Original source · versioned page text
F - Traffic Response and Revised Traffic Impact Assessment (17.09.19)
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Suite 2601 | 21 Mary Street
Brisbane Q 4000
t 07 3221 3503
www.cambray.com.au
17th September 2019
Glen Conforti
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
Via email: [email protected]
For the Attention of Glen Conforti
Dear Glen,
Application Ref.: MCU19/0054
Street Address: 2-18 & 20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville QLD 4566
Introduction
This letter has been prepared in response to the Request for Additional Information (IR) issued by Noosa
Council dated 28th June 2019 in relation to the above application. It addresses the traffic-related issues
contained therein. A copy of the Information Request is included in Appendix A.
The development plan and associated traffic reporting has been updated as part of preparing responses
to the IR. A copy of the Revised Traffic Report is included in Appendix B.
Information Request – Parking Provisions
It is difficult to assess parking demand when a range of unknown business uses are proposed in larger
format retail which may have different parking demand; similarly to the smaller tenancies. Given that it
is unknown what businesses are likely to occupy the development, car parking demand should be
assessed against the highest demand uses of the individual tenancies at a rate of 1 space per 20m²
(shop, large format shop, medical, offices). This results in the development being significantly deficient in
car parking.
As an example of the difficulty, the submitted Cambray Consulting parking analysis has assumed that
only 1 of the 11 ground level tenancies with a floor area in excess of 300m² would be used for any use
other than a traditional showroom. When allowance is made for the potential for a large medical centre
(potentially across multiple tenancies), and for other uses that are essentially shops but which might be
argued to fit within the proposed showroom definition (such as Spotlight, Chemist Warehouse or a Dan
Murphys), it is considered that the parking analysis can’t be undertaken with any certainty until the use
issues are clarified. Once the use issues and scale of uses have been clarified, a reasonable worst case
scenario can be assessed.
The Planning Scheme rate for Showrooms is 1 space per 50m², however, some large format retail attract
a higher design parking rate of 1 space per 30m². The Cambray Consulting report has listed a variety of
reasons why a relaxation of Council’s standard parking provisions would be satisfactory. However,
having regard to the potential of some large format retail parking demands being higher than Council’s
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 46 134 153 781
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Page 1
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of sections 2 to 57 (of 164)
Section 2
showroom standard, a relaxation wouldn’t be appropriate if all the uses occupying tenancies generate a
higher car parking demand, particularly given the developments format that reflects a shopping centre
with a mix of large format retail and specialty shops.
Furthermore, it is not agreed with the proposition in the parking analysis of the Cambray Consulting
report that cross utilisation of parking spaces (where someone parks on the site and visits multiple
tenancies during the one trip) results in a reduced parking demand. Cross utilisation results in lower
traffic generation demands but not reduced parking demands. While the customer is visiting one tenancy
it is generating a parking demand associated with that tenancy, and if that customer then visits another
tenancy it is generating a parking demand at that second tenancy. If the customer only visits the first
tenancy and then departs the site, the vehicle is parked on the site for a shorter period of time and does
not generate the parking demand associated with the visit to the second tenancy.
Information Required – Item 17
Undertake a further worst case parking demand assessment, having regard to the above discussion and:
a. which includes clearly defined uses under The Noosa Plan for each tenancy and at a
minimum, identified anchor tenants; and
b. any changes to the proposed configuration and format of uses. Issue – External traffic
impacts.
The submitted Cambray Consulting report compares the traffic generation of the previous Masters
approval with that of the subject proposal, indicating that the traffic generation of the Masters approval
is greater than that associated with the proposal, such that traffic impact assessment is not required.
However, external traffic conditions may have changed overtime and the traffic generation of the
proposal is governed by the uses that eventuate. Potential uses, different to those assumed in the
Cambray Consulting report, are discussed above, and could lead to greater traffic generation than the
Masters approval. In that regard, if all the smaller tenancies can be shops and food outlets then a shop /
food outlet traffic generation rate would need to be used for those tenancies, if some of the larger
tenancies can be used for hotel and medical centre uses then higher than showroom traffic generation
rates should be used, and a more representative office traffic generation rate of 3vph/100m² should be
used for the offices.
Cambray Response
Further SIDRA traffic impact assessment has been completed based recommended rates for the various
proposed development uses on site. Please refer to Section 9.0 (page 21) and Section 11.0 (page 25) of
the Revised Traffic Report.
The adopted traffic generation rates have been sourced from various industry standard sources,
including:
• RTA (2002) and RMS (2013) Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (GTGD); and
• Department of Transport and Main Road (DTMR) (Traffic Generation Data—2006–2018)
These rates are considered to provide an appropriate reflection of the proposed development uses.
The key findings of the traffic analysis are:
• Peak hour traffic generation associated with the Proposed Development is expected to be lower
than that of the Previous Approval;
• The Eenie Creek Road / Walter Hay Drive roundabout intersection might require additional
capacity upgrades to accommodate background traffic growth (regardless of the proposed
development);
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 2
Section 3
o The proposed development would be making a financial contribution to such works
through the payment of infrastructure charges;
• The proposed development is therefore expected to not result in a significant impact on the
operation of the surrounding road network.
Information Required – Item 18
Please provide a further worst case traffic generation assessment, having regard to the above discussion
and:
a. including current conditions;
b. which include clearly defined uses under The Noosa Plan for each tenancy and at a
minimum, anchor tenants identified; and
c. any changes to the proposed configuration and format of uses. Issue – Service vehicles.
The traffic report recommends that servicing by HRV’s and AV’s occur outside of peak trading times due
to manoeuvring space requirements. This raises concerns.
Some of the swept paths prepared by Cambray Consulting indicate the service vehicle envelope
encroaches across kerblines and parking spaces.
No refuse/waste management plan has been provided.
Cambray Response
Updated swept path and servicing assessments have been prepared and are included in Appendix D of
the Revised Traffic Report. A waste management plan for the Proposed Development has been
prepared by MRA Environmental.
As discussed in Section 5.0 (page 10) of the Revised Traffic Report, the proposed development can
accommodate independent servicing for the larger showroom tenants with shared loading areas
available for the smaller retail tenancies.
The proposed servicing strategy is considered to be appropriate to support the development.
Information Required – Item 19
Modify the layout to address HRV’s and AV’s manoeuvring space.
Cambray Response
The development plan has been updated to improve service vehicle movements. Updated swept path
assessments have been prepared, please refer to Section 5.0 (page 10) and Appendix D of the Revised
Traffic Report.
The proposed servicing strategy is considered to be appropriate to support the development.
Information Required – Item 20
Please rectify the swept paths of the service vehicle envelope so that there is no encroaching across
kerblines and/or parking spaces.
Cambray Response
The proposed development layout has been updated to respond to Council’s Request for Information.
Updated swept path and servicing assessments have been prepared and are included in Appendix D of
the Revised Traffic Report.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 3
Section 4
As noted in Section 5.0 (page 10) and Section 8.0 (page 19) of the Revised Traffic Report the proposed service areas are appropriate to accommodate the adopted design vehicles. It is noted that all documented swept paths show a 300mm clearance envelop to the vehicle body as per the Australian Standards AS2890.2: Off-street Commercial Vehicle Facilities (AS2890.2). The proposed servicing strategy is considered to be appropriate to support the development. Information Required – Item 21 Demonstrate how deliveries to tenancy 22 can satisfactorily occur. Cambray Response Updated swept path and servicing assessments have been prepared and are included in Appendix D of the Revised Traffic Report. Tenancy 22 (now Tenancy 20 / Building 4 in the updated plans) is proposed to be a mixed use of Office and Gym. Typically servicing and loading is expected to be by Van (B99) size vehicles. Van size vehicles would be able to utilise the proposed general carparking spaces located adjacent to Building 4 (Tenancy 20). The development plan includes a marked short-term passenger loading and loading bay to the north of the building. This loading bay will allow for passenger drop off and pickup along with delivery vehicles. The proposed development layout also provides suitable connections to the northern loading area adjacent to Tenancy 02, if servicing by larger vehicles is required vehicles can use the area adjacent to Tenancy 02. Information Request – Traffic Layout Details Further traffic layout details are required to assess the proposal. Information Required – Item 23 Demonstrate how the one-way operation of the main loading area will be satisfactorily managed, including signage where necessary. Cambray Response Updated swept path and servicing assessments have been prepared and are included in Appendix D and Section 5.0 (page 11) of the Revised Traffic Report. Loading dock movements are proposed to be managed by wayfinding and regulatory signage in combination with pavement line marking. The signage and line marking is to be provided in accordance with the requirements of AS1742 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The ultimate extents of which would be detailed during detail and construction design. Information Required – Item 24 Include dimensions on the plan showing widths of parking aisles, circulation aisles, and circulation roadways, as well as typical parking bay dimensions, and details of the proposed landscaping and kerbing located within parking spaces of the main parking area. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 4
Section 5
Cambray Response
The development plan has been updated to provide additional geometric dimensions. Section 8.0 (page
19) of the Revised Traffic Report details our review of the traffic related items of the development
layout.
Information Required – Item 25
Provide a numbered carparking plan.
Cambray Response
The development plan has been updated to provide additional parking numbering / provision details.
A review of the proposed parking provision is provided in Section 6.0 (page 13) of the Revised Traffic
Report.
A total of 347 carparking spaces are proposed to be provided across the site.
The proposed 347 carparking spaces are allocated as follows:
• 315 general carparking spaces;
• 22 staff spaces located adjacent to the loading area;
• One (1) Taxi pick up space;
• One (1) Short term Passenger / Loading Bay; and
• Eight (8) spaces for persons with a disability (PWD)
The proposed carparking provisions are considered to be appropriate to meet the demands of the uses
onsite. The proposed PWD carparking space provision is also compliant with the Driveways and
Carparking Code.
Information Required – Item 26
Justify the proposal for service vehicles to reverse across proposed zebra crossings.
