locations where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that stack parking is necessary to achieve the parking requirements of the Planning Scheme.

3 That stack parking systems will not be approved as a means to enable additional development to be provided

4 That stack parking systems will not be approved for situations where they would be accessible by the general public.

5 That the technical details of any stack parking system are to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate.”

It should be noted the resolutions from 2006 and 2002 were not carried through or implemented within the ‘Our Living City’ Gold Coast City Planning Scheme 2003 or City Plan.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Types of mechanical parking systems

A mechanical parking system is one of a number of terms used to describe a machine for the storage of motor vehicles. The purpose of a mechanical parking system is to provide more space for the storage of vehicles than conventional parking methods provide.

The types of mechanical parking systems are outlined in the Discussion Paper and summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Types of mechanical parking systems Types of mechanical parking systems

Description Approximate costs

Note: The installation and maintenance costs are indicative and vary depending on the type and individual project

Car lifts - Can replace ramps

- Installed as either a single or pair

- Hydraulic or electric motorised

Installation: Dependent on project

Maintenance: Approximately $3000 per car lift per annum

Car stackers

Dependent - Installed at surface of the car park, no pit required

- Second car can only be accessed if other car is moved (like a tandem car park)

- Servicing twice yearly

Installation: $5,000-6,000 per space, or $12,000 per dual system

Maintenance: $220 per space per annum

Independent - Installed above or below surface of the car park, pit required

- All cars can be accessed

Installation: $6,000 per space, or $12,000 per dual system (excluding pit construction)

Maintenance: $250 per space

21 Adopted Report



Types of mechanical parking systems

Description Approximate costs

Note: The installation and maintenance costs are indicative and vary depending on the type and individual project

without needing to move another vehicle

- 45 - 60 second turnaround

- Servicing twice yearly

- Tenant use only andusers must be trained tooperate

- Range of dimensionsavailable

- Can be either lifting orsliding systems

per annum

Fully automatic

- Located above or belowground

- Can accommodate largenumber of cars (e.g 100+cars)

- A single parking spaceprovides access to alarger multi-level parkingstructure

Installation: $50,000-$60,000 per space depending on design

Maintenance: $180 - $600 per space

Turntables - 360 degree rotation

- Suitable for tightdimensions that lackturning space

- Custom designed anddimensioned

No information available

4.2 Key findings from the Discussion Paper

The Discussion Paper includes a number of key findings and a summary of the key findings within previous reporting to Council, these are summarised in Table 2.

22 Adopted Report



Table 2: Key findings within the Discussion Paper

Key findings Discussion Paper

2019

Bitzios Report

2013

Stacked Parking Systems Report

2002

The main applications of the mechanical parking systems are for residential and commercial land uses

Yes Yes Yes

The systems should be operated by owners, tenants or staff trained to operate the machinery

Yes Yes Yes

Appropriate systems for the Gold Coast

All systems, being turntables, car lifts and car stackers

All systems, being turntables, car lifts and car stackers

Dependent or independent systems

The systems should comply with the Australian Standards

Yes No Australian Standard existed to guide the design of mechanical parking systems in 2013.

No Australian Standard existed to guide the design of mechanical parking systems in 2002.

4.2.1 Appropriateness and challenges of Mechanical Parking Systems

The following section considers the merits and issues associated with mechanical parking systems.

There is limited published data about the effectiveness or issues of these systems. Numerous Councils were contacted for comment, with five city and large regional Councils responding to our request. Based on the feedback from these Councils there is an absence of feasibility studies and a general lack of quantifiable data on the matter.

The findings in the Discussion Paper are based on information from previous reports, officers from various councils, a manufacturer and a building manager.

4.2.1.1 Appropriateness

This section considers the appropriateness, benefits, reasons and opportunities for the use of mechanical parking systems.

The primary benefit of a mechanical parking system is that it optimises the use ofspace. A parking system may be used to replace ramps in developments with spacerestrictions, increasing efficiency and cost effectiveness. Opportunities exist to utiliseconstrained sites where traditional basement car parking may not be feasible.

The size and visual impact of the parking structure is minimised.

Reduced cost considering the reduced construction period, reducedbuilding/excavation and due to improved utilisation of small or constrained sites(however, see also ongoing maintenance costs below ‘challenges’).

Improved standards, regulations and technology minimise potential risk ofunsafe/untested mechanical parking systems being supplied and installed.

23 Adopted Report



There are few recorded instances of faults or accidents deriving from or associatedwith the uses of mechanical systems within Australia.

Parking systems are considered appropriate for residential and commercial land useswhere operated by owners, tenants or staff (such as parking attendants) trained tooperate the machinery.

As identified in the Discussion Paper, secondary benefits of mechanical parkingsystems may include:

- Parked cars and their contents may be more secure since there is restricted publicaccess.

- Minor parking damage such as scrapes and dents are lessened.

- Drivers and passengers are safer not having to walk through parking lots orgarages.

- Driving around in search of a parking space is eliminated, thereby reducing engineemissions.

- Minimal ventilation and lighting systems are needed.

- Shorter construction time.

4.2.1.2 Challenges

This section considers the challenges, issues and risks associated with mechanical parking systems, note some of the identified challenges are outside of a Councils jurisdiction.

The nature of the systems generally requires users to be trained / inducted on how tooperate the system. Those consulted for the Discussion Paper had the view thatparking systems are suitable for tenant use or to be managed by a trained operator andnot suited for visitor use, student accommodation or holiday rental use where peoplehave not been trained. Notwithstanding, training and induction is not a complexprocess (4.1.3 of the Discussion Paper).

There may be reluctance by some people to use a mechanical parking system. Somecouncils have anecdotally observed unit residents purchasing on-street parking permitsrather than using their allocated car stacker.

It is a concern that earlier car stacker installations have presented issues for largevehicles not fitting into the system. It is noted that these issues may be resolved byensuring compliance with AS2890 and it is noted that newer mechanical parkingsystems can be customised to meet height and width requirements.

Mechanical parking systems installed outdoors may be damaged by rain, wind and orexposure to salty environments that cause maintenance issues and may reduce thelifespan of the systems.

Where basements are designed to cater for flood storage during flood events, thiswater may damage the mechanical parking system.

Electric cars requiring charging may not be able to use mechanical parking systemsdue to the required equipment.

There are ongoing maintenance and repair costs for mechanical parking systems, asidentified in Table 1 herein. These costs need to be covered by unit owners (where carparking spaces are included on the title) or body corporates (where spaces areincluded in common property). There is some risk that unit owners may not fund thereplacement costs of devices when they need replacement, reducing the car parking

24 Adopted Report



provision of the development. This would be a development offence, however would be an impractical outcome. This risk would be lessened if these car parking spaces were included in common property, as the body corporate would need to cover these costs, including factoring into the initial sinking fund.

Some insurers will not insure cars parked on stackers. While this does not seem torestrict the ability to insure a car, it may reduce the options available to residents.

4.3 Introduction of a new Australian standard to address mechanical parking systems

In February 2017, Standards Australia launched the standard AS5124:2017 Safety of Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages.

The standard provides a minimum level of quality, reliability, and safety for parking systems in Australia and covers:

hydraulic, mechanical and electrical installation of equipment;

supply and installation procedures for manual or automatic systems; and

commissioning procedures and maintenance protocols.

In order to comply with AS5124, each system design must undergo intensive testing by a third-party body and be certified as compliant. Only equipment that has been certified by a trusted independent body can be said to comply with AS5124.

While AS5124 provides a minimum standard for a mechanical parking system the installation must also meet the minimum requirements of AS2890.1. Standard car sizes, car park access, safe distances for ingress/egress of vehicles and swept paths are just a few of the considerations that apply to automated car parking (AS2890.1).

4.4 How other local councils respond to mechanical parking systems

The majority of the councils approached for this investigation did not have specific policies and regulations relating to mechanical parking systems. The Queensland councils of Brisbane City Council, Sunshine Coast Council and Moreton Bay Regional Council, consider each application on a case by case basis.

It is understood that some councils in NSW and Victoria (e.g. Wollongong Council, North Sydney, Bankstown and Woollahra), where car stacking has been more prevalent due to greater space restrictions, have addressed mechanical parking systems within their development control plans (similar in effect to a planning scheme). The investigation has found that mechanical parking system policies and provisions adopted by other Australian local councils may support the use of mechanical car parking systems in circumstances where:

their requested use is for owners or tenants use, not for visitor parking;

conventional parking options are not possible or feasible;

the parking spaces are in the same ownership or strata lot;

their usage does not exceed regulated noise levels; and

there is adequate room for standard vehicles under AS2890.1.

Details of provisions addressing mechanical parking systems for the above councils are provided in Attachment 2.

25 Adopted Report



4.5 The City’s response to mechanical parking systems

4.5.1 Current assessment considerations for mechanical parking systems

The current City Plan includes provisions that regulate car parking and access requirements, including the minimum number of car parking spaces as well as the design (dimensions), manoeuvring and access.

The City Plan does not specifically include provisions relating to mechanical parking systems. City Development assesses each application on a case by case basis against the relevant assessment benchmarks within the City Plan.

The City Development team consider the following main matters when assessing these applications:

that the development doesn’t create queuing from the development out into the roadnetwork;

that the manufacturer can demonstrate that the car stacker/lift configuration can fitwithin the development;

that the standard vehicle (B99) meets the Australian Standard AS 2890.1 and can fitwithin the development; and

the potential amenity impacts of the mechanical parking system (e.g. noise and visualamenity).

The current City Plan Transport Code and General Development Provisions Code facilitate the assessment of these matters.

The City includes additional, detailed development conditions when a mechanical car parking system is included as part of a development approval. At present four development conditions (see headings below) that relate specifically to the type of system required for the development may be used:

fully automated off street parking facility;

off street mechanical car stacker;

off street car lift; and

off street ramp signal management system.

Examples of these conditions can be found at Appendix Two of the Discussion Paper.

In addition to the above conditions, the City may include detailed development conditions requiring acoustic report compliance and the implementation of visual screening devices.

4.5.2 Review of current development approvals with mechanical parking systems

A small number of development applications include mechanical parking systems. Between October 2006 and January 2019, the City has assessed approximately 25 applications that include variations of the car stacker or car lift systems. This represents a very small proportion of the approximately twelve thousand material change of use applications lodged with Council over that timeframe.

From 2015 – 2018 between two and four car stacker applications have been approved each year.

Eight systems have been constructed or are being constructed. Section 5.1 of the Discussion Paper provides details of these applications, based on City Development data.

26 Adopted Report



4.5.3 Council Officers feedback on mechanical parking systems

The following matters for consideration were raised by the internal stakeholders:

It may be appropriate to include in the City Plan guidance for the design of themechanical parking systems, for example a requirement for drop off and pick up areas.

Is there a requirement for these systems to include a backup generator in the case of apower outage, if not this is a design requirement that could be included within the CityPlan.

It can be difficult to obtain the make and model detail of the mechanical parkingsystems and the manufacturers information from the applicants when the requirementsfor such are not specifically included in the City Plan.

It is a perception that the use of mechanical parking systems may be appropriate toparticular locations where there is on street regulated parking to detract people fromparking on street (i.e. regulated on street parking may detract a person from parking onthe street when a mechanical parking system provides for their car park on site.)

Visitors and bicycle parking should not be included within the mechanical parkingsystems.

There is concern as to the frequency and extent of over flow car parking onto the streetand surrounding area (transport network) and the impact on the end user should themechanical parking system be unavailable during the times of servicing, maintenanceor power cuts.

The certification requirements and processes for mechanical parking systems shouldbe investigated and defined.

It is a concern that the life of a mechanical parking system located outdoors may bereduced if affected by a salty environment.

If the lifespan of the mechanical parking systems are 25-30 years what occurs at theend of the systems lifespan. It is not clear if it is the responsibility of the owner and orbody corporate to replace the mechanical parking systems when the lifespan ends.

Mechanical parking systems are less attractive to a buyer then conventional parking.

City Planning Officers should consider that there may be an increase of developmentapplications with proposed mechanical parking systems moving forward, therefore theinclusion of provisions to guide the assessment of these applications will be vital.

4.6 Recommendation for potential future City Plan update

In consideration of this report and the Discussion Paper, Council could choose to:

1 Make minimal changes to City Plan – Changes could include:

o adding to reference the 2017 Australian Standard (AS5124 Safety of Machinery –Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMCrequirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages).

o Restricting the use of mechanical parking systems such as the exclusion of visitorand bicycle parking.

