Original source · versioned page text
RFI - Attachment 4 - Traffic Report TTP Response.pdf
Department Principal:
Bryce Trevilyan
Project Contact:
Noel Kay
ABN: 54 619 700 239
Queensland
6 Mayneview Street, Milton Qld 4064
PO Box 1779, Milton BC, Qld 4064
P: +61 7 3871 0411 F: +61 7 3367 3317
TTPlus Ref: 10553
E: [email protected]
Date: 22-Nov-2022
Phil Starkey
Noosa Springs Real Estate Pty Ltd
[email protected]
Dear Phil
Noosa Springs Resort Complex — Traffic Engineering response to RFIs
1. Noosa Shire Council (Council) issued an Information Request dated 23 July 2021 (RFI). The RFI identifies a number
of issues, however the traffic specific issues at the proposed development are listed under the heading of car parking,
noting that not all issues are related to car parking. The State has also issued an RFI dated 6 Aug 2021.
2. The Council RFI states the following traffic related issues:
3. I agree with the views expressed in Bryce Trevilyan’s report dated 18 June 2021 that the provision of parking as originally
proposed will be appropriate for the nature of the development envisaged. However, it is clear that Council is reluctant
to accept a parking provision at the rate originally proposed — I accept that Council may wish to maintain a somewhat
conservative approach in this regard. As such, it is now proposed that additional parking be provided at Noosa Springs,
by way of an elevated parking structure to be built over the top of the existing north western carpark which would provide
up to 48 additional car parking spaces.
Traffic Transport Engineering www.ttplus.com.au
[OCR of page images]
TRAPP IR G RANSPORT
Department Principal: p ly us
Bryce Trevilyan
Project Contact:
Noel Kay
ABN: 54 619 700 239
Queensland
6 Mayneview Street, Milton Qld 4064
PO Box 1779, Milton BC, Qld 4064
TTPlus Ref: 10553 P: +61 7 3871 0411 F: +61 7 3367 3317
. : it COM.
Date: 22-Nov-2022 E [email protected] au
Phil Starkey
Noosa Springs Real Estate Pty Ltd
[email protected]
Dear Phil
Noosa Springs Resort Complex — Traffic Engineering response to RFls
Noosa Shire Council (Council) issued an Information Request dated 23 July 2021 (RFI). The RFI identifies a number
of issues, however the traffic specific issues at the proposed development are listed under the heading of car parking,
noting that not all issues are related to car parking. The State has also issued an RFI dated 6 Aug 2021.
The Council RFI states the following traffic related issues:
Car parking
The submitted traffic report makes some assumptions regarding the volume of car use, in part
relying that a hotel/resort at Noosa Springs and the associated transport network is
comparable to a hotel/resort and the associated transport network attributes at the Gold Coast
and Brisbane CBD. The Traffic and Transport Plus report relies on these assumptions for
supporting the proposed parking provision rate of 1 space per 4 units.
As highlighted in the Traffic and Transport Plus report, “it is well known by many tourists that
it is possible to fly to the Gold Coast, and access all the tourist attractions without need for
either a personal vehicle or a hire vehicle”. |t is unlikely to be the case currently that the same
expectation can be said for tourists that will stay at the proposed hotel/resort at Noosa
Springs.
While there may be good and supportable reasons to provide parking for the proposed
hotel/resort at a rate less than 1 space per unit, we are not yet convinced that provision of
parking at a rate of 1 space per 4 units is the appropriate response at Noosa.
i. Will guests be turned away if they arrive in their own vehicle and there are
already parking demands associated with the hotel / resort that exceed the 1
space per 4 unit rate?
ii. | Will guests be advised not to attend if they desire to bring their own vehicle, or
will they be advised that they should not bring their own vehicle?
| agree with the views expressed in Bryce Trevilyan’s report dated 18 June 2021 that the provision of parking as originally
proposed will be appropriate for the nature of the development envisaged. However, it is clear that Council is reluctant
to accept a parking provision at the rate originally proposed — | accept that Council may wish to maintain a somewhat
conservative approach in this regard. As such, it is now proposed that additional parking be provided at Noosa Springs,
by way of an elevated parking structure to be built over the top of the existing north western carpark which would provide
up to 48 additional car parking spaces.
Traffic Transport Engineering www.ttplus.com.au
Preview the original
The page text is free to read. Previews and downloads of original files need an account.
Log in to previewLog in to download the original (RFI - Attachment 4 - Traffic Report TTP Response.pdf)
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 10 pages
Page 2
4. As originally proposed, the provision of parking spaces at the subject site post construction of the proposed hotel was
to be 207 spaces. In Bryce Trevilyan’s report dated 18 June 2021, it was noted that if the 1 car parking space per 4
room provision were to be permitted, then the 112-room hotel would require 28 car parking spaces. The balance of
spaces (179 car parking spaces) would be more than adequate for other parking demands at the Subject Site. It is
noted that the 28 car parking spaces were a minimum, and that further re-allocation of car parking spaces between the
proposed hotel use and other uses would have been possible.
5. By adding the parking structure (and accounting for a potential loss of up to 6 of these spaces to fine-tune the geometric
design), the proposed provision of car parking spaces for the hotel increases from 28 to 70 (=28+42), would mean that
the proposed provision would be 1 car parking space per 1.6 rooms (minimum).