Cambray Response
An alternative swept path movement has been prepared and is included within the Revised Traffic
Report (Appendix D - SK08) and an extract is provided in Figure 1.2. This alternative access option
removes the reverse movement across the pedestrian crossing. Additionally if preferred the marked
zebra crossing could be removed and appropriate signage provided to reinforce vehicle priority in this
area.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 5
Section 6
Figure 1.2 Extract of SK08 – Alternative Access Movement Information Required – Item 27 Identify and assess layout dimensions of the proposed western driveway crossover to Hofmann Drive, and show how the proposed driveway interacts with both ends of the existing median break. Cambray Response The development plan has been updated to provide additional detail with respect to the existing median break. The swept path assessment included in Appendix D of the Revised Traffic Report indicates that the proposed crossover is appropriate to accommodate the proposed design vehicles. Information Required – Item 28 The Cambray Consulting report identifies that 6.2m wide parking aisles with 2.6m wide parking spaces are required according to AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. That would be appropriate for all proposed uses on the site except shop and food and drink uses, which would require either 2.6m wide spaces with a 6.6m wide aisle, or 2.7m wide spaces with a 6.2m wide aisle. Subject to the final use layout* then the proposed 6.2m wide aisles with 2.6m wide spaces throughout would be acceptable. *This is reflective of any changes to the configuration and format of uses across the site. Cambray Response Refer to Section 8.0 (page 19) of the Revised Traffic Report, the adoption of Class 3 carparking arrangements are considered to be appropriate considering the proposed slower trade (showroom) and office uses for the development site. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 6
Section 7
Information Required – Item 29 The kerbline adjacent to the northern side of tenancy 23 creates a narrower section of main roadway than proposed west and east of that section. A consistent width should be provided. Similarly, the landscaped island diagonally opposite the north-eastern corner of tenancy 23 intrudes into the north- south aisle more than the width of that aisle further north. This should be rectified. Cambray Response The development plan has been updated address this alignment item. A consistent kerb alignment is to be provided at the main entry continuing along the main east west circulation aisle. Information Required – Item 30 Provide motorcycle parking bays consistent with the requirements of The Noosa plan. Cambray Response Refer to Section 6.4 (page 17) of the Revised Traffic Report. The proposed carparking arrangement is considered appropriate to support the development and configured to maximise carpark utilisation across a range of road user groups. It is noted that motorcycles accessing the site can utilise any of the 316 general carparking spaces. Information Required – Item 31 Include staff bicycle parking in a secured covered area, and visitor bicycle parking dispersed through the development in locations convenience for visitor use. Cambray Response The development plan has been updated to further detail the proposed bicycle parking. The development includes 69 bicycle parking spaces distributed across several locations on site, including end of trip facilities. Refer to Section 7.0 (page 18) of the Revised Traffic Report for further details. Information Required – Item 32 Detail how the proposed cross intersections within the carpark will be satisfactorily managed. Cambray Response The development plan has been updated address this alignment item. The only cross intersection proposed meets with the Exit Only section of the Back of House Loading area (located approximately 60m away from the main vehicle entry). Give way line marking is to be included which will reinforce priority to vehicles entering the development site from Hofmann Drive. Due to limited service vehicle movements being expected the intersection should function as a T intersection during periods of peak car demand. Information Required – Item 33 Demonstrate that a car can satisfactorily enter the site from the Hofmann Drive roundabout while an AV is waiting to exit, with the AV stopped in a position enabling it to then negotiate the roundabout. Cambray Response Updated swept path and servicing assessments have been prepared and refer to the Revised Traffic Report for paths considering the Hofmann Drive roundabout (Appendix D SK01 and SK05). The updated swept path demonstrates that there is appropriate space to accommodate the adopted design vehicle movements. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 7
Section 8
Information Required – Item 34 More consideration should be given to pedestrian desire lines linking across Hofmann to the existing Business Centre, and satisfactorily accommodating those desire lines. Cambray Response The development plan has been updated address this alignment item. A new east west pedestrian spine has been provided, along with other pedestrian connectivity adjustments. Summary / Recommendation Based on the above, we are of the opinion that there are no traffic engineering related matters to preclude approval of the proposed development. If you have any queries regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on 07 3221 3503. Yours faithfully, Andrew Douglas Director | Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd BECivil (Hons) |MSc Env Man FIEAust | CPEng | RPEQ 6691 Cambray Consulting has taken into account the particular instructions and requirements of Noosa Spotlight Property 2 Pty Ltd and has taken care in the preparation of this report, however it neither accepts liability nor responsibility whatsoever in respect of any use of this report by any third party, any third party whose interests may be affected by any decision made regarding the contents of this report and / or any conclusion drawn resulting from omission or lack of full disclosure by Noosa Spotlight Property 2 Pty Ltd, or their consultants. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\2. Letters\1.RFI\RFI_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 8
Section 9
APPENDIX A
Noosa Council Request for Information
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
[OCR of page images]
APPENDIX A
Noosa Council Request for Information
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Section 10
Officer: Glen Conforti
Direct Telephone: 07 53296241
Our Reference: MCU19/0054
Your Reference: P0009660
28 June 2019
Noosa Spotlight Property 2 Pty Ltd
C/- Urbis Pty Ltd
Level 7, 123 Albert Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
[email protected]
Dear Sir / Madam
Information Request
Planning Act 2016
I refer to your application and advise that Council requires further information to satisfactorily
assess the proposal.
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Application No. MCU19/0054
Street Address: 2-18 & 20 Hofmann Dr NOOSAVILLE QLD 4566
Real Property Description: Lot 1 SP 222982 & Lot 4 SP 246584
Planning Scheme: The Noosa Plan (8 June 2018)
2. INFORMATION REQUIRED
The information requested is set out below:
Planning
Issue – Proposed uses
While the application seeks a range of undefined uses to provide maximum flexibility for the
development, Council disagrees that the proposed uses do not fit within The Noosa Plan use
definitions. It is considered The Noosa Plans definitions allow for the suggested undefined
uses.
The following Noosa Plan uses are considered to fit that proposed:
Commercial business type’s 1 (office) and 2 (medical);
Entertainment & dining business type 1 – food and beverages;
Entertainment & dining business type 2 – to provide indoor sport and recreation
opportunities;
Entertainment and dining business type 3 – Bar;
Industrial business type 2;
Retail business type 2 – shop & salon; and
Retail business type 4 – showroom
PO Box 141 P. (07) 5329 6500 [email protected]
TEWANTIN QLD 4565 F. (07) 5329 6501 www.noosa.qld.gov.au
Page 1 of 11
Section 11
The following uses raise concerns:
Entertainment and dining business type 1 – food and beverages when not associated
and subordinate to an industrial activity in the same tenancy;
Retail business type 4 – showroom; and
Retail business type 2 – shop / salon which includes large format retail shops
Please note:
In terms of Industrial business, The Noosa Plan allows a maximum of 20% of the
tenancies floor space to be used for retail purposes providing it is associated with and
subordinate to the industrial activity on-site. In this instance, Council may consider a
greater industrial / retail ratio providing industry remains the primary use of the
tenancies.
Entertainment and dining business type 3 - Bar would be considered if associated with
an industrial activity onsite in the same tenancy as a standalone bar significantly departs
from the consistent uses and intent for the site.
Draft Planning Scheme
The proposed development significantly departs from the purpose and overall outcomes of
the small business precinct under the draft scheme which allows for small format buildings
with a maximum GFA of 150m². This area provides flexibility for small startup business as well
as more niche businesses such as warehousing or manufacturing to have a retail/ shopfront
component. Uses would allow some retail and food and drink provided it was directly related
to the manufacturing or business activity on the site and has a combined floor area no greater
than 150m². No additional retail, food and drink or showroom land use is consistent in its own
right in this precinct.
Information Required
1. Please provide amended application and plans indicating uses under The Noosa Plan
for each tenancy. It is preferred that each tenancy has its own use or if not, clear
interchangeable uses respectful to the built form, layout and car parking.
2. Shop and showroom uses raise concerns. Please provide assessment identifying how
the proposed large retail shop and showroom uses meet the intent of O146 – O148 of
the Noosaville Locality Code. Further information is required below in the Economic
impact section.
3. Entertainment & dining business type 1 raises concerns when standalone but may be
supported providing it can be demonstrated the floor area is proportional to the
workers/customers need within the development and not a destination restaurant /
precinct. Please demonstrate a need for this use.
Issue - Economic Impact
In regard to floor space supply and demand, the ‘benchmark’ figures used for large format
retail (retail floor space per capita and an allowance for non-retail showroom) are considered
quite rubbery. This type of analysis is considered fundamentally flawed when applied to urban
areas, particularly given the overlapping trade areas of the various centres serving the region.
For example, the trade area for Sunshine Plaza (as defined by LIQ previous work for Sunshine
Plaza in 2010) encompasses the population of all but the tertiary area it currently defines for
Noosa Marketplace.
Maroochydore and environs provide the Sunshine Coast’s most significant supply of large
format retail and non-retail showroom floor space that also services the Noosa area. This has
not been factored into the over-under supply analysis used to imply a significant and growing
shortfall of large format retail floor space within the proposed Noosa Marketplace trade area.
The scale of the trade area’s implied “undersupply” in Table 4.1 of the submitted EIA is
Page 2 of 11
Section 12
unreliable as an indicator of community need and demand for a project in a specific location,
and particularly at the scale indicated in Table 4.1. It is of concern that this type of analysis for
floor space shortfall at present and estimates of future demand are used as evidence of
planning need and community benefit.
In regard to sales and impacts, the EIA analysis is high level and does not reveal from where
in the trade area $27.7m in sales will be sourced. It is anticipated some of this would come
from the defined primary trade area, with considerably lower amounts originating from the
tertiary and secondary south areas. A more typical market share retail analysis would reveal
this. It would also better highlight where the impacts will be felt. However, this would also
require an understanding of the anticipated retail mix for the proposed centre.
The vague nature of the project, as presented (e.g. incubator business/retail, generic large
format retail spaces), makes it difficult to assess probable impacts.
Information Required
4. Provide clarification of how the proposed incubator, business, retail, business will
operate, given the developments proposed shopping centre and specialty shop format,
with examples of similar, purpose-built private sector developments elsewhere in
Australia.
5. Identify at a minimum the intended anchor tenancies (large format retail). At present, the
application material requests to consider approval of a large quantity of generic large
format retail uses. Identifying the anchor tenants would help focus need, demand and
impact considerations. In this regard, please provide a revised EIA (or addendum) with
these considerations.
6. Please provide a revised EIA clarifying the floor space supply and demand with
reference to the discussion above.
7. Provide a revised EIA which includes a typical market share assessment for sales and
impacts with reference to the discussion above.
8. Please demonstrate a need for the proposed standalone food and beverage use with a
floor area proportional to the worker / customers serving the development.
Issue –Layout, Built form,
Layout
Submitted narrative suggests ‘The Marketplace’ offers opportunities for start-ups and
incubator tenants in a co-operative space anchored by larger spaces, showrooms and some
curated cottage industries and other commercial activities.
It is considered the current built form and layout appears like a retail shopping centre
development with large format retail and retail spaces sufficient for specialty shops, albeit with
some offices and entertainment and dining uses, which is not the intent of the Planning
Scheme or the draft Planning Scheme. The built form does not appear to be conducive for
industrial activity, or cottage industry, start-up spaces given there is no common space,
traditional loading vehicle access to any tenancies and service is proposed from the carpark,
except for building 3.
The buildings create an internal parking courtyard. The Planning Scheme requires that
buildings and landscaping are the dominant features within development. However, the scale
and configuration of the car parking is considered to the dominant feature and internal
vegetation is minimised. The design appears to miss an opportunity to create an internally
‘activated street’ to create vibrancy and a more conducive area to foster start up, cottage
industries and co-operative work spaces.
Page 3 of 11
Section 13
The Planning Scheme requires that while development has an internal focus it should also
actively address the internal loop road and public spaces. Insufficient information has been
provided to show how the key buildings could activate public realm within the site.
Overall Outcome 11.7.2 tt) viii and Specific Outcomes O92, O100 and O149 of the Noosaville
Locality Code requires strong active transport connections within the site and to neighbouring
sites. The information provided shows some connections to the edge of the site but has
provided little information about pedestrian and cycle amenity or routes within the site. There
is also insufficient material describing the end of trip (EOT) facilities.
Built Form
The current Planning Scheme and the draft Noosa Plan both place importance on
development being consistent with local built form character encouraging sustainable sub-
tropical building design. The draft Planning Scheme refers to State Government QDesign for
examples of good ESD. The Noosa Plan provisions such as Overall Outcomes 11.7.2 tt) iv, v,
vi & viii Probable Solutions S8, S20, S21 and the associated Specific Outcomes of the
Noosaville Locality Code are key design standards. It is considered the submitted design
does not meet these criteria.
