Council archive · source document
Attachment C - Transport Engineering Response · MCU24/0112
30 October 2024 Snowlake Pty Ltd 15/2 Quamby Place Noosa Heads QLD 4562 Dear Tom, 100 HILTON TERRACE, NOOSAVILLE INFORMATION REQUEST Urbis has been engaged by Snowlake Pty Ltd to provide transport and traffic engineering advice in relation to Noosa Shire Council’s Information Request dated 1 October 2024. PROJECT BACKGROUND A development application was submitted to Noosa Shire Council by Urbis on behalf of Snowlake Pty Ltd for the proposed residential development at 100 Hilton Terrace Noosaville. In response to this development application, Noosa Shire Council has issued a Request for Further Information that focuses on the engineering aspects of the proposal, including traffic. This letter is prepared in response to the transport items of the information request. The items are listed followed by the corresponding Urbis response. INFORMATION REQUEST – TRANSPORT ITEMS Issue – Access and Carparking Council has some concerns with the access and carparking. The vehicle access to the garaging for the units crosses over the pedestrian paths and there is potential for conflict. No detail has been provided to demonstrate how the potential risks will be addressed. In relation to car parking, the third car space for units A and D appears to be undersized even for a ‘small car’ 100 Hilton Tce RFI Response
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 6 pages
Page 2
(1) Provide additional detail how the potential risks for conflict on the access driveway
will be addressed (through surface treatments etc.)
Urbis Response:
The proposed development consists of four townhouse dwellings with garages attached. The traffic
generated by such a development is conservatively assumed to be between 0.4-0.6 trips per dwelling
during the peak hour. This would result in two way traffic of around 1.6-2.4 trips per hour during the
busiest time of the day. This is a tiny number of trips per hour. . The likelihood of conflict between
pedestrians and vehicles is miniscule given a similar number of pedestrian trips on the driveway
during the peak hour.
The length that a vehicle would have to drive between the access driveway and the furthest garage is
less than 30m. Over this distance, accessed by a standard residential driveway, all cars will be
travelling at slow speeds. At speeds of 10-20km/h a collision would be unlikely to occur as the driver
and pedestrian would be able to see each other clearly.
The current design prepared by Blight Rayner has attempted to mitigate this unlikely risk by providing
contrasting colour and texture on the pathway connections to the street from each dwelling. This is
indicated in Figure 1 below and provided in more detail in the Blight Rayner plans. This would further
delineate the pedestrian pathway and highlight the risk to drivers and pedestrians.
Figure 1 Indicative pathway links
The only other point where pedestrians will be walking on the driveway will be between their houses
and the refuse bin stores. However, this journey would only ever put a pedestrian in conflict with their
100 Hilton Tce RFI Response 2
Page 3
own vehicle. This risk is not considered likely and does not need to be mitigated. This is a standard
feature of residential developments and all drivers and pedestrians would be aware of the risks
associated with walking to the bin store and back.
These risks are unlikely to have a safety impact, nevertheless, a road safety impact assessment has
been undertaken both items in accordance with Section 9 of the Guide to Traffic Impact Assessment.
Risks have been identified with Figure 9.3.2(a) – Safety risk score matrix which has been reproduced
in this report as Figure 2.
Figure 2: Safety Risk Score Matrix
Source: TMR Guide to Traffic Impact Assessments
Table 1: Risk Assessment
Without Pedestrian With Pedestrian
Markings Markings
Consequence
Consequence
Risk Item
Risk Score
Risk Score
Likelihood
Likelihood
Vehicle collision with pedestrians exiting
2 2 L 1 4 L
development
Vehicle collision with pedestrians at refuse store 2 2 L 2 4 L
100 Hilton Tce RFI Response 3
Page 4
The situation in this townhouse development is not unusual in a residential multiple dwelling context,
even without the additional measures provided by Blight Rayner. Our risk assessment in line the
DTMR guidance has shown low risk scores. Urbis are comfortable that the proposal constitutes a safe
and acceptable design for pedestrians.
(2) Provide dimensions for the third car space for units A and D and demonstrate that
the space is suitable for a ‘small car’, as described in AS2890.1:2004 (2.4.1(a)(iii))
Urbis Response:
Swept path analysis has been conducted the on the proposed plans to determine the viability of the
third small parking space in units A and D. A B50 small car vehicle with 4.45m x 1.66m dimensions
was used in the tests of the allocated parking space and driveway manoeuvring.
