Original source · versioned page text
MCU14/0106 & OPW15/0001 Appendix D - Traffic and Transport Response
Noosa Civic Expansion
28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville and parts of the road reserves of Hofmann Drive and Walter Hay Drive
28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
and parts of the road reserves of
Hofmann Drive and Walter Hay
Drive
APPENDIX
D
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT RESPONSE
June 2015 Cardno HRP 50
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 16 pages
Page 2
Noosa
Noosa Civic
Civic Expansion
Expansion
Response
Response to
to Information
Information Request
Request
J13041
J13041
Prepared for
QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd
28 April 2015
Page 3
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
Document Information
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd
Project Name Response to Information Request
File Reference J13041 RFI Response.docx
Job Reference J13041
Date 28 April 2015
Contact Information
Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd
ABN 57 051 074 992
Level 11 Green Square North Tower
515 St Paul’s Terrace
Locked Bag 4006
Fortitude Valley Qld 4006
Telephone: 07 3369 9822
Facsimile: 07 3369 9722
International: +61 7 3369 9822
[email protected]
www.cardno.com.au
Document Control Reviewer
Version
Author Reviewed
Author
Initials
Initials
Date Description of Revision
Signature Signature
1 28/04/2015 Original Issue CJ/AJ BM
Approver
Version
Approved Approved
Initials
Reason for Issue / Stage of Deliverable
Signature Release Date
1 Original Issue BM 28/04/2015
© Cardno 2015. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied
or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.
This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno
does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third
party on the content of this document.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd ii
Page 4
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Response to Issues 2
2.1 Issue 7 - Non-standard Uses 2
2.2 Issue 37 - Traffic 2
2.3 Issues 38 and 39 - Traffic 2
2.4 Issue 40 - Traffic 4
2.5 Issue 41 - Traffic 5
2.6 Issue 42 - Traffic 6
2.7 Issue 43 - Traffic 7
2.8 Issue 44 - Traffic 7
2.9 Issue 45 - Parking Rates 8
2.10 Issues 46, 47 and 48 - Bus Interchange Planning 8
2.11 Issue 48 - Cycle and Pedestrian Facilities 9
Figures
Figure 2-1 Locations Investigated for Individual Growth Rate 6
Figure 2-2 Proposed Pedestrian Connections 9
Appendices
Appendix A Intersection Conclusions
Appendix B Traffic Growth Rates
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd iii
Page 5
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
1 Introduction
This report responds to the traffic and transport related requests in an information request issued by the Noosa
Council dated 12 February 2015 with respect to the Noosa Civic expansion development application.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 1
Page 6
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
2 Response to Issues
Set out below, are the issues as raised by Council (in italics) and our response.
2.1 Issue 7 - Non-standard Uses
The proposal includes a number of uses that are not ordinary components of a shopping centre and not
adequately detailed.
Information Required - Demonstrate how the operation of the market and sport & recreation uses will not
impact on the primary function of the shopping centre, in particular, with respect to parking and access.
The Applicant proposes, on infrequent occasions, to temporarily close part of the at-grade car park at the
northern end of the proposed Noosa Civic expansion for use as community markets. The Applicant will not
undertake this use during periods of high shopping centre activity, to ensure that the loss of car parking spaces
does not affect the normal operations of the centre. As such, any market activities will avoid Thursday evening
peak periods and Saturday peak periods.
The reference to sport & recreation in the development application (open space (Type 1 sport & recreation))
is to enable the potential use of the civic precinct for a range of recreational activities. The civic precinct may
include playground equipment, a rock climbing wall or exercise equipment for use by the community. Such
equipment will not create additional parking and traffic demands beyond those already assessed in the
application.
2.2 Issue 37 - Traffic
The report does not include the historical and recent traffic count data upon which the various intersection
analyses were based.
Information Required - Provide the historical and recent traffic count data upon which the various intersection
analyses were based and that substantiate the choice of design peak hours for assessment.
The historical and recent traffic count data, which were used in the various intersection analyses, have already
been provided to the Council.
The choice of design peak hours are confirmed to be appropriate.
2.3 Issues 38 and 39 - Traffic
The subject development will generate traffic volume increases substantially higher than those expected to be
generated by development consistent with planning scheme requirements for the subject site. Traffic analyses
should quantify these increases, and demonstrate that any additional impacts on the local road network can
be accommodated in the long term.