Continue to assess and manage development applications proposing mechanical parking systems on a case by case basis, as is currently occurring. Conduct periodic reviews of mechanical parking systems to determine their appropriateness and if there is a need for further management of these systems; or

27 Adopted Report



2 Undertake a detailed investigation on how to regulate mechanical parking systems and incorporate relevant requirements into City Plan. The investigation could include the incorporation of the following into City Plan:

o specific reference to Australian Standards AS5124;

o land uses that may utilise mechanical parking systems;

o a ratio/maximum number of car parking spaces that can be accessed via amechanical parking system (if determined necessary);

o appropriate and unsuitable locations for mechanical parking systems in the City;

o the titling arrangements for car parking spaces which are accessed via amechanical parking system;

o submission of the details (make and model) of the mechanical systems andmanufacturers information required for assessment;

o design requirements of the mechanical parking systems (for example theincorporation of drop off and pick up areas, the inclusion of a backup generatorand other details); and

o particular restrictions on the use of mechanical parking systems such as theexclusion of visitor and bicycle parking.

3 Restrict the use of mechanical parking systems on the Gold Coast, through future major updates to City Plan.

In consideration of the infrequent take-up of mechanical parking systems, the current assessment regime and limited reported issues with the systems, it is recommended the first option be adopted, being minimal changes to the City Plan, but to monitor the situation to determine if further management is warranted. Changes could include contemporising references to relevant standards. These changes would need to be done through a future update package.

5 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

Not applicable.

6 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Not applicable.

7 RISK MANAGEMENT

Not applicable.

8 STATUTORY MATTERS

Not applicable.

9 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable.

10 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.

28 Adopted Report




The following table identifies the internal and external stakeholders that have been involved / participated in the subject to date and the outcome of that participation.




Andy Stewart

Coordinator Transport Planning and Policy Portfolio

Transport and Traffic Branch

Transport and Infrastructure Directorate

Yes

Ramon Rakich

Transport Planner

Transport and Traffic Branch

Transport and Infrastructure Directorate

Yes

Roger Sharpe

Executive Coordinator Planning Assessment


Economy, Planning and Environment Directorate

Comment provided as discussed in section 4.5.3 of this report.

Sam Hartley

Executive Coordinator Engineering and Environment Assessment




Steve Brett

Executive Coordinator Major Assessment





There are limited stakeholder impacts as a result of this report. Any future updates to the City Plan would involve additional stakeholder engagement.

13 CONCLUSION

Mechanical parking systems present opportunities to utilise constrained sites where traditional basement car parking may not be feasible.

In recent history there have been improved standards, regulations and technology that may lessen the potential risk of unsafe/untested mechanical parking systems being supplied and installed.

There is limited data from local councils on the operation of mechanical parking systems and there are limited planning scheme policies on the subject.

29 Adopted Report



A very small percentage of development applications propose the use of mechanical parking systems. Proposals in the Gold Coast that have included systems have been appropriately assessed against the current City Plan provisions, and if approved, included reasonable and relevant conditions. The systems that have been built have not resulted in issues that have been highlighted to the City.

There is an option to investigate the incorporation of specific provisions relating to mechanical parking systems into the City Plan however City Planning officers do not feel that this is warranted at this point.

14 RECOMMENDATION


1 That Council note the report and Discussion Paper.

2 A future update to City Plan include references to AS5124:2017 Safety of Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages and particular restrictions on the use of mechanical parking systems such as the exclusion of visitor and bicycle parking.

Author: Authorised by: Monique Anderson Alisha Swain Senior Planner Director Economy, Planning and

Environment 10 October 2019

30 Adopted Report



Committee Recommendation Adopted At Council 12 November 2019 Changed Recommendation COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.1106.003 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Owen-Jones 1 That Council note the report and Discussion Paper.

2 A future update to City Plan include references to AS5124:2017 Safety of

Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages.

CARRIED

Cr Tozer requested that his vote in the negative be recorded ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 12 November 2019 RESOLUTION G19.1112.015 moved Cr Vorster seconded Cr Caldwell That Committee Recommendation EPE19.1106.003 be adopted as printed which reads as follows:- 1 That Council note the report and Discussion Paper. 2 A future update to City Plan include references to AS5124:2017 Safety of

Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages.

CARRIED

31 Adopted Report


Mechanical Parking Systems Discussion Paper

Transport and Traffic 16 October 2019

Attachment 1 (1 of 34)

32 Adopted Report


Mechanical Parking Systems Discussion Paper Page 2 of 33

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Methodology and Scope ...................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Background ......................................................................................................................... 4

Initial Investigations .................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1

Bitzios Consulting – Mechanical Parking Systems Study .......................................... 5 1.3.2

Consultations ............................................................................................................. 6 1.3.3

2. Car Stackers – Definitions and History ....................................................................................... 6

2.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 History ................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Mechanical parking systems ....................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Types of mechanical parking systems ................................................................................. 9

Turntable Systems ..................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1

Car Lift Systems ....................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2

Car Stacker Systems ............................................................................................... 10 3.1.3

Dependent Lifting Systems ...................................................................................... 11 3.1.4

Independent Lifting Systems .................................................................................... 11 3.1.5

Comparison: Dependent vs Independent car stacker systems ................................ 13 3.1.6

Fully Automatic Systems .......................................................................................... 13 3.1.7

Benefits .................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.8

3.2 Installation and Maintenance Costs ................................................................................... 14

3.3 Induction Training .............................................................................................................. 15

4. Stakeholder Consultation Key Findings ................................................................................... 16

4.1 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 16

Australian Councils .................................................................................................. 16 4.1.1

Installers ................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.2

Building Manager (Peppers Broadbeach) ................................................................ 16 4.1.3

Body Corporates ...................................................................................................... 17 4.1.4

5. Current City of Gold Coast Situation ........................................................................................ 17

5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 17

5.2 Policies .............................................................................................................................. 20

5.3 Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 21

5.4 Trends ............................................................................................................................... 21

6. Policy Implications for City of Gold Coast ............................................................................... 21

6.1 Policy Implications ............................................................................................................. 21

6.2 Australian Standards ......................................................................................................... 22

7. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 22

7.1 Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 22

33 Adopted Report



7.2 Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 23

Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix One – Responses from Councils ................................................................................ 24

Appendix Two – Example of City of Gold Coast Development Conditions Addressing Car Stacker Requirements ....................................................................................................... 32

34 Adopted Report



1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose

At the City of Gold Coast’s (the City’s) Economy, Planning and Environment (E P & E) Committee Meeting on 5th June 2019 Council’s Environment, Planning and Environment and Transport and Traffic (T & T) teams were asked to undertake an investigation regarding the appropriateness and challenges of car stackers and car lifts to meet the car parking requirements of the City Plan and report back to the Economy, Planning and Environment Committee. The key focus of this paper is to help provide understanding and guidance that informs the City about the use of car stacking parking systems in developments and provides information to the City from stakeholders on their experiences with car stackers.

1.2 Methodology and Scope

The methodology and scope of work included: Feedback from a building manager about their experience with car stackers Input from installers Feedback from some Australian local Councils, including the City, on their experiences with car

stackers Collation and review of Council feedback, including existing data and reference material Literature review Identifying key findings from the research Preparation of a discussion paper for the City

1.3 Background

Initial Investigations 1.3.1

The City’s Planning and Development (South) Committee originally undertook an investigation into ‘stacked parking systems’ through their Transport Planning branch on 8th November 2002. The scope of the investigation was expanded to discuss all types of mechanical parking systems that could provide additional parking capacity through lifting and/or moving systems. The outcome of the investigation was a brief report submitted for discussion at a Council meeting held on 22nd November 2002. Brisbane City Council was contacted for advice in relation to the use of stack parking systems in developments throughout Brisbane from which it was determined that four locations incorporated stack parking systems, including:

the Astor Metropole Hotel on Wickham Terrace; the Royal Albert Hotel and Apartments on the corner of Albert Street and Elizabeth Street; the Inchcolm Hotel on Wickham Terrace; and the K-Tower in Fortitude Valley.

The outcomes confirmed that the main applications for these systems, at that point in time, were for hotels, motels, private clubs and/or parking stations where members of the public hand over their car to an attendant for parking, or the motorist was trained/inducted into using the systems for developments, such as a small office where staff can become familiar with their use.

Glen Holdsworth (TTM Consulting) was also contacted for information on the subject. He was of the view that office and hotel applications were the only suitable development types for implementation of these systems at that point in time.

Five types of mechanical parking systems were looked at in detail in this investigation, including:

1. Dependent Lifting Systems;2. Independent Lifting Systems;3. Independent Lifting and Sliding Systems;4. Pallet Systems; and5. Fully Automated Carousel Systems.

35 Adopted Report



The investigation concluded that for the Gold Coast, the most appropriate mechanical parking systems would be the first two types described above (i.e. dependent or independent systems). However given the limitation of the dependent systems (i.e. the bottom car must be removed to access the top car); consideration should be given to the independent types. The investigation further concluded that these systems should only be used in extreme situations where all other parking alternatives have been exhausted. The stacker parking system should not be implemented solely to facilitate more intense development of a site. Five key recommendations were resolved from the above report which was again reiterated by Council’s City Planning Committee at a meeting held on the 8th May 2006. A Council Decision Action Request was put forward at that meeting in relation to the resolutions from the report which included:

1. Note the report on stack parking systems 2. To restrict the use of stack parking systems in Gold Coast City to only those locations where it can be

demonstrated by the applicant that stack parking is necessary to achieve the parking requirements of the Planning Scheme.

3. That stack parking systems will not be approved as a means to enable additional development to be provided.

4. That stack parking systems will not be approved for situations where they would be accessible by the general public.

5. That the technical details of any stack parking system are to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer, or his delegate.

Bitzios Consulting – Mechanical Parking Systems Study 1.3.2

In 2013, Bitzios Consulting was engaged by the City to undertake a detailed study regarding the implementation and use of mechanical parking systems on the Gold Coast and how it relates to land use planning. Council had previously made resolutions for the use of mechanical parking systems within developments (resolved in 2002 and 2006), but these were not carried through or implemented within the Gold Coast City Planning Scheme. At the time, the City was engaged in a major review of the Car Parking, Access and Transport Integration constraints code, as well as reviewing their official position on the use of mechanical parking systems. The study provided an opportunity to incorporate a formalised position on the use of mechanical parking systems. The study involved a desktop review; incorporating the collation and review of existing relevant material, undertaking a literature review, conducting site visits and looking at recent studies and supplier information. The study results aimed to guide Council policy. The key findings from this study included:

Mechanical parking systems provide developers with an alternative at a constrained site and may provide improved site development viability, resulting in economic, environmental and socio-economic benefits

No Australian Standard to guide the design of Mechanical Parking Systems existed (at the time of the study)

Car stacker parking bays should comply with the Australian Standard AS2890.1 (Parking Facilities – off-street car parking), particularly regarding vehicle dimension requirements

Large scale mechanical parking systems are expensive and may not always be cost effective for developers

Few negative impacts from their implementation and use worldwide have been observed Mechanical parking systems should only be accessed by property owners or tenants due to induction

issues Use of these systems should not be discouraged, due to their greater design flexibility No inherent issues with these systems, particularly if appropriate traffic planning is conducted General rule of thumb – if a car lift is providing access to parking area with more than 25 spaces then

two separate car lifts must be provided, one entry and one exit

36 Adopted Report



Consultations 1.3.3

Various stakeholders were approached for consultation as part of the research for this paper. Input was received from:

City Planning team City Development team Brisbane City Council Moreton Bay Regional Council Sunshine Coast Council North Sydney Council Bayside Council (Sydney) Levantrapark (installer) Hercules Carparking Systems (installer) Building Manager (Peppers Broadbeach – part of Oracle) Strata Community Association

Input was requested, but not received, from:

City of Melbourne Look Up Strata (body corporate). Could not answer specific queries but advised they would follow up

with their stakeholders State Owners Corporation (Body Corporate for South Yarra development)

2. Car Stackers – Definitions and History

2.1 Definitions

Car stacker is a term used to describe a machine for the storage of motor vehicles. Their purpose is to provide more spaces for the storage of vehicles than conventional parking methods would provide. Other overarching terms that are commonly used around the world include the ‘automated parking system’, ‘mechanical parking’ and ‘intelligent parking’.

