Council archive · source document
RFI - Appendix C Traffic Engineering Report · MCU22/0038
Very large file (10.1 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
Stockwell Development Group Pty Ltd SLR Ref: 620.30769-L01-v0.2 IR Response
Noosaville Hofmann Drive Medical Centre 20220520.docx
NSC Information Request Date: 20 May 2022
Response to Traffic Matters
ii. “Additionally, the location of the subject site within the broader Noosa Business Centre means that a
significant portion of development-generated trips are likely to be linked with other uses, therefore
reducing parking demand and spreading it across the existing parking areas proximate to the subject
site.”
In relation to the two grounds identified in the SLR memo:
i. It is understood that the proponent is not proposing to deliver the multi-modal transport hub.
ii. While it is agreed that there will be linked trips with other uses at the Noosa Business Centre, all that
means is that the overall traffic generation rate of the centre on a GFA basis reduces as the size of the
centre increases, it does not mean that parking demands associated with the proposal will reduce. It
simply means that some customers will park for longer in the same parking space while they
undertake other activities at the Centre. The customers and staff of the proposed development will
still generate the same parking demands.
Information Required
2. Provide parking provisions consistent with planning scheme requirements.
To inform NSC’s assessment of the application, the following clarifications are provided:
Further justification for the provision of 99 parking spaces is provided through a ‘First Principles’ approach. Table
1 below provides a representative breakdown of tenancy type, along with their corresponding tenancy GFA and
total number of medical practitioners (MP). Whilst the scale and nature of each tenancy will ultimately be
subject to market demands SLR has been advised that there is an inter-relationship between the tenancies that
means that achieving a mix similar to the representative breakdown is quite likely to occur in practice. Further,
due to the typical nature of specialists practicing from more than one location, an Occupancy factor has been
provided.
Table 1 Representative Tenancy Mix
Yield Number of Practitioners (Total
Land Use Component Occupancy (at any one time)
(sq.m GFA) capacity/tenancy)
General Practice 250 8 75%
Pathology 60 2 100%
Dental 280 3 66%
Physiotherapy 150 2 100%
Radiology 270 2 100%
Medical
Specialist 260 3 66%
Centre
Cosmetic / Plastic
150 1 100%
Surgery
Eye Surgery 150 2 50%
Psychology 150 2 100%
Podiatry 150 1 100%
Allied Health 300 4 100%
Total 2170 30 -
Page 2
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
RFI - Appendix C Traffic Engineering Report.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 10.1 MB (very large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.