The provided ‘architectural statement’ describes the proposed uses intended, but provides
little information about the architectural or character intent that drives the design. The design
also is considered not to reflect the provided architectural statement. Additionally:
sunshading has not been effectively addressed on buildings 2 and 4;
there is no detail on the external activation elements (balconies, entry doors, windows,
breakout spaces, outdoor dining, etc);
limited documentation has been provided about strategic pedestrian connection
refuges, significant vegetated shading within the carpark or open space.
The proposal appears to generally comply with building height in metres and storeys for
Precinct E5 being 10m / 2 storeys and Precinct B3 being 8m / 2 storeys, except for building
3’s entry statements/sign towers and building 4, all of which exceed 13m and 15m. The
proposed building 4 being 4 storeys and 15m+ is considered too dominant, not low rise and
not complying with the Noosaville Locality Code and is not supported in its current form.
However, given building 4 is located at a ‘gateway’, some minor additional height may be
acceptable as an attractive gateway building.
Information Required
9. Please explain how ‘The Marketplace’ would operate and the relationship to the built
form as a proponent to the uses. In this regard provide a layout / built form more
conducive to that described above where industrial businesses can interact, co-locate
and operate industrial activity and a component of retail etc.
10. Explore the opportunity to create internal activated street/s.
11. Please provide a contour and detail survey plan including spot levels and provide RL’s
AHD on all plans.
12. Provide amended plans with a built form / layout that contributes to and aligns with the
Planning Scheme (Noosa Character) Overall Outcomes 11.7.2 tt) iv, v, vi & viii, Specific
Outcome O20 and Probable Solution S21 of the Noosaville Locality Code by the use of
built form design elements and layout such as but not limited to:
a. Break up the length of buildings;
b. An allowance for future pedestrian / cycle connection to the west;
c. The use of cross block pedestrian connections to break up car parking and
introduce more landscaping;
Page 4 of 11
Section 14
d. Create active 2 storey corner uses with shared zones on building 3. The
upper levels should use balconies and windows to activate internal corner/s.
Upper level may be Office uses.
e. Introduce 2 storey components to visible corners where they front internal
streets to create active landmarks rather than signage towers. Upper levels
may be Office uses.
f. A mix of external building material to provide interest to façades including to
the eastern elevation of building 3.
g. Provide an interesting roof form more aligned to a sub-tropical design with
the use of pitched skillion and fly over designs and of human scale ,
h. The use of balconies and active edges, building openings, sun shading, etc)
i. Public toilets.
j. Consolidate rear servicing zones to the west of the buildings.
Reference to QDesign / QCompanion is recommended.
13. Reduce the commercial office building in height (storeys and metres) and include all
services roof top in the building height. A 3 storey / 12m building may be acceptable.
The building should incorporate ESD with reference to Overall Outcomes 11.7.2 tt) iv, v,
vi & viii, Specific Outcome O20 and Probable Solution S21 of the Noosaville locality
Code. Explore the opportunity for the food and drink use on the ground floor of this
building rather than in a standalone building proposed alternatively provide justification
for use in the standalone building.
14. Please provide an activation plan which clearly shows the development addressing the
internal loop road and proposed public spaces. The plan should be supported with key
elevations which clarify key elements (windows, doors, awnings, display and seating
areas, etc) used to address frontages.
15. Provide an active transport plan which clearly demonstrates improved pedestrian and
cyclist connections and amenity within the site and show where these connect to
currently and potential future neighbouring opportunities including to Leo Alley Road.
16. Please provide a character analysis which demonstrates how the scale of proposed
carpark is suitably mitigated.
Traffic and car parking
Issue - Parking provisions
It is difficult to assess parking demand when a range of unknown business uses are proposed
in larger format retail which may have different parking demand; similarly to the smaller
tenancies. Given that it is unknown what businesses are likely to occupy the development, car
parking demand should be assessed against the highest demand uses of the individual
tenancies at a rate of 1 space per 20m² ( shop, large format shop, medical, offices). This
results in the development being significantly deficient in car parking.
As an example of the difficulty, the submitted Cambray Consulting parking analysis has
assumed that only 1 of the 11 ground level tenancies with a floor area in excess of 300m²
would be used for any use other than a traditional showroom. When allowance is made for
the potential for a large medical centre (potentially across multiple tenancies), and for other
uses that are essentially shops but which might be argued to fit within the proposed showroom
definition (such as Spotlight, Chemist Warehouse or a Dan Murphys), it is considered that the
parking analysis can’t be undertaken with any certainty until the use issues are clarified. Once
the use issues and scale of uses have been clarified, a reasonable worst case scenario can
be assessed.
Page 5 of 11
Section 15
The Planning Scheme rate for Showrooms is 1 space per 50m², however, some large format
retail attract a higher design parking rate of 1 space per 30m². The Cambray Consulting report
has listed a variety of reasons why a relaxation of Council’s standard parking provisions would
be satisfactory. However, having regard to the potential of some large format retail parking
demands being higher than Council’s showroom standard, a relaxation wouldn’t be
appropriate if all the uses occupying tenancies generate a higher car parking demand,
particularly given the developments format that reflects a shopping centre with a mix of large
format retail and specialty shops.
Furthermore, it is not agreed with the proposition in the parking analysis of the Cambray
Consulting report that cross utilisation of parking spaces (where someone parks on the site
and visits multiple tenancies during the one trip) results in a reduced parking demand. Cross
utilisation results in lower traffic generation demands but not reduced parking demands. While
the customer is visiting one tenancy it is generating a parking demand associated with that
tenancy, and if that customer then visits another tenancy it is generating a parking demand at
that second tenancy. If the customer only visits the first tenancy and then departs the site, the
vehicle is parked on the site for a shorter period of time and does not generate the parking
demand associated with the visit to the second tenancy.
Information Required
17. Undertake a further worst case parking demand assessment, having regard to the above
discussion and:
a. which includes clearly defined uses under The Noosa Plan for each tenancy
and at a minimum, identified anchor tenants; and
b. any changes to the proposed configuration and format of uses.
Issue – External traffic impacts
The submitted Cambray Consulting report compares the traffic generation of the previous
Masters approval with that of the subject proposal, indicating that the traffic generation of the
Masters approval is greater than that associated with the proposal, such that traffic impact
assessment is not required. However, external traffic conditions may have changed overtime
and the traffic generation of the proposal is governed by the uses that eventuate. Potential
uses, different to those assumed in the Cambray Consulting report, are discussed above, and
could lead to greater traffic generation than the Masters approval. In that regard, if all the
smaller tenancies can be shops and food outlets then a shop / food outlet traffic generation
rate would need to be used for those tenancies, if some of the larger tenancies can be used
for hotel and medical centre uses then higher than showroom traffic generation rates should
be used, and a more representative office traffic generation rate of 3vph/100m² should be
used for the offices.
Information Required
18. Please provide a further worst case traffic generation assessment, having regard to the
above discussion and:
a. including current conditions;
b. which include clearly defined uses under The Noosa Plan for each tenancy
and at a minimum, anchor tenants identified; and
c. any changes to the proposed configuration and format of uses.
Issue – Service vehicles
The traffic report recommends that servicing by HRV’s and AV’s occur outside of peak trading
times due to manoeuvring space requirements. This raises concerns
Some of the swept paths prepared by Cambray Consulting indicate the service vehicle
envelope encroaches across kerblines and parking spaces.
Page 6 of 11
Section 16
No refuse/waste management plan has been provided.
Information Required
19. Modify the layout to address HRV’s and AV’s manoeuvring space.
20. Please rectify the swept paths of the service vehicle envelope so that there is no
encroaching across kerblines and/or parking spaces.
21. Demonstrate how deliveries to tenancy 22 can satisfactorily occur.
22. Please provide a refuse/waste management plan demonstrating where refuse bins
would be stored and collected for each tenancy and details of quantities, type of material
for the development and at a minimum be in accordance with Planning Scheme Policies
PSP 09 – Waste Management and PSP 11 Waste Management Plans.
Issue – Traffic Layout details
Further traffic layout details are required to assess the proposal.
Information Required
23. Demonstrate how the one-way operation of the main loading area will be satisfactorily
managed, including signage where necessary.
24. Include dimensions on the plan showing widths of parking aisles, circulation aisles, and
circulation roadways, as well as typical parking bay dimensions, and details of the
proposed landscaping and kerbing located within parking spaces of the main parking
area.
25. Provide a numbered carparking plan.
26. Justify the proposal for service vehicles to reverse across proposed zebra crossings.
27. Identify and assess layout dimensions of the proposed western driveway crossover to
Hofmann Drive, and show how the proposed driveway interacts with both ends of the
existing median break.
28. The Cambray Consulting report identifies that 6.2m wide parking aisles with 2.6m wide
parking spaces are required according to AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. That would be
appropriate for all proposed uses on the site except shop and food and drink uses, which
would require either 2.6m wide spaces with a 6.6m wide aisle, or 2.7m wide spaces with
a 6.2m wide aisle. Subject to the final use layout* then the proposed 6.2m wide aisles
with 2.6m wide spaces throughout would be acceptable. *This is reflective of any
changes to the configuration and format of uses across the site.
29. The kerbline adjacent to the northern side of tenancy 23 creates a narrower section of
main roadway than proposed west and east of that section. A consistent width should
be provided. Similarly, the landscaped island diagonally opposite the north-eastern
corner of tenancy 23 intrudes into the north-south aisle more than the width of that aisle
further north. This should be rectified.
30. Provide motorcycle parking bays consistent with the requirements of The Noosa plan.
31. Include staff bicycle parking in a secured covered area, and visitor bicycle parking
dispersed through the development in locations convenience for visitor use.
32. Detail how the proposed cross intersections within the carpark will be satisfactorily
managed.
33. Demonstrate that a car can satisfactorily enter the site from the Hofmann Drive
roundabout while an AV is waiting to exit, with the AV stopped in a position enabling it
to then negotiate the roundabout.
Page 7 of 11
Section 17
34. More consideration should be given to pedestrian desire lines linking across Hofmann
to the existing Business Centre, and satisfactorily accommodating those desire lines.
Landscaping – Ecology
Issue – Landscaping & Ecology
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that remaining vegetation depth and
density to Eenie Creek Road suitably buffers buildings and loading zones so the built form
does not encroach on the existing native vegetation along the road frontage.
The covenant areas and road reserves contain native vegetation which is required to be
retained during construction and the approved use of the site. Construction, supply of services
and the ongoing use of the site can impact on the retention of the vegetation.
The site is designated as Environmental Enhancement under the Biodiversity Overlay of the
Noosa Plan. A review of the vegetated portions of the site indicates it may present habitat
values for threatened species including acid/wallum frogs and koalas. No fauna assessment
has been submitted with the application material.
The car parking area does not comply with the Landscaping Code, in regard to landscaping
throughout the car parking area.
Information Required
35. Demonstrate the proposed vegetation along the northern and north east boundary to
Eenie Creek Road suitably screens the development in accordance with Specific
Outcomes O3, O120 and O121 of the Noosaville Locality Code and:
a. provide a visual analysis demonstrating the proposed built form is suitably
screened from Eenie Creek Rd and roundabout including;
i. plans which show planting density/depth
ii. cross section demonstrating planting height in relation to built form;
iii. ground-level perspectives showing relevant context;
b. increase vegetation the north east corner of the development site to help buffer
the development.
36. Provide an arborist report prepared by a qualified person1 which documents the methods
to retain and enhance the vegetation in the covenant area and in the road reserve during
construction, supply of services and the ongoing use of the site.