Australian Standards AS2890.1:2004 Section 2.4.1(a)(iii) specifies that a small parking space should
have 5m x 2.3m dimensions. The third car spaces measure 5m x 2.3m. Appendix A SK02
demonstrates this design vehicle parked an allocated garage space complying with these dimensions.
The attached SK02 drawing also shows the manoeuvring space required for this vehicle type to
reverse entry into the allocated garage space. As can be seen in the drawings, the swept path
demonstrates there is sufficient space in front of the garages for vehicles to position before entering.
As such, no changes to the vehicle garage or driveway are proposed.
100 Hilton Tce RFI Response 4
Page 5
Should you have any comments or queries please do not hesitate to contact Andy Johnston on +61 414 98 4246. Yours sincerely, Andy Johnston RPEQ: 24764 Director +61 7 3007 3842 [email protected] 100 Hilton Tce RFI Response 5
Page 6
uRBIS | APPENDIX A- SWEPT PATHS 100 Hilton Tce RFI Response
Page 7
PROPERTY LINE
DRYING COURT
WC BBQ
L'DRY
KITCHEN
1:20
PANTRY
FF-01
GARAGE UNIT A RL: 2.700
5000 TYPE 1
COURTYARD TERRACE
2300
ACCESSIBLE
ENTRY TO UNIT A
B50 Small Car
LOUNGE
ENTRY LIVING
RL: 2.700 DINING
EXISTING
CROSSOVER
B50 Small Car
RL: 2.000 STAIR
BBQ
L'DRY
KITCHEN
ACCESS ROAD
1:20 1:20 UNIT B
DRIVEWAY TYPE 2
BIKE PATH
WC COURTYARD FF-01
GARAGE RL: 2.700
RL: 2.550 TERRACE
ENTRY LIVING DINING LOUNGE
ACCESSIBLE
RL: 2.700
ENTRY TO UNIT B
HILTON TERRACE
B50 Small Car
TERRACE
BBQ
L'DRY
1:20 KITCHEN
UNIT C
TYPE 2
GARAGE FF-01
HILTON
COURTYARD RL: 2.700
TERRACE
RL: 2.475 RL: 2.690
ENTRY
LIVING DINING LOUNGE
1:20 1800mm
FENCE 4.45
DRYING COURT
WC
L'DRY BBQ
KITCHEN
0.91 2.54
PANTRY
B50 Small Car
1:20 FF-01 Overall Length 4.450m
GARAGE UNIT D FFL: 2.690 Overall Width 1.660m
RL: 2.700 RL: 2.690 Overall Body Height 1.354m
5M FENCE RL: 2.400 TYPE 1 COURTYARD Min Body Ground Clearance 0.195m
2300
ARTICULATION TERRACE
B50 Small Car Track Width
Lock-to-lock time
1.400m
4.00s
LOUNGE Wall to Wall Turning Radius 5.600m
5000 LIVING
RL: 2.700 1800mm
PROPERTY LINE
ENTRY DINING
FENCE
ALL DRAWINGS ARE DESIGNED TO
BE PRINTED AND READ IN COLOUR
IT IS THE CONTRACTORS' RESPONSIBILITY TO
ACCESS PATH RL: 1.470 PRINT DRAWINGS IN COLOUR TO AVOID ANY
POTENTIAL DISCREPANCIES IF DRAWINGS
ARE PRINTED IN BLACK AND WHITE
1 TOW: 3.800
CLIENT
100 HILTON TERRACE DISCLAIMER
Copyright by Urbis Pty Ltd. This drawing or parts thereof may not be reproduced for any
purpose or used for another project without the consent of Urbis. The plan must not be BLIGHT RAYNER
PROJECT NO.
P0056312
DATE
30/10/2024
B50 SMALL CAR SWEPT PATH used for ordering, supply or installation and no relevance should be placed on this plan for
any financial dealing of the land. This plan is conceptual and is for discussion purposes
only and subject to further detail study, Council approval, engineering input, and survey.
1:200 @ A3 DRAWING NO. REVISION
A ORIGINAL ISSUE J.Y. A.J. 30/10/2024
Level 32, 300 George Street | Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia | +61 7 3007 3800 | URBIS Pty Ltd | ABN 50 105 256 228 REV DESCRIPTION DWN CHK DATE
Cadastral boundaries, areas and dimensions are approximate only. Written figured
dimensions shall take preference to scaled dimensions.
0 1 2 3 4 5m SK02 A
Used in these records
Attachment C - Transport Engineering Response.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 1.9 MB (small file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.