Information Request MCU23 0078 [As Published] · MCU23/0078

                        a) The TIA has been undertaken on the basis that assessment of impacts on operation
                           of the broader road network is not required because, “the broader road network has
                           been considered as part of the prior infrastructure agreement process”. It is not
                           agreed that under the infrastructure agreement (IA) for the NBC that this provides
                           for unlimited development potential. The proposed retail component of the
                           development significantly exceeds the amount of retail development expected within
                           the VMU Precinct (5D), such that the scale of uses proposed is beyond that
                           considered under the IA. The TIA therefore needs to be updated in spatial scope to
                           include impacts on the broader road network as reasonably expected for any
                           development proposal.
                        b) The analysis assumes background growth of 0.8%pa across the design
                           horizon. While this might be appropriate for assessment of impacts on Walter Hay
                           Drive, Eenie Creek Road, and Eumundi Noosa Road, it is not appropriate on the
                           local roads that are currently included in the assessment. For example, “Main
                           Street” was not open to public use with the base traffic counts of the assessment
                           were undertaken, so the traffic counts did not indicate a background use of the street,
                           and as a consequence of the methodology adopted, it has been assumed that there
                           will not be any other use of the “Main Street” other than by the proposed
                           development. However, now that that “Main Street” is open, it will carry through
                           traffic, and in addition, there are significant areas of land within the business centre
                           that will develop over the design horizon and thus introduce traffic to “Main Street”.
                        c) The additional traffic count information that underpins the existing trip generation
                           identified in Table 10 of the TIA should be included.
                        d) The trip generation rates for the proposed development as quoted in Table 10 have
                           not been able to be replicated using the information in Figure 12. Using the decay
                           curve in Figure 12, indicates Thursday and Saturday traffic generation rates for the
                           proposed expended development that would be 84% and 88% respectively of the
                           existing development rates.
                        e) The existing trip generation rates used in the assessment are based on traffic counts
                           undertaken in May 2022, which is probably the least busy time of year at a shopping
                           centre in Noosa. The existing trip generation rates derived from the May 2022 traffic
                           surveys, should be factored to an appropriate design rate based on weekly door
                           count data for the existing centre across a yearly period.
                        f)   Section 8.5.2 of the TIA quotes drop-in and diverted trip percentages that have been
                             adopted in the assessment. It is highlighted that the information from which the
                             proportions highlighted in the report were derived, also indicates, as expected, that
                             the proportion of drop-in and diverted trips reduces as the size of a centre increases,
                             and that for centres greater than 35,000m2, those proportions referenced in the TIA
                             should have a factor of 0.8 applied to them. Thus, the proportion of new trips should
                             be 70%, not the 60% proportion adopted in the analysis.
                        g) Assess to the proposed Lot 3 access driveway locations and configurations having
                           regard to the above.
                 44.    Section 5 (Car Parking Provision) of the TIA is requested to be updated to take account
                        of the following factors:
                        a) Lots 3 and 7 are separate allotments, and car parking provisions on each of those
                           two allotments needs to stand alone in terms of satisfying car parking demands
                           associated with development proposed on each allotment. Separate car parking
                           assessment for each allotment needs to be undertaken.




                                                                                                          Page 18 of 21
Document Set ID: 22464338
Version: 2, Version Date: 17/07/2023