Proposed Supermarket Development Murradoc Road, Drysdale Expert Evidence

Transcription

1 Proposed Supermarket Development Murradoc Road, Drysdale Expert Evidence Expert // Tim De Young Client // Coles Group Property Developments Limited Instructed by // Norton Rose Fulbright Reference // 14M Hearing Date // 25-28/11/14 Report Date // 13/11/14

2 VCAT Evidence ( v2.4) Proposed Supermarket Development Murradoc Road, Drysdale Expert Evidence Issue: Final 13/11/14 Client: Coles Group Property Developments Limited Reference: 14M GTA Consultants Office: VIC GTA Consultants (GTA Consultants (VIC) Pty Ltd) 2014 The information contained in this document is confidential and intended solely for the use of the client for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of GTA Consultants constitutes an infringement of copyright. The intellectual property contained in this document remains the property of GTA Consultants.

3 Expert Witness Details Name, Position and Address Timothy James De Young Director GTA Consultants (Vic) Pty Ltd L25/55 Collins Street, Melbourne, 3000 Qualifications Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) (Hons), University of Melbourne, 2002 Bachelor of Commerce, University of Melbourne, 2002 Master of Business Administration, Monash University, 2012 Memberships and Affiliations Engineers Australia (EA) Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management (AITPM) Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (VPELA) Area of Expertise Traffic Engineering & Transport Planning I joined GTA Consultants in 2002 after completing a Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), with Honours, and a Bachelor of Commerce at The University of Melbourne. In 2011, I also completed a Master of Business Administration at Monash University where I was able to study subjects pursuant to my profession including Planning Law and Transport Economics. I have over 12 years of experience in traffic engineering and transport planning in Victoria, and have worked on a variety of private and public sector projects during this period. Notable private and public sector projects include: recently approved and/or completed retail developments at Chadstone, Highpoint, Knox and Doncaster shopping centres Tooronga Village redevelopment in Glen Iris "Aerial" residential development at Camberwell Junction Northern Maribyrnong Integrated Transport Strategy (for Maribyrnong City Council) Brunswick Major Activity Centre Transport Assessment (for Moreland City Council). Further details of my experience are provided in a succinct curriculum vitae at Appendix A. Relationship to Client I have no private or business relationship with the client, and have been retained to provide expert witness services at this hearing for a mutually agreed fee. Assistance Relating to this Evidence In preparing this evidence, I received assistance from the following people: Chris Greenland Senior Project Manager BE (Civil) (Hons), BSci Justin Gale Traffic and Transport Planner BEng (Civil and Infrastructure) (Hons)

4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Background Instructions Scope of Evidence References 1 2. Existing Conditions Subject Site Road Network Car Parking Sustainable Transport Infrastructure 8 3. Proposed Development Land Uses Car Parking Vehicle Access Pedestrian Access Loading Car Parking Provision & Layout Statutory Requirements Car Parking Demand Assessment Availability of Off-site Car Parking Adequacy of Car Parking Provision Car Parking Layout Traffic Impact Traffic Generation Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic Impact Vehicle Access Arrangements Other Considerations Bicycle Parking & Facilities Loading & Waste Collection Response to Third Party Submissions Overview North-south Road Connection Pedestrian Connectivity to Existing Town Centre Traffic Congestion at Roundabout Insufficient On-site Car Parking Conclusions 33

5 Appendices A: Tim De Young Curriculum Vitae B: SIDRA Intersection Results Figures Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs 3 Figure 2.2: Land Zoning Map 4 Figure 2.3: Murradoc Road (Facing East) 5 Figure 2.4: Murradoc Road (Facing West) 5 Figure 2.5: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6 Figure 2.6: Public Transport Map 8 Figure 2.7: Existing Pedestrian Paths 9 Figure 4.1: Car Parking Inventory Area for Existing ALDI Supermarket in Drysdale 12 Figure 4.2: Car Parking Inventory Area for Existing Safeway Supermarket in Drysdale 14 Figure 5.1: Site Generated Traffic Volumes (Including Diverted Trips) PM Peak Hour 19 Figure 5.2: Base Case Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 20 Figure 5.3: Post Development Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour 22 Figure 7.1: Endorsed Plan for ALDI Supermarket 27 Figure 7.2: UDF Urban Design Framework Plan 30 Tables Table 2.1: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Existing Operating Conditions in PM Peak 7 Table 2.2: Casualty Accident History 7 Table 2.3: Road Based Public Transport Provision 8 Table 4.1: Existing Car Parking Demand for Existing ALDI Supermarket in Drysdale 13 Table 4.2: Empirical Car Parking Demand Data for Regional ALDI Supermarkets 13 Table 4.3: Existing Car Parking Demand for Existing Safeway Supermarket in Drysdale 15 Table 4.4: Table 4.5: Empirical Car Parking Demand Data for Regional Coles/Safeway Supermarkets 15 Anticipated Car Parking Demand for Existing ALDI Supermarket and Proposed Supermarket 16 Table 5.1: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Base Case Operating Conditions PM Peak Hour 21 Table 5.2: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Post Development Operating Conditions PM Peak Hour 23