Types of car stackers vary greatly but in most cases will resemble an elevator structure for a car. The machine enables two or more cars to be parked in the area of a single car space by raising or lowering one vehicle so subsequent vehicles may be parked above or below it.

Typical Car Stacker

37 Adopted Report



2.2 History

The concept for an automated parking system (APS) was and is driven by two factors, a need for parking spaces and a scarcity of available land. The earliest use of an APS was in Paris in 1905 at the Garage Rue de Ponthieu. The APS consisted of a multi-story concrete structure with an internal elevator to transport cars to upper levels where attendants parked the cars.

Garage Rue de Pontieu – early 1900’s

During the 1920s, a Ferris wheel-like APS called a paternoster system became popular as it could park eight cars in the ground space normally used for parking two cars. Mechanically simple with a small footprint, the paternoster was easy to use in many places, including inside buildings.

Patemoster System – 1920’s

38 Adopted Report



At the same time, Kent Automatic Garages was installing systems with capacities exceeding 1,000 cars. The first driverless parking garage opened in 1951 in Washington, D.C., but was replaced with office space due to increasing land values.

APS saw an increasing interest in the U.S. in the late 1940s and 1950s with the Bowser, Pigeon Hole and Roto Park systems. In 1957, 74 Bowser and Pigeon Hole systems were installed. However, interest in APS in the U.S. waned due to frequent mechanical problems and long waiting times for patrons to retrieve their cars. In the United Kingdom, the Auto Stacker opened in 1961 in Woolwich, south east London, but proved equally difficult to operate. Interest in APS in the U.S. was renewed in the 1990s, and as at 2012 there were 25 major current and planned APS projects (representing nearly 6,000 parking spaces).

The first American robotic parking garage opened in 2002 in Hoboken, New Jersey. Europe, Asia and Central America had been installing more technically advanced APS since the 1970s. In the early 1990s, nearly 40,000 parking spaces were being built annually using the APS in Japan. By 2012, there were an estimated 1.6 million APS parking spaces in Japan.

APS Parking – Japan

‘Eco Park’ automated parking systems – Japan

39 Adopted Report



The increasing scarcity of available urban land and increasing numbers of cars in use have combined with sustainability and other quality-of-life issues to renew interest in APS/car stacking as alternatives to multi-storey car parks, on-street parking, and parking lots. Opportunities also now exist to utilise constrained sites where traditional basement car parking may not be feasible. Currently the biggest APS in Europe is the ‘Dokk1’ in Aarhus (Denmark) which was completed in 2015, and provides 1000 parking spaces via 20 car lifts on 4 levels.

‘Dokk1’ – Aarhus – Denmark

3. Mechanical parking systems

3.1 Types of mechanical parking systems

There are three main types of mechanical parking systems, including:

Turntables Car Lifts Car Stackers

The design life of car stackers depends on the manufacturer. For example, Levantapark stackers have a design life of 25-30 years with engineering that ensures the system will last that long if the product is serviced and maintained during this period. Site conditions and proximity to a salty environment can influence this number. Stackers should be hot dip galvanised if located with 1km of a beachfront. Stackers have a minimum 12 month warranty, although extended warranties are available.

levantrapark.com.au

Turntable Systems 3.1.1

Ideal for parking areas. driveways, basements and garages with tight dimensions that lack thenecessary vehicle turning space

Most are suitable for indoor and outdoor areas in most locations Standard maximum weight capacity of approximately 3 tonnes in residential situations but can be

designed for larger vehicles and weight capacities

40 Adopted Report



Approximate diameter of 4.5m for constricted environments, however larger versions exist for longerand heavier vehicles

Suppliers can offer custom designs and dimensions, including double car configurations Can be activated by key and remote control Generally suitable for indoor and outdoor use Can improve parking safety and efficiency Suited to residential, commercial and industrial uses Right and left 360 degree rotation

Examples of turntable systems

Car Lift Systems 3.1.2

Can be used to replace ramps in developments with space restrictions, increasing efficiency and costeffectiveness

Can be installed as either a single or pair Maximum weight of approximately 3000kg Types include hydraulically powered lifts (cheaper but slower) or cable/electric motor lifts

Examples of car lift systems

Car Stacker Systems 3.1.3

There are 3 main types of stacker systems, including:

Dependent Independent Fully Automatic

41 Adopted Report



Dependent Lifting Systems 3.1.4

Generally located at ground level – no pit required to operate Lift capacities can vary, approximately 3200kg for Levanta double stacker lift Minimum platform - Approximately 1.5 x 3.6m Standard platform – Approximately 2.2m x 3.6m Maximum platform – Approximately 2.4m x 3.6m Maximum lifting height of approximately 2.05 m Speed – 0.03m/s Servicing required twice yearly for most models Maintenance typically approximately $220 per space per annum

(Bitzios – Mechanical Parking Systems Study – 2013 and Levanta.com.au)

Dependent lifting systems

Independent Lifting Systems 3.1.5

above ground / below ground construction with “pit” and headroom (dual and triple level systems) any parking position can be accessed without interrupting or moving another vehicle typically are there few issues with queuing and storage service rates and turnaround times are typically 45 seconds – 60 seconds max, however this typically

happens whilst driver is outside of vehicle (i.e. the first car is parked then the system is lowered orraised to enable a smooth entry for the second car. There is little or no impact to other traffic)

maintenance typically occurs twice yearly – condition of install (with most suppliers) and the owner mustenter into a service contract agreement (usually 24 months) for system otherwise warranty could bevoided (approx. $250 per space per annum)

independent systems are very similar to dependent system construction, the key difference lies with pitand location of install, and therefore cost of systems is similar (approx. $6k per space and $12k per dualsystem excluding the construction of the pit. The cost of the pit varies with site conditions but is likely tobe higher than a traditional space due to the need for the base to hold a greater weight. The cost toprovide a pit in a 3rd or 4th level basement car park near a coastline is generally not viable due to thedepth of concrete required to support the stacked parking loads

suitable for residential and commercial developments – for tenants use only (not for visitors use) tenants operating systems must be trained / inducted for use (instructions erected above control panel); a range of different dimensions are available

42 Adopted Report



Independent lifting system

Variants of the independent lifting system include:

Independent lifting/sliding systems

Include above and below ground options Cars on bottom level shift to one side to allow car from upper level to be lowered and removed Used at various use locations, including commercial, hotels, parking garages

Independent lifting/sliding system

Pallet Sliding Systems

Optimises use of space Uses electric motor to shift pallets so underutilised areas can be used Typical uses include parking garages, underground parking, hotels, commercial offices, office buildings

43 Adopted Report



Independent Pallet Sliding systems

.

Comparison: Dependent vs Independent car stacker systems 3.1.6

Dependent Independent

Use is dependent on lower vehicle being moved to enable other car to enter or leave the stacker

Doesn’t depend on any vehicles being moved, enabling any vehicle to enter or leave the stacker independently

No pit required Most require a pit

Could be beneficial for commercial operations – team members working similar shifts

n/a

Workable if 2-3 car spaces allocated to each residential unit

Essential if residential development has only one car space per owner/tenant

Floor to ceiling heights should match for both types Floor to ceiling heights should match for both types

Can be retrofitted Difficult to retrofit

More affordable Less affordable

levantapark.com.au

Fully Automatic Systems 3.1.7

Can be built above or below ground Numerous products available Can accommodate large numbers of cars (for example, Klaus Multiparking have systems for between 5-

150 cars) A single parking space provides access to a larger multi-level parking structure Vehicle dimensions – 5.2m x 2.15m x 1.6m height (approximate) Some systems can find the appropriately sized park for a larger vehicle Weight – 2500kg Costly to construct Limited use in Australia

44 Adopted Report



Fully automatic systems

Benefits 3.1.8

In addition to the space saving, many car stacker designs can provide a number of secondary benefits:

The parked cars and their contents are more secure since there is generally no public access Minor parking damage such as scrapes and dents are lessened Drivers and passengers are safer not having to walk through parking lots or garages Driving around in search of a parking space is eliminated, thereby reducing engine emissions Only minimal ventilation and lighting systems are needed Disabled persons access is improved The volume and visual impact of the parking structure is minimized Shorter construction time

3.2 Installation and Maintenance Costs

The costs of installing car stackers can vary significantly depending on their type and each unit is costed for each individual project. For example, according to Levantapark, a dependent stacker can generally be installed for around $15k (excl GST) for 2 car spaces. An automatic car stacker will cost on average up to $50 – 60k per car space, depending on design. Annual maintenance service costs can vary significantly depending on the number of units per site and the product type use. For car stackers the pricing will vary between $180 and $600 per car space per annum and $1150 - $2000 per service for car lifts.

Independent systems are very similar to the dependent system construction; the difference lies with the additional pit and location of install, therefore the cost of systems are similar per dual system excluding the construction of the pit. The cost of the pit varies with site conditions but is likely to be higher than a traditional space due to the need for the base to hold a greater weight.

Maintenance for independent systems typically occurs twice yearly – as a condition of install (with most suppliers) and the owner must enter into a service contract agreement (usually 24 months) for system otherwise warranty could be voided (approx. $250 per space per annum).

Source: levantapark.com.au

According to Hercules Parking Systems, standard maintenance for a car stacker is around $490 per year and $3000 for car lifts per year. However, these prices can vary depending on the number of spaces in the machine and how many stops the car lift travels.

Source: Hercules Parking Systems

45 Adopted Report



3.3 Induction Training

There is no legislative requirement to have an induction but the Australian Standard (AS5124) says:

7.1.5 Training a) Where the training of parking equipment attendants has been deemed necessary the program of this trainingshall be included in the instructions.b) Where the training of users has been deemed necessary the programme of this training shall be included inthe instructions.

When a new user started using a car parking system, he/she must be comfortable and confident operating the machine. Importantly, they must also be aware of safety considerations. Different systems accommodate different sizes of vehicles, so it is important that the dimensions get checked before attempt to access the car space.

Some building managers have been made aware of body corporates/owners corporations having included an induction in the tenancy agreement, similar to the example below.

46 Adopted Report



4. Stakeholder Consultation Key Findings

4.1 Key Findings

Australian Councils 4.1.1

Transport and Traffic contacted several Australian local Councils to ascertain their background and experiences with car stacking/car lift parking systems. Key findings have been included below. Full responses have been complied at Appendix One.

No car stacker feasibility studies could be sourced from the other Australian Councils who wereapproached

In general, car stackers have not been permitted in non - residential developments Larger independent stackers are preferred as they generally comply with Australian Standards Stackers can make good use of vertical and horizontal space in constrained sites (such as narrow

frontages) and can make parking workable without the need for ramps and traditional parking Some Councils have anecdotally observed unit owners and tenants purchasing on-street parking

permits rather than using their allocated car stacker In NSW and Victoria, some Councils have car stacker clauses/provisions in their Development Control

Plans and appear further ahead in this space than Queensland Councils Service costing varies significantly depending on the number of units per site and the product type use.

For car stackers the pricing will vary between $180 – 600 per car space per annum and $1150 – $2000per service for car lifts

Brisbane City Council (BCC) has relatively few examples of car stacker developments Data on car stacker developments varies in detail and accuracy between Councils. In general,

quantifiable Council information is currently challenging to obtain Queensland Councils that were contacted note low numbers of car stacker solutions in development

applications and consider such applications on a case by case basis. These Councils do not havespecific policies and provisions

Most Councils prefer other parking solutions for residential developments except where no other optionsare available

Early car stacker installations have had numerous issues, mainly related to a lack of space for largervehicles and maintenance problems

Developments must ensure that required vehicle access standards are met, so that larger vehicles cansafely use car stackers

Car stackers proposed to be installed outdoors are not supported as they can be damaged by rain/wind Some Councils have provided conditions of consent. See Appendices for details.

Installers 4.1.2

Installation costs might vary given the different systems available and that every development is unique.Costing of car stacker varies significantly and each unit is costed for each individual project. Adependent stacker can generally be installed for around $15K + GST (2 car spaces) while an Automaticcar stacker will cost on average up to $50 – 60K per car spaces depending on design.