Information Required - Amended traffic analyses quantifying the traffic volume increases by the development
over and above that consistent with planning scheme.
Information Required - Demonstrate any additional impacts on the local road network can be accommodated
in the long term.
The current traffic assessment by Cardno (contained in the Noosa Civic Extension Traffic Impact Assessment
dated November 2014) considers the following development scenarios:
> Scenario 1 - Proposed retail expansion (22,920sqm) in Precinct E1
> Scenario 2 - Proposed retail expansion (22,920sqm) in Precinct E1, plus potential commercial
development (7,000sqm).
Scenario 1 identifies the Applicant's current proposal, whereas Scenario 2 identifies what may potentially be
needed to satisfy future commercial market demand over a conservative planning horizon (based on Urbis'
Noosa Civic Commercial Needs Assessment dated December 2014).
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 2
Page 7
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
For the purpose of responding to Council's information request, we have assumed that Council’s request for
consideration of “development consistent with planning scheme requirements for the subject site” is referring
to the maximum (not the likely) development potential of available land at the maximum plot ratios specified in
the Noosa Plan.
In response to Council’s information request, we have considered two further scenarios described below. We
note that these scenarios are not considered by the consultant team to represent realistic development
scenarios, given the economic studies undertaken in support of the development application. However, these
scenarios have been considered at the request of Council.
> Scenario 3: Traffic generation based on the development of Precinct E1 as commercial office space at
the maximum plot ratio
> Scenario 4: Traffic generation based on the development of the undeveloped portions of Precinct E of
the Shire Business Centre as commercial office space at the maximum plot ratio.
2.3.1.1 Scenario 3: Precinct E1 as Commercial Office Space
The following represents a theoretical maximum build out of Precinct E1, based on the maximum plot ratio
specified in Noosa Plan (i.e. not based on market demand):
> 4ha x 0.61 plot ratio = 24,000sqm commercial.
On the basis of the above assumption, the commercial development of Precinct E1 could generate 816vph in
the weekday PM peak hour (24,000sqm x 3.4vph/100sqm) and 163vph in the Saturday peak hour (24,000sqm
x 0.68vph/100sqm).
This compares to the proposed development (Scenario 1 having 22,920sqm GFA retail) which is estimated to
generate 879vph in the weekday PM peak hour and 938vph in the Saturday peak hour. Note that the traffic
analysis for Scenario 1 is based on an increase in GFA of 22,920sqm, but the proposed application seeks an
increase in GFA of 22,870sqm (a minor conservative difference).
On the basis of the above analysis, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 8% more traffic than
a commercial development during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Saturday peak hour, the proposed
development would generate substantially more traffic (5.75 times more) than a commercial development.
Traffic analysis of Scenario 3 has not been undertaken, however, by comparison of the above traffic volumes
and consideration of the intersection analysis findings in the traffic report, the following conclusions are made:
> Weekday PM peak hour – for Scenario 3 all intersections will have similar impacts and similar
upgrading requirements to that of Scenario 1.
> Saturday peak hour – for Scenario 3 all intersections will have much smaller impacts than for
Scenario 1, but upgrading requirements will be similar to that for Scenario 1 due to weekday PM
peak hour traffic needs.
2.3.1.2 Scenario 4 - All Undeveloped Sites in Precinct E of the Shire Business Centre being
developed as Commercial Office Space
The following represents a theoretical maximum build out of the Precinct E sites based on the maximum plot
ratios specified in the Noosa Plan(ie. not based on market demand):
> Precinct E1 - 4.0ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 24,000sqm commercial
> Precinct E2 – 1.5ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 9,000sqm commercial
> Precinct E3 – 1.9ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 11,400sqm commercial
> Precinct E4 – 2.9ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 17,400sqm commercial
> Precinct E6 – 3.1ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 18,600sqm commercial
> Precinct E7 – 3.7ha x 0.6:1 plot ratio = 22,200sqm commercial
> TOTAL = 102,600sqm commercial.
On the basis of the above assumption, commercial development of the undeveloped Precinct E sites could
generate 3,488vph in the weekday PM peak hour (102,600sqm x 3.4vph/100sqm) and 698vph in the Saturday
peak hour (102,600sqm x 0.68vph/100sqm).