37. Provide an assessment of the habitat values present on the site for acid frogs and
koalas. Vegetation must only be removed or disturbed in accordance with a Fauna
Management Plan (or part thereof) prepared by a qualified person2 and endorsed
through an operational works permit.
1For the purpose of preparing an Arborist Report, a qualified person is considered
to be a person with either:
a. ISA certification; or
b. a Diploma of Arboriculture in addition to a minimum of 3 years current
experience in the field of arboriculture.
2For the purpose of preparing a Fauna Management Plan, a qualified person is
considered to be an ecologist with a minimum of 3 years current experience in the
field of fauna assessment and management.
38. Provide landscaping to the car parking area in accordance with Probable Solutions of
the Landscaping Code, particularly Probable Solution S28 and Table 14-56 and
Planning Scheme Policy PSP3 Landscaping Plants and Guidelines.
Page 8 of 11
Section 18
Stormwater quality and quantity
Issue – Stormwater Quality
The litter baskets and rainwater tanks are supported, however, the proprietary devices are
not. The rainwater tanks have a high reuse demand which presumably is based on irrigating
all of the landscaped areas of the site and possibly the retained covenant vegetation. This
may not be appropriate and further details should be provided on their assumptions.
Information Required
39. Provide further information and/or a revised design and model as necessary to address
the following items:
a. Provide justification for the assumed annual reuse demands for each rainwater
tank and provide estimates of the source reliability (i.e. how much of the demand
will need to be met by mains back-up supply). In general, use of irrigation water
for landscaping is not encouraged and low-water-usage native plants should be
used in accordance with Specific Outcome O3 of the Water Sensitive Design
Code. Water reuse should be focused on areas of water demand which cannot be
addressed through changes in design/planting – such as for toilet flushing.
b. The use of proprietary underground devices for nutrient removal is in conflict with
O7 of the Water Sensitive Design Code. Provide a revised stormwater treatment
train and revised landscape design for the car parking areas which utilizes
vegetated treatment strategies to achieve multiple benefits.
c. Provide details of the assumed removal rates for the litter baskets and/or the
MUSIC model for review.
Issue - Hydrology
The pre-development hydrologic model uses relatively low initial loss values, particularly for
the rarer AEP events. The IWMP acknowledges that the values differ from those provided by
ARR Datahub but states that the values adopted are conservative. While the values (low initial
loss) would be conservative if the purpose was to undertake flood mapping or estimate design
flood levels, this approach is not considered conservative for the stated purpose of determining
hydrologic and flood impacts of the proposal. Low initial loss values increase pre-development
peak flows and peak flood levels which in turn can underestimate hydrologic and flood impacts
and required flood detention storage volumes. This issue is highlighted by the predicted
RAFTS flows being up to 63% greater than the rational method estimates for the pre-
developed case.
The subject site is subject to local overland flowpath flooding from external catchments located
to the North and West of the subject site which are of the order of 7Ha in size. These
catchments are conveyed through the site as overland flow in a South-Easterly direction and
ultimately discharge under Hofmann Drive to an existing conservation area.
The proposal has the potential to worsen flooding conditions upstream of the site by
blocking/modifying this overland flowpath and has the potential to worsen downstream
flooding by increasing peak flowrates downstream of the site by increased runoff peaks and
volume (due to increased imperviousness of the site).
Information Required
40. Either provide further justification or revised initial loss values for the pre-development
pervious areas. Reference should be made to ARR2016 and the ARR Datahub and the
discussion in QUDM Section 5.6.1. Hydraulic modelling and impact assessments should
also be revised accordingly.
Page 9 of 11
Section 19
41. Demonstrate the modelling has considered the external catchments to the north and
west of the site.
To the north
Eenie Creek Road formation and Easement T on SP182880.
Eenie Creek service road adjacent to the northern property boundary.
To the west.
Commerce Court – through No 3 Commerce Court and Easement G on
RP230888.
Issue – Flood Modelling
Further details of the flood modelling are required before an assessment of the suitability of
the model can be made.
Information Required
42. Provide further details of the hydraulic model assumptions and a revised assessment as
necessary to address the following:
a. Clarify model grid size and provide a plan showing location of 1-D elements in
existing and proposed scenarios
b. Provide a plan showing the locations of the proposed drainage upgrades/features
described in the post-development scenario (Section 6.4.3). Is the detention tank
proposed to detain only the local site catchment flows?
c. Provide plans of existing and proposed roughness values
d. Provide a plan showing topographic differences between existing and proposed
scenarios
e. Provide further information on what blockage assumptions have been applied in
the model consistent with ARR2016 and QUDM. Particularly since it seems pipe
upgrades are a significant component of the impact-mitigation strategy being
employed.
f. Provide a severe blockage/severe storm assessment in addition to the design
blockages requested above. It should be clarified whether the proposed 750mm
RCP is completely replacing the existing overland flowpath and if so, what the
consequences are during a severe blockage or severe storm scenario. For clarity,
complete removal of overland flowpaths is not supported and there should be
provision made for severe blockage such that floor levels are not inundated in such
an occurrence.
Issue – Local Flood Impacts
The local flood impact maps provided with the IWMP demonstrate that flood depths external
to the site are predicted to increase as a result of the proposal. This is in conflict with Specific
Outcome O17 of the Noosaville Locality Code and Specific Outcome O33 of the Business
Uses Code.
Information Required
43. Provide revised proposed plans and flood impact mapping which demonstrates
compliance with Specific Outcome O17 of the Noosaville Locality Code and Specific
Outcome O33 of the Business Uses Code and specifically demonstrates no flood
impacts external to the development site boundary.
Page 10 of 11
Section 20
Issue – Extreme local flooding
The local flood inundation maps provided with the IWMP show that the access points to the
development will be inundated in the DFE. In extreme events, workers and visitors to the site
will be isolated and evacuation not possible. It should be demonstrated how their safety will
be protected in such extreme events as required by Specific Outcome O17 of the Noosaville
Locality Code.
Information Required
44. Provide mapping for the PMF and a risk assessment for extreme events which
demonstrates compliance with Specific Outcome O17 of the Noosaville Locality
Code.Specifically, the proposal is to demonstrate how the safety of people at the site
will be protected during extreme flood events.
3. DUE DATE FOR RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST
The due date for providing the requested information is 28 September 2019. Please advise
Council of your response to this information request in accordance with section 13 of the
Development Assessment Rules.
If you do not provide a response before the due date, it will be taken as if you have decided
not to respond to the information request and Council will continue with the assessment of
your application.
4. OTHER DETAILS
You can follow the progress of this application online at www.noosa.qld.gov.au. The “Online
Services” page can be accessed via "Quick Links" on the left hand side of the screen.
Should you have any further queries in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me on the number above.
Yours faithfully,
Glen Conforti
Development Planner
Page 11 of 11
Section 21
APPENDIX B
Revised Traffic Report
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
[OCR of page images]
APPENDIX B
Revised Traffic Report
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Section 22
CAMBRAY CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEERING + TRANSPORT PLANNING 2 – 18 & 20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville Proposed Retail Business Centre TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared For Blueprint Australia 17th September 2019
Section 23
Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Development Overview.................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Scope of Works................................................................................................................................. 6
1.3 Limits of Report ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Safety in Design ................................................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Qualifications.................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Context .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Site Location ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Surrounding Road Network .............................................................................................................. 7
3.0 Development Summary .......................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Site History ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Development Comparison ............................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Development Access .............................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Access 1 – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Business Centre Access / Development Access ....................... 9
4.3 Access 2 – Hofmann Drive / Proposed Development Access........................................................... 9
4.4 Access 3 – Eenie Creek Road Service Road / Service Vehicle Access ............................................... 9
5.0 Servicing .............................................................................................................................. 10
5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................10
5.2 Review ............................................................................................................................................10
5.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................12
6.0 Carparking ........................................................................................................................... 13
6.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................13
6.2 Review ............................................................................................................................................13
Variation in Uses ............................................................................................................................16
6.3 Disability Carparking Review ..........................................................................................................17
6.4 Motorcycle Parking ........................................................................................................................17
6.5 Carparking Summary ......................................................................................................................17
7.0 Bicycle Parking ..................................................................................................................... 18
7.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................18
7.2 Review ............................................................................................................................................18
7.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................................18
8.0 Site Layout Review ............................................................................................................... 19
9.0 Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................... 20
9.1 Surveyed Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................................20
Section 24
9.2 Background Traffic Growth ............................................................................................................20 9.3 Traffic Generation ..........................................................................................................................21 9.4 Comparison to Previous Approval..................................................................................................23 10.0 Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................. 24 11.0 Traffic Impact Assessment .................................................................................................... 25 11.1 Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access ....................................................................................25 11.2 Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access..............................................................................................26 11.3 Eenie Creek Road / Hofmann Drive ................................................................................................28 11.4 Eenie Creek Road / Walter Hay Drive.............................................................................................29 12.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 31 Appendices Appendix A Proposed Development Plan – The Buchan Group Appendix B Proposed Noosa Marketplace Definition – Urbis Appendix C Approved Development Plan (MCU12/0051) – Leffler Simes Architects Appendix D Swept Path Analyses – Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd Appendix E Traffic Counts – Austraffic Appendix F SIDRA Summaries – Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Section 25
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
1.0 Introduction
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd (Cambray) was engaged by Blueprint Pty Ltd to provide traffic engineering
advice in relation to a proposed Retail Business centre, to be located at 2 – 18 & 20 Hofmann Drive,
Noosaville.
1.1 Development Overview
The site had a previous approval for a mixed use development which included Home Improvement Store
and Retail Business (Type 4) – Showroom Uses (MCU12/0051)(Previous Approval). However, this
development did not proceed and therefore the site remains vacant. Further discussion in relation to
the Previous Approval and the proposed development is included in Section 3.0.
A copy of the proposed development plan is included at Appendix A.
The proposed development is for an ‘undefined land use’ being ‘Noosa Marketplace’ and meaning:
‘an integrated mixed-use precinct for a range of uses' and as detailed in Appendix B.
These bespoke land uses are akin to the current planning scheme definitions as described below, with
subtle variations. For ease of reference and consistency, we consider this to be a town planning nuance
and have made our assessment reflecting the standard traffic engineering requirements stated by
Council.
The proposed development (Proposed Development) consists of a mix of uses including:
• Retail Business (Type 4) – Showroom;
• Retail Business (Type 2) – Shop;
• Entertainment (Type 2) – Recreation, amusement & fitness;
• Commercial Business (Type 1) – Office; and
• Entertainment and Dining Business (Type 1) – Food & Beverage.
A summary of the Proposed Development yields is provided in Table 1.1.