Australian Standards were launched in 2017. AS5124:2017 (Safety of Machinery – Equipment forpower driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing,erection and commissioning stages). Installers must meet these standards

Building Manager (Peppers Broadbeach) 4.1.3

Larger vehicles, especially SUV’s, have trouble accessing car stackers. The installer must be madeaware of SUV size specifications early on

Many apartment owners are reluctant to use stackers – prospective unit buyers have pulled out whentold the unit has a car stacker

Electric cars requiring charging can cause problems due to equipment/cabling required

47 Adopted Report



Charges for stacker use are included in levies. The Peppers Broadbeach contract agreement is $220 +GST per park per annum. This contract was renewed 2 years ago so this rate has had 2 CPI increasessince then. Owners without stackers get charged the same in levies as those with stackers.

All owners are allocated parking spots, with some units allocated parking spots in the stacker at thedevelopment stage

Currently, some insurers won’t insure cars parked on stackers Induction training for unit owners is required, ruling out holiday unit rent outs Currently, some hire companies won’t allow cars on car stackers Stackers cannot be manually manipulated in a power outage. Generator back-up is required Stackers work slowly, so require patience from users A detailed register of stacker users need to be kept. If one car does not park correctly all other cars on

the same stacker are stuck as the safety sensor won’t release, everyone who has a stacker needs to becontacted

Car stacker training and induction is not a complex process for owners/tenants Overall, car stackers work effectively in larger developments with few issues or incidents

Body Corporates 4.1.4

Little information could be sourced from the body corporate/strata companies that were contacted about fees and rates for car stackers. The Strata Community Association (SCA) advised of the following issues the City might face when trying to find information on standardised fees:--

Not all stacking systems use the same mechanisms and therefore it is difficult to establish day to dayrunning costs and the long term asset replacement provision

Not all car par requirements are the same, i.e. vertical stacking versus circular stacking Variances between stacking below ground level versus above ground stacking

5. Current City of Gold Coast Situation

5.1 Overview

According to the City Development team, between October 2006 and January 2019, Council have assessed approximately 25 applications that have at some point included variations of the car stacker or car lift systems. Of these, 8 applications have either been constructed or are being constructed. Details of the development applications, provided by City Development, can be found in the table below. It is noted that the development application at 9 Nyrang Avenue, Palm Beach (Council reference PN21237/01/DA1) is currently in appeal and not included in the table below.

Address and Reference Proposed Land Use Car Stacker/lift details

111 Scarborough Street, Southport

PN32435/01/DA1 – not constructed

Multiple Dwellings & ShortTerm Accommodation (80units) & Food & DrinkOutlet

Parking provided onlyby car lift system inbasement and podium

48 Old Burleigh Road, Surfers Paradise

PN63647/01/DA1 – Not constructed

Multiple Dwellings (38units) & Shop

Visitor parking providedat ground level withresidents parkingprovided in 4 levelbasement

48 Adopted Report



78 Brisbane Road, Labrador


Apartments (20 units) Car parking provided inbasement with 10 unitsprovided with carstacker system

502 Marine Parade, Biggera Waters

PN11571/01/DA2 – Currently under construction

Multiple dwellings (4 units) Originally approved for7 units and utilised carstacker system atbasement level. Currentplans have removed carstacker system

3496 Main Beach Parade, Main Beach

PN328689/01/DA1 - Not constructed

Multiple dwellings andShort term accommodation(162 units)

All car parking(including visitors)provided via car liftsystem over 6 levelbasement

2 Teemangum Street, Tugun


Apartment (8 units) Car parking provided inbasement with 3 unitsprovided with carstacking system

780 Pacific Parade, Currumbin

PN316/01/DA2 – Currently being assessed

Multiple dwellings (4 units) Car parking provided inundercroft/basementlevel with each unitprovided with carstacker system

185 Old Burleigh Road, Broadbeach


Multiple dwellings (59units)

Visitor parking providedon ground level andowner/tenant parkingprovided via car liftsystem over 4 levelbasement

4 Archer Street, Bilinga

PN6022/01/DA1 – Constructed

Apartments (18 units) Car parking inbasement with 6 unitsprovided with carstacker system

163 Scarborough Street, Southport

PN32595/01/DA1 – Not

Multiple dwellings (8 units)and Food & Drink outlet

Car parking provided onground level via carstacker system(underground)

49 Adopted Report



constructed

3 Central Street, Labrador


Multiple dwellings & Shortterm accommodation (55units)

8 dependentstackers/lift/slide stacker

64 Davenport Street, Southport

PN33203/01//DA3 – Under construction

Health care services andcaretakers residence

21 spaces provided viacar stacker system

39 spaces provided atground level

96 Pacific Parade, Bilinga

PN6004/01/DA1 – Under construction

Multiple dwellings (6 units) Car parking provided inbasement via carstacker system

20 Shillito Street, Southport


Multiple dwellings (17units)

24 car spaces proposedat ground level with fiveto have car stackerarrangement forresidential units

12 Falkinder Ave, Surfers Paradise


Apartments (2 units) Originally proposed 4car stacker system foroffices and apartments.However, minor changeapplication reconfiguredlayout, removing carstackers

3552 Main Beach Parade, Main Beach


Apartments (24 storeys, 36units)

Initially included car liftsystem to accessparking on mezzanineand first floors

Amendments removedabove ground level carlift system and included2 car stackers onground level

128 Brisbane Road, Labrador


Low impact industry (Lawnmower & Motor cyclerepairs) and a Showroom

Three car stackersprovided for staffparking only

947 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach

Multiple dwellings (6 units) Majority of the 14residential parkingspaces accessed via

50 Adopted Report




underground car stacker system

25 Second Ave, Broadbeach


Apartments (6 units) Car parking, for 6 units,provided in basementvia car stacker system

21 Cypress Ave, Surfers Paradise


11 storey Mixed UseDevelopment comprisingtwo (2) ground floortenancies suitable for useas a Shop or Café, andOffice building above

11 of 56 car parkingspaces provided via carstackers

1408 Gold Coast Highway, Palm Beach


Apartments (7 units) Parking in basement – 6units provided with carstacker system

197-199 Jefferson Lane, PalmBeach


Apartment Buildingcontaining six (6)residential units

All seven units providedwith car stacking system

91 High Street, Southport


Apartments (18 units) Twelve of eighteen unitsprovided with carstacking system

34 Nerang St, Nerang

PN117558/01 – Constructed

Office Sixteen spacesprovided via car stackersystem

Oracle Development – Charles Ave, Broadbeach


Mixed use development 1016 total parkingspaces over 3basement levels

Basement level 3providing car stackersfor residentialdevelopments

NOTE: 9 Nyrang Ave., Palm Beach (PN1237/01/DA1) has not been included in the list as it is currently in

appeal.

5.2 Policies

There are no specific car stacker/car lift policies in the current City Plan. The City Development team consider three main issues when assessing development applications that incorporate car stackers/car lifts.

51 Adopted Report



1) The development doesn’t create queuing from the building out into the road network2) The manufacturer can demonstrate that the car stacker configuration can fit within the development3) The standard vehicle (B99) meets the Australian Standard AS 2890.1 and can fit within the

development

5.3 Conditions

As part of the standard development conditions there are four conditions that relate specifically to the type of system required for the development.

Fully automated off street parking facility Off street mechanical car stacker Off street car lift Off street ramp signal management system

Examples of these conditions can be found at Appendix Two.

The City Development team also assess other matters, including the potential amenity impacts of a mechanical car parking system (e.g. noise and visual amenity). The City may include detailed development conditions requiring acoustic report compliance and the implementation of visual screening devices. An example exists at 9 Nyrang Avenue, Palm Beach (PN21237/01/DA1).

5.4 Trends

Of the City’s twenty five development applications listed above, six were approved from 2006-13 and eighteen were approved from 2014 – 2018 with one application currently being assessed. Between 2009 and 2013 one application was approved. From 2015 – 2018 between two and four car stacker applications have been approved each year.

6. Policy Implications for City of Gold Coast

6.1 Policy Implications

In general, mechanical parking policies and provisions adopted by other Australian local Councils tend to support the use of mechanical car parking systems in circumstances where:

Their requested use is residential where conventional parking options are not possible or feasible The parking spaces are in the same ownership or strata lot Their usage does not exceed regulated noise levels There is adequate room for standard vehicles under AS2890.1

As mentioned previously, the majority of Councils that were approached did not have specific policies and regulations relating to mechanical parking systems. This is particularly the case in Queensland, where the local Councils all tend to consider each application on a case by case basis. Some Council elsewhere in Australia, particularly in NSW and Victoria, where car stacking has been more prevalent due to greater space restrictions, have incorporated policies into their development control plans. These Councils include:

Wollongong North Sydney Canterbury Bankstown Woollahra

52 Adopted Report



6.2 Australian Standards

Up until recently there was no Australian Standard for mechanical parking systems. However, in February 2017, Standards Australia launched a new standard around the safe design, manufacture, erection, and commissioning of power driven car parking; this standard is known as AS5124:2017 (Safety of Machinery – Equipment for power driven parking of motor vehicles – Safety and EMC requirements for Design, manufacturing, erection and commissioning stages). This standard has been adopted from the European standard EN14010, and serves as an important guideline for ensuring a minimum level of quality, reliability, and safety for parking systems in Australia.

AS5124:2017 covers:

hydraulic, mechanical and electrical installation of equipment Supply and installation procedures for manual or automatic systems Commissioning procedures and maintenance protocols

The recent launching of AS5124 has closed a gap that previously existed (and which was noted in the Bitzios 2013 report) regarding the inability for developments to comply with appropriate any Australian Standards because they did not exist. If followed correctly, this new standard is a primary checkpoint and should in turn lessen the potential risk of unsafe/untested mechanical parking systems being supplied and installed.

In order to comply with AS5124, each system design must undergo intensive testing by a third-party body and be certified as compliant. Only equipment that has been certified by a trusted independent body can be said to comply with AS5124.

While AS 5124 provides a minimum standard for the parking system, such installations must still meet the minimum requirements of AS2890.1. Standard car sizes, car park access, safe distances for ingress/egress of vehicles and swept paths are just a few of the considerations which also apply to automated car parking.

Some Councils (such as Campbelltown in Sydney) are already requiring Car Stacker Management Plans to be prepared and endorsed as part of planning permits which ensure that systems are serviced and maintained.

7. Summary

7.1 Challenges

Car stackers are generally not supported by most Councils unless no other options are available

Owners and tenants often prefer standard car parks rather than car stackers, as they are seen as

less convenient

Larger vehicle (SUV) access needs to be incorporated into building design, as larger vehicle

access has been an issue in older developments around Australia

NSW and Victoria currently appear to have more rigour in their development controls

Many Councils do not have readily accessible car stacker data

Previous studies are scarce, information is often anecdotal in nature

Body Corporate experiences have been difficult to source

Install and maintenance costs vary widely due to the various options available

53 Adopted Report



7.2 Opportunities

A wide range of car stacker options exist for developers

Overall, car stackers work well in larger developments with few issues or incidents

Car stackers make good use of vertical and horizontal space in constrained sites and can make car

parking workable without the need for ramps and traditional parking

Australian Standards (AS5124:2017) launched in 2017,which should assist in better installation

practices and lessen maintenance issues

The building manager at Peppers Broadbeach is willing to allow a site visit by City staff, if deemed

necessary

Larger independent stackers are preferred as they generally comply with Australian Standards

The City now includes include permanent residential applications as options for car stackers

54 Adopted Report


Car Stackers Discussion Paper Page 24 of 33

Appendices

Appendix One – Responses from Councils

Brisbane City Council

Brisbane City Council (BCC) advised that the operational concerns and issues listed below are general practical matters that BCC’s engineering officers in Development Services take into consideration when an application is received or when dealing with car parking as part of a DA pre-lodgement meeting. BCC does not have a formal written policy dealing specifically with car stackers at this time in part because few development proposals received include them. It should be noted that the views expressed may not necessarily reflect BCC’s policy position or Council stance.

According to feedback received from Council officers at Brisbane City Council (BCC), they have only seen a very small number of car stacker solutions in development applications. BCC’s development services team considers each application on a case by case basis based on the applicable performance outcomes and overall outcomes in the relevant City Plan codes and supported by planning scheme policies.