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 3
Page 8
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
On this basis, Council’s own planning should be based on the road network surrounding and adjacent to the
site being able to accommodate an additional 3,488vph in the weekday PM peak hour (and a similar volume
in the AM peak hour).
By way of comparison, if Precinct E1 was developed for retail purposes (as envisaged by Scenario 1), the
weekday PM peak hour would generate 3,552vph (78,600sqm x 3.4vph/100sqm + 879vph). This is an increase
of 63 vehicles which constitutes approximately 1.8% of the traffic that would be generated in Scenario 4 in the
weekday PM peak hour.
Therefore, the traffic volume generated by the proposed development would not be inconsistent with the
Council’s future road network planning.
2.3.1.3 Traffic Analysis Consideration
Traffic analysis of Scenarios 3 and 4 has not been undertaken, however, by comparison of the above traffic
volumes and consideration of the intersection analysis findings in the traffic report, conclusions regarding the
need for upgrading of each of the 16 analysed intersections are summarised in the table at Appendix A. From
that consideration, the following conclusions are made:
> Case A - With development of Precinct E1 for the proposed retail expansion (with or without the
potential 7,000sqm of commercial i.e. Scenario 1 or Scenario 2) all intersection upgrading would
be similar to the situation if Precinct E1 was to be developed for commercial (at the maximum plot
ratio i.e. Scenario 3)
> Case B - With development of all the undeveloped Precinct E sites for commercial (at maximum
plot ratios) there is likely to be substantial upgrading required for intersections 1 – 6, and all other
intersections may be acceptable in their existing form
> Case C - With development of Precinct E1 for the proposed retail expansion and all other
undeveloped Precinct E sites for commercial (at maximum plot ratios) there is likely to be
substantial upgrading required for intersections 1 – 6, and all other intersections may be acceptable
in their existing form
> The intersection upgrading likely to be required for Case C (proposed retail, instead of potential
maximum commercial in Precinct E1) is expected to be identical to that required for Case B
(potential maximum commercial in all the Precinct E sites).
In summary, with the maximum theoretical development of all the Precinct E sites (consistent with Noosa Plan
requirements), it is likely that key parts of the external road network would have insufficient capacity and would
require substantial upgrading. Such upgrading needs are likely to be similar whether Precinct E1 is developed
for the proposed retail expansion of Noosa Civic or for commercial uses (as shown on the Shire Business
Centre Map).
2.4 Issue 40 - Traffic
The applicant has not demonstrated all intersections that may be subject to significant impacts have been
assessed (for example, the intersection of Eenie Creek Road and Reef Street has not been considered).
Information Required - Assessment of any intersection at which the traffic volumes on a particular approach
are projected to increase by 5% or more during weekday PM peak period or the Saturday Noon peak period.
In 2010, Cardno assessed the subject intersections as part of a development application over the subject site
for an expansion of Noosa Civic comprising an additional 35,850sqm of retail uses, and an additional 5,200sqm
of commercial uses (i.e. over 70% more GFA than assessed in 2014).
This 2010 assessment also considered the Eenie Creek Road/Reef Street intersection and its findings show
that under all the future scenarios considered, the existing Eenie Creek Rd/ Reef St intersection would operate
well below the desirable limit for the Degree of Saturation. Therefore it is not considered to be critical to the
2014 assessment and has been excluded.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 4
Page 9
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
The traffic assessment in the 2010 development application identified the following key intersections for
assessment of that development proposal:
> Eumundi-Noosa Road/Beckmans Road
> Eumundi-Noosa Road/Rene Street
> Eumundi-Noosa Road/Eenie Creek Road/Eumundi Road
> Eenie Creek Road/Walter Hay Drive.
As all the above four intersections have been considered in the 2014 traffic report, we consider that the
intersections analysed in the 2014 traffic report are reasonable and appropriate, and additional sensitivity
analysis is not required.
2.5 Issue 41 - Traffic
The assessment provided assumed that the commercial and retail warehouse areas of the existing centre
generated traffic at the same rate as the retail centre (one integrated generation rate adopted). Further, the
proposed expansion, because of its composition and configuration, can reasonably be expected to operate, to
a degree, as an independent centre. Further, it is understood that the effective increase in TUA of the proposed
development will be approximately 23,190 square metres.