We note that this represents one scenario for the anticipated leasing arrangements and interactions of
the uses. The final tenancy layout and mix of uses will be subject to commercial considerations and any
relevant conditions placed upon the development, if approved.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 4
Section 26
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
Table 1.1 Proposed Development Yields
Tenancy Use Yield (m2 Floor Area GLA)
T01 2,760m2
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom
T02 1,800m2
Entertainment (Type 2) Recreation,
T03 700m2
amusement & fitness
T04 Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 580m2
T05 150m2
T06 150m2
T07 Retail Business (Type 2) 150m2
T08 Business / Retail Incubator (Shop) 150m2
T09 150m2
T10 150m2
T11 500m2
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom
T12 325m2
T13 Retail Business (Type 2) 230m2
T14 Business / Retail Incubator (Shop) 230m2
T16 500m2
T17 500m2
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom
T18 500m2
T19 500m2
Entertainment (Type 2) Recreation,
680m2
T20 amusement & fitness
Commercial Business (Type 1 Office) 1,340m2
Entertainment and Dining Business
T21 118m2
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
T22 Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 98m2
Total - 12,261m2 GLA
Additionally, it is noted that there are opportunities for additional range of uses to be included within
certain tenancies, including but not limited to:
• Industrial business type 1 Warehouse (where not storage)
• Industrial business type 2 - Production, alteration, repackaging & repairing (where small-scale /
low emissions)
• Entertainment & Dining Type 3 Bar
• Commercial Business – Type 2 Medical
• Commercial Business - Type 3 Veterinary
The servicing, car parking requirements and estimated traffic demand sections of this report clarify how
the development responds to these matters to achieve ultimate flexibility for a range of future tenants.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 5
Section 27
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
1.2 Scope of Works
As part of preparing this report, we undertook the following scope of works:
• An assessment of the physical layout of the site from a traffic perspective, taking into
consideration:
o Vehicle access arrangements;
o Carparking provision;
o Carpark layout and on-site vehicle circulation arrangements; and
o Servicing requirements and vehicle swept path analyses.
• A qualitative assessment of traffic impacts associated with the proposed development
compared to the previous approval; and
• A comparative review of the proposed development against the current Home Improvement
Store and Retail Business development approval (Previous Approval).
The results are outlined in the following sections.
1.3 Limits of Report
This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. Cambray
Consulting Pty Ltd has taken care in the preparation of this report, however it neither accepts liability
nor responsibility whatsoever in respect of:
• Any use of this report by any third party;
• Any third party whose interests may be affected by any decision made regarding the contents of
this report; and/or
• Any conclusion drawn resulting from omission or lack of full disclosure by the client, or the
clients’ consultants.
1.4 Safety in Design
Within our scope, we have identified safety in design issues and potential hazards, whenever reasonably
practicable within our field of expertise. Due to our limited and upfront role on this project, it is not
reasonably possible to identify all potential hazards which may occur throughout the life of a project,
including during detailed design and construction activities. It is strongly recommended that safety in
design issues are reviewed during all ensuing design and construction stages of the project.
1.5 Qualifications
This report was prepared by:
• Andrew Douglas, Director – BE Civil (Hons), MSc Env Man, FIEAust, CPEng, RPEQ 6691; and
• Matt Grierson, Transport Engineer – BE Civil.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 6
Section 28
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
2.0 Context
2.1 Site Location
The subject site is located at 2-18 and 20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville, and is formally described as Lot 4
on SP246584 and Lot 1 on SP222982. The site is located within the Noosa Shire Council (Council) local
government area.
The site location is indicatively illustrated in Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1 Site Location ©State of Queensland 2017 includes material
© Airbus DS 2013-17, all rights
reserved
2.2 Surrounding Road Network
Key characteristics of the road network surrounding the site are summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Road Network Overview
Road Jurisdiction Hierarchy Existing Cross Section Speed Limit
Eenie Creek Road Arterial Road Four lane divided road 60 km/h
Hofmann Drive Council Local Road Two lane divided road 50 km/h
Walter Hay Drive Arterial Road Two lane divided road 60 km/h
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 7
Section 29
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
3.0 Development Summary
3.1 Site History
The site had a previous approval for a mixed-use development (MCU12/0051) (Previous Approval). The
Development Application (DA) was approved by the Planning and Environment Court (Appeal No.1505
of 2013) and included a Masters Home Improvement Store (9,277m2 GFA) and a Retail Business (Type 4)
Showroom Store (1,737m2 GFA).
Cambray Consulting prepared the Traffic Impact Assessment for Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd (dated 27th
April 2012) which was submitted as part of the DA. We also prepared a letter (dated 15th October 2012)
which responded to a Request for Information issued by Council.
The traffic analyses we prepared as part of the DA that led to the Previous Approval indicated that the
assessed intersections would operate satisfactorily with the additional traffic demands associated with
the Previous Approval.
The previously approved plan is reproduced in Appendix C.
3.2 Development Comparison
The existing approval for the Home Improvement Store use is to be changed to a mix of uses. Table 3.1
provides a comparison between the Previous Approval development yields and the now Proposed
Development yields.
Table 3.1 Proposed Land Uses
Proposed Development
Previous Approval Yield
Land Use Yield
(MCU12/0051)
GLA
Masters Home Improvement Store 9,822m2 -
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 1,737m2 7,965m2
Retail Business (Type 2) Shop 1,360m2
Commercial Business (Type 1) Office - 1,340m2
Entertainment (Type 2)
- 1,380m2
Recreation, amusement & fitness
Entertainment and Dining Business
- 216m2
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
Total 11,559m2 12,261m2
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 8
Section 30
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
4.0 Development Access
4.1 Overview
Vehicular access to the Proposed Development is proposed to be consistent with the Previous Approval.
The proposed access arrangements are outlined below:
• Access 1 – All-movements access via the western leg of the Hofmann Drive / Noosa Shire
Business Centre Access roundabout;
• Access 2 – All-movements access via Hofmann Drive; and
• Access 3 – Entry access for trucks / service vehicles only via Eenie Creek Road Service Road.
4.2 Access 1 – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Business Centre Access /
Development Access
There is an existing stub road on the western side of the Hofmann Drive roundabout. The
proposed development access is to match into the existing alignment of this road stub, consistent with
the Previous Approval.
This access is to permit all-movements access and egress and accommodate cars and service vehicles.
4.3 Access 2 – Hofmann Drive / Proposed Development Access
Access 2 is proposed to be configured the same as the Previous Approval. Currently, there is a break in
the median and a short channelised right turn treatment was formed up on the southbound approach.
The driveway is proposed to be constructed generally in accordance with The Noosa Plan, Division 13 –
Driveways and Carparking Code (Driveways and Carparking Code), which requires that driveways comply
with relevant Australian Standards (i.e. AS2890.1 and AS2890.2).
Swept paths analyses were undertaken to understand if the currently proposed access configuration is
adequate to accommodate the design vehicles associated with the Proposed Development. The
analyses indicated that the access can appropriately accommodate the appropriate design vehicles. The
swept path analyses are included in Appendix D.
4.4 Access 3 – Eenie Creek Road Service Road / Service Vehicle Access
Access 3 is proposed to be a truck / service vehicle access only. Vehicles are to enter the service area
from the end of the Eenie Creek Road Service Road cul-de-sac. There is an existing driveway stub
extending from the cul-de-sac to the boundary of the development site and Access 3 is proposed to
match into this existing section of driveway, consistent with the Previous Approval.
Swept paths analyses were undertaken to understand if the currently proposed access configuration is
adequate to accommodate design vehicles. The analyses indicated that the access can appropriately
accommodate the appropriate design vehicles and a copy of the swept path analyses is included in
Appendix D.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 9
Section 31
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
5.0 Servicing
5.1 Overview
Figure 4.1 identifies the various tenancy servicing areas and the service vehicles proposed.
Figure 5.1 Servicing Areas
The proposed servicing areas were configured to accommodate the following vehicles:
• 19m Articulated Vehicle (AV); and
• 12.5m Heavy Rigid Vehicle (HRV).
The proposed servicing arrangements vary from the Previous Approval. The variations in servicing are
due to the segmentation of the larger single Masters Home Improvement tenancy into several smaller
Retail and Showroom uses.
Additional loading areas proposed are to facilitate servicing of the additional individual tenancies.
5.2 Review
Consultation with the client was undertaken to assist in identifying the types of vehicles that will be
required to service the proposed tenancies. Based on inputs from the client, the proposed service areas
are considered appropriate to accommodate the required service vehicles and to meet expected
servicing demands. The client has identified that they require the site to be serviced by 12.5m Heavy
Rigid Vehicles (HRV). However provision has also been made for a 19m AV servicing Tenancy 1.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 10
Section 32
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
Table 5.1 provides a summary of the adopted design vehicles for each tenancy.
Table 5.1 Adopted Service Vehicles
Tenancy Use Adopted Service Vehicle
T1 19m AV
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom
T2 12.5m HRV
Entertainment (Type 2) Recreation,
T3 12.5m HRV
amusement & fitness
T4 Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 12.5m HRV
T5
T6
12.5m HRV
T7 Retail Business (Type 2)
Parking is also available at the front which
T8 Business / Retail Incubator (Shop)
allows for Van (B99)
T9
T10
T11
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 12.5m HRV
T12
T13 12.5m HRV
Retail Business (Type 2)
Parking is also available at the front which
T14 Business / Retail Incubator (Shop)
allows for Van (B99)
T16
T17
Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom 12.5m HRV
T18
T19
Entertainment (Type 2) Recreation, Van (B99)
amusement & fitness (A short term passenger / loading bay is
T20 proposed to be located to the north of T20)
Commercial Business (Type 1
Occasional 12.5m HRV
Office)
(loading via loading bays located near T02)
Entertainment and Dining Business
T21 12.5m HRV
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
(via loading bays located near T11)
Entertainment and Dining Business
T22 Van (B99)
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
Swept path analyses were undertaken illustrating design vehicles accessing the services areas. The
analyses indicated that the service areas can appropriately accommodate the design vehicles and all
design vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward gear. Based on the above, the proposed
servicing arrangements are appropriate.
A copy of the analyses is included in Appendix D.
We do however recommend that servicing of tenancies by larger vehicles such as 12.5m HRVs and 19m
AVs occur outside of peak trading hours due to the manoeuvring space required and that these vehicles
are required to traverse some carpark circulation/parking aisles.
There are a range of tenancies in Building 1 (T03 to T11) that are envisaged as a curated cottage industry
incubator or production spaces. Eight (8) of these tenancies are only 150m2, whilst the remaining three
(3) tenancies are 700m2, 580m2 and 500m2 respectively.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 11
Section 33
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment As any possible manufacturing / production type incubator tenancies in Building 1 are generally of a small scale the likelihood is that the proposed servicing arrangements are expected to be smaller and hence the proposed arrangements are appropriate. The smaller tenancies could be serviced by a small van (B99), which would enter and exit the site and allow for direct loading from the adjoining car parks (on an unreserved basis or with a time parking management system / temporary loading area). For any larger deliveries, the proposed servicing areas adjacent to tenancies T03 to T11, and the pedestrian connection along the western boundary allows for access to each tenancy. Any deliveries would be for only a short period, and unlikely to interrupt regular customer activities at the site given the wider car parking arrangements. 5.3 Summary The proposed servicing arrangements, subject to the recommendations above, are appropriate from a traffic engineering perspective, and are considered compliant with The Noosa Plan, Division 13 – Driveways and Carparking Code requirements. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 12
Section 34
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
6.0 Carparking
6.1 Overview
A total of 347 carparking spaces are proposed to be provided across the site.
The Previous Approval included provision for 335 carparking and four (4) motorcycle parking spaces. The
total proposed parking supply exceeds that identified in the Previous Approval.
6.2 Review
The proposed 347 carparking spaces are allocated as follows:
• 315 general carparking spaces;
• 22 staff spaces located adjacent to the loading area;
• One (1) Taxi pick up space;
• One (1) Short term Passenger / Loading Bay; and
• Eight (8) spaces for persons with a disability (PWD)
This proposed parking supply equates to an effective parking provision of 1 carparking space per 35.3m2
across the proposed development site.
Table 6.1 provides a summary of the recommended parking provisions for the proposed development
uses as outlined in The Noosa Plan, Division 13 – Driveways and Carparking Code (Driveways and
Carparking Code).