Considerations specific to land use (as a general rule):

o Student Accommodation – generally not suitable unless there is on-site managemento Residential – body corporate management plan is requiredo Commercial – only suitable for a single operator with a management plan in placeo Retail – car stackers are considered to be unsuitable for this use

Operational issues that should be considered:

Maximum operational time – from start to end of the worst-case cycle. Not just the average cycle time. Peak hour queue length to be contained within the site. Management process for the car stacker. Management process when the lift is not functional. Loading and unloading set down area for cars waiting to enter and exit at the car stacker. This includes

ensuring adequate space around the vehicle. Visitor parking should not be included in the stacker facility. Access to underground car stackers. Access to vehicles parked in the car stacker. Public liability - who is permitted to operate the car stacker? Visitor parking must be separate from residential/commercial parking

Car stacker performance considerations:

Type of car storage system proposed. Maximum operational times to and from the parking space. Peak vehicle queue lengths within the site. Impact of the facility on the road network. Management process when using the system – who has priority? Visitor parking should not be included in the stacking area. Provision of parking areas for loading and offloading prior/when to entering/leaving a stacker Issues such as resident resistance to using stacker parking and creating on-street parking demands

need to be addressed. Sufficient loading zones must be provided for residents to unload from vehicles before stacking the

vehicle. Access to vehicles on stackers when stacker doesn’t work. Temporary vehicle parking of cars when stacker isn’t working Access to the vehicles within a stacker.

55 Adopted Report



Temporary storage of vehicle/s while accessing other vehicles on stacker. Public liability - who is permitted to use the stacker. A comparison of operational costs including ongoing expenses with a normal basement excavation. Management of student accommodation parking in stackers will require some form of staffing due to the

randomness of the parking demand. Structural integrity of building to take stacker;

a. Above - head heightb. Below - impact on floor below stacker due to possible:

i. increased concrete slab depthii. capstones on columnsiii. larger columns requirediv. increased number of columnsv. columns put closer together

c. Around - footprint and ancillary services:i. hydraulic ramsii. location of stacker controlsiii. hydraulic reservoir tanks

What happens if motorist’s vehicle is too large for stacker? Ongoing maintenance liability – strata or individual unit owner (owner occupier vs landlord) Car stackers should have a time restriction and be signed clearly. It is not possible for this to occur on-

street.

Consideration should also be given to emerging and future trends, including appropriate accommodation for car share vehicles and compatibility with charging infrastructure for electric vehicles (which will become increasingly common over the life of the building based on 2019 trends).

BCC’s City Council’s Development Services Branch is aware of 4 examples of car stackers in operation in Brisbane. Anecdotally there are other small-scale examples associated with detached dwellings in Brisbane.

1. 167 Elizabeth St, Brisbane Cityo This is the only installation that Council has inspected in operation. It is a one up and one down (pit)

system with no known issues.

2. 237 Barry Parade, Fortitude Valleyo Principal centre (City centre) zoneo This is a two-level stacker system that is quite common. In some cases these could be retro-fit in an

existing car park without a DA except where approved parking is conditioned as a defined number,as long as there is sufficient height clearance between floors to overhead slab fixtures as indicatedin the image below. It should be noted that parking rates in City Plan include maximum rates in theCBD and minimum rates in the City frame and at suburban locations. Parking numbers are typicallya condition of most approvals.

56 Adopted Report



3. 29A [31] Lambert Rd, Indooroopillyo Medium density residential zoneo Retro-fit type two-level stacker with insufficient basement height clearance, resulting in this

outcome:

Insufficient basement height for a two level stacker

4. 24 Wicklow Street, Kangaroo Point – Multiple dwelling A004902452o High Density Residential (up to 15 storeys) zoneo Kangaroo Point Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan – Residential precinct – NNP-001

57 Adopted Report



o Lift and slide basement stacker system accessed from a car lift. Details of the system and approvedplans and conditions can be accessed via PDOnline. This is a relatively new installation that hasn’tbeen observed in operation by Council.

Considerations specific to land use (as a general rule) o Student Accommodation – generally not suitable unless there is on-site managemento Residential – body corporate management plan is requiredo Commercial – only suitable for a single operator with a management plan in placeo Retail – car stackers are considered to be unsuitable for this use

BCC: Issues/Concerns:

BCC’s Development Services team advised that ongoing maintenance and operational issues are a major concern for the administration, particularly in suburban scale developments and advise that:

o Car stackers need to be maintained to ensure ongoing compliance with approval conditions,particularly where they are required to ensure that a minimum number of spaces are provided

o Car stackers have the potential to reduce construction costs, however the cost of ongoingmaintenance is passed on to the body corporate and future owners

o Small scale stackers located within individual parking spaces need to be adequately maintained

Operation (including hours of operation) needs to be compatible with other planning considerations – noise impacts on residents and neighbours, general amenity and potential queuing issues.

Sunshine Coast Council

Sunshine Coast Council (Council) have only assessed one application that proposes car stackers as a parking solution. This was a 2010 development at 4 Cooma Tce Caloundra which was approved but did not proceed to construction. Council’s Planning Officer, Engineer and Environmental Health Officers attended a site inspection in South Brisbane to view working examples of the car stackers. At this site inspection, it was determined that the car stackers are quiet, easy to use and would be appropriate to endorse and approve the proposed multiple dwelling development in Caloundra. An illustration of the proposed car stackers is provided below.

58 Adopted Report



Council are not aware of any new developments that have proposed a car stacker system. According to Council, the reasons are that basements and podium spaces need to have a higher head height clearance, increasing construction costs and impacting on yield. The net benefit is therefore not always achieved, unless in the right situation.

Council have no specific regulations or policies relating to car stacking parking systems. Any applications received that propose such systems are assessed individually on an as-needs basis. Council are willing to approve such developments if they meet their requirements.

Moreton Bay Regional Council

Advice received from Moreton Bay Regional Council was they do not assess many applications requiring some form of car stacker parking solution as lesser land values within their Council area than more populated areas make them a less cost beneficial option for developers.

Similarly to Sunshine Coast Council, Moreton Bay Regional Council has no specific regulations or policies relating to car stacking parking systems. Any applications received that propose such systems are assessed individually on an as-needs basis. Council are willing to approve such developments if they meet their requirements. Examples of required approval conditions include the mitigation of any noise impacts, inclusion of a failsafe generator and ensuring that all body corporate obligations are met.

North Sydney Council

North Sydney Council were contacted and provided the following feedback:

Mechanical lifts are far more common in their Local Government Area (LGA) than car stackers

Council has a number of developments in their LGA with car stacking parking systems installed butdoes not have any additional specific data or statistics available

Council has noted an upward trend in development applications received over the last five years whichmay correlate to an increase in car stacker applications

Council were made aware anecdotally of some issues over time with mechanical car stackers and liftsthat were installed and aren’t large enough to accommodate a B85 dimensioned vehicle. For morerecent DAs Council recommended the following conditions:

o That prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, evidence be provided to the satisfaction ofthe Certifying Authority that the mechanical car lift or the mechanical car stacker has a minimumservice rate of X vehicles per hour (in and out combined movements), and has a minimumheight clearance of 2200mm.

As a result of the B85 accommodation issues, impacted residents had to apply for local parking permits,lessening available on-street parking in the LGA

Private certifiers provide the certifications are required, usually as a standard development condition

The main reference used is section 10.3.2 of their Development Control Plan which notes car stackersshould be used as a last resort. The following comments are typically included by Council’s TrafficEngineers:

o The use of a car lift should always be the last alternative for vehicular access. With anyvehicular lift, there are concerns that the residents will chose not to use the lift because of thetime delay and inconvenience, and this will place demands on the on-streetparking. Particularly if residents are returning home for only a short time, it is likely that they willnot “bother” with the inconvenience of the vehicle lift. Further, car stackers by their very natureare highly mechanical systems, which make them highly likely to break down.

59 Adopted Report



Bayside Council (Sydney)

Bayside Council were contacted and provided the following information.

Bayside have not undertaken any research on car stackers Pros – can make good use of vertical and horizontal space (especially in constrained sites) and car lifts

can make some sites work for parking that would otherwise be unworkable having ramps/traditional parking. Could be very effective when done well.

Cons – generally only the larger stackers are accepted as they generally comply with Australian Standards, small undersized stackers and mechanical systems which can’t accommodate all vehicles (e.g.: SUVs) are not viewed in good light and often refused. Insufficient headroom is often a major issue as many developers install the smallest stacker. Queuing analysis can indicate problematic design outcomes.

Cons - When proposed out in the open as they will not work well when subject to nature (e.g.: rain & flooding) and are not supported in those instances. Also a con is that they aren’t well suited to short stay parking but are rarely ever proposed in those instances anyway, for it to work in short term parking a much quicker mechanical system is needed which is largely automatic and provides convenient independent access.

Breakdowns – Bayside impose conditions for the mechanic systems to be maintained regularly (positive covenant as well) but yes they will likely eventually fail. I haven’t dealt with these issues as of yet and it would likely be a complicated matter as to ownership of the mechanical system and who is to repair it?

Due to limited on street residents prefer a guaranteed parking spot within the stacker. If people were forced to park on street and create issues there as a result of broken/failing car stacking systems the positive covenant could allow for council to come in and require them to be repaired

Body corporate issues suggested could relate to needs to repair the mechanical facility in certain instances. It could have a pit and be used by two different people.

Number of applications and reasons for implementation

According to Bayside, applications are approaching triple figures (100) with others in the pipeline. They are most predominantly located in large scale residential developments

The locations vary (from town centres to commercial cores to areas which happen to have small allotments or site constraints and could be nowhere near a town centre) Reasons for their implementation are often due to:

Modifications to existing approvals – various reasons they are introduced. Site constraints where it is necessary to implement them in order to get the numerical

parking bays (car lifts, mechanical turntables & traffic signals are often chosen for constrained sites)

A lot of hotel developments recently have proposed it, likely due to site constraints

Some fully automatic car shuffle storage systems have been proposed, none yet approved.

Improved use of space where vertical clearance is available or where better use of horizontal space is anticipated.

60 Adopted Report



Development conditions/Policies

Bayside does not have any car stacker specific development conditions or policies. Car stackers are usually assessed in regards to Australian Standard 2890.1 and require manufacturer’s specifications to be provided during DA assessment.

Some conditions of consent include:

Mechanical Parking Systems

Prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifier must ensure that an Operation and Management Plan has been prepared and implemented for the [mechanical turntable, car lift and/or car stacker].

The Plan must set out the following, at a minimum:

(a) The proposed maintenance regime, specifying that the system is to be regularly inspected and checkedby qualified practitioners, and(b) The proposed method of management of the facility, including procedures, directions to users, safetyprotection systems, emergency response plan in the event of mechanical failure, etc, and(c) Any person required to operate the parking system must be trained to do so.

The Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified professional and provided to the Principal Certifier prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, The design of the mechanical parking device/s proposed must address the following criteria:

a) Ensure operating noise and vibration levels are limited to acceptable levels in accordance withappropriate standards and any plant equipment is housed in noise attenuating housing asrequired/appropriate.

b) Provide manufacturer specifications.

c) Provide operational details/management plan of the entire facility, demonstrating safe and functionalaccess for all users, including details of safety protection systems for users and non-users.

The design must be certified by a suitably qualified Civil Engineer and be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Terms and Conditions of the Positive Covenant

The registered proprietor covenants as follows with the council in respect to the Mechanical Parking System as shown on plans approved filed with DA-2014/2 by the Council (hereinafter called 'the system').

1. Registered Proprietor will

a. Keep the system clean and free of rubbish and debris;

b. Maintain, renew and repair the whole or parts of the system so that it functions in a safe and efficient matter;

c. Carry out the matters referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) at the proprietor's expense;

d. Not make any alterations to the system or elements thereof without prior consent in writing of the Council;

61 Adopted Report



e. Permit the Council of its authorised agents from time to time upon giving reasonable notice (but at any timeand without notice in the case of an emergency) to enter and inspect the system for compliance with therequirements of this clause;

f. Comply with the terms on any written notice issued by the Council in respect to the requirements of this clausewithin the time stated on the notice.

2. In the event of the registered proprietor failing to comply with the terms of any written notice served in respectof the matters in Clause 1 the Council of its authorised agents my enter with all necessary equipment and carryout any work required to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the system and recover from the registeredproprietor the cost of liaison with the proprietor and the cost of carrying out the work, and if necessary, recoverthe amount due by legal proceedings (including legal cost and fees) and entry of a covenant charge on the landunder Section 88F of the Conveyancing Act 1919. In carrying out any work under this clause, the Council shalltake reasonable precautions to ensure that the land is disturbed as little as possible.

