Attachment 2 - Traffic Report · MCU13/0251

APPENDIX B: PAGE 3 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL




13.s.12.5                           Page - 14


[OCR of page images]
HEH T CHE

HOLLAND TRAFFIC CONSULTING [2

APPENDIX B: PAGE 3 OF 5: JOINT EXPERT REPORT FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL
2. Adequacy of the Proposed On-site Parking Facilities

Mr Holland has assessed the parking requirement of the proposed development in accordance with
planning scheme parking requirements as follows:

Restaurant 323 sq.m. @ 1:10 33 spaces

Retail 387 sq.m. @ 1:16 24 spaces

Office 710 sq.m. @ 1:20 36 spaces

Cabins [email protected] per unit 33 spaces

Hostel 320 persons @ 1:10 32 spaces plus one bus parking space
Total 158 parking spaces.

Note: The actual calculation of retail parking demand is based on one space per 20 square metres up to 100 square
metres and one space per 15 square metres thereafter. It is also assumed that the hostel will have 5 staff.

However, taking account of different components generating their individual peak parking
demands at different times of the day and week, as provided for in the Town Plan, Mr Holland
assesses the parking provision proposed on drawing 20517_A-16:

e 54 resident parking spaces,

e 10 residential visitor parking spaces,

e 76 commercial parking spaces,

e 14 motorcycle spaces under the commercial building, and

e One bus parking space,
as being adequate.

Mr Holland notes that the above assessment of the hostel parking requirement is based on the
parking provisions outlined in Council’s paper entitled “Budget Visitor Accommodation in Noosa
Shire, May 2004”, which is reflected in the Town Plan.

He also notes that, if the hostel component of the development operates more along the lines of a
motel or serviced apartments, the overall peak parking demand for the total development in
practice could be of the order of 150 parking spaces. The site layout as currently proposed could
be readily modified to incorporate the requisite additional parking spaces. If it is decided the
development may not operate in the manner envisaged in the above paper, and the parking
requirements contained in Council’s Town Plan are not applicable then in Mr Holland’s opinion, it
would be reasonable for the development to be approved subject to a condition requiring that at
some agreed time subsequent to commencement of operation of the development, the actual
parking demands generated by the development be surveyed and additional on-site parking spaces
be constructed as appropriate.

Mr Beard agrees with Mr Holland’s assessment of the parking requirements set out in the planning
scheme, except that he does not agree that the parking provision for what has been classified as a
hostel represents a reasonable estimate of the design peak parking demand.

Mr Beard has assessed the design peak parking demand of the proposed development, taking
account of all factors considered relevant, as approximately:

e commercial components 65 spaces,

e residential components 95 spaces.
Consequently, even if is accepted that the proposed units can be classified as a hostel (a proposal
with which he disagrees for car parking purposes), he considers that there is no reasonable
justification for a relaxation of the planning scheme parking requirement of 158 on-site parking
spaces plus a bus parking space.

13.8.12.5 Page - 14