Information Required - Consequently, a sensitivity analysis is required based on the design traffic generations
of the expansion resulting in a net increase in total site generations of 1,390vph during the weekday PM peak
hour and 1,530vph during the Saturday noon peak hour.
The effective increase in TUA of the proposed development will be approximately 22,870 sqm (22,230sqm
new floor space + 640sqm reconfiguration) and the net increases in total site generations have been estimated
as 879vph during the weekday PM peak hour and 938vph during the Saturday peak hour. We do not agree
with the suggested net increases of 1,390vph (weekday) and 1,530vph (Saturday).
Whether the proposed expanded centre would operate as a combined centre (of 53,511sqm) or two
independent centres (30,641sqm existing + 640sqm proposed reconfiguration = 31,281sqm plus 22,230sqm
proposed) will depend on a number of factors, which are not all traffic related. It is recognised however, that
there are traffic implications that flow from the way in which the centre operates. Based on information from
QIC, we have formed the view that the expanded centre would operate as a single combined centre for the
following reasons:
> The entire expended centre will be connected by internal walkways
> The longest distance from one end of the centre to the other end is 400m. This is the same as the
length of Hastings Street. This length is well recognised as a suitable walking distance (approx. 5
mins)
> The entire expanded centre will be on a single parcel of land
> The entire expended centre will be in single ownership
> The entire centre will be under the control and administration of one centre management team
> The centre will logically be branded and marketed as a single entity
> All signage, graphics and décor will match, to provide a cohesive environment
> Marketing and community events will involve the whole centre
> A whole of centre leasing strategy will be employed to create complementary retailer and consumer
precincts to strengthen the overall offer of the centre
> No facility will be exclusive to a particular user, and the property will be shared in common, creating
stronger linkages
> Security, cleaning, operating hours, landscaping scope and schedules will be the same, ensuring
a common look, feel and level of service
> The initial stage of the centre is being refreshed to match the new stage
> The entire expended centre will be supported by at grade parking surrounding the entire centre
(plus under croft parking under part of the centre)
> The entire expended centre will be accessed via three main entry intersections on the adjacent
external road network, all serving the entire expanded centre
> The entire expended centre will be accessed via an internal road network connecting all parts of
the centre.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 5
Page 10
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
In our view, there is no reason to suggest that the expanded centre would operate as two separate and
independent centres.
2.6 Issue 42 - Traffic
The overall traffic growth rate suggested of 1.5 percent per annum is considered reasonable but this growth
may not occur evenly over the network. For example, it is likely that traffic growth rates will be higher on Walter
Hay Drive and Eenie Creek Road than Eumundi Road.
Information Required - Further consideration should be given to the above issue.
The growth rates across individual road segments were further considered, specifically the roads referred to
in item 42. The roads investigated were as follows (see Figure 2-1):
> Eumundi-Noosa Road: Intersecting at Beckhams Road
> Eenie Creek Road: Intersecting at Eumundi Road
> Eumundi Road: Intersecting at Walter Hay Drive
> Walter Hay Drive: Intersecting at Eumundi Road
> Eenie Creek Road: Intersecting at Walter Hay Drive (Western)
> Eeine Creek Road: Intersecting at Walter Hay Drive (Eastern)
> Walter Hay Drive: At northern access.
Figure 2-1 Locations Investigated for Individual Growth Rate
For these individual road segments, the growth rates were identified during the peak periods, for the following
time periods (see Appendix B):
> 2007 to 2009
> 2009 to 2014
> 2007 to 2014.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 6
Page 11
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
From 2007 to 2009, the majority of the annual linear traffic growth rates range from 1-3% negative growth to
1-4% positive growth. There were however, two streets which specifically presented results inconsistent with
the rest of the network: Walter Hay Drive and Eenie Creek Road. Potential reasons for the change in traffic
were investigated, and it was discovered that completion of several developments occurred during the period
between October 2007 and November 2009, as follows:
> The property on the eastern corner of the Eumundi Road/Walter Hay Drive intersection was not
completed in 2007, however, this development was completed by November 2009, resulting in
greater traffic volumes through these roads.
> The property on the north-western corner of the Walter Hay Drive/Eenie Creek Road intersection
was not completed in 2007, but had opened in 2008, therefore this traffic impact was represented
in the 2009 count data.
> The residential development on the north-east corner of the Walter Hay Drive/Eenie Creek Road
intersection did not exist in 2007, however by 2009, this development was home to new residents,
creating increases in traffic volumes.