Name of the Authority Empowered to Release, Vary or Modify Covenant:

62 Adopted Report



Appendix Two – Example of City of Gold Coast Development Conditions Addressing Car Stacker Requirements

Fully automated off street parking facility

a Design, construct, implement and maintain a fully automated off street car parking system and end of trip facilities at no cost to Council generally in accordance with the Transport code of the City Plan and include in particular:

Insert details here that are unique to this proposal. Examples might be:

i Accommodate B99 vehicles of a 2 metre height as defined in AS2890.1.

ii A minimum of XX car parking spaces for residents and XX car parking spaces for visitors.

iii A maximum of XX bicycle parking spaces for residents.

iv A service rate capable of achieving storage/retrieval of a minimum of XX vehicles per hour.

v Provide uninhibited access to the system for visitors. Any doors/shutters securing access to the parking system must open automatically upon approach by a vehicle.

vi Provide manual access to the parking system, without the need for a vehicle to trigger door opening, to enable storage/retrieval of bicycles from within the system. Manual control may be provided by way of a call button, or similar.

vii A minimum queuing provision of X vehicle lengths (XX metres) must be provided on-site, prior to the automated parking system. To ensure that queuing provision is maintained, there shall be no security gates (or similar access-control devices), installed prior to the automated parking system.

viii The control panel to operate the system must be located in direct proximity to the vehicle entry/exit room and if not located within line of sight, signage to direct users to its location must be provided.

ix A turntable must be incorporated within the parking system to ensure all vehicles exit the site in a forward gear, unless provision is made (independent of the parking system) to turn around on-site.

x Car parking within the system must be provided free of charge to residents and bona fide visitors.

xi A maintenance contract must demonstrate that a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week break-down service is provided and that all reasonable endeavours are undertaken to ensure that system breakdowns are repaired within a reasonable timeframe.

b Provide clearly identified signage and directional markings including:

i Signage, visible to drivers on entry to the site, advising that visitor parking is provided within an automated system and directing visitors to proceed towards the automated parking system (or hold line).

ii Dynamic signage, visible on approach to the automated parking system, advising drivers as to the number of visitor parking spaces available.

iii A hold line, prior the automated parking system, and dynamic signage advising drivers to stop at the hold line on a red signal, or to enter the system on a green signal.

iv Automated instructions within the parking system to guide drivers into position and to direct drivers to exit the vehicle.

v Signage, within the system visible to drivers identifying the location of the pedestrian exit door and parking system control panel.

vi Instructions at the location of the control panel to direct users to operate the system.

vii Signage to identify the two car parking spaces located on Lower Ground Levels as ‘Vehicle Turn-Around and Short Term Parking – 5 minutes max’.

viii Signage located next to the control panel advising residents that the two parking spaces located on Lower Ground Level are for the purpose of loading/unloading goods and/or passengers from vehicles prior to entering the automated parking system.

Maintain the off street vehicle and parking facilities at no cost to Council at all times.

Off street mechanical car stacker

a Design, construct, implement and maintain a mechanical car stacker system at no cost to Council prior to commencement of the use, generally in accordance with the Transport code of the City Plan and include in particular:


i Car stacker systems are to be installed in the location/s generally shown on the approved drawings.

63 Adopted Report



ii Car stacker systems must be an independent type, so a vehicle can ingress and egress independently to any other vehicle.

iii Car stacker systems must accommodate B99 vehicles of a 2 metre height as defined in AS2890.1.

iv Car stacker systems must only be accessible and made available for use to staff/residents.

v Information must be displayed in a prominent location adjacent to the car stackers detailing the operation and maintenance procedures.

vi Users must be inducted on how to safely operate the car stackers.

The clearance height within the stacker system must be displayed at the entrance to the stacker system.

Off street car lift

a Design, construct, implement and maintain a car lift system at no cost to Council prior to commencement of the use, generally in accordance with the Transport code of the City Plan and include in particular:


i Accommodate a B99 vehicle of a 2 metre height as defined in AS2890.1.

ii Operate in a way that does not result in vehicles queuing into the public road and gives priority to vehicles entering the site.

iii The constructed lifts must have an average operating speed of not less than #m/s.

The lifts must default to ground floor (unless otherwise called from another floor) during the time of X to X

to provide increased capacity for incoming vehicles.

Off street ramp signal management system

b Design, construct, implement and maintain a signalised ramp management system at no cost to Council prior to commencement of the use, generally in accordance with the Transport code of the City Plan and include in particular:


i The ramp signal management system must be installed on the location/s generally shown on the approved drawings.

ii Vehicles entering the site must be given priority to avoid queuing to the public road.

iii Vehicle detectors must be installed to detect vehicles entering the site prior to the ramp and any security gate at all other levels prior to the ramp for each direction of travel.

iv Signal lanterns to be provided for all vehicle directions prior to the associated ramp, clearly indicating movement, such as green/red coloured signals and may include Stop/Go wording.

Vehicle waiting hold lines to be provided with line of sight to signal lanterns for all vehicle directions prior to

the associated ramp allowing opposing vehicles to pass without conflict.

64 Adopted Report



65 Adopted Report


ATTACHMENT 2 (1 of 4): EXAMPLES OF POLICIES FROM OTHER COUNCILS ADDRESSING MECHANICAL PARKING SYSTEMS

Wollongong City Council

The following is an excerpt from the Wollongong Council Development Control Plan 2009 Chapter E3: Car Parking, Access, Servicing/Loading Facilities and Traffic Management:

“7.9 Mechanical Parking Systems

1. The use of mechanical parking systems will only be considered in cases where it canbe demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that the provision of conventional carparking (ie either at-grade or basement car parking) is not appropriate given inherentsite constraints and the proposed mechanical parking system is not a result of anoverdevelopment of the site.

2. Mechanical parking systems may provide for more space-efficient storage of vehiclesthan can be achieved with traditional at-grade parking. However, mechanical stackedcar parking systems will only be considered to meet the car parking needs of owners /tenants only. Mechanical stacked car parking will not be supported for shared use orfor visitor parking.

3. Where it is proposed to incorporate a mechanical parking system within adevelopment, the following information is required, as part of a Car Parking / TrafficImpact Assessment Study:

(a) The company make and model of the proposed mechanical car parkingstacking system;

(b) A demonstrated need for the system, including reasons why parking cannotbe satisfactorily provided in an at-grade parking arrangement;

(c) Demonstrated compliance with all relevant clauses of AS2890.1;

(d) A demonstrated minimum internal headroom clearance of 1.90m in the entrylevel of the system;

(e) A demonstrated minimum internal vertical clearance of 1.55m on all otherlevels within the parking system;

(f) Details of security measures restricting the use of the system to owners /permanent residents of the building only (e.g. security key pads);

(g) Details of noise and vibration associated with the use of the system;

(h) Details of a waiting bay, demonstrating that vehicles can safely andconveniently wait at the entry level for other vehicles to manoeuvre to or fromthe parking system. Waiting bays must be designed so as to not obstructtraffic flow within the parking level and to prevent any on-site queuing.Waiting bays would typically have identical dimensions to parking spaces asper AS2890.1 and are additional to the parking requirement of thedevelopment;

(i) An assessment of the likely vehicle queuing impacts associated with system,with reference to the operating times of the system, peak vehicle movementsand available queue lengths within the parking area;

(j) Swept path turning templates demonstrating the ability of vehicles to turn intoand out of the system in a single movement;

(k) Assessment of the adequacy of the facility to cater for a range of vehiclesfrom small sports cars up to large 4WDs (ie the facility is capable of storingthe 100th percentile vehicle);

(l) Proposed management procedures to be implemented in the running of thefacility, including emergency response procedures.

66 Adopted Report


Note:

1. All visitor and customer parking spaces and those spaces associated with adaptablehousing must be provided in at-grade positions (i.e. separate to any mechanicalparking system), and

2. The mechanical car parking stacker system and all associated infrastructure such aspits and ceiling indentations must be clearly shown on the architectural drawings ofthe car parking area, at the time of lodgement of the Development Application.”

North Sydney Council

The following is an excerpt from the North Sydney Car Parking and Transport Development Control Plan 2013:

“10.3.2 Stacking of parking spaces

Objective

O1 To minimise the impact on existing vegetation and landscape features and to prevent adverse safety impacts for drivers and pedestrians.

O2 To minimise inconvenience to all users of the parking spaces.

O3 To minimise impacts on the surrounding road system.

Provisions

P1 Council does not support the stacking of parking spaces for the non-residential component of developments. However, Council may permit the stacking of spaces, but only where:

(a) the number of stacked spaces does not exceed 25% of the total number ofnon-residential spaces; or

(b) where the parking spaces are in the same ownership or strata lot.

P2 Council does not support the use of mechanical car stacker systems for the provision of car parking. However, Council may consent to the use of a mechanical car stacker, but only where it can be demonstrated:

(a) That the use of the mechanical stacker will enable a reduced level ofexcavation to preserve existing significant tree(s) and or natural landscapefeatures on the site;

(b) That the site’s shape is physically constrained, such that conventionalparking arrangements would not enable compliance with the parkingprovision requirements of this DCP;

(c) Where a single car stacker system accommodates more than 10 vehicleswithin a multi-dwelling housing development, a residential flat building, amixed use or commercial premises, that a car waiting space is providedentirely on the site and adjacent to the mechanical stacker to enable avehicle to wait while the stacker is in use. The waiting area must be locatedsuch that it does not interfere with the ability for a vehicle to enter and leavethe stacker, while a car is occupying the waiting area.

Note: A car stacker system referred to in P2(c) refers to a system which usesa lift and/or horizontal moving platforms.”

City of Canterbury Bankstown

The following is an excerpt from the City of Canterbury Bankstown Transport and Parking Development Control Plan 2012:

“Stack Parking

C16 Stack parking is permitted for single dwelling houses, dual occupancies and semi-detached dwellings where two parking spaces are required for one dwelling.

67 Adopted Report


C17 Stack parking may be permitted for multi-dwelling housing and attached dwellings where two parking spaces are required for one dwelling, subject to design merits.

C18 Stack parking may be permitted for staff use in commercial, retail, industrial and mixed-use developments where no inconvenience is likely to arise from their use, subject to design merits.

C19 Stack parking must not be used for visitor parking.

Mechanical Parking

C20 Mechanical parking devices, including car lifts, will not be supported.”

Woollahra Municipal Council

The following is an excerpt from the Woollahra Municipal Council Development Control Plan 2015 Part E General Controls for All Development Parking and Access, E1.15 Mechanical parking installations and paid parking stations:

“E1.15.1 Locations and land use

Mechanical parking installations such as car lifts and car stackers are generally not desirable, and will only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Mechanical parking installations may be permitted for residential and non-residential development where one or more of the following applies:

The topography or lot size does not reasonably allow a simpler, more conventional parkingarrangement.

An existing building is being refurbished and there is no land available for additional parking.Refurbishment does not include extension of the building so as to increase site coverage orany other works to increase site coverage, all of which have the effect of reducing site areawhich could be used for conventional parking arrangements.

In the case of non-residential development, the installations are for long-stay parking.

In the case of residential development, the installations are for resident rather than visitorparking.

E1.15.2 Compliance with the Australian Standards

Vehicle access to the mechanical parking installation must be made in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1 (2004).

Where there is one car lift proposed, this must be capable of accommodating a B99 vehicle.

Where multiple car lifts are proposed, one car lift must be capable of accommodating a B99 vehicle and the remaining lifts must be capable of accommodating a B85 vehicle.

E1.15.3 Waiting bays

The design must include sufficient size to ensure that vehicles queuing to enter themechanical parking installation or paid parking station does not extend beyond the propertyboundary. Vehicles must not wait on the footpath or roadway.

The waiting bay(s) must be adequately sized to enable vehicle(s) to wait, while anothervehicle exits the site. It is not acceptable for waiting vehicle(s) to reverse onto the footpath toenable another vehicle to manoeuvre off the site.

The minimum length of each waiting bay is 6m.

Waiting bays must not exceed a maximum grade of 1 in 20 (5%).

Waiting bays must not obstruct the driveway.

E1.15.4 Car parks with more than 25 vehicles

If a car lift is providing access to a car parking area with more than 25 parking spaces, then two separate car lifts must be provided.

E1.15.5 Residential visitor parking

68 Adopted Report


Residential visitor parking must be provided external to the mechanical parking installation.

E1.15.6 Access

Where a development is required to provide parking for people with a disability, a mechanical parking installation must allow people with a disability to exit in the event of breakdown or failure.

E1.15.7 Development application information

A report from a suitably qualified traffic consultant is required for any development application that proposes a mechanical parking installation or paid parking station relating to the parking of three or more cars.

