44 The inadequacy of the provision of onsite car parking was the only ground of refusal of the application by the Responsible Authority.
45 The proposal provides for 136 car parking spaces onsite, 11 bicycle parking spaces and loading and unloading facilities.
46 In terms of the parking provision, Mr Higgs, a traffic engineer, gave evidence that the estimated peak parking demand for this facility was between 118 and 131 car spaces. Mr Higgs based his assessment on empirical analysis of other similar sized supermarkets and on the New South Wales RTA "Guide for Assessment of Traffic Generating Developments" parking model.
47 The Responsible Authority submitted that the tourist/holiday centre nature of Phillip Island and in particular the principal role that Cowes township plays as a centre for commercial activities on the island means that the 'standard' analysis approach adopted by Mr Higgs is inadequate to estimate parking and traffic demands.
48 In the evidence produced by Mr Higgs, the only comparable location in terms of seasonal peak demands of supermarkets was that located at Drysdale which provided a peak parking demand of six spaces per 100m2. This figure is consistent with the peak design parking rate of 6:1 cars per 100m2 for shops with floor areas of less than 10,000m2 found in New South Wales RTA Guide. It was also put to us that an earlier attempt by the Responsible Authority to develop a precinct parking plan also recommended six car spaces per 100m2. However, that plan was abandoned and we place no weight on that plan other than to observe consistency of the number of car spaces per 100m2.
49 While it is accepted within traffic engineering practice not to design for the peak parking demand periods in standard locations, we believe there is merit in the Responsible Authority's argument that places like Cowes and to a wider extent Phillip Island, which are tourist locations that are not only seasonal but have major events and attractions occurring throughout the year, result in the standard approach being inadequate.
50 While Mr Higgs himself allowed for a 10% increase in his estimates providing for a 'holiday loading' we think such allowance is insufficient.
51 We are of the view that given the substantial increase in population and consequently traffic and parking demand during the numerous activity periods on the island requires either an empirical analysis during some of these activities or a greater allowance being made. We are of the view a figure closer to the six spaces per 100m2 is likely to result. Thus, we estimate a parking provision in the order of 160 car spaces would be required to service the peak demands of a facility of this size.
52 As mentioned earlier a parking precinct plan had previously prepared and abandoned. We encourage the responsible authority to consider the preparation of another precinct paring plan as we consider that a holistic approach is the only way to address the parking issues of Cowes township.
53 In terms of traffic movement we generally accept that this can be managed and have no major concerns about the arrangement of access and egress from the site. If approval were to be given we would seek some minor modifications however these would not change the nature of the application to any great extent.
54 However, we are concerned that on what is effectively a "greenfield" site the location of loading facilities are at the most sensitive interface near the residential dwellings to the south. These dwellings face Hollydene Court. Again we are confident that such facilities could be relocated if necessary.
55 We are of the view that additional landscaping ought to be provided along the southern boundary adjacent to the building and the necessity for a footpath along that driveway appears in our view to be questionable.
56 Thus, we are not satisfied with the number of spaces provided to service this proposal is adequate and find that the Responsible Authority's ground of refusal is substantiated.