2015-04-28 Planning and Organisation Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                     28 APRIL 2015


high to attenuate highway noise but traffic noise levels at the proposed cabins will exceed
DTMR noise limits and require additional construction methods to comply.
The submitted architectural plans indicate relatively standard cabins of lightweight
construction however, the acoustic report indicates Queensland Development Code
construction category 2 will be required for at least the building envelope of the bedrooms.
An example of one option to achieve Category 2 construction comprises 110mm+ masonry
construction for walls, 50mm insulation and plasterboard ceiling for the roof, concrete slab
floor at least 100mm thick, 6.38mm or 10.38mm laminated glass with full permitter
acoustically rated seals, solid core door with full perimeter acoustically rated seals. Such
measures would require the cabins to be partly redesigned.
The predicted noise levels for the caravan area show that only a few of the caravan sites
located near the noise barrier comply with the façade noise limit with the proposed noise
barrier dimensions. The acoustic report indicates that the acoustic barrier has been
designed to comply with a relaxed façade noise limit and that TMR has advised that
achieving this limit is appropriate for temporary sensitive receptors.
A 2.5m high acoustic barrier is proposed between the service centre and the Ferrells Road
frontage. Noise levels emanating toward Ferrells Road residents are assessed as within
acceptable limits provided the development is conditioned to limit night deliveries and refuse
collection.
Roadworks & Traffic
Road widening and additional turning lanes are proposed for Myall Street for vehicles
entering and leaving the site. It is considered reasonable that the development provide
further frontage upgrades to Myall Street (along the eastern and southern boundaries) and
Ferrells Road (along western boundary).
Council’s consulting traffic engineer, Colin Beard, considers the acceptability of the modelled
site access intersection performance depends critically on assumptions about gap
acceptance parameters (i.e. opportunities to execute a manoeuvre in or across traffic) and
future background traffic growth rates, with traffic calculations very sensitive to small
changes in both. Mr Beard advises if the development were to proceed as proposed, and
higher background traffic does occur, there will be little which can be practically done in the
future to ensure satisfactory and safe driveway intersection performance.
In Mr Beard’s opinion, the only way to ensure satisfactory longer term traffic operations is to
require construction of a single lane roundabout to accommodate background traffic growth
at all reasonably forecast rates. However, this would necessitate land dedication from the
subject site and a modified site layout. Myall Street is State controlled and a requirement for
a roundabout would require DTMR consent. Discussions with the Department indicate it
would be unlikely to object if Council deemed construction of a roundabout necessary.
Council staff have significant concerns with the existing poor performance of the Myall/Elm
Street T-section to the north of the site. This State controlled intersection is observed as
being one of the poorest performing in Noosa’s road network. Mr Beard agrees, stating “the
Elm Street /Myall Street intersection is easily the most critical intersection in the local
network, and it has terrible geometry. That is, both traffic operations and traffic safety are at
issue”. Concern with the development’s impact on this intersection was raised with both the
applicant and Mr Beard during the assessment. Both agree that, because the modelled
traffic impact on this intersection of 2% is less than the industry accepted 5%, no further
analysis or consideration of the intersection is justified. Notably, the development leaves
substantial undeveloped land that may be subject to future development but impacts
associated with future development cannot form part of this assessment.




                                                                                     Page 22 of 211