As a minimum, the report should provide a queuing analysis, taking into account:

the proposed peak hour vehicle volumes;

the service rate (in seconds) associated with the proposed parking equipment; and

the number of on-site waiting bays required to accommodate the 98th percentile queue atpeak traffic levels.

The development application should also include the following information:

details of required servicing and ongoing maintenance;

internal and external dimensions of the device;

details of the noise output of the device; and

manufacturer’s documentation, including information on service rates.”

69 Adopted Report


ITEM 4 CITY PLANNINGINTRODUCTORY PAPER – INTEGRATION OF PARKS DESIGN GUIDELINE INTO CITY PLAN PD98/1132/22/02


Not Applicable.

2 PURPOSE OF REPORT

This paper introduces the ‘Integration of Parks Design Guideline into City Plan’ project. This project is being undertaken in collaboration between City Planning branch and the Parks and Recreational Services branch.


The PDG was endorsed by Council on 30 October 2018, where Council also resolved:

‘2 That the Park Design Guideline is appropriately incorporated into the City Plan as part of a future City Plan amendment package.’

4 DISCUSSION

The Parks Design Guideline (PDG) is currently a non-statutory document, which guides the design of safe, responsive and sustainable public parks which contribute to the existing green space network. The content of the PDG was endorsed by Council on 30 October 2018. At that time Council also resolved to incorporate the PDG into the City Plan as part of a future City Plan amendment package, to give it statutory effect. This project seeks to action this resolution.

Through this project, an opportunity has also been identified to undertake additional policy refinements in response to the following:

stakeholder feedback (including items in the ‘Improve our City Plan’ register);

a comparative analysis of public open space principles and guidelines adopted intoother local, state and interstate planning documents; and

a policy gaps analysis of the current City Plan assessment benchmarks, with an aimto provide greater policy clarity and consistency.

As an outcome of this project, officers will recommend updates to a number of City Plan codes and policy documents which guide the location, design and construction of open space. Parks are commonly dedicated through subdivision (ROL) approvals, but can also less commonly be dedicated through MCU approvals. During the assessment of these applications, the location, size and relationship with other properties can be considered. Operational works (OPW) applications relate to design and construction matters. An overview of the application process for the assessment of open space and how the integration of the PDG relates to this process is provided in Figure 1.

70 Adopted Report


ITEM 4 (Continued) INTRODUCTORY PAPER – INTEGRATION OF PARKS DESIGN GUIDELINE INTO CITY PLAN PD98/1132/22/02

Figure 1: Development assessment process for open space land uses and how the integration of the PDG relates to this process

The City has many varying types of open space, which make up the City’s green space network. The PDG divides these different open space areas into four classifications, which are further divided into categories (Figure 2). The PDG contains the specific design, location and construction standards for each of these open space categories. The project mainly focuses on Open space parks and Sports parks.

Figure 2: PDG open space classification

The benefits received from the completion of this project will be the refinement of City Plan policy and an update to Schedule 6 of City Plan pertaining to the location, design and construction of open space. More specifically, the integration of the PDG seeks to update the minimum design standard for park embellishments, as well as achieve open space outcomes for the City which are:

71 Adopted Report



accessible; safe; easy to maintain; responsive to user and environment; and socially and environmentally sustainable.

It is important to note the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) is out of scope for this project. Any proposed updates to the City Plan will align with LGIP’s Desired Standard of Service (DSS) for Public parks and land for community facilities network.

The proposed updates to City Plan content, as a result of this project, will be presented to a future Economy Planning and Environment Committee.

These updates are targeted for inclusion in City Plan – Major Update 5 package and will be presented to Council for consideration at a future committee.





Cameron Taylor - Coordinator Parks & Open Space Assets

Parks & Recreational Services

Yes

Lau Chean-Piau – Special Coordinator Strategic Infrastructure

Economy, Planning and Environment

Yes

6 RECOMMENDATION


1 That the contents of the report be noted.


Belinda Cox Alisha Swain Senior Planner Director Economy Planning and Environment 19 September 2019

72 Adopted Report



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.1106.004 moved Cr Tozer seconded Cr Baildon That the contents of the report be noted.

CARRIED

73 Adopted Report


ITEM 5 CITY PLANNING CITY PLAN POLICY POSITION – METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP PD98/1132/04/39(P1)

Refer 9 page attachment A: Gold Coast City Plan Building height application methodology (confidential)


1.1 I recommend that the attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In July 2017, Council endorsed the Building Height Study (G17.0725.016), which recommended a more rationalised approach for determining building height, based on city shape values and citywide principles.

Given the process of determining a sustainable city shape is a complex body of work, in October 2017, Council resolved to redefine the City’s building height policy in four (4) phases (G17.1017.013).

The Building Height Application Methodology (BHAM) (Attachment A) has been developed as a tool to guide the outputs for both Phase 3 and 4, namely the review of the City Plan Building Height Overlay Map (BHOM).

An overview of the BHAM is provided in Figure 1.

74 Adopted Report


ITEM 5 (Continued) CITY PLAN POLICY POSITION – METHODOLOGY FOR REVIEW OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP PD98/1132/04/39(P1)

Figure 1: Overview of BHAM

The BHAM provides a tool to assist in the ongoing review of the City Plan BHOM, in a consistent, robust and repeatable manner.

The methodology will also assist in ensuring building height is correctly aligned with other planning considerations that affect the achievement of a sustainable city shape. It is intended that the BHAM will form part of City Planning’s tool box to inform future updates to City Plan and will not have a role or relationship to development assessment.

Determining a sustainable city shape will result in fundamental changes to City Plan. Building height is just one policy lever of the City Plan that influences a sustainable city shape. For this reason, a number of interrelated projects must be delivered as part of the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package, to support the completion of the BHOM review.

75 Adopted Report



The interrelationship between key projects is shown below:

Figure 2: Interrelationship between key projects for the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package

To positively inform a sustainable city shape for our City and create appropriate vertical policy alignment within City Plan, it is necessary for these other interrelated policies to be reviewed and updated at the same time. The interconnected relationship and timing of these projects are as follows:

Residential Density Policy Review (anticipated delivery: Mid 2020) was identifiedas part of the endorsed phased approach to redefining the City’s building heightpolicy. This will play a critical role in the calibration of building height, density andpreferred typology outcomes.

Strategic Framework Refresh (anticipated delivery: Mid 2020) will implement a newcitywide test for development exceeding the BHOM. An outcome of this policy changewill be the removal of the 50% exceedance test, in accordance with the endorsedphased approach to redefining the City’s building height policy.

This approach is also critical in ensuring that City Plan contains a robust decision making framework that can be consistently applied in the development assessment process.

3 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1 To seek Council’s endorsement of the BHAM that is to be used for the citywide review of the City Plan BHOM; and

2 Outline the interrelated projects which must be delivered to enable the review of the BHOM to be completed.


Building Height Study

Council resolved on 25 July 2017 (G17.0725.016) as follows:

1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the report be noted.

3 That the document titled ‘Building Height Study – An Approach to City Image – Volume 2 – Building Height Strategy and City Plan Recommendations – dated 5 July 2017’ inform amendments to the policy direction for building height in the City Plan as part of Major Update 2 and any other consequential amendments as required, with the exception of principle 5 which will be considered at a later time.

76 Adopted Report



4 That the Mayoral Technical Advisory Committee be engaged in relation to the URBIS Report and proposed amendments to the building height in the City Plan as part of Major Update 2 and any other consequential amendments as required.

5 That a further report detailing the City Plan amendments related to the recommendations set out in ‘Building Height Study – An Approach to City Image – Volume 2 – Building Height Strategy and City Plan Recommendations – dated5 July 2017’ be brought back for further consideration by the City PlanningCommittee.

6 That a further report be brought back in relation to the Central Park Precinct to a future City Planning Committee Meeting.

Phased approach for the delivery of the building height policy in City Plan

Council resolved on 17 October 2017 (G17.1017.013) as follows:


2 That the staged approach to implement the building height strategy is endorsed.

3 That the funding and resource requirements, as outlined in the report, be considered as part of the next budget review.

Phase 1 of the Major Building Height and Residential Density Anomalies review

Council resolved on 31 October 2017 (G17.1031.013) as follows:


2 That the amendments to the Building height and Residential density overlay maps, as identified in Attachment A, be endorsed to be included as part of City Plan Major update 2.

3 That the proposed changes to the Building height and Residential density overlay maps be brought back to Council for endorsement prior to submission for State interest review.

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Background

5.1.1 Building Height Study

The Gold Coast is Australia’s largest non-capital city and is famous for its iconic tall building skyline, golden beaches, world heritage hinterland and world-class surf breaks. In recognition of these distinctive city qualities, an independent review of the Gold Coast’s future city image was commissioned. This included the preparation of a citywide strategy on building height that supports a future sustainable city shape.

The purpose of the Building Height Study was to:

77 Adopted Report



identify and build upon the existing agreed city shape and building height principlesas established in City Plan;

articulate a vision for the future sustainable shape for the city with regard to buildingheights; and

identify strategic guidance (in the form of citywide building height principles) to informthe future intentional shape for the city with regard to building heights.

The citywide building height principles (Figure 3) identified in the Building Height Study are as follows.

Citywide building height principles

Retain the visual clarity and clustering of height along the coastal edge as the city’s defining built form.

Clearly define the boundary between urban and green, allowing development to realise the potential of a large scale open space whilst reflecting overall citywide legibility.

Maintain the visual prominence of the hinterland ranges, foothills, ridgelines and surrounding islands as a green frame forming a distinctive visual backdrop to the city.

Building heights realise the visual amenity and recreational potential of the Broadwater, whilst generally maintaining the intimate scale of canals and inland waterways.

Enhance the definition of distinct urban neighbourhoods by maintaining and celebrating visual breaks in the built form as created by natural features of the city.

Reinforce citywide prominence of activity centres whilst responding to the local landscape character.

Building height along the coastal edge recognises and responds to the unique natural setting of the manning different beach environments.

Building height support transport investment and economic growth, whilst also enhancing the city’s legibility.

Figure 3: Citywide building height principles

These building height principles were endorsed by Council in July 2017, with the exception of the Central Park principle.

To better respond to the city’s natural landscape values and position the Gold Coast as a liveable world class city for the future, a number of recommended updates to City Plan were proposed, as set out in Volume 2 of the Building Height Study.

5.1.2 Phased approach to redefining the City’s building height policy framework

Having regard to the need to take a holistic approach to re-defining the City’s building height policy framework, in October 2017, Council resolved to redefine the City’s building height policy in four (4) phases. The specific tasks identified within the four (4) phases are summarised in Figure 4.

NO

T E

ND

OR

SE

D

78 Adopted Report



Figure 4: Endorsed phased approach to redefining the City’s building height policy framework

Phase 1 and 2 are complete and are being progressed as part of the City Plan Major update 2&3 amendment package (Our City Our Plan).

The BHAM (Attachment A) has been developed as a tool to guide the outputs for both Phase 3 and 4, namely the review of the City Plan BHOM.

In addition, a range of other interconnected projects have also commenced, to capture the full suite of agreed outputs for both Phase 3 and 4.

5.2 Building height application methodology

The BHAM is provided in Attachment A.

5.2.1 Purpose of the Building height application methodology

The BHAM provides a tool to assist in the continual and ongoing review of the City Plan moving forward. Consequently, the purpose of the BHAM is to outline a consistent, robust and repeatable process that is to be used when reviewing the City Plan BHOM.

Given that building height cannot be considered in isolation, the BHAM will ensure that building height is appropriately considered with other planning considerations such as density, design and infrastructure planning that affects the achievement of a sustainable city shape (Figure 6).

To achieve consistency in decision making around building height, it is critical that this methodology be utilised and applied as part of any strategic planning project that influences building height outcomes in the city.

79 Adopted Report



5.2.2 Development of the Building height application methodology

A Project Consultant was engaged to assist Council in the development of the BHAM. A Building Height Working Group (BHWG) was formed to work collaboratively with the Project Consultant in the development of the methodology. The BHWG comprised internal Council stakeholders from the following teams:

City Planning – Strategic Urban and Regional Planning and Strategic Infrastructure;

City Development – Planning Assessment, Major Assessment and Planning Appeals& Research; and

Office of the City Architect.

At the outset of the project, the BHWG identified policy goals (Figure 5) to inform the development of the BHAM.