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1 An amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (Amendment C297) is currently being sought to rezone land located at 32 Murradoc Road, Drysdale to Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) to facilitate a supermarket development at Murradoc Road, Drysdale. The proposed development incorporates a single storey supermarket of 3,892sqm leasable floor area and 146 on-site car spaces. The proposed development is located directly adjacent to, and has been designed to integrate with, an existing ALDI supermarket development (1,400sqm) to the immediate west. The overall site inclusive of the ALDI site will provide a total of 229 car spaces for use by the supermarkets and have a combined supermarket floor area of 5,292sqm. On 22 April 2014, Greater Geelong Shire Council resolved to seek the Minister s authorisation to prepare the Amendment and planning permit application and it was placed on formal exhibition from 3 July 2014 to 4 August Instructions In July 2014, I received written instruction from Norton Rose Fulbright to review documentation relating to the Amendment and planning permit application, focusing on traffic and car parking considerations, and provide my preliminary views. Following the completion of this preliminary review, I was subsequently engaged by Coles to undertake a transport impact assessment for the proposed development (including the collation and analysis of relevant survey data) and present expert evidence at the forthcoming hearing for the Amendment and planning permit application. 1.3 Scope of Evidence This evidence sets out an assessment of the anticipated parking, traffic and transport implications of the proposed development, including consideration of the: i ii iii iv v existing traffic and parking conditions surrounding the site parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed development and the adjacent ALDI supermarket suitability of the proposed parking in terms of supply (quantum) and layout traffic generation characteristics of the proposed development transport impact of the proposed development on the surrounding road network. 1.4 References In preparing this evidence, reference has been made to the following: Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Traffic and Transport Assessment for the proposed Coles development (prepared by Cardno), dated May 2014 Combined Planning Scheme Amendment Request and Planning Application (prepared by ERM), dated May

7 Amendment C297- Permit 765/2013, Coles Proposal for Drysdale Review of Economic Assessment (prepared by Tim Nott), dated February 2014 Amendment C283 Planning Panel Report, dated July 2014 relevant Planning Panel Submissions for Amendment C283 and C297 Drysdale Urban Design Framework, dated August 2012 Drysdale - Clifton Springs Structure Plan, dated September 2010 Australian Standard/ New Zealand Standard, Parking Facilities (AS2890) Austroads Guide to Traffic Management, Part 12: Traffic Impacts of Development Relevant VicRoads correspondence in regard to Amendment C297 and the Planning Permit Application plans for the proposed development prepared by I2C, dated December 2013 traffic and car parking surveys undertaken by GTA Consultants as referenced in the context of this report various technical data as referenced in this report an inspection of the site and its surrounds other documents as nominated. 2

8 2. Existing Conditions 2.1 Subject Site 2 The subject site (the site ) is located at Murradoc Road, Drysdale and has an overall area of 10,000m 2 with a frontage of 80m to Murradoc Road (which is located within a Road Zone 1). The western portion of the site (24-30 Murradoc Road) is located within a Commercial 1 Zone and is currently unoccupied. The eastern portion of the site (32 Murradoc Road) is located within a Commercial 2 Zone and is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling. The Amendment seeks to rezone the eastern portion of the site to a Commercial 1 Zone, as per the balance of the site. The surrounding properties include a mix of land uses, with commercial and industrial land uses generally fronting Murradoc Road to the east, retail land uses being located to the west (within the Town Centre) and residential land uses to the south. The location of the site and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 2.1, and the land zoning is shown in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.1: Subject Site and its Environs Subject Site (Reproduced with Permission from Melway Publishing Pty Ltd) 3

