Council archive · source document
Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018 · MCU18/0019
Attached to the e-mail PM Submission Object - Tracy Stevens - MCU18-0019.
Carpark design and layout
O11 Access and egress points do not impact on the S11.1 Vehicle manoeuvring areas are
safety and operations of the road system. provided in accordance with Australian
Standards for Off-street Carparking so
vehicles enter and leave the site in a
forward gear.
O12 Parking areas are designed to - S12.1 At locations where pedestrian and
a) provide a progressive reduction in speed vehicle conflicts are likely to occur –
between the external road and internal parking a) sight distances of at least 2.5 seconds
spaces; of travel time at the designated speed
b) ensure lower speeds near areas of high are provided;
pedestrian activity through the use of b) splayed corners on structures are
appropriate road geometry or devices incorporated;
designed to limit speed; and c) landscaping is designed to allow clear
c) maintain sight distances which are appropriate for views; and
the likely operating speeds in all areas of potential d) sign placement ensures that sight
pedestrian/vehicle and vehicle/vehicle conflict. distance requirements are not impeded.
29. In light of the above elements it is clear that it is the intent of the Noosa planning scheme
that any driveway access for a new development must not compromise the safety of
drivers, pedestrians or cyclists.
30. Val Crescent is a narrow, local, residential road, ending in a cul de sac which is only
intended to service residents who live on the street.
31. Given that the site driveway is, in essence, servicing a large commercial facility which will
cater for all commercial vehicles and staff and visitor car parking, the access on Val
Crescent is inappropriate and unsafe. Specifically:
a) it is located too close to the Goodchap roundabout;
b) it has restricted sight lines. When cars exit the proposed driveway, the sight
distance on the left is less than 30 metres; and
c) it is located directly opposite three residential driveways. It is noted that all plans
submitted by the Applicant as part of the DA are inaccurate to the extent that they
fail to disclose that there is a residential crossover directly opposite the proposed
access to the site on Val Crescent (the plans only show two residential crossovers).
This is a serious omission as the existence of this third crossover, in such a critical
location, increases the risk of an accident. The residents of 2 Val Crescent, whose
driveway was omitted from the plans, have advised that they have nearly had a
number of accidents when exiting their driveway onto the street. The presence of a
commercial driveway directly opposite the residential driveways will make this area
too congested and precarious. Please see photograph below.
6
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalUsed in these records
Tracy Stevens submission MCU180019 24 June 2018.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 1.1 MB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.