> Eenie Creek Road (between Langura Street and Ben Lexcen Drive) was under construction during
2007. It became connected to David Low Way by 2009. This provided a direct route for drivers
travelling from the coast into Noosa.
The results from 2009 to 2014 gave annual linear growth rate ranges from 1-2% negative growth to 1-6%
positive growth. When these results are averaged across all relevant roads, the growth rates are 1.2% per
annum (weekday PM) and 1.4% (Saturday). These results then support the adoption of an overall growth
rate of 1.5% per annum.
In consideration of the large spike in traffic volumes between 2007 and 2009, and from previous experience
on similar projects, Cardno believes that an overall growth rate of 1.5 % per annum is an appropriate
representation of individual roads, and so extending this value across the entire network is appropriate.
2.7 Issue 43 - Traffic
Council has observed many two-lane roundabouts within the coastal road network at which actual queue
lengths do not match modelled queue lengths (from programs such as SIDRA). This is considered to be
primarily due to upstream departure issues.
Information Required - Amended SIDRA analyses of existing and projected traffic volumes calibrated against
observed queue lengths, particularly at the more critical intersections. The queue length measurements should
be based on individual approach lanes and traffic counts should be lane-specific because it is likely that lane
utilisation is not optimal because of upstream and downstream intersection issues.
The SIDRA computer analysis package is a recognised and industry accepted analysis tool that does not
require calibration against local conditions.
In addition, the SIDRA traffic analysis uses the same adopted parameters for both the “base case” and “with
development” scenarios, hence it represents the appropriate basis for comparison of the development traffic
impacts.
Therefore, the amended analysis that has been requested is not necessary. The traffic analysis provided is
sufficient to identify the traffic impacts at the relevant intersections without and with the development traffic,
such that Council has sufficient information to make the necessary consideration of the development traffic
impacts.
2.8 Issue 44 - Traffic
Traffic volumes on the Noosa coastal road network significantly increase during holiday periods, roughly
corresponding with school holiday periods. Consequently, traffic assessments over a long period of time have
been based on desirable maximum roundabout degrees of saturation during non-holiday periods being 0.70
(rather than 0.85) to allow tolerable traffic congestion during peak holiday periods.
Information Required - The analyses submitted should include assessments of intersection performance during
peak holiday periods.
Traffic capacity analysis during holiday periods is not considered to be a necessary or reasonable impact
assessment for conventional developments similar to that proposed.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 7
Page 12
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
Traffic assessments during holiday periods, or traffic assessments adopting a roundabout degree of saturation
of 0.70, are not normally required by other road assessment authorities (including those in tourist activity areas
such as the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast), unless a development has specific or unique aspects during
holiday periods.
Therefore, the additional analysis that has been requested is not considered necessary. It is considered that
the traffic analysis provided is sufficient to identify the traffic impacts at the relevant intersections without and
with the development traffic, such that Council has sufficient information to make the necessary consideration
of the development traffic impacts.
2.9 Issue 45 - Parking Rates
The information submitted to date is considered insufficient to justify relaxations of Council’s planning scheme
requirements to the extent proposed.
Information Required - Amended traffic analysis based on data which demonstrates that the parking provision
will accommodate design peak parking demands, probably defined as the demand during the 20th busiest
hour of the year.
The analysis provided within the traffic report presents parking demands for the subject retail centre for the
90th percentile day. This information has been derived using an annual profile of daily pedestrian door counts
at the existing centre. It is not possible to derive the 20th busiest hour from such data, as the pedestrian door
count data is not broken into hourly measurements.
Nonetheless, it is considered that the use of the 90 th percentile value to derive parking demands (as used in
the traffic report) is appropriate for the subject proposal.
Further to the above, the parking quantum assessment, when using the 90 th percentile parking demand, has
indicated that the proposed parking supply will exceed the 90th percentile demand by approximately 156 car
spaces (an additional 7%). The proposed parking quantum is sufficient to meet the projected parking demand
for a 97%ile day.
2.10 Issues 46, 47 and 48 - Bus Interchange Planning
The development proposed will significantly shift the “centre of gravity” of development on the Noosa Business
Centre site.
Information Required - Demonstrate the proposed bus stops will have adequate capacity to accommodate
existing and likely future services.