9 Figure 2.2: Land Zoning Map Subject Site (Reproduced from Land Channel web site) 2.2 Road Network Adjoining Roads Murradoc Road Murradoc Road functions as a secondary arterial road (VicRoads controlled) and is located within a Road Zone (Category 1) in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. It is a two-way road aligned in an east-west direction and generally configured with a two-lane, 7 metre wide carriageway set within a 19 metre wide road reserve (approx.). Kerbside parking is permitted on Murradoc Road directly adjacent to the site. Murradoc Road carries approximately 11,500 vehicles per day 1 and is shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure Based on the peak hour traffic counts undertaken by GTA on Thursday 18 September 2014 and assuming a peak-to-daily ratio of 8% for arterial roads and 10% for local roads. 4

10 Figure 2.3: Murradoc Road (Facing East) Figure 2.4: Murradoc Road (Facing West) Other Roads Clifton Springs Road Clifton Springs Road functions as a major local road (Council controlled) located within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. It is a two-way road aligned in a north-south direction and configured with a two-lane, 7 metre wide carriageway set within a 20 metre wide road reserve (approx.). Linemarked kerbside parking is generally permitted on the western side of the road, with indented angled parking available on the eastern side of the road. Clifton Springs Road carries approximately 8,500 vehicles per day. Collins Street / High Street Collins Street (north of Murradoc Road) and High Street (south of Murradoc Road) functions as a secondary arterial road (VicRoads controlled) and is located within a Road Zone (Category 1) in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. It is a two-way road aligned in a northeast-southwest direction and generally configured with a two-lane, 7.5 metre wide carriageway set within a 30 metre wide road reserve (approx.). An angled parking lane is marked off the carriageway on the northern side the road and marked kerbside parking is available on the southern side of the road. Collins Street / High Street carries approximately 18,000 vehicles per day Surrounding Intersections Key intersections in the vicinity of the site include: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road (roundabout) Murradoc Road/ALDI Western Site Access (unsignalised T-intersection exit only) Murradoc Road/ALDI Eastern Site Access (unsignalised T-intersection) Traffic Volumes GTA Consultants undertook traffic movement counts at the roundabout intersection of Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road on Thursday 18 September 2014 during the PM peak period (3:00pm 6:00pm). The PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure

11 High St Collins St Figure 2.5: Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Clifton Springs Rd 183 Murradoc Rd PM PEAK HOUR FLOW Date: September 18, 2014 Time: 15:30-16: Intersection Operation The operation of the roundabout intersection of Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road has been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION 6 2, a computer based modelling package which calculates intersection performance. The most commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of Saturation (DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for traffic movements at the intersection. For roundabouts, a DOS of 0.95 is typically considered to represent the ideal limit, beyond which queues and delays increase disproportionately 3. Table 2.1 presents a summary of the existing operation of the intersection, with full results presented in Appendix B of this report. 2 Program used under license from Akcelik & Associates Pty Ltd. 3 SIDRA INTERSECTION adopts the following criteria for Level of Service assessment: Level of Service Intersection Degree of Saturation (DOS) Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection Roundabout A Excellent <=0.60 <=0.60 <=0.60 B Very Good C Good D Acceptable E Poor F Very Poor >=1.0 >=1.0 >=1.0 6

12 Table 2.1: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Existing Operating Conditions in PM Peak Peak Hour Approach DOS Average Delay (sec) 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Murradoc Road (East) # sec 36 m PM Collins Street (Northeast) sec 19 m Clifton Springs Road (North) sec 35 m High Street (Southwest) sec 27 m DOS Degree of Saturation, # - Intersection DOS Table 2.1 indicates that the roundabout currently operates well, at an excellent level of service (DOS of 0.59), with manageable queues and delays on all approaches Safety Assessment A review of the reported casualty accident history for the roads and intersections adjoining the subject site has been sourced from VicRoads CrashStats accident database. This database records all accidents causing injury that have occurred in Victoria since 1987 (as recorded by Victorian Police) and categorises these accidents as follows: Fatal injury: at least one person was killed in the accident or died within 30 days as a result of the accident. Serious injury: at least one person was sent to hospital as a result of the accident. Other injury: at least one person required medical treatment as a result of the accident. A summary of the accidents in the vicinity of the site for the last available five year period (July 2008 to June 2013) is presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Casualty Accident History Location Number of Accidents Fatality Serious Injury Other Injury Roads Fronting Site Murradoc Road btw. Collins Street and Mortimer Street Nearby Intersections Collins Street / High Street / Murradoc Road / Clifton Springs Road Source: VicRoads Table 2.2 indicates that a total of four casualty accidents have been recorded in the vicinity of the site within the last available five year period. No accident trends are apparent from the available crash history data, noting that only one accident involved a pedestrian and was categorised as an other injury. 2.3 Car Parking GTA has undertaken a number of surveys of existing car parking demand in the vicinity of the site, including on-street and off-street parking areas. The results of these surveys are discussed within the body of this evidence. 7