6. The operation of the hotel and its associated booking systems will be aligned with the intended operation of the hotel as
a low car use entity. The commercial reality includes a consideration from the proponent that there is untapped market
of travellers who don’t wish to utilise cars that currently stay away from Noosa as their needs are not adequately catered
for. The marketing campaign for the hotel is yet to be developed, but it is intended that it will be indicated that parking
is in limited supply at the hotel and that alternative means will be available and attractive to guests.
7. The RFI has requested the following information:
8. I note that Issue 4 as identified is something of an impossibility to achieve. The reality is there are only two categories
of resorts that exist in or around the Sunshine Coast — those that were built catering for large minimum parking
requirements, such as Twin Waters, and those that are located on islands such as Kingfisher Resort or Tangalooma
Resort.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 2
[OCR of page images]
As originally proposed, the provision of parking spaces at the subject site post construction of the proposed hotel was
to be 207 spaces. In Bryce Trevilyan’s report dated 18 June 2021, it was noted that if the 1 car parking space per 4
room provision were to be permitted, then the 112-room hotel would require 28 car parking spaces. The balance of
spaces (179 car parking spaces) would be more than adequate for other parking demands at the Subject Site. It is
noted that the 28 car parking spaces were a minimum, and that further re-allocation of car parking spaces between the
proposed hotel use and other uses would have been possible.
By adding the parking structure (and accounting for a potential loss of up to 6 of these spaces to fine-tune the geometric
design), the proposed provision of car parking spaces for the hotel increases from 28 to 70 (=28+42), would mean that
the proposed provision would be 1 car parking space per 1.6 rooms (minimum).
The operation of the hotel and its associated booking systems will be aligned with the intended operation of the hotel as
a low car use entity. The commercial reality includes a consideration from the proponent that there is untapped market
of travellers who don’t wish to utilise cars that currently stay away from Noosa as their needs are not adequately catered
for. The marketing campaign for the hotel is yet to be developed, but it is intended that it will be indicated that parking
is in limited supply at the hotel and that alternative means will be available and attractive to guests.
The RFI has requested the following information:
Information Required
To be able consider parking for the hotel / report to be satisfactory at the rate of 1 space per
4 units, it is recommended that the following information be provided:
4. Details of actual parking demand rates at two existing comparable hotel / resorts at the
Sunshine Coast area, identifying the distribution of parking demands at those
comparable facilities across the days of a full week (outside of any lockdown or COVID
restriction periods), as well as the number of occupied rooms on each day. It is
recommended that comparable existing facilities be agreed with Council officers prior to
commencement of data collection for the requested assessment.
5. Advise of the number of EFT staff expected to be employed at the proposed hotel/resort.
Details of the referenced parking surveys at the existing carpark in 2015.
7. Details of proposals referenced throughout the traffic report and in the recommendations
in relation to the provision of and encouragement of use of facilities such as mopeds,
electric bikes & scooters and shuttle buses, including associated conditions of approval
that the Council could impose to facilitate the aspirational outcomes.
8. Undertake detailed assessment of the proposed changes to the parking layout including:
a. Compliance with the AS2890 Australian Standard series.
b. Whether the proposed hotel parking will be separated / delineated from the
balance of the carpark, by either gates, or signage, or both, and how those
arrangements would operate in a satisfactory manner. This should include how
other vehicles would turn around if they reach the hotel / resort designated parking
area without finding a parking space, and how vehicles will turn around and exit if
they search for a prime undercover carpark near the lifts to the hotel/resort, and
find all spaces occupied.
c. The refuse vehicle swept path assessment indicates that it is extremely tight. It
should be redone using an appropriate clearance envelope and with the vehicle
travelling on both directions along the critical parts of the route.
| note that Issue 4 as identified is something of an impossibility to achieve. The reality is there are only two categories
of resorts that exist in or around the Sunshine Coast — those that were built catering for large minimum parking
requirements, such as Twin Waters, and those that are located on islands such as Kingfisher Resort or Tangalooma
Resort.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 2
Page 3
9. I note that in the case of Twin Waters, it lies a very short distance from the Sunshine Coast Airport. However, it also
lies a significant distance away from other facilities including the Twin Waters Golf Club which is around 15-20min walk
from the resort. The car parking at Twin Waters is plentiful. Twin Waters does not have reasonable provision for people
to move between the resort and other locations by means other than car, and it is generally expected that guests will
have a car, or alternatively that they intend to stay entirely at the resort (which is adjacent to a beach). The key point is
that it is a resort designed to be car-friendly, and as such, it attracts car use. It’s difficult to see how it could be utilised
as an example to demonstrate anything meaningful with respect to operation of the proposed development. Whilst I
have only opined with regards to Twin Waters, I consider that this is typical of how resorts of this nature are provisioned
with respect to car parking. Customers utilising such resorts are confident that parking will be provided to them, and
they plan their trip accordingly. This is not what is envisaged with the Noosa Springs Hotel.
10. A great example of resorts that limit their parking are Tangalooma and Kingfisher. Both are located on islands (Moreton
Is. and Fraser Is., respectively) — they are set up to allow access to their customers by means other than car travel.