Table 6.1 Carparking Provision Requirements – Driveways and Carparking Code
Proposed Recommended
Noosa Planning Scheme Use Provision Rate
Yield Spaces
Retail Business (Type 4) 1 space per 50m2 or part
7,965m2 159
Showroom thereof of use area
Entertainment (Type 2)
1,380m2 69
Recreation, amusement & fitness
Retail Business (Type 2)
1,360m2 68
Business / Retail Incubator (Shop) 1 space per 20m2 or part
Commercial Business thereof of use area
1,340m2 67
(Type 1 Office)
Entertainment and Dining Business
216m2 11
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
Total 12,261m2 - 374
The results presented above indicate that the proposed parking might result in a shortfall of 27
(approximately 7%) carparking spaces when compared to the provision recommended by the Driveways
and Carparking Code.
The peak parking demand periods of the site are expected to vary dependant on the range of proposed
uses. Based on the varying peak periods we expect that sharing of available parking across the site will
occur.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 13
Section 35
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
We have undertaken a review of the potential parking demand arrangements for two (2) potential peak
parking demand periods, considering the Noosa Plan parking recommendations and the following peak
demand scenarios:
• Weekday AM – Gym demand is typically at its highest (100%) during weekday morning.
o 100% demand has also been adopted for both Type 2 uses i.e. both the Gym and Indoor
Recreation (Children’s Play Centre);
o 50% demand for Showroom and Shop uses;
o 100% demand for Office, noting demand for the Gym will tend to be before all offices
are open;
o 100% demand for Food & Beverage uses;
• Weekend Noon – Showroom / Shop parking demand is typically at its highest (100%) around
midday on weekends;
o 100% demand for Showroom, Shop and Food & Beverage Outlet;
o 25% conservatively adopted for the Office uses, which are typically closed on a weekend
(i.e. 0% demand);
o 70% demand adopted for the Gym, this is higher than what is typically observed at noon
on weekends; and
o 100% demand for Children’s Play Centre (Entertainment (Type 2) Recreation,
amusement & fitness).
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 14
Section 36
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
A summary of the potential weekday and weekend peak parking demands based on the above is
provided in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Carparking Demand Estimates – Shared Parking Review
Potential
Weekend Potential
Noosa Plan Weekday AM Parking
Noon Parking
Use Recommende Estimated Weekday
Estimated Weekend
d Spaces Peak Demand Noon
Peak Demand Demands
Demands
Showroom
Retail Business 159 50% 80 100% 159
(Type 4)
Gym
Entertainment
(Type 2)
34 100% 34 70% 24
Recreation,
amusement &
fitness
Indoor
Recreation
Entertainment
(Type 2) 35 100% 35 100% 35
Recreation,
amusement &
fitness
Shop
Retail Business
(Type 2)
68 50% 34 100% 68
Business /
Retail
Incubator
Office
Commercial
67 100% 67 25% 17
Business
(Type 1 Office)
Entertainment
and Dining
Business 11 100% 11 100% 11
(Type 1) Food
& Beverage
Parking Total 374 - 261 - 314
Proposed
347 347 347
Parking
Difference -27 +86 +33
Based on the above review the proposed parking supply is considered to be appropriate to service the
development.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 15
Section 37
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
We also note that there is potential for parking demands to be reduced further when considering the
further interaction of the various uses across the site, including:
• The carparking on site will also have elements of cross utilisation;
o Visitors to the retail uses and staff already on site may visit several tenancies in a single
visit. These linked trips (e.g. Shop/Food, Shop/Shop, Shop/Showroom, Office/Food and
Gym/Office) would result in a reduced overall parking demand when compared to
singular use tenancies;
• The Food & Beverage uses are expected to provide a primarily an ancillary function to the other
uses on site. The peak demand is expected to be occur during the middle of the day or later in
the evening; and
• The Indoor Recreation (Children’s Play Centre) use is expected to be busier around the middle of
the day on both weekdays and weekends.
Variation in Uses
In terms of other proposed land uses that may be approved, as detailed in Section 1.1, the car parking
requirements are expected to be generally consistent to those proposed. Other potential land uses
proposed have a car parking recommended provision rates that are the same or lower, than those
adopted in Table 6.2 such as:
• Commercial Business – Type 2 Medical = 1 space per 20m2
• Commercial Business – Type 3 Veterinary = 1 space per 20m2
• Industrial business – Type 1 Warehouse (where not storage) = 1 space per 50m2
• Industrial Business – Type 2
o 1 space per 30m2 up to 150m2;
o 1 space per 50m2 up to 500m2;
The exception would be the inclusion of small, industry type incubator tenancies or hybrid offers that
might include an Entertainment & Dining Type 3 Bar use within them. For example a craft brewery
(Industrial Business – Type 2) which might also include an associated bar / food and beverage use
(Entertainment & Dining Type 3 Bar).
The parking rates for industrial uses use such as a craft brewery would have a varying parking demand
depending on the internal configuration:
• Industrial Business – Type 2
o 1 space per 30m2 upto 150m2;
o 1 space per 50m2 upto 500m2;
• Entertainment & Dining – Type 3 Bar
o 1 space per 10m2 of use area.
The internal configurations of a brewery is expected to achieve a balance in internal use areas to
achieve appropriate parking. A brewery tenancy would also experience peak parking demands outside
of the typical demands of the rest of the site (i.e. Friday and weekday evenings).
The proposed car parking provisions are expected to be appropriate to cater for a combination of land
uses due to the varying parking demands for the various potential uses proposed across the site.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 16
Section 38
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
6.3 Disability Carparking Review
The proposed development plan includes eight (8) PWD carparking spaces.
The Noosa Plan specifies that PWD carparking spaces are to comply with the Australian Standard for
Off-street Parking for People with Disabilities: (AS2890.6). The AS2890.6 states that the PWD parking
provision is to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). Noting the land uses proposed, the
BCA states that one (1) PWD space should be provided for every 50 carparking spaces or part thereof.
We reviewed the proposed PWD carparking provisions against the requirements of the BCA as
summarised in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 PWD Carparking Provision Review
Total Spaces
Provision Rate Required Provided Difference
Provided
1 PWD per 50 parking
347 spaces 7 spaces 8 spaces +1
spaces
The proposed PWD parking provision therefore meets the provision requirements of AS2890.6.
6.4 Motorcycle Parking
Due to the nature of the proposed land uses (Showroom and Shop), it is anticipated that there would be
limited demand for motorcycle parking onsite. We note that any customers or staff members that
travel to the site on a motorcycle can utilise the proposed general carparking spaces.
The limiting of dedicated motorcycle parking spaces in favour of the retention of carparking spaces
maximises the number of parking spaces available for all users to the site. That is sharing of carparking
spaces between both motorcycles and cars is possible but not the reverse.
The number of motorcycle parking spaces proposed in the Previous Approval was also significantly less
than the required rate indicated in Councils’ Planning Scheme Policy 26. It is also noted that the centre
use opposite the development site (Noosa Civic Shopping Centre) also provides limited dedicated
motorcycle parking across a significantly larger site (less than 10 across the entire precinct).
Furthermore, some carparking spaces could be converted to motorcycle spaces in the future if
significant demands are observed during operation.
6.5 Carparking Summary
The proposed carparking provisions are considered to be appropriate to meet the demands of the uses
onsite. The proposed PWD carparking space provision is also compliant with the Driveways and
Carparking Code.
The reduced provision of dedicated motorcycle parking spaces is considered appropriate noting the
nature of the Proposed Development land uses and the ability of motorcycles utilising carparking
spaces.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 17
Section 39
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
7.0 Bicycle Parking
7.1 Overview
The development includes end of trip facilities and current provisions include 69 bicycle parking spaces.
The proposed visitor bicycle parking spaces are to be located adjacent to the T11 and T20 tenancies.
We understand that the end of trip (EOT) facilities will be located at ground level within Building 4 and
located adjacent to Tenancy 01 / Tenancy 14 as identified in drawing A-DA-0100 which has been
prepared by The Buchan Group. A copy of this drawing is included in Appendix A.
Longer-term staff bicycle parking facilities are proposed to be located adjacent to the staff carparking
area in the north west of Tenancy 01, in the back of house area of the site.
7.2 Review
The recommended bicycle parking provisions have been calculated based on the rates identified in
Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Part 14 – Bicycles (Austroads Cycling Guide) and a
summary of the recommended provision is provided in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Bicycle Parking Review – Austroads Cycling Guide
Austroads Rate Number Bicycle Spaces
Land Use Yield
Staff Visitor Staff Visitor Total
Drive In
10,241m2 GLA 1 / 300m2 1 / 500m2 34.2 20.5 54.7
Shopping Centre
Building 4
2,020m2 GLA 1 / 200m2 1 / 750m2 10 2.7 12.7
Office
Total 12,261m2 GLA - - 44.2 23.2 67.4
Austroads notes that it can be appropriate to provide 50% of the recommended provisions at the initial
development stage and provide additional bicycle parking as demand is realised. There is sufficient
space on site to provide bicycle parking as required to meet the provisions outlined above.
7.3 Summary
The proposed bicycle parking and end of trip facilities comply with the requirements of The Noosa Plan
Division 3 Business Uses Code. The proposed provisions are therefore acceptable from a transport
engineering perspective.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 18
Section 40
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
8.0 Site Layout Review
The traffic elements of the site layout were reviewed against the following Australian Standards:
• AS2890.1: Off-street Parking (AS2890.1);
• AS2890.2: Off-street Commercial Vehicle Facilities (AS2890.2); and
• AS2890.6: Off-street Parking for People with Disabilities (AS2890.6).
The results are summarised in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Geometric Review
Parameter Proposed AS2890 Requirement Compliant
2.6m x 5.4m (min) 2.6m x 5.4m
Carpark Dimensions Or Or
✓
(General – Class 3 Parking) 2.6m x 4.8m 2.6m x 4.8m
+ 0.6m Overhang + 0.6m Overhang
Carparking Dimensions
2.5 x 5.4m 2.5m x 5.4m ✓
(Staff Parking – Class 2)
Carpark Dimensions
2.4m x 5.4m (min) 2.4m x 5.4m ✓
(PWD)
PWD Shared Area
2.4m x 5.4m (min) 2.4m x 5.4m ✓
Dimensions
Loading Bay Dimensions
19.0m x 3.5m 19.0m x 3.5m ✓
(19m AV)
Loading Bay Dimensions
12.5m x 3.5m 12.5m x 3.5m ✓
(12.5m HRV)
Carparking Aisle Width
6.2m (min) 5.8m ✓
(Class 3)
The proposed general carparking spaces are proposed to be provided as AS2890.1 Class 3 parking
spaces. It is noted that the aisle widths proposed are to be 6.2m wide (or wider), this is width is more in
line with aisle width recommendations Class 3A parking spaces.
Class 3 carparking relates to short term city and town centre parking. This is considered appropriate
noting the slower trade retail/showroom, gym and office uses proposed across the development. The
parking spaces are expected to have a reduced turnover (i.e. longer residence time on site).
Our review indicated that the development layout generally complies with the requirements of
Australian Standards (AS2890.1, AS2890.2 and AS2890.6).
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 19
Section 41
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
9.0 Traffic Volumes
9.1 Surveyed Traffic Volumes
Austraffic were commissioned to undertake traffic volume surveys at the following intersections (study
intersections):
• Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access / Site Access
• Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access
• Eenie Creek Road / Hofmann Drive
• Eenie Creek Road / Walter Hay Drive
Surveys were undertaken on the Thursday 1st and Saturday 3rd of August 2019.