13 2.4 Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Public Transport Figure 2.6 shows the existing public transport routes within the vicinity of the site, with Table 2.3 summarising the road based routes and major destinations that can be reached using these services. Figure 2.6: Public Transport Map Route 78 Route 79 Route 81 Bus Interchange SITE Table 2.3: Road Based Public Transport Provision Service Route Nos Route Description Distance to Nearest Stop (m) Frequency 78 Drysdale to Clifton Springs 300m mins Bus 79 Geelong to St Leonards 300m mins 81 Drysdale to Ocean Grove 300m 4-5 services per day (Mon-Sat) Pedestrian Infrastructure A sealed pedestrian path currently exists on the southern side of Murradoc Road between the site and High Street. At the roundabout, provision is made for pedestrian crossings of all approaches via refuges. For reference, the existing pedestrian paths connecting the site to the Town Centre and the surrounds are shown in Figure Cycle Infrastructure Limited cycle infrastructure currently exists in close proximity to the site. Notwithstanding this, wide kerbside lanes and/or additional width between on-road angled parking modules and the main carriageway exist along sections of Collins Street, High Street, Murradoc Road and Clifton Springs Road in the vicinity of the site. 8

14 Figure 2.7: Existing Pedestrian Paths 9

15 3. Proposed Development 3.1 Land Uses 3 The proposed development incorporates the construction of a supermarket with a total leasable floor area of 3,892sqm Car Parking It is proposed to provide a total of 146 car spaces, including 4 disabled spaces. It is also noted that an additional 83 car spaces are provided on the adjacent ALDI site which results in a total car parking provision for both sites of 229 car spaces. It is understood that the use of this adjacent car parking (and shared access) by the proposed development has been agreed by both ALDI and Coles. 3.3 Vehicle Access Vehicle access to the site is proposed via a newly constructed crossover to Murradoc Road to the north of the site, noting that vehicle access will also be available via the two existing ALDI site access points to this road. It is understood that VicRoads offers no objection to these proposed access arrangements, or the impacts of the proposed development, subject to permit conditions which relate to the reinstatement of redundant crossovers to the site. It is noted that the reinstatement of redundant crossovers to the site will aid the provision of onstreet car parking on the frontage of the site (which is likely to be in the order of 5 additional car spaces to the supply documented above in Section 3.2). 3.4 Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access to the site is proposed via both Murradoc Road to the north and via the Drysdale Central Walk residential development to the south. The pedestrian connectivity northsouth through the site is proposed to be designed in accordance with the objectives of the Drysdale Urban Design Framework. 3.5 Loading A loading dock is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site and has been designed to accommodate vehicles of a size up to and including 19m articulated vehicles. 4 Floor area has been sourced from the ERM Planning Application Report, the Cardno Traffic and Transport Assessment Report and plans prepared by i2c as referenced in Section 1.4 of this Evidence. 10

