Ministerial permit: PA2201540-1

Description of proposal

1a) The internal garage door to have a minimum setback of 5.4metres. Is it possible to delete this condition as we believe that there is sufficient queuing area and vehicle access will be managed by the hotel staff and therefore queuing will be avoided. Council has agreed to delete on the basis that vehicle movement is managed by the Novotel Staff as car parking will be managed by valets and that the roller door is remote controlled which it also will be. 1 d) A notation that includes ‘No changes to the Brougham Street verge and vehicle crossing’ and remove reference to ‘New Crossover’. We suggest that this condition read ‘New Crossover subject to separate crossover permit from the City of Greater Geelong’. Please see below we have amended the access point with minor internal changes to services to align the access with the existing crossover as required by Council. Therefore, this condition can be retained based on this plan. 1 e) The internal accessway/ramp amended to match the width of the existing vehicle crossing which is approximately 4.0m wide. The eastern edge of the internal accessway must be widened on plans. We suggest the following: The internal accessway/ramp amended if practicable to match the width of the existing vehicle crossing which is approximately 4.0m wide. The eastern edge of the internal accessway should also be widened on plans if practicable. The amended plan below shows that that the ramp will match approximately with the crossover width. 1h(i) Please note that we propose to locate the whole 50kW unit on the new roof, not divided between the existing and new roofs. The existing roof is curved and not ideal for discrete solar panels and the whole 50kW unit can be accommodated on the new roof. Can you please confirm this is acceptable. 6. No more than 118 patrons are permitted on the land any time liquor is sold or consumed. We suggest deleting the term ‘land‘ and replacing with restaurant. Agreed amend 8 c) The actual comment in the planning permit response is a bit ambiguous, as it isn’t clear whether the “Preliminary Section J Façade Assessment” is required now, or whether this is bundled together with the “detailed NCC Section J Report” which must be provided “before construction” (which makes sense and is an NCC compliance requirement, so demonstrating this at building permit stage is standard procedure). We understand that it will be required in the detailed NCC Section J Report. 12. b) This condition doesn’t make sense. 31, 32, and 33 Arborist impact Assessment Report. We suggest deleting these conditions as we do not propose to impact the trees along the road. After our meeting we agreed to include condition 31 in condition 1 Amended Plans condition.