A copy of the traffic survey data is included in Appendix E.
The surveys indicated that the observed adjacent road network peak hour periods were:
• Saturday Noon / AM – 11:15am – 12:15pm; and
• Thursday PM – 3:00pm – 4:00pm.
These peak hours have been adopted for the traffic assessment. These peak hours are also reflective of
that adopted for the previously completed traffic assessments (Previous Approval).
9.2 Background Traffic Growth
In order to identify future background traffic volumes, the following compound growth rates were
applied to the surveyed traffic volumes:
• Eenie Creek Road – 1.8% p.a.; and
• Local road network – 0.5% p.a.
The background traffic growth rate adopted for Eenie Creek Road has been based on the DTMR census
data for the closest count site (Segment Site 20032 Eumundi Noosa Road). The adopted background
traffic growth rate for the local road network was identified based on a review of Noosa Shire Council
Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) population growth estimates for Noosaville (i.e. 0.3% p.a.).
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 20
Section 42
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
9.3 Traffic Generation
We are of the opinion that the net change in traffic demands as a result of the Proposed Development
will be relatively minor when compared with the Previous Approval.
As part of the Previous Approval, Council specified traffic generation rates to be adopted for the
assessment for the Home Improvement Store and Retail Business (Type 4) Showroom Uses, as
summarised in Table 9.1. RTA and RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (GTGD) rates have
been adopted for the other proposed onsite uses.
Table 9.1 Adopted Trip Generation Rates
Saturday
Thursday PM
Land Use Noon Units Source
Peak Hour
Peak Hour
Home Improvement
Trips per 100m2 of total Noosa
Store 7.64 3.45
use area Council
(Previous Approval)
Specified
Retail Business (Type 4) Trips per 100m2 of total
4.0 2.5 Rate
Showroom use area
Entertainment (Type 2)
Trips per 100m2 of total RTA GTGD
Recreation, amusement 9 9
use area 2002
& fitness
Retail Business (Type 2)
Business / Retail Trips per 100m2 of total RTA GTGD
10.7 4.6*
Incubator (Shop) use area 2002
Speciality Shops
Commercial Business - Trips per 100m2 of total RMS GTGD
1.2
(Type 1) Office use area 2013
Entertainment and Dining
Business Trips per 100m2 of total RTA GTGD
5 5
(Type 1) Food & Beverage use area 2002
Café / Restaurant
The office uses on site are not expected to generate significant vehicle trips during the weekend. The
adopted Office use weekday PM generation rate is consistent with both the RMS Guide to Traffic
Generating Developments (GTGD) and traffic generation data compiled by the Department of Transport
and Main Road (DTMR) (Traffic Generation Data—2006–2018).
The food uses on site are expected to provide an ancillary function and therefore not expected to
generate significant vehicle trips during the adjacent road peaks, a rate based on the RTA GTGD rates for
café/restaurant uses.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 21
Section 43
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
The peak hour trip generation of the Previous Approval is summarised in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Previous Development Approval Trips
Saturday Noon Thursday PM
Land Use Yield (GFA)
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Home Improvement Store 9,822m2 750 339
Retail Business (Type 4) 1,737m2 70 44
2
Total 11,559m 820 383
The peak hour trip generation of the Proposed Development is summarised in Table 9.3.
Table 9.3 Proposed Development Total Trips
Saturday Noon Thursday PM
Land Use Yield (GLA) Peak Hour Peak Hour
Total Trips Total Trips
Retail Business (Type 4)
7,965m2 319 199
Showroom
Entertainment (Type 2)
1,380m2 124 124
Recreation, amusement & fitness
Retail Business (Type 2)
Business / Retail Incubator (Shop) 1360m2 146 63
Speciality Shop
Commercial Business
1,340m2 - 16
(Type 1 Office)
Entertainment and Dining
Business
216m2 11 11
(Type 1) Food & Beverage
Café / Restaurant
Total 12,261m2 599 413
Based on the Council-recommended trip generation rates, the proposed Retail Business (Type 4)
development is expected to generate in the order of 599 trips (in and out) during the Saturday noon
peak period.
It is important to note however that not all trips associated with the development will be ‘new’ to the
local road network. As the retail portion of the development is expected to be convenience based, a
proportion of trips associated with this site will be drop-in trips.
That is, some trips to and from the development will be motorists travelling past or in close proximity to
the development as part of another trip (e.g. travelling home from work).
The Department of Transport and Main Roads’ (DTMR) Guide to Assessment of Road Impacts of
Development (GARID) Appendix F provides guidance in relation to the proportion of new and ‘drop-in’
trips.
The trip segmentation outlined in the GARID for the proposed land use is summarised in Table 3.3.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 22
Section 44
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
Table 9.4 Adopted Trip Segmentation – GARID
Use New Diverted Drop-in Undiverted Drop-in
Retail
50% 22% 28%
Shopping Centre 3,000 – 20,000m2
Table 9.5 summarises the estimated segmented development traffic generation during each peak
period.
Table 9.5 Estimated Trip Generation by Trip Type
Trips
Peak Period
New Diverted Drop-in Un-Diverted Drop-in Total
Saturday AM Peak Hour 362 104 133 599
Thursday PM Peak Hour 277 60 76 413
This trip segmentation has been incorporated within the SIDRA analysis documented in Section 11.
9.4 Comparison to Previous Approval
The difference in peak hour total trip generation between the Previous Approval and the Proposed
Development is summarised in Table 9.4.
Table 9.1 Traffic Generation Comparison – Previous Approval & Proposed Development
Saturday Noon Thursday PM
Development Scenario
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Previous Approval 820 383
Proposed Development 599 413
Difference Total Trips -221 +30
In terms of other potential land uses that may be approved on site, and as detailed in Section 1.1, the
estimated traffic demands are expected to be generally comparable to the above estimates.
The Proposed Development is expected to generate approximately 220 fewer trips that the Previous
Approval in the Saturday peak period. The development is also expected to generate comparable trips
to the Previous Approval in the Thursday PM Peak.
As such, the Proposed Development is expected to have comparable impact on the surrounding
network than the traffic assessment associated with the Previous Approval.
It is important to note that no external road network upgrades were required as part of the Previous
Approval over the site. Given the Proposed Development is expected to generate lower traffic volumes
that the Previous Approval, no road network upgrades are considered to be required to support the
proposed development.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 23
Section 45
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
10.0 Assessment Criteria
Traffic analysis (SIDRA) has been undertaken to determine potential operational impacts associated with
the proposed development on the surrounding road network. The main criteria utilised to assess
intersection performance is the ‘Degree of Saturation’ (DOS), which is the ratio of maximum demand
volume to capacity at an intersection. The Department of Transport and Main Roads’ (DTMR’s)
Guidelines for Assessment of Road Impacts of Development (GARID) provides guidance in relation to the
limit of acceptable operation based on the intersection type.
The recommended DOS thresholds are summarised in Table 7.1.
Table 10.1 Adopted Assessment Criteria (DOS)
Intersection Type DOS Threshold
Priority Controlled 0.80
Roundabouts 0.85
Signals 0.90
In addition to the above, we also utilised ‘critical delay’ and Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for the
priority-controlled intersection. It is noted that the ‘critical delay’ represents the worst average delay
for an individual movement at the intersection. The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority’s Guide to Traffic
Engineering Developments provides guidance in relation to average delay and LOS thresholds.
The LOS thresholds are summarised in Table 7.2.
Table 10.2 Adopted Assessment Criteria (Average Delay & LOS)
Level of Service (LOS) Average Delay / Vehicle
A < 14 seconds
B 15 to 28 seconds
C 29 to 42 seconds
D 43 to 56 seconds
E 57 to 70 seconds
F > 70 seconds
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 24
Section 46
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment 11.0 Traffic Impact Assessment Operational analysis (SIDRA) was undertaken at the study intersections to review the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed development. A copy of the SIDRA summaries are included in Appendix F. 11.1 Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access The adopted SIDRA layout for the assessed intersection configuration is illustrated in Figure 11.1. Figure 11.1 SIDRA Layout – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access The SIDRA analysis results are summarised in Table 11.1. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 25
Section 47
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
Table 11.1 SIDRA Results – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access
Critical
Demand 95th %ile Queue Acceptable
Scenario DOS Average
(vehs/hr) (m) Performance
Delay (sec)
Weekend AM Peak Hour (11:15am – 12:15pm)
2019 Survey 863 0.28 8 12 South ✓
2020 BG 868 0.29 9 12 South ✓
2020 BG+DEV 1,496 0.46 10 26 North ✓
2030 BG 911 0.30 10 13 South ✓
2030 BG+DEV 1,539 0.47 10 28 North ✓
Weekday PM Peak Hour (3:00pm – 4:00pm)
2019 Survey 960 0.31 10 14 South ✓
2020 BG 966 0.31 10 14 South ✓
2020 BG+DEV 1,398 0.40 10 21 North ✓
2030 BG 1,014 0.33 10 15 South ✓
2030 BG+DEV 1,445 0.42 10 22 North ✓
The analysis results indicated that the existing intersection will perform within typical design thresholds
for a roundabout intersection (i.e. DOS less than 0.85 and average delays less than 57 seconds) at the
assessed year of opening development scenarios.
11.2 Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access
The adopted SIDRA layout for the assessed intersection configuration is illustrated in Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.2 SIDRA Layout – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 26
Section 48
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
The SIDRA analysis results are summarised in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2 SIDRA Results – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access
Critical
Demand 95th %ile Queue Acceptable
Scenario DOS Average
(vehs/hr) (m) Performance
Delay (sec)
Weekend AM Peak Hour (11:15am – 12:15pm)
2019 Survey 1,393 0.32 9 15 West ✓
2020 BG 1,400 0.33 9 15 West ✓
2020 BG+DEV 2,029 0.60 11 41 West ✓
2030 BG 1,472 0.35 9 16 West ✓
2030 BG+DEV 2,102 0.63 11 46 West ✓
Weekday PM Peak Hour (3:00pm – 4:00pm)
2019 Survey 1,418 0.38 9 19 West ✓
2020 BG 1,425 0.39 9 19 West ✓
2020 BG+DEV 1,859 0.58 10 37 West ✓
2030 BG 1,496 0.41 9 21 West ✓
2030 BG+DEV 1,932 0.61 10 42 West ✓
The analysis results indicated that the existing intersection will perform within typical design thresholds
for a roundabout intersection (i.e. DOS less than 0.85 and average delays less than 57 seconds) at the
assessed year of opening development scenarios.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 27
Section 49
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
11.3 Eenie Creek Road / Hofmann Drive
The adopted SIDRA layout for the assessed intersection configuration is illustrated in Figure 11.3.