16 4. Car Parking Provision & Layout 4.1 Statutory Requirements 4 Statutory requirements for the provision of car parking are set out in Clause of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, with parking rates specified in Table 1 to Clause Reference to this Clause indicates that a statutory car parking rate of 5.0 car spaces per 100sqm is applicable to the proposed supermarket. Application of this car parking rate indicates that the proposed supermarket has a statutory car parking requirement of 194 car spaces. In this instance, the proposed on-site parking provision of 146 car spaces does not meet the statutory requirement and a permit is being sought to reduce this requirement. 4.2 Car Parking Demand Assessment Preamble In circumstances where the statutory parking requirement is not provided on-site, the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme stipulates that a Car Parking Demand Assessment must be prepared to assess the car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposal. The Planning Scheme further outlines that the Car Parking Demand Assessment must consider the following: The likelihood of multi-purpose trips within the locality which are likely to be combined with a trip to the land in connection with the proposed use. The variation of car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use over time. The short-stay and long-stay car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use. The availability of public transport in the locality of the land. The convenience of pedestrian and cyclist access to the land. The provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for cyclists in the locality of the land. The anticipated car ownership rates of likely or proposed visitors to or occupants (residents or employees) of the land. Any empirical assessment or case study In this instance, I consider that the most relevant of the above considerations are an empirical assessment of the likely car parking demand and the likelihood of multi-purpose trips within the locality of the site (specifically between the proposed supermarket and existing adjacent ALDI supermarket). With respect to this latter consideration, I note that the proposed supermarket has been designed with a consolidated car park between the proposed and existing ALDI supermarket sites, with (for example) vehicle access for the proposed supermarket provided through the ALDI site. I also understand that the sharing of car parking between the proposed and existing supermarkets has been agreed upon by ALDI and Coles. In my view, this sharing of car parking is consistent with the activity centre approach to car parking. 11

17 In this respect, I consider it appropriate to analyse the car parking demand of the proposed and existing ALDI supermarkets as a combined development, with a total car parking provision equal to 229 car spaces (including 83 existing car spaces on the ALDI site and 146 car spaces proposed on the subject site) 5. This assessment is presented as follows ALDI Supermarket I consider it appropriate to assess the car parking rate for the ALDI supermarket having regard to both locally relevant data (as sourced from surveys in Drysdale) and other relevant regional data (as the local rate is likely to change following the addition of the proposed supermarket and the resultant sharing of car parking demand via the introduction of multi-purpose trips). Local Data (Drysdale) My office completed car parking demand surveys of the existing 1,400sqm ALDI supermarket in Drysdale directly adjacent to the subject site refer to Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Car Parking Inventory Area for Existing ALDI Supermarket in Drysdale 83 SPACES ALDI COLES SITE The dates and times of these surveys were as follows: Friday 15 August :00am-6:00pm Saturday 16 August :00am-6:00pm Friday 12 September :00am-4:00pm Saturday 13 September :00am-1:00pm 5 This provision equates to a car parking rate of 4.33 car spaces / 100sqm and a statutory shortfall of 35 car spaces for both supermarkets (at existing and proposed floor areas of 1,400sqm and 3,892qm respectively). 12

18 The results of these car parking demand surveys for the existing ALDI Supermarket are summarised in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Existing Car Parking Demand for Existing ALDI Supermarket in Drysdale Survey Day Supply Demand 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm Fridays 15 August September Saturdays 16 August September Table 4.1 indicates that the existing ALDI supermarket currently generates a peak demand of up to 63 and 80 occupied car spaces on either Friday or Saturday respectively. Based on the existing ALDI supermarket floor area of 1,400sqm, these peak demands equate to rates of 4.50 and 5.71 car spaces per 100sqm on the Friday and Saturday respectively. Other Regional Data For further reference, I have also obtained empirical car parking demand data for a number of ALDI supermarkets of similar size in non-cbd locations across Victoria. A summary of the car parking demand results for these supermarkets are provided in Table 4.2. Table 4.2: Empirical Car Parking Demand Data for Regional ALDI Supermarkets Location Source Size Peak Demand per 100sqm of LFA [2] Friday Saturday Rosebud GTA 1,454sqm 3.51 spaces / 100sqm 3.65 spaces / 100sqm Corio GTA 1,445sqm 3.39 spaces / 100sqm 5.33 spaces / 100sqm Kangaroo Flat GTA 1,285sqm 5.14 spaces / 100sqm 5.53 spaces / 100sqm Morwell GTA 1,424sqm 2.95 spaces / 100sqm 2.74 spaces / 100sqm Sebastopol GTA 1,434sqm 4.49 spaces / 100sqm 2.65 spaces / 100sqm Warragul GTA 1,447sqm 3.80 spaces / 100sqm 3.73 spaces / 100sqm Drysdale [1] GTA 1,400sqm 4.53 spaces / 100sqm 5.71 spaces / 100sqm Average 4.0 spaces / 100sqm 4.2 spaces / 100sqm 85 th Percentile 4.6 spaces / 100sqm 5.5 spaces / 100sqm [1] Drysdale surveys for ALDI supermarket as completed as part of this evidence. [2] LFA = Leasable floor area. Table 4.2 indicates average and 85 th percentile rates for ALDI supermarkets in similar locations to that proposed of 4.0 and 4.6 car spaces per 100sqm on a Friday respectively, and 4.2 and 5.5 car spaces per 100sqm on a Saturday respectively. Following the addition of the proposed supermarket and creation of multi-purpose trips, I consider it likely that the ALDI supermarket could be expected to generate a car parking demand somewhere between the average and 85 th percentile rates, as the existing supermarket is likely to share its car parking demand with the proposed supermarket. This would equate to car parking 13