It is accepted that the centre expansion is likely to increase the public transport (bus) demands to the Shire
Business Centre site. As such, the Applicant is prepared to discuss the need for additional services and/or
additional bus stop capacity with Translink in order to determine any specific needs.
The retention of the proposed bus interchange at the centre is considered to be adequate for the expanded
centre needs. Given that the centre is currently serviced by four bus routes at a 30 minute frequency, even
with a significant expansion in bus services this could be accommodated by the existing bus interchange into
the foreseeable future.
Information Required - Demonstrate the proposed bus stops are located where pedestrian accessibility is
maximised and bus routes to and from the external major road network will suffer minimum delays.
It is unlikely that the proposed expansion would change the centre of gravity for bus services, hence retention
of the existing bus interchange location is considered appropriate.
The pedestrian connectivity within the subject site is sufficient to serve the existing bus interchange location.
Furthermore the existing bus interchange is located at the eastern edge of the existing centre, in close proximity
to where the pedestrian link is planned as part of the centre expansion.
Information Required - Provide comment on whether the development generates the need for the bus
interchange indicated on the Shire Business Centre Map in The Noosa Plan, or the likely timing of its need.
The expansion of Noosa Civic would not, in itself, trigger a requirement to construct the bus interchange
identified in Shire Business Centre Map in the Noosa Plan. The existing facilities are considered to be sufficient
for the requirements of the centre expansion.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 8
Page 13
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
The proposed development does however retain sufficient space for a future bus interchange in the location
identified within Council's planning scheme.
2.11 Issue 48 - Cycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Further information is required to demonstrate the adequacy of the cycle and pedestrian facilities on-site, taking
account of the overall planning for the Noosa Business Centre. For example, Figure 3.2 does not show any
footpath provisions on what has been called Central Road. It is considered that this roadway should look like
and function like a public road, and at this location, such a road would be expected to have footpaths.
Information Required - Amended plans demonstrating adequate cycle and pedestrian facilities.
The proposed development provides high quality pedestrian linkages on the western side of Central Road.
These facilities are provided adjacent to the proposed building structures, rather than alongside the road.
These links provide two options to travel by foot from the existing Noosa Civic centre to the south of the
expansion, as follows (see Figure 2-2):
> Interior - A route internal to the shopping centre, via the pedestrian link between the existing centre
and the expansion of the centre, which exits onto Central Road; and
> Exterior - A route along the road to the roundabout which then follows the outline of the centre
expansion to link up with Central Road at the southern end of the expansion.
Figure 2-2 Proposed Pedestrian Connections
With regard to cycle facilities, Central Road is intended to be constructed with 1.5m wide cycle lanes in either
direction to facilitate efficient and safe cycle connectivity along the site frontage.
A pedestrian footpath is not proposed on the eastern side of the Central Road as there will be minimal demand
for pedestrian movement along that alignment in association with the proposed development.
Pedestrian demands are likely when development occurs on the eastern side of the proposed Central Road.
If the pedestrian pathway is constructed as part of the current development proposal, it is likely to be damaged
when development occurs on the eastern side of the proposed Central Road.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to impose a condition requiring the provision of such a pathway when
development occurs on the eastern side of the proposed Central Road.
