Original source · versioned page text
Traffic Response
GPO Box 1747
Brisbane QLD 4001
t 07 3166 9216
m 0417 607 242
www.qtraffic.com.au
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672
02 June 2022
Noosa Council
PO Box 141
Noosa QLD 4565
For the Attention of Georgina Schramm, Development Planner
Street Address: 83 Butler St Tewantin Qld 4565
Council Reference: RAL22/0007
Subject: Response to Council’s Information Request – Traffic Matters
Dear Georgina,
We refer to the above application for a lot reconfiguration on the site at 83 Butler Street, Tewantin. This
letter has been prepared in response to Council’s information request dated 8 April 2022 issued in respect of
the application. It addresses the traffic-related matters therein, which are copied below for ease of reference,
with responses provided following.
Information Required
1. Provide amended plans including the driveway crossover within the proposed easement for access to
proposed Lots 4 and 5. The plans must include, but not limited to, the following information:
a. A preliminary driveway design extending from Ghostgum Court to the internal lot boundary
between proposed Lots 4 and 5;
b. A concrete hardstand area within proposed Lot 4 which allows for vehicles to manoeuvre on
site and leave it in a forward gear, using a maximum 3 point run – provide swept paths to
demonstrate compliance with this requirement on the proposed hardstand layout; and
c. Detail the location of the proposed crossover in relation to the existing vehicular access to 22
Ghostgum Court, existing services (green buoy) and kerb adaptors.
Page 1
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 6 pages
Page 2
Response
As shown in Figure 1 below and the concept plans included as Attachment A & B, access to lot 4 can be
achieved via the existing crossover located at 22 Ghostgum Court.
The existing crossover is a non-standard geometry given it has a width of approximately 6.4m at the kerbline
and a separate 3.0m wide crossover for the dwelling at 22 Ghostgum Court. Presumably this additional
width at the kerbline was provided to allow a refuse collection vehicle to perform a 3-piont turn at the end of
the cul-de-sac. Whatever the reason, the as-constructed crossover can be used to provide a safe and
functional driveway for proposed lot 4.
Figure 1 – Proposed Access to Lot 4
The following observations are made in relation to the proposed design:
• The alignment of the proposed crossover ensures that vehicles associated with lot 4 do not enter the
property boundary of 22 Ghostgum Court. The new pavement (crossover extension) is entirely
within the verge;
• All vehicles associated with Lot 4 are able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. As requested
by Council, swept path analysis has been carried out and included as Attachment B.;
• Given Lot 4 will contain a single dwelling, site generated traffic will be negligible and will not
adversely impact on the ability of the resident at 22 Ghostgum Court to continue to access and
egress their property;
• The location of the crossover is at the end of a cul-de-sac where traffic volumes are negligible; and
• Sightlines at the proposed crossover are unrestricted in all directions.
The non-standard geometry of the existing crossover provides an opportunity, not a constraint for the
proposed lot 4. The proposed geometric design is a sensible and clever use of the surplus width available. In
my capacity as a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland, the proposed crossover for Lot 4 is
considered both safe and functional.
Page 2
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
Page 3
Conclusion and Recommendation
We trust the above information satisfactorily responds to the traffic items in Council’s information request.
In my capacity as a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland, I am satisfied that the development will
operate acceptably from a traffic perspective, without unacceptable impacts upon the adjacent road network.
On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the development application be approved from a traffic
engineering perspective.
Should you have any queries regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Regards
Richard Quinn
BECivil, MIEAust, RPEQ (08565)
Director – Q Traffic
Page 3
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
Page 4
Attachment A
Plans
Page 4
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
[OCR of page images]
Traffic
Engineering Consultants
Attachment A
Plans
Page 4
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
Page 5
UM
TG
·
OS
GH
5
4
drawing title
drawn: Scale: date:
1737_TPA672 SK.01 B
project no. drawing no. rev
Page 6
Attachment B
Swept Path
Page 5
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
[OCR of page images]
Traffic
Engineering Consultants
Attachment B
Swept Path
Page 5
Our Ref: 1737_TPA672 2 June 2022
Page 7
UM
TG
·
OS
GH
5
4
drawing title
drawn: Scale: date:
1737_TPA672 SK.02 B
project no. drawing no. rev