The parking provision at either is small enough to cater for 4WD enthusiasts who wish to take their vehicles driving on
the sand, but other than that the resorts are accessed predominantly by passengers from ferry services dedicated to
their resorts. On the islands themselves, the resorts provide various transport options to allow guests to attend activities
in the nearby area. What these example resorts lack when compared to the proposed development is access to the
wider range of activities and locations that are present in Noosa Heads. There is something of a regimented approach
to what one can do at Tangalooma, with a list given to each guest advising the times of various activities (dolphin
feedings etc). The proposed development would contrast in allowing guests to better plan their own days and activities
throughout Noosa Heads and the wider area. Of course these island resorts are more extreme examples of attenuated
use of private motor vehicles, however the principles are the same.
11. With regard to Issue 5, I have been advised by GH Properties that the equivalent full time (EFT) employees are expected
to be as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — EFT employees of new hotel use
Full Time
Employee Category Equivalent
Staff
Front Desk / Lobby 5
Housekeeping 12
Food & Beveridge 16
Telephone / minor 1
Admn - General 4
Marketing / Sales 2
Property Maintenance 2
Other 2
Total 44
12. I note that a number of these categories such as housekeeping and admin are likely to be parked during the daytime,
which is offset from the peak parking expected to occur at the hotel. Parking is likely at a maximum between the evening
and the next morning when hotel customers are back at the hotel for the evening.
13. With regard to Issue 6, Appendix A contains the spreadsheets from the parking survey.
14. With regard to Issue 7, these are details that would need to be worked out at a later date with respect to the detailed
provision of services such as cycles, mopeds and scooters. It is not just the provision of the actual vehicles that is key
but managing operational and maintenance issues. It is likely that a third party will be contracted to provide the services,
with the third party responsible for providing the scooters/bikes and for the maintenance and charging. It is possible
however that the resort may purchase the vehicles and keep their operation and maintenance in house. All of this will
be a commercial decision that will be undertaken by the proponent post approval. It is noted that at a recent inspection
at the Sheraton Mirage at Port Douglas (a location clearly more “remote” than the subject site), scooters were available
for use by patrons.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 3
[OCR of page images]
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14,
| note that in the case of Twin Waters, it lies a very short distance from the Sunshine Coast Airport. However, it also
lies a significant distance away from other facilities including the Twin Waters Golf Club which is around 15-20min walk
from the resort. The car parking at Twin Waters is plentiful. Twin Waters does not have reasonable provision for people
to move between the resort and other locations by means other than car, and it is generally expected that guests will
have a car, or alternatively that they intend to stay entirely at the resort (which is adjacent to a beach). The key point is
that it is a resort designed to be car-friendly, and as such, it attracts car use. It’s difficult to see how it could be utilised
as an example to demonstrate anything meaningful with respect to operation of the proposed development. Whilst |
have only opined with regards to Twin Waters, | consider that this is typical of how resorts of this nature are provisioned
with respect to car parking. Customers utilising such resorts are confident that parking will be provided to them, and
they plan their trip accordingly. This is not what is envisaged with the Noosa Springs Hotel.
A great example of resorts that limit their parking are Tangalooma and Kingfisher. Both are located on islands (Moreton
Is. and Fraser Is., respectively) — they are set up to allow access to their customers by means other than car travel.
The parking provision at either is small enough to cater for 4WD enthusiasts who wish to take their vehicles driving on
the sand, but other than that the resorts are accessed predominantly by passengers from ferry services dedicated to
their resorts. On the islands themselves, the resorts provide various transport options to allow guests to attend activities
in the nearby area. What these example resorts lack when compared to the proposed development is access to the
wider range of activities and locations that are present in Noosa Heads. There is something of a regimented approach
to what one can do at Tangalooma, with a list given to each guest advising the times of various activities (dolphin
feedings etc). The proposed development would contrast in allowing guests to better plan their own days and activities
throughout Noosa Heads and the wider area. Of course these island resorts are more extreme examples of attenuated
use of private motor vehicles, however the principles are the same.
With regard to Issue 5, | have been advised by GH Properties that the equivalent full time (EFT) employees are expected
to be as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — EFT employees of new hotel use
Full Time
Employee Category | Equivalent
Staff
Front Desk / Lobby 5
Housekeeping 12
Food & Beveridge 16
Telephone / minor 1
Admn - General 4
Marketing / Sales 2
Property Maintenance 2
Other 2
Total 44
| note that a number of these categories such as housekeeping and admin are likely to be parked during the daytime,
which is offset from the peak parking expected to occur at the hotel. Parking is likely at a maximum between the evening
and the next morning when hotel customers are back at the hotel for the evening.
With regard to Issue 6, Appendix A contains the spreadsheets from the parking survey.