J13041 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 9
Page 14
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
Response to Information Request
APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION CONCLUSIONS
J1304128 April 2015 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 10
Page 15
Issue 38. 39 - Intersection Conclusions
Proposed development Potential development Potential (Council)
scenario scenario development scenario Potential (Council) development scenario Potential (Council) development scenario
assumed development in Precinct E1 Retail (22,920sqm) Retail (22,920sqm) Commercial (24,000sqm) Commercial (24,000sqm) Retail (22,920sqm)
Commercial (7,000sqm)
assumed development in balance of the Precinct E sites of SBC nil nil nil Commercial (78,600sqm) Commercial (78,600sqm)
weekday PM peak traffic generation 879 vph 1,117 vph 816 vph 3,488 vph 3,551 vph
Saturday peak traffic generation 938 vph 986 vph 163 vph 698 vph 1,472 vph
Conclusions for 2028 with development traffic Estimated/Likely conclusions for 2028 with development traffic (no analysis undertaken)
upgrade to roundabout in upgrade to roundabout in upgrade to roundabout in
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
1. Eumundi-Noosa Road/Beckmans Road acordance with NSC PIP acordance with NSC PIP acordance with NSC PIP
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
2. Eumundi-Noosa Road/Rene Street adequate adequate (just) adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
3. Eumundi Road/Walter Hay Drive/Venture Drive adequate adequate adequate
upgrade roundabout to upgrade roundabout to upgrade roundabout to
signalised intersection (as signalised intersection (as signalised intersection (as
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
needed for background needed for background needed for background
4. Eumundi-Noosa Road/Eenie Creek Road/Eumundi Road traffic) traffic) traffic)
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
5. Eenie Creek Road/Hofmann Drive adequate adequate adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
substantial upgrading is likely to be required substantial upgrading is likely to be required
6. Eenie Creek Road/Walter Hay Drive adequate adequate adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
existing roundabout may be adequate existing roundabout may be adequate
7. Walter Hay Drive/Northern Access adequate adequate adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
existing roundabout may be adequate existing roundabout may be adequate
8. Walter Hay Drive/Southern Access adequate adequate adequate
proposed roundabout is proposed roundabout is proposed roundabout is
proposed roundabout is likely to be adequate proposed roundabout is likely to be adequate
9. Central Road/Southern Access/Hofmann Drive adequate adequate adequate
proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be
10. Hofmann Drive/Southern Undercroft Access junction is adequate junction is adequate junction is adequate adequate adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
existing roundabout is likely to be adequate existing roundabout is likely to be adequate
11. Hofmann Drive/Rene Street adequate adequate adequate
existing roundabout is existing roundabout is existing roundabout is
existing roundabout may need upgrading existing roundabout may need upgrading
12. Hofmann Drive/Inner Ring Road adequate adequate adequate
proposed roundabout is proposed roundabout is proposed roundabout is
proposed roundabout is likely to be adequate proposed roundabout is likely to be adequate
13. Northern Access/Northern At-Grade Access adequate adequate adequate
proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be
14. Central Road/Eastern At-Grade Access junction is adequate junction is adequate junction is adequate adequate adequate
proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be
15. Central Road/Eastern Undercroft Access junction is adequate junction is adequate junction is adequate adequate adequate
proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be proposed unsignalised junction is likely to be
16. Central Road/Southern At-Grade Access junction is adequate junction is adequate junction is adequate adequate adequate
Page 16
Noosa Civic Expansion
Response to Information Request
Response to Information Request
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC GROWTH RATES
J1304128 April 2015 Cardno 28 April 2015
Prepared for QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd Page 11
Page 17
Issue 42 - Traffic Growth
Total Volume (vph) Growth
2007 2007 2009 2009 2014 2014 2007 to 2009 2009 to 2014 2007 to 2014
Road
Thurs PM Sat AM Thurs PM Sat AM Thurs PM Sat AM Thurs PM Sat AM Average Thurs PM Sat AM Average Thurs PM Sat AM Average
1 Eumundi- Noosa Rd 1163 1340 1238 1396 1410 1374 3% 2% 3% 3% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2%
2 Eenie Creek Road (east) 1688 1518 1678 1647 1645 1749 0% 4% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1%
3 Eumundi Rd 2226 2197 2396 2210 2427 2147 4% 0% 2% 0% -1% 0% 2% 0% 1%
4 Walter Hay Drive (north) 669 606 895 731 887 646 17% 10% 14% 0% -2% -1% 8% 4% 6%
5 Eenie Creek Rd (central) 1452 1040 1205 1094 1403 1401 -9% 3% -3% 3% 6% 4% -3% 4% 1%
6 Eenie Creek Road (west) 1629 1339 1920 1582 2007 1904 9% 9% 9% 1% 4% 2% 5% 7% 6%
7 Walter Hay Drive (south) 1005 834 1185 1056 1282 1184 9% 13% 11% 2% 2% 2% 5% 8% 7%
AVERAGE 4.7% 6.0% 5.4% 1.2% 1.4% 1.3% 3.0% 3.7% 3.3%
3 Eumundi Rd
4
Beckmans Rd
2
1
Rene St 5 6 Eenie Creek Rd
Eumundi-Noosa Rd
Inner Ring Rd
Hofmann Dr Noosa Civic
7 Northern Access
Central Rd
Walter Hay Dr
Southern Access