Figure 5: BHWG policy goals for the BHAM

5.2.3 Overview of the Building height application methodology

The BHAM is a four (4) step systematic approach to reviewing building heights in our city.

At the outset, it is important to note that the citywide building height principles are the foundation element of the BHAM. For this reason, they are used as inputs in all steps of the methodology.

The purpose and outcome of each step is outlined below.

Clear and easily

understoodRobust Defensible Consistent Transparent

80 Adopted Report



Step 1

Step 1 Overview:

Step 1 of the BHAM has two distinct parts.

Step 1A is used to understand the way in which the building height principles are to be applied and analysed at a citywide context, through the identification of both natural and built form values. This step must also consider the relationship between different places in the city and how they contribute to overall city legibility.

Step 1A, being the spatial mapping of both the natural and built form values, will not need to be repeated unless a citywide review of the BHOM is being undertaken.

Step 1B uses the geographical structure to the citywide building height principles from Step 1A, along with GIS analysis to identify building height opportunities and constraints that respond to the overall future sustainable city shape.

Step 1B provides a clear decision-making framework about whether certain areas within the city will be subject to further investigation about potential changes to building height.

Step 1 Outcome:

A decision about changing building height is not made in this step. The outcome from the combined analysis undertaken in Step 1A and Step 1B is a decision about areas for further investigation in relation to building height, based on a set of decision rules.

Only those areas identified for further investigation will proceed to the next steps in the methodology.

The existing building height policy will be maintained for areas identified in this step as not requiring further investigation.

Step 1A: Understand the

Citywide Context

Project Based Decision about Areas for Further

Investigation

Step 1B: Opportunities

and Constraints YES: Proceed to Step 2

NO further investigation required

81 Adopted Report



Step 2

Step 2 Overview:

Step 2 interrogates the area for further investigation against the Building Height Principles at an intermediate context, based on natural and built form values and the existing and planned character.

The intermediate context will change based on location and the nature of the project, but would generally be an identifiable corridor, suburb or other area that shares similar values. There are some instances where the intermediate scale may in fact be the same as the local context.

Step 2 Outcome:

The intermediate context analysis, together with the analysis from Steps 1A and Step 1B, will allow for a preliminary building height category determination to be made. This preliminary building height category determination will continue to be refined in the next step of the methodology (i.e. Step 4).

Where there are clearly defined or known place characteristics that require finer grain localised considerations, Step 3 will be undertaken. However in most instances, the review will directly progress to Step 4.

Intermediate Context Analysis

Preliminary Building Height Category Determination

Is a detailed local context

analysis required?

NO: Proceed to Step 4

YES: Proceed to Step 3 (By exception only)

82 Adopted Report



Step 3 (By exception only)

Step 3 Overview:

Step 3 provides a process for the application of the building height principles, at a fine grain scale, for specific parts of the city where there are known or significant place characteristics.

This step will only occur by exception, where specific and more detailed local planning investigations are required. Where local context analysis is required, this can occur through detailed place and character analysis to understand existing conditions and an urban design framework may be prepared to guide the future planning intent of that area.

Step 3 Outcome:

Where Step 3 is undertaken, the analysis will allow for the refinement of the preliminary building height category determination made in Step 2 and will also include a preliminary determination about the building height (in metres) that will be applied on the BHOM.

The conclusions reached in Step 3 remain preliminary only to allow for alignment with other strategic planning considerations in Step 4.

Detailed Local Context Analysis

Refinement of Preliminary Building Height Category and Building Height (in m)

determination

83 Adopted Report



Synthesis of Building Height Determination

and Strategic Planning Considerations

Settlement Pattern and Character

Residential Density, Land

Uses and Zoning

City Growth Infrastructure

Recommended Change to the City

Plan Building Height Overlay Map

Building Height Transitions

Recommendation Progressed as Part of City Plan Amendment

Process

Step 4

Step 4 Overview:

The analysis and synthesis of the preliminary building height determination, in the context of other strategic planning considerations is the final step in the methodology.

This step is to be balanced and evidence-based. In most instances, the need to manage city growth will be the principal driver for decisions around building height; however the analysis still requires a balanced consideration of other planning considerations.

This will ensure informed decisions can be made about the overall future sustainable city shape and the way in which growth and development within the city is to be managed.

This step in the methodology will refine the preliminary determinations from Step 2 and/or 3 and inform the final updates to the BHOM, which will be progressed as amendments to the City Plan.

Step 4 Outcome:

As this is the final step, the preliminary building height category determination made in earlier steps will be refined and a recommendation will be made in relation to changes to the BHOM.

The recommendation and output from this process will be presented in a database that will document all considerations and decisions reached.

84 Adopted Report



Once the building height updates to the BHOM have been determined, this will be progressed through a City Plan amendment package. At this stage, the changes will be subject to the standard plan making procedures, including state interest review and public consultation.

As a result of feedback received through the plan making process, it may be necessary to repeat some parts of the BHAM to address feedback about the recommended changes.

5.2.4 When will the Building height application methodology be used

At present, the BHAM is being used to undertake a citywide review of BHOM. This is being undertaken to complete Phases 3 and 4 of the phased approach to redefining the City’s building height policy framework. The outcomes of the citywide review of the BHOM will be presented to the Economy Planning and Environment Committee for consideration in mid-2020.

It is intended that the BHAM will be used as a tool in all strategic planning projects that affect building heights, for example to investigate building height changes in the Light Rail Stage 3A corridor. This will ensure there is consistency in the decision making process for building height citywide, by applying a single decision making framework.

5.3 Interconnected projects

Determining a sustainable city shape is a complex body of work that will result in fundamental changes to City Plan. Building height is just one policy lever of the City Plan that influences land use planning and the sustainable city shape (Figure 6).

To make an informed position on building heights, all inputs must be considered holistically rather than focusing on each aspect in isolation.

Figure 6: Relationship to interconnected policies (Source: Building Height Study, prepared by Urbis)

For this reason, a number of interrelated projects must be delivered as part of the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package, to enable completion of the BHOM review.

Table 1 details the key interconnected projects that are currently being progressed as part of the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package, which are required to finalise redefining the City’s building height policy framework.

85 Adopted Report



Table 1: Summary of interconnected projects

Interconnected project

Purpose Status

Residential density review

The City Plan Residential Density Provisions (RDP) have generally been carried forward from the superseded 2003 Gold Coast Planning Scheme.

An initial policy review of the RDP was undertaken in June 2019, as a consequence of the Building Height Study Implementation Project.

A project methodology has since been developed to implement the findings of the initial policy review, to form part of the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package.

The proposed method is to use a systematic approach to identify a site capacity based on different residential typologies.

Relationship to Building Height: The alignment of building height and residential density is critical in achieving a robust policy framework in the City Plan. A review of residential density was identified as part of the endorsed phased approach to redefining the City’s building height policy framework.

In progress

Following analysis of the site capacity by

residential typologies,

amendments to the City Plan will then be formulated.

The outcomes of this review

will be presented to the Economy Planning and Environment

Committee for consideration in

mid-2020.

Strategic Framework refresh

The City Plan Strategic Framework has been in place since 2016 and articulates how the city will develop over time, by defining the preferred location and form of future growth.

Since 2016, the new ShapingSEQ Regional Plan and the State Planning Policy have commenced. The Strategic Framework requires review in response to key drivers of change that will shape the city over the next 20 years.

Recent court cases have also highlighted the increasingly important role of the Strategic Framework as an assessment benchmark.

As part of the Strategic Framework refresh project, new policy being introduced through the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package will also be captured (for example the new centre elements overlay, outcomes of the residential density review).

Relationship to Building Height: The Strategic Framework refresh will implement a new citywide test for development exceeding the BHOM. An outcome of this policy change will be the removal of the 50% exceedance test, in accordance with the endorsed phased approach to redefining the City’s

In progress




mid-2020.

86 Adopted Report



Interconnected project

Purpose Status

building height policy framework.

Residential design codes review

The project involves reviewing three existing residential design codes within the City Plan, being dual occupancy, small-lot housing (infill focus) and multiple accommodation codes and preparing one new code, being terrace housing code.

This project will consider various housing typologies and form based approaches to improve City Plan outcomes.

Amongst other things, this review seeks to ensure the policy setting for future infill development encourages quality design and housing diversity on the Gold Coast.

This project is a required input for the residential density review.

Relationship to Building Height: The identification of preferred residential typologies for each zone in the City Plan will influence building height and residential density. As such, the outcomes of the residential design codes review will play a critical role in the calibration of these policy controls.

In progress




mid-2020.

As shown above, in order for the building height policy to be redefined in the City Plan Major update 5 amendment package, it is necessary for these other interrelated policies to be introduced or amended at the same time. This approach is critical in ensuring appropriate vertical policy alignment and a robust decision making in the City Plan.

6 ALIGNMENT TO THE CORPORATE PLAN, CORPORATE STRATEGIES AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

The City Plan aligns with the Corporate Plan 2022, specifically with the following vision statements and objectives:

Our city provides a choice of liveable places; Our city is safe; We are proud of our city; Our community is inclusive and supportive; We plan for the future of the city; and We manage the city responsibly.

7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS

Not applicable.

87 Adopted Report



8 RISK MANAGEMENT

This activity supports the mitigation of Planning and Environment Directorate Risk number CO000510:

‘City Plan delivers inadequate and/or ineffective strategic/development policy (e.g. poor planning, built form, growth, social and environmental outcomes - including flood impacts).’

9 STATUTORY MATTERS

City Plan update packages will be undertaken in accordance with the relevant statutory process. Under the Planning Act 2016, the process is contained in the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules July 2017.

10 COUNCIL POLICIES

Not applicable.

11 DELEGATIONS

Not applicable.


Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Michael Moran, Manager City Development

Economy Planning and Environment

Yes

Leah Lang, City Architect CEO Office Yes Deborah Chow, Urban Design Team Leader, Office of the City Architect

CEO Office Yes

Andrew Powell, Coordinator City Plan


Yes

Lauren Frost, Coordinator Strategic City Planning


Yes

Lynn Sorrell, Senior Planning Advisor, City Shaping Projects


Yes

Tara Williams, Coordinator Strategic Planning Analytics


Yes


The review of the City Plan BHOM will form part of the Major update 5 amendment package to be sent for State interest review in October / November 2020.

Internal stakeholders will be consulted as the update progresses through the statutory process.

88 Adopted Report



Under the statutory process, the Major update 5 amendment package is required to be sent for State interest review and will be required to undergo a minimum 20 business day public consultation period (with all submissions reviewed and considered) prior to its adoption. 14 TIMING As previously advised, Major update 5 is being progressed concurrently with Major update 4. It is anticipated that this amendment package will be sent to the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDMIP) for State interest review in October / November 2020 (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Major update 5 indicative timing

15 CONCLUSION Determining a sustainable city shape that will position Gold Coast to more responsibly manage growth into the foreseeable future is a complex body of work. This will result in fundamental changes to the policy framework of the City Plan. The BHAM has been developed to achieve a consistent, robust and repeatable process when reviewing the City Plan BHOM. In acknowledgment that any changes to building heights in our city cannot be made in isolation, the methodology will assist in ensuring building height is correctly aligned with other planning considerations that affect the achievement of a sustainable city shape. Finally, whilst the BHAM is one component facilitating the citywide review of the City Plan BHOM, it is critical to note a range of interrelated projects must also be delivered.

89 Adopted Report



16 RECOMMENDATION


1 That the attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the Building height application methodology (Attachment A) be endorsed for the purposes of reviewing the City Plan Building height overlay map.

3 That Council note the interrelated projects which must be delivered as part of City Plan Major update 5 to enable the review of the Building height overlay map to be completed.


Liam Morris Alisha Swain Strategic Planner Director Economy, Planning and Environment

Martin Garred Strategic Planning Analyst 2 October 2019

90 Adopted Report



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION EPE19.1106.005 moved Cr Owen-Jones seconded Cr Tozer 1 That the attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed

by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the Building height application methodology (Attachment A) be endorsed for the purposes of reviewing the City Plan Building height overlay map.

3 That Council note the interrelated projects which must be delivered as part of City Plan Major update 5 to enable the review of the Building height overlay map to be completed.

CARRIED

91 Adopted Report


Documents

of the Economy, Planning & Environment Committee Meeting€¦ · 06/11/2019 · EPE - Economy, Planning and Environment OS - Organisational Services LC - Lifestyle and Community