With regard to Issue 7, these are details that would need to be worked out at a later date with respect to the detailed
provision of services such as cycles, mopeds and scooters. It is not just the provision of the actual vehicles that is key
but managing operational and maintenance issues. It is likely that a third party will be contracted to provide the services,
with the third party responsible for providing the scooters/bikes and for the maintenance and charging. It is possible
however that the resort may purchase the vehicles and keep their operation and maintenance in house. All of this will
be a commercial decision that will be undertaken by the proponent post approval. It is noted that at a recent inspection
at the Sheraton Mirage at Port Douglas (a location clearly more “remote” than the subject site), scooters were available
for use by patrons.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 3
Page 4
15. In this manner, it is similar to other services that new developments must provide, such as refuse collection. The details
of the refuse collection contract are not typically part of the application process, but key to the application is that refuse
collection is possible and that conditions are in place requiring the operator to have suitable refuse collection
arrangements. To this end, I consider that this matter can be dealt with via conditions requiring a minimum number of
alternative mode vehicles to be operational at any time during the life of the proposed development.
16. There is the further issue of shuttle buses. Again, I would consider that the provision of around 1-2 buses would be
sufficient to allow the following services:
a. Buses to provide bespoke services between the hotel and the airport, and
b. Buses to provide services to drop-off and pick-up guests in the local area.
17. Firstly, it is likely that whilst the term bus has been used, it is more likely that the actual vehicles will be minibus or
minivan configuration, similar to that which is used by services such as Con-x-ion. Again, airport transfers and bespoke
trips to nearby attractions were heavily utilised at the aforementioned inspection of the Sheraton Mirage resort at Port
Douglas.
18. Similar to the cycles, mopeds and scooters, it is likely that these minibus services will be provided under contract and
would be able to be parked at the contractor’s depot off-site whilst not in use during the day and overnight. There is
adequate space in the port-cochere area for buses to drop-off and pick-up guests, and there is a bus layover bay on
Links Drive adjacent to the complex’s exit. Buses are also able to layover at an unused bus stop located on Resort
Drive (this stop was provided under requirements of a previous DA and is unlikely to be used by timetabled services in
the foreseeable future). I consider that a condition could be drafted that would state the provision of shuttle bus services
to the local airport should be provided and maintained.
19. With respect to Issue 8, the new car parking structure has been designed in compliance with the requirements of the
Australian Standard – AS2890 Parking Facilities Parts 1 - 6. It is noted that most of the parking spaces already exist.
20. It is key to remember that the trade-off for having a reduced rate of car parking at the proposed development is the need
for provision of the alternative transport modes cited in the Development Application. It is not in the interests of the
proponent to both supply parking at the rate proposed AND not provide the alternative modes that are envisaged in the
Noosa Plan 2020.
21. The parking on the northern end of the subject site is currently in place, and has been shown to operate appropriately.
The eastern carpark is to be modified such that the southern access is to be removed, leaving only the northern access
to service both ingress and egress movements. As such, it is now proposed to remove one of the parking spaces close
to the proposed hotel entrance and provide a marked turnaround bay at the southern end of the eastern carpark area.
Therefore, if a car enters the eastern carpark and is unable to find a space, the turnaround bay will allow the driver to
manoeuvre their car to exit the carpark without having to reverse down the aisle.
22. The swept path for the standard Noosa Council refuse collection vehicle for the entire length of its journey has been
undertaken. There will need to be some modifications to the access road in order to allow the refuse collection vehicle
appropriately travel the path.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 4
[OCR of page images]
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
In this manner, it is similar to other services that new developments must provide, such as refuse collection. The details
of the refuse collection contract are not typically part of the application process, but key to the application is that refuse
collection is possible and that conditions are in place requiring the operator to have suitable refuse collection
arrangements. To this end, | consider that this matter can be dealt with via conditions requiring a minimum number of
alternative mode vehicles to be operational at any time during the life of the proposed development.
There is the further issue of shuttle buses. Again, | would consider that the provision of around 1-2 buses would be
sufficient to allow the following services:
a. Buses to provide bespoke services between the hotel and the airport, and
b. Buses to provide services to drop-off and pick-up guests in the local area.
Firstly, it is likely that whilst the term bus has been used, it is more likely that the actual vehicles will be minibus or
minivan configuration, similar to that which is used by services such as Con-x-ion. Again, airport transfers and bespoke
trips to nearby attractions were heavily utilised at the aforementioned inspection of the Sheraton Mirage resort at Port
Douglas.
Similar to the cycles, mopeds and scooters, it is likely that these minibus services will be provided under contract and
would be able to be parked at the contractor's depot off-site whilst not in use during the day and overnight. There is
adequate space in the port-cochere area for buses to drop-off and pick-up guests, and there is a bus layover bay on
Links Drive adjacent to the complex’s exit. Buses are also able to layover at an unused bus stop located on Resort
Drive (this stop was provided under requirements of a previous DA and is unlikely to be used by timetabled services in
the foreseeable future). | consider that a condition could be drafted that would state the provision of shuttle bus services
to the local airport should be provided and maintained.
With respect to Issue 8, the new car parking structure has been designed in compliance with the requirements of the
Australian Standard — AS2890 Parking Facilities Parts 1 - 6. It is noted that most of the parking spaces already exist.
It is key to remember that the trade-off for having a reduced rate of car parking at the proposed development is the need
for provision of the alternative transport modes cited in the Development Application. It is not in the interests of the
proponent to both supply parking at the rate proposed AND not provide the alternative modes that are envisaged in the
Noosa Plan 2020.
The parking on the northern end of the subject site is currently in place, and has been shown to operate appropriately.