Figure 11.3 SIDRA Layout – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access
The SIDRA analysis results are summarised in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 SIDRA Results – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access
Critical
Demand 95th %ile Queue Acceptable
Scenario DOS Average
(vehs/hr) (m) Performance
Delay (sec)
Weekend AM Peak Hour (11:15am – 12:15pm)
2019 Survey 2,232 0.36 11 18 ✓
2020 BG 2,256 0.36 11 19 ✓
2020 BG+DEV 2,816 0.46 11 27 ✓
2030 BG 2,511 0.41 11 23 ✓
2030 BG+DEV 3,036 0.59 14 41 ✓
Weekday PM Peak Hour (3:00pm – 4:00pm)
2019 Survey 2,368 0.35 11 18 ✓
2020 BG 2,395 0.35 11 19 ✓
2020 BG+DEV 2,788 0.46 13 25 ✓
2030 BG 2,681 0.41 11 23 ✓
2030 BG+DEV 3,075 0.50 13 31 ✓
The analysis results indicated that the existing intersection will perform within typical design thresholds
for a roundabout intersection (i.e. DOS less than 0.85 and average delays less than 57 seconds) at the
assessed year of opening development scenarios.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 28
Section 50
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
11.4 Eenie Creek Road / Walter Hay Drive
The adopted SIDRA layout for the assessed intersection configuration is illustrated in Figure 11.4.
Figure 11.4 SIDRA Layout – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic / Site Access
The SIDRA analysis results are summarised in Table 11.4.
Table 11.4 SIDRA Results – Hofmann Drive / Noosa Civic Access
Critical
Demand 95th %ile Queue Acceptable
Scenario DOS Average
(vehs/hr) (m) Performance
Delay (sec)
Weekend AM Peak Hour (11:15am – 12:15pm)
2019 Survey 3,122 0.64 12 37m North ✓
2020 BG 3,152 0.65 12 38m North ✓
2020 BG+DEV 3,397 0.69 13 42m North ✓
2030 BG 3,457 0.75 16 52m West ✓
2030 BG+DEV 3,701 0.80 19 61m West ✓
Weekday PM Peak Hour (3:00pm – 4:00pm)
2019 Survey 3,669 0.82 16 63m North ✓
2020 BG 3,705 0.83 16 66m North ✓
2020 BG+DEV 3,881 0.88 20 78m North ✓
2030 BG 4,079 0.96 38 132m North DOS Exceeded
2030 BG+DEV 4,256 1.01 59 192m North DOS Exceeded
The assessment also indicates impacts associated with the development to relatively minimal as
illustrated by the incremental increase in delay.
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 29
Section 51
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment The assessed Degree of Saturation (DOS) is expected to be exceeded for a roundabout intersection for the assessed 2030 Background and Background with Development assessments (10 year design horizon). This indicates that capacity improvements might be required due to background traffic growth sometime in the future regardless of the development. It is noted that while the degree of saturation criteria might exceed typical limits the expected average critical delay remains within allowable limits for a roundabout intersection. The adopted traffic impact assessment of the proposed development is also considered to be conservative as it has not considered the future extension of Hoffmann Drive through to the Walter Hay Drive roundabout. That is the traffic impact assessment might show increased development impact on the assessed intersections. The inclusion of the connections to Walter Hay Drive and the connection through the Noosa Civic Precinct would redistribute the traffic across additional intersections lessening the overall impact of the development on the adjacent road network. The existing intersection configuration is considered appropriate to accommodate the existing and proposed development traffic at the year of opening, without resulting in significant impacts to intersection delays. Noosa Shire Council (Council) has identified road corridor works for Eenie Creek Road in the Council Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) these outlined works are designated as R10 (Schedule 9.1 Table 15.16). The identified road corridor upgrade works are scheduled to occur between 2021 – 2026, before the Eenie Creek Road / Walter Hay Road intersection reaches its expected design capacity. The details off the Council budgeted works are not known at this stage, but the notes associated with the listed works make it clear the upgrades are to improve vehicle capacity at this intersection. The proposed development would be making a financial contribution to such works through the payment of infrastructure charges. \\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd | Page 30
Section 52
20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville | Traffic Impact Assessment
12.0 Summary
Key findings of this report are summarised below:
• The proposed access arrangements are generally consistent with the Previous Approval;
• The proposed carparking supply is expected to be appropriate to support the development.
• The proposed servicing strategy is appropriate to support the development;
• The development layout is generally compliant with The Noosa Plan, Division 13 – Driveways
and Carparking Code;
• Peak hour traffic generation associated with the Proposed Development is expected to be lower
than that of the Previous Approval. No external road network upgrades are required to support
the Proposed Development, noting Council’s LGIP includes capacity improvements to the Eenie
Creek Road / Walter Hay Road intersection; and
• The proposed development is therefore expected to not result in a significant impact on the
operation of the surrounding road network.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on 07 3221 3503 if you have any queries regarding
the above.
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Douglas
Director | Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
BECivil (Hons) |MSc (Env Man)
FIEAust | CPEng | RPEQ 6691
\\FILE\Projects\BLU0517\01\3. Deliverables\1. Reports\3.RevisedTIA 2019\RevisedTIA_20 Hofmann Drive, Noosaville.docx Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
| Page 31
Section 53
APPENDIX A
Proposed Development Plan – The Buchan Group
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
[OCR of page images]
APPENDIX A
Proposed Development Plan — The Buchan Group
Sener eee eee
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Section 54
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
TENANCY 03 TENANCY 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 TENANCY 11 ST
igid Vehicle
700 m² 580 m² 150 m² 150 m² 150 m² 150 m² 150 m² 150 m² 500 m² HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
R
HRV - Heavy
22 S PH
HRV - Hea T
vy Rigid Veh AFF
icle P ARK
IN G SP
ACE
S
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
TENANCY 12
29 325m²
TENANCY 13
230m²
igid Vehicle
CUSTOMER CARPARKING 5 TENANCY 14
R
HRV - Heavy
230m²
le
culated Vehic
14 11 9
30
AV - Arti
TENANCY 01
2760m²
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
16
TENANCY
022 TENANCY le
98 m² ehiclaeictel d Vehic
26 021 16
- H e
H aevyvARyVigRi-digAiVdrtiVcuehl
a
HRHVRV -
118 m²
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
16
CUS
TOM
ER C
AR P
AR K
ING
21 5
11
Development Snapshot
TENANCY 16
11
11 500m²
ADDRESSES (LOT & PLAN): LOT.1 - SP222982: 2-20 HOFMANN
11
HOFM DRIVE, LOT.4 - SP2465848: 2-18 HOFMANN DRIVE, NOOSA QLD
A NN D 4
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle RIVE 19
TENANCY 17 SITE AREA: 35, 762m²
5
500m²
SITE COVER:
(PROPOSED): - 13, 330m²
4
TENANCY 20 (NLA) PLOT RATIO:
ground level =680m² (PROPOSED): - 2.7
TENANCY 18
level one = 680m²
500m²
level two = 660m²
14
16 BUILDING HEIGHT:
(BUILDING 1): 7, 200m
16
5
E5 (BUILDING 2): 4, 800m
B3 (BUILDING 3): 7, 200m
HRV -
Heavy
TENANCY 19 (BUILDING 4): 11, 900m
Rigid
Vehicl
e
500m²
AREAS:
BUILDING 1 -
HRV -
GFA: 2, 780m²
Heavy
R
igid V
ehicle
GLA: 2, 680m²
BUILDING 2 -
TENANCY 02 GFA: 230m²
OAD
1800m²
GLA: 216m²
KR
R EE
BUILDING 3 -
IE C
GFA: 7, 810m²
GLA: 7, 345m²
EEN
BUILDING 4 (Gnd + Levels 1-2) -
GFA: 2, 365m²
GLA: 2, 020m²
HRV - Heavy Rigid Vehicle
TOTAL GFA: 13, 185m²
TOTAL GLA: 12, 261m²
CARPARKS PROVIDED:
AV - Articul
ated Vehicl
e 347 TOTAL (inclusive of) -
8 PWD SPACES
1 TAXI/ SHARE RIDE BAY
BIKE RACKS: 69
Rev. Date Description Iss. Appr. Do not scale this drawing. Verify all dimensions on site before commencing Project Status Drawing Title
NOOSA MARKETPLACE
any work. Copyright © 2019 Buchan. This drawing remains the property of
2 15.05.19 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AJ PS
The Buchan Group Australia Pty Ltd. Reproduction in whole or in part without
3 05.08.19 DEVELOPED DESIGN AJ PS prior consent is forbidden. Date Plotted
17/09/2019 12:18:31 PM
4
5
15.08.19
29.08.19
AREA RECONFIGURATION
CONSULTANT COORDINATION
AJ
AJ
PS
PS
File
LOT.1 - SP222982: 2-20 HOFMANN DRIVE, LOT.4 - SP2465848: Date Issued
17.09.19
OVERALL GROUND FLOOR PLAN
6
7
02.09.19
04.09.19
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT
GENERAL REVISION
AJ
AJ
PS
PS 2-18 HOFMANN DRIVE, NOOSA QLD Scale
As indicated
N
8 12.09.19 CONSULTANT COORDINATION AJ PS
Project Number @A1 Drawing Number Revision Brisbane Studio
9 17.09.19 CONSULTANT COORDINATION AJ PS 0 10 20 40 60M
+ 61 7 3859 9222 / buchangroup.com.au
716159 A-DA-0100 9
Section 55
APPENDIX B
Proposed Noosa Marketplace Definition – Urbis
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
[OCR of page images]
APPENDIX B
Proposed Noosa Marketplace Definition — Urbis
|
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
Section 56
‘Undefined Use – Noosa Marketplace’ meaning an integrated mixed-use precinct for a range of uses
comprising:
Retail Showroom – premises not less than 300m2 per tenancy used for the display and sale
of large or bulky goods, or large stocks of similar goods or related goods;
Shop – premises less than 300m2 per tenancy used for displaying, selling or hiring goods
other than supermarket, department store or discount department store;
Office – premises used for:
a) providing an administrative, financial, management or secretarial service or
function; or
b) the practice of a profession; or
c) providing business or professional advice or services.
Health Care Services – premise used for medical purposes, paramedical purposes,
alternative health therapies or general health care, if overnight accommodation and keeping
of animals is not provided on premises.
Indoor Sport and Recreation – premises used for leisure, sport or recreation activity
conducted wholly indoors.
Hotel premises used for—
a) selling liquor for consumption on the premises; and
b) Located within a tenancy comprising a Low Impact Industry.
A Hotel may also comprise a dining or entertainment activity, if the use is ancillary to the use
in subparagraph (a).
Bar means the use of premises, with seating for 60 or less people, for —
a) selling liquor for consumption on the premises; or
b) an entertainment activity, or preparing and selling food and drink for consumption
on the premises, if the use is ancillary to the use in paragraph (a).
Low Impact Industry – premises used for industrial activities that include the manufacturing,
producing, processing, repairing, altering, recycling, storing, distributing, transferring,
treating of products and have one or more of the following attributes:
a) minimal impacts on sensitive land uses due to off-site emissions including aerosol,
fume, particle, smoke, odour and noise;
b) traffic generation at a rate no more than other uses in this definition;
c) the use generally operates during the day (e.g. 7am to 7pm);
d) off-site impacts from storage of dangerous goods are minimal;
e) the use is primarily undertaken indoors.
Food and drink outlet premises used for:
a) preparing and selling food and drink for consumption on or off the premises; or
b) providing liquor for consumption on the premises, if the use is ancillary to the use in
paragraph (a);
c) Excluding premises which contains a drive-through.
Any tenancy/s may be used for one, or a combination of, the above uses. For example, a Low Impact
Industry tenancy used for a brewery may include a Hotel or Bar use, or a Low Impact Industry
making clothing may include a Shop use to enable the sale of clothing from the same tenancy.
Section 57
APPENDIX C
Approved Development Plan (MCU12/0051)
– Leffler Simes Architects
Cambray Consulting Pty Ltd
The text continues on section 58.