19 rates of approximately 4.3 and 4.9 car spaces per 100sqm on a Friday and Saturday respectively (representing the midpoints of the average and 85 th percentile rates). For the purposes of ensuring a conservative assessment (on the high side), I have nevertheless adopted rates of 4.5 car spaces per 100sqm on the Friday and 5.5 car spaces per 100sqm on the Saturday for the ALDI supermarket Proposed Supermarket I have also assessed the likely car parking rate for the proposed supermarket having regard to locally relevant data (as sourced from surveys in Drysdale) and other relevant regional data. Local Data (Drysdale) My office completed car parking demand surveys of the existing Safeway supermarket located approximately 300m west of the subject site within the area shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Car Parking Inventory Area for Existing Safeway Supermarket in Drysdale 17 SPACES 118 SPACES SAFEWAY + SPECIALTY RETAIL 4 SPACES The dates and times of these surveys were as follows: Friday 15 August :00am-6:00pm Saturday 16 August :00am-6:00pm Friday 12 September :00am-4:00pm Saturday 13 September :00am-1:00pm The results of these car parking demand surveys for the existing Safeway supermarket are summarised in Table This latter rate is 10% higher than the statutory rate (5 spaces per 100sqm) and the anticipated rate (4.9 spaces per 100sqm) and is accordingly considered to be highly conservative. 14

20 Table 4.3: Existing Car Parking Demand for Existing Safeway Supermarket in Drysdale Survey Day Supply Demand 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm Fridays 15 August September Saturdays 16 August September Table 4.3 indicates that the existing Safeway supermarket currently generates a peak demand of up to 125 and 119 occupied car spaces on either Friday or Saturday respectively. Based on an assumed supermarket floor area of 2,800sqm 7 and a floor area of 400sqm for the other speciality uses 8 which forms part of the existing supermarket development (which I further assume generates a demand for car parking at a rate of 2.5 car spaces per 100sqm), these peak demands equate to rates of 4.11 and 3.89 car spaces per 100sqm of supermarket on the Friday and Saturday respectively. Empirical Data (Similar Supermarkets) For further reference, I have also obtained empirical car parking demand data for a number of supermarkets of generally similar size to the proposed supermarket in non-cbd locations across Victoria. A summary of the car parking demand results for these supermarkets are provided in Table 4.4. Table 4.4: Empirical Car Parking Demand Data for Regional Coles/Safeway Supermarkets Location Source Size Peak Demand per 100sqm of LFA [2] Friday Saturday Wonthaggi GTA 4,066sqm 3.88 spaces / 100sqm 3.78 spaces / 100sqm Healesville Cardno 4,931sqm 3.97 spaces / 100sqm 3.50 spaces / 100sqm Rye GTA 3,810sqm No data 4.41 spaces / 100sqm Hastings GTA 3,200sqm 3.06 spaces / 100sqm 2.66 spaces / 100sqm Moe GTA 3,490sqm 3.38 spaces / 100sqm No data Drysdale [1] GTA 2,800sqm 4.11 spaces / 100sqm 3.89 spaces / 100sqm Average 3.7 spaces / 100sqm 3.6 spaces / 100sqm 85 th Percentile Demand 4.0 spaces / 100sqm 3.8 spaces / 100sqm [1] Drysdale surveys for Safeway supermarket as completed as part of this evidence. [2] LFA = Leasable floor area. Table 4.4 indicates average and 85 th percentile rates for supermarkets in similar locations to that proposed of 3.7 and 4.0 car spaces per 100sqm on a Friday respectively, and 3.6 and 3.8 car spaces per 100sqm on a Saturday respectively. 7 Approximated from Amendment C297- Permit 765/2013, Coles Proposal for Drysdale Review of Economic Assessment prepared by Tim Nott and dated February Approximated via measurement of the overall supermarket floor area via aerial photography and making allowance for the assumed supermarket floor area of 2,800sqm 15