The eastern carpark is to be modified such that the southern access is to be removed, leaving only the northern access
to service both ingress and egress movements. As such, it is now proposed to remove one of the parking spaces close
to the proposed hotel entrance and provide a marked turnaround bay at the southern end of the eastern carpark area.
Therefore, if a car enters the eastern carpark and is unable to find a space, the turnaround bay will allow the driver to
manoeuvre their car to exit the carpark without having to reverse down the aisle.
The swept path for the standard Noosa Council refuse collection vehicle for the entire length of its journey has been
undertaken. There will need to be some modifications to the access road in order to allow the refuse collection vehicle
appropriately travel the path.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 4
Page 5
23. I note that the State has issued a request for information which from a transport perspective relates mostly to the
transport accessibility other than by private cars. The State has identified the following issue related to traffic:
24. The following actions are requested in the State RFI:
Report_10553—20211122.docx 5
[OCR of page images]
23. | note that the State has issued a request for information which from a transport perspective relates mostly to the
transport accessibility other than by private cars. The State has identified the following issue related to traffic:
issue:
The proposed resort complex consisting of 112 short term accommodation, bar, food and
drink outlet, outdoor sport and recreation (3 x tennis courts) will generate increased
demand for public passenger transport, specifically private buses, coaches, shuttles, mini-
buses, taxi services and rideshares. Further information is required to address how public
lpassenger transport infrastructure is to be provided to accommodate the demands of the
lproposed development.
It is identified that the submitted material (The Site Plan (DA1.00) and Entry Link Level Plan
(DA1.01), prepared by Marchese Partners, both dated 02/09/20, revision 7 Link Entry Plan
land the Traffic Engineering Assessment, prepared by Traffic Transport Plus, dated 18 June
12021, reference 10553) has not demonstrated that the development's demand for private
bus, coach, mini-bus, taxis and rideshare will be adequately addressed. The applicant is
required to provide further details on setdown areas, lay-by areas, swept path design and
bus circulation movements in accordance with specified standards.
24. The following actions are requested in the State RFI:
(i) Private buses/coaches/mini-buses and shuttles:
e Adedicated bus setdown facility with adequate capacity (number of parking bays)
to cater for the demand generated by the development for private/chartered
coaches, buses, mini-buses, shuttles and the resort's own private shuttle services,
including potential events held by the resort complex
e Bus lay-by parking commensurate with demand, namely, bus layover for resort
owned buses any events held at the resort complex
e Abus setdown facility and bus lay-by parking designed for the maximum design
vehicle (single unit rigid bus of 14.5m in length), with the bus setdown facility
parallel to the kerb and at the entry to the development. Guidance on suitable
dimensions can be obtained from Chapter 5 — Bus Stop Infrastructure of the Public
Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015. Bus parking should comply with the
Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 made under subsection
31(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
e A Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) certified swept path
analysis demonstrating:
o that the maximum design vehicle can manoeuvre into and out of the bus
setdown facility
o that buses parked in the bus setdown facility have independent movements]
0 that buses can circulate past buses parked in the bus setdown facility
0 that buses can manoeuvre into and out of the bus lay-by parking without
causing conflict
e Abus circulation allows an efficient and direct route between the entry and exit of
the development and should avoid carparking areas and aisles and circuitous
routes. All bus parking zones are separate from passenger loading zones for taxis,
tideshare, private vehicles and service vehicle loading zones to avoid vehicle
conflict and maximise safety and efficiency and bus parking capacity
e Awaiting area of adequate dimensions for the anticipated dwell time of passengers
at the bus setdown facility. Include shelter and seats as well as hardstand and
access for waiting, boarding and alighting passengers.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 5
Page 6
25. I note that the porte-cochere proposed to be utilised by the development for bus and taxi drop off is an existing porte-
cochere which has operated well since it was first constructed. I am advised that it routinely accommodate coaches.
Presently, Cars able to independently manouvre through the porte-cochere whilst other vehicles are parked. The porte-
cochere will continue to function as it already does. In note that as a part of the proposal, the porte-cochere is to be
widened at its northern side, adjacent to the access to the proposed hotel. This will allow cars/taxis to drop off at the
hotel whilst other vehicles can circulate on the existing porte-cochere.
26. Buses are able to enter the subject site via the existing main access, which is a southward extension of Links Drive. No
parking spaces located on the access driveway. Should a queue occur to enter the port cochere, cars entering the site
are still able to access parking areas.
27. Guests awaiting buses are able to wait in cover adjacent to the porte-cochere.
28. Servicing does not occur via the main access driveway with servicing proposed to occur via the “rear” of the
development.
29. There presently exists a bus layover on Links Drive, adjacent to the northbound carriageway immediately north of the
entrance gates. There is also an unused bus stop on Resort Drive that can be used for layover. If large numbers of
buses are to be present at the same time, there is an overflow parking area which can be utilised.
30. There are currently no urban bus stops south of Eenie Creek Road. The Noosa Plan 2020 indicates that there is a
planned bus stop on Eenie Creek Road immediately west of the Noosa Springs Drive overpass bridge. It is a reasonable
assumption that when the authorities wish to construct the bus stop, they will provide a pedestrian path to connect it to
Noosa Springs Drive. A pedestrian path already exists along Links Drive that connects the resort to Noosa Springs
Drive.
31. Pedestrian paths already exist along Noosa Springs Drive to connect the resort to the nearest existing bus stop on
Cooyar Street. Presently, pedestrians wishing to travel between the northern footpath and the subject site are able to
do so via the existing western carpark, which has access to the footpath located on its northern edge. Under the proposal
this access will be kept allowing active transport access to the north to occur independent of the access driveway.
Signage and markings will be put in place to indicate that the area is effectively a ‘shared zone’.
32. I would encourage Council to consider approving the proposed development with the car parking provision as proposed
in the original proposal, without the new parking structure being required. I consider that the car parking structure
proposed to be constructed is an over-provision in the context of the nature of the proposed development, and
importantly what the Noosa Plan 2020 envisages for Noosa.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 6
[OCR of page images]
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
(ii) Taxis and rideshare:
e Aporte cochere that has a dedicated passenger loading zone with adequate
capacity (number of car parking bays) to accommodate the demand generated by
the development for taxis and rideshare and private vehicles
e A porte cochere that can accommodate the parking of a taxi suitable for use by
people with a disability in accordance with the disability standards set out in PO22)
of State Code 6 and Chapter 7 of the Public Transport Infrastructure Manual 2015
(http://translink.com.au/about-translink/reports-and-publications)
« ARPEQ certified swept path analysis demonstrating that the maximum design
vehicle can circulate past parked vehicles (maximum design vehicle) in the porte
cochere. This will be necessary for independent vehicle movement in the porte
cochere
e A porte cochere vehicle setdown adequately distinguished and separated from the
vehicle turnaround, short term car parking and the entry and exit of the existing
porte cochere. The design of the porte cochere and its vehicle exit should avoid
conflicts with cars manoeuvring into and out of the short-term car parking area and
entering the existing port cochere. Adequate queuing distance will need to be
provided.
(iii) Urban Bus Stops:
e Assafe, direct and convenient pedestrian pathway connecting the entry of the
development to existing footpath on Links Drive, immediately north of the site's
gated entrance.
| note that the porte-cochere proposed to be utilised by the development for bus and taxi drop off is an existing porte-
cochere which has operated well since it was first constructed. | am advised that it routinely accommodate coaches.
Presently, Cars able to independently manouvre through the porte-cochere whilst other vehicles are parked. The porte-
cochere will continue to function as it already does. In note that as a part of the proposal, the porte-cochere is to be
widened at its northern side, adjacent to the access to the proposed hotel. This will allow cars/taxis to drop off at the
hotel whilst other vehicles can circulate on the existing porte-cochere.
Buses are able to enter the subject site via the existing main access, which is a southward extension of Links Drive. No
parking spaces located on the access driveway. Should a queue occur to enter the port cochere, cars entering the site
are still able to access parking areas.
Guests awaiting buses are able to wait in cover adjacent to the porte-cochere.
Servicing does not occur via the main access driveway with servicing proposed to occur via the “rear” of the
development.
There presently exists a bus layover on Links Drive, adjacent to the northbound carriageway immediately north of the
entrance gates. There is also an unused bus stop on Resort Drive that can be used for layover. If large numbers of
buses are to be present at the same time, there is an overflow parking area which can be utilised.
There are currently no urban bus stops south of Eenie Creek Road. The Noosa Plan 2020 indicates that there is a
planned bus stop on Eenie Creek Road immediately west of the Noosa Springs Drive overpass bridge. It is a reasonable
assumption that when the authorities wish to construct the bus stop, they will provide a pedestrian path to connect it to
Noosa Springs Drive. A pedestrian path already exists along Links Drive that connects the resort to Noosa Springs
Drive.
Pedestrian paths already exist along Noosa Springs Drive to connect the resort to the nearest existing bus stop on
Cooyar Street. Presently, pedestrians wishing to travel between the northern footpath and the subject site are able to
do so via the existing western carpark, which has access to the footpath located on its northern edge. Under the proposal
this access will be kept allowing active transport access to the north to occur independent of the access driveway.
Signage and markings will be put in place to indicate that the area is effectively a ‘shared zone’.
| would encourage Council to consider approving the proposed development with the car parking provision as proposed
in the original proposal, without the new parking structure being required. | consider that the car parking structure
proposed to be constructed is an over-provision in the context of the nature of the proposed development, and
importantly what the Noosa Plan 2020 envisages for Noosa.
Report_10553—20211122.docx 6
Page 7
33. Notwithstanding this, I note that parking structure now forms part of the proposal and that the provision of additional car
parking could be seen as a reasonable compromise to what Council considers are the currently acceptable operating
conditions for traffic in Noosa and essentially a “step in the right direction”.
Yours faithfully
Noel Kay – RPEQ #26424
Traffic and Transport Plus
Report_10553—20211122.docx 7
[OCR of page images]
33. Notwithstanding this, | note that parking structure now forms part of the proposal and that the provision of additional car
parking could be seen as a reasonable compromise to what Council considers are the currently acceptable operating
conditions for traffic in Noosa and essentially a “step in the right direction”.
Yours faithfully
Noel Kay — RPEQ #26424
Traffic and Transport Plus
Report_10553—20211122.docx 7
Page 8
Noosa Springs Boutique Hotel
GH Australia Parking Survey
PARKING SURVEY FORM
Date / Day: Name of Surveyor:
Figure 1: Parking Survey Zones
A E
B
D
C
Parking Zone
(Refer attached 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm
Figure 1)
A
B
C
D
E
6309 - Parking Survey FINAL.docx
[OCR of page images]
Noosa Springs Boutique Hotel
GH Australia Parking Survey
PARKING SURVEY FORM
Date / Day: Name of Surveyor:
Figure 1: Parking Survey Zones
Parking Zone
(i (larela tats)
Figure 1)
6309 - Parking Survey FINAL.docx
MRCagney
Page 9
Parking Zone Parking Zone Parking Zone * bus at front gate Parking Zone A Parking Zone A Parking Zone A Parking Zone A 7:00am 13 22 (2 bikes 5 6 (1 cart) 4 7:00am 5 25 (3 bikes 5 6 (1 cart) 3 7:00am 2 7 12 5 (2 carts) 0 7:00am 3 19 12 7 5 * 1 bus Zone Supply A 93 B 69 Cc 52 D 13 (7 small) E 38 12: 17 51 (2 bikes 43 (1 bike. 8 (1 cart 3 14 50 49 6 (2 carts) 0 30 62 50 6 (2 carts) 5 19 39 (1 bike. 32 5 (2 carts) 0 :00pm 23 38 36 6 (2 carts) 1 19 37 28 3 (2 carts) 0 20 38 27 4 (3 carts) 1 20 Ba 29 6 (2 carts) 3 Wednesday, 28th June 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Wednesday, 5th July 2017 (N/A) Wednesday, 12th July 2017 (N/A) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 9 28 25 6 A 4 33 18 2 A 4 24 19 3 B 41 (1 bike) | 68 (1 bike) 53 8 B 42 (1 bike) | 50 (1 bike) 32 7 B 47 53 34 10 Cc 22 45 39 1 Cc 19 41 21 5 Cc 22 46 35 6 D 5 5 (2 carts) | 5 (2 carts) 2 D 9(2 carts) | 6(2carts) | 3 (2 carts) (1 cart) D 7 (2 carts) | 4(1cart) | 9 (3 carts) 1 E 12 1 2 0 E 5 3 2 1 E 3 2 0 1 * 1 service vehicle Thursday, 29th June 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Thursday, 6th July 2017 (Justin C) Thursday, 13th July 2017 (N/A) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 8 27 19 10 A 11 22 17 3 A 10 23 18 4 B 15 45 35 9 B 26 40 36 6 B 18 42 32 5 Cc 2 40 28 9 Cc 14 41 38 8 Cc 5 45 29 9 D 9(2 carts) | 7 (4 carts) | 10(4 carts) 2 D 6 5 (2 carts) | 2(2 carts) (1 cart) D 5 (2 carts) | 2 (1 cart) 1 (1 cart) E 12 3 3 0 E 8 2 1 0 E 9 3 0 0 * 1 bus * 1 service vehicle Friday, 30th June 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Friday, 7th July 2017 (N/A) Friday, 14th July 2017 (N/A) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 8 28 21 2 A 5 33 18 5 A 6 32 (1 bike) 26 4 B 18 30 19 8 B 21 39 22 5 B 29 (1 bike) | 70 (1 bike) 53 5 Cc 3 19 24 4 Cc 6 21 10 4 Cc 6 48 33 4 D 9(3 carts) | 9(3 carts) | 2 (1 cart) 4 D 7(1cart) | 8(2carts) | 4 (2 carts) 1 D 7 9 (4 carts) | 6 (2 carts) 0 E 8 5 0 1 E 4 6 3 0 E 10 4 1 0 * 1 caravan *2trailers * 1 trailer Saturday, 1st July 2017 (Mark Jeffs) Saturday, 8th July 2017 (N/A) Saturday, 15th July 2017 (N/A) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 4 18 17 3 A 3 18 19 4 A 8 20 19 1 B 5 35 29 4 B 4 43 26 2 B 13 38 30 3 Cc 7 44 26 0 Cc 14 45 25 2 Cc 12 42 25 2 D 1 5 (1 cart) 0 D 2 3(1cart) | 4(2 carts) 0 D 7 (3 carts) | 6(4 carts) | 7 (4 carts) 1 E 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 E 0 1 0 0 Sunday, 2nd July 2017 (Mark Jeffs) Sunday, 9th July 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Sunday, 16th July 2017 (N/A) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 3 13 27 0 A 3 17 10 0 A 5 18 10 0 B 6 23 21 0 B 6 29 18 1 B 9 20 16 1 Cc 3 15 21 0 Cc 8 36 21 0 Cc 9 36 20 2 D 3(1cart) | 8(2carts) | 8 (2 carts) 0 D 3(2 carts) | 6(1 cart) 6 0 D 4(3 carts) | 7 (2 carts) 0 E 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 1 0 E 0 0 1 0 Monday, 3rd July 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Monday, 10th July 2017 (N/A) Monday, 17th July 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 6 24 18 1 A 5 26 19 1 A 4 30 22 1 B 15 51 (1 bike) 32 2 B 24 62 (1 bike) 30 1 B 27 (1 bike) | 60 (1 bike) 39 3 Cc 15 49 25 1 Cc 14 45 24 2 Cc 22 46 31 1 D 5 8(2 carts) | 6 (2 carts) 2 D 8 (1 cart) 5 5 (1 cart) 1 D 6 8(2carts) | 2 (1 cart) 1 E 3 8 1 0 E 7 4 3 0 E 13 6 1 0 Tuesday, 4th July 2017 (Henry Weatherall) Tuesday, 11th July 2017 (Mark Jeffs) Tuesday, 18th July 2017 Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 5 31 25 8 A 5 17 19 5 A 10 32 30 10 B 20 (2 bikes) | 42 (2 bikes) | 37 (2 bikes) 2 B 20 37 33 4 B 28 (2 bikes) | 62 (2 bikes) 51 3 Cc 9 40 26 0 Cc 3 42 37 2 Cc 22 45 45 1 D 4 10 (4 carts) | 7 (3 carts) 3 D 9(1cart) | 6(2carts) | 8 (4 carts) (1 cart) D 7 (2 carts) | 6(3 carts) | 9 (4 carts) 5 E 1 3 2 1 E 6 2 2 0 E 8 2 2 3 * 1 service vehicle Wednesday, 19th July 2017 Parking Zone 7:00am 12:00pm 3:00pm 7:00pm A 13 25 17 2 B 49 52 35 8 Cc 33 39 30 (1 bike) 6 D 1(2carts) | 3(2carts) | 2(3 carts) | 1(1 carts) E 6 1 2 1
Page 10
KERB MODIFICATION THIS LAYOUT HAS NOT BEEN
REQUIRED THE SUBJECT OF DETAILED
DESIGN OR SURVEY.
THE LAYOUT IS INDICATIVE
ONLY.
23 23
9.9
22 22
1 1
1.42 1.7 3.49 1.3
00
00
5.84
35
35
0.65
NSC RCV Front Loading
VEHICLE Overall Length 9.900m
Overall Width 2.500m
SWEPT PATH Overall Body Height 3.751m
Min Body Ground Clearance 0.304m
ENVELOPE Track Width 2.500m
FILE NAME: C:\Users\barge\OneDrive\02. Job Data\01. Ttplus\10000\10551-10600\10553 - Noosa Springs Boutique Hotel\Cad\10553-01.dwg
Lock-to-lock time 6.00s
Curb to Curb Turning Radius 11.050m
300mm CLEARANCE
OFFSET
VEHICLE TURN PATH DIAGRAM
NOT TO SCALE
28 28
24 24
KERB MODIFICATION KERB MODIFICATION
REQUIRED REQUIRED
26 26
25 25
JOB SUB #:
CREATED: 2 November 2021
INGRESS EGRESS
REV DATE BY PROJECT: TITLE:
DESCRIPTION
NOOSA SPRINGS BOUTIQUE
1 ORIGINAL ISSUE 3/11/21 BD
HOTELNOOSA SPRINGS BOUTIQUE HOTEL
SWEPT PATHS - RCV (9.9m)
Data Sources:
Photography: SCALE: DRAWING NUMBER: REVISION:
Topography:
CLIENT:
TRAFFIC TRANSPORT 0 10
Cadastre:
Ecosystem: p l u s
1 : 500 FIGURE 1 1
When Printed On A3
Other:
CREATION DATE: 2 November 2021 DRAWN: BD DATUM: HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL / ZONE
THESE DESIGNS AND PLANS ARE COPYRIGHT AND ARE NOT TO BE USED OR REPRODUCED WHOLLY
OR IN PART OR TO BE USED ON ANY PROJECT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF TRAFFIC AND
Ph: +61 7 3871 0411
TRANSPORT PLUS PTY LTD. ABN: 54 619 700 239 www.TTPLUS.com.au CHECKED: BT / /
[OCR of page images]
Oo
o
Oo
o
Oo
o
VEHICLE
SWEPT PATH \
ENVELOPE J
j \ 300mm CLEARANCE
OFFSET
VEHICLE TURN PATH DIAGRAM
NOT TO SCALE
KERB MODIFICATION
REQUIRED
I
25
INGRESS
DESCRIPTION
KERB MODIFICATION
REQUIRED
NSC RCV Front Loading
Overall Length
Overall Wid
Overall Body Height
Min Body Ground Clearance
Track Width
Lock-to-lock time
Curb to Curb Turning Radius
KERB MODIFICATION
REQUIRED
I
25
NOOSA SPRINGS BOUTIQUE
HOTELNOOSA SPRINGS BOUTIQUE HOTEL
[een
THIS LAYOUT HAS NOT BEEN
THE SUBJECT OF DETAILED
DESIGN OR SURVEY.
THE LAYOUT IS INDICATIVE
EGRESS
ONLY.
SWEPT PATHS - RCV (9.9m)
TRAFFIQUTRANS PORT
plus
PH: +617 3871 0411
www. TTPLUS.coM.Au
1: 500
When Pinted’On a3 es
2 Noversber 2021] DRAWN
CHECKED:
FIGURE 1 1
BD DATUM: HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL / ZONE
Br L L
Page 11
RRRY |! LA po SY ad A _ / : a t KL 3 wa v \ Fl