21 In my view, the above data indicates that the supermarket is likely to generate a car parking demand in the order of 4.0 spaces per 100sqm (with most data points sitting around this rate during both peak hours). Accordingly, I have adopted a rate of 4.0 car spaces per 100sqm on the Friday and Saturday for the proposed supermarket Summary On the basis of the above rates, Table 4.5 provides a summary of the anticipated peak car parking demand for the overall site. Table 4.5: Anticipated Car Parking Demand for Existing ALDI Supermarket and Proposed Supermarket Supermarket Size Friday Saturday Spaces per 100sqm Demand Spaces per 100sqm Demand ALDI (Existing) 1,400sqm 4.5 spaces per 100sqm 63 spaces 5.5 spaces per 100sqm 77 spaces Coles (Proposed) 3,892sqm 4.0 spaces per 100sqm 156 spaces 4.0 spaces per 100sqm 156 spaces Coles/ALDI (Combined) 5,292sqm 4.1 spaces per 100sqm 219 spaces 4.4 spaces per 100sqm 233 spaces Table 4.5 indicates that a car parking demand of up to approximately 233 occupied car spaces can be expected within the combined ALDI/proposed supermarket car park (with this demand expected on a Saturday). This peak car parking demand compares to a proposed on-site car parking provision of 229 car spaces and accordingly suggests that an off-site car parking demand of up to approximately 4 car spaces 9 could be expected under post-development conditions. 4.3 Availability of Off-site Car Parking In addition to the car parking demand surveys of the existing ALDI and Safeway supermarkets in Drysdale, my office also completed surveys of the available parking in the area which could be used to meet some of the parking demand of the proposed development (if required). These surveys indicate that the 5 car spaces along the frontage of the site (on Murradoc Road) are generally vacant throughout the survey periods, with a peak car parking demand of 4 car spaces recorded at any time. These car spaces are currently unrestricted and I see no reason pursuant to why they could not be provided under post-development conditions Adequacy of Car Parking Provision Based on the above discussions and analysis, I consider the proposed car parking provision to be acceptable, noting: The Car Parking Demand Assessment indicates that a car parking demand of up to 233 occupied car spaces can be expected. 9 Notwithstanding this anticipated off-site demand, it should be noted that the Car Parking Demand Assessment is conservative on the high side (i.e. overestimates the demand) for the following reasons: It assumes that the peak car parking demands for each supermarket occurs at the same time It assumes car parking demands are generated at rates above the averages documented in Tables 4.2 and 4.4 It assumes that minimal multi-purpose trips are completed between the supermarkets noting that only the ALDI supermarket rate has been reduced from the 85th percentile rate (from 4.6 spaces per 100sqm to 4.5 spaces per 100sqm) 10 I also note that potential exists to partially or wholly indent these car spaces should that be preferred by VicRoads. 16

22 In the event that this peak demand was generated (which is considered unlikely for the reasons outlined in this Evidence), an off-site car parking demand of up to 4 car spaces could be expected. More than sufficient car parking vacancies exist on the immediate frontage of the site to accommodate this potential off-site demand. I further note that whilst I do not consider it to be necessary, potential exists to increase the on-site car parking provision. 4.5 Car Parking Layout The proposed parking layout meets or exceeds Planning Scheme and/or Australian Standard requirements, noting: Car parking spaces generally measure 2.6m wide and a minimum 5.2m long, accessed from a 6.5m wide aisle. These dimensions exceed the requirements of the Planning Scheme. Disabled car parking spaces measure 2.4m wide and 5.5m long, with a shared zone 2.4m wide and 5.5m long adjacent each space and are accessible from a 6.4m wide aisle. The vehicular access point to Murradoc Road exceeds the minimum width requirement for two-way accessways. 17

23 5. Traffic Impact 5.1 Traffic Generation 5 For the purposes of this assessment, I have estimated the likely traffic generation of the proposed supermarket, having regard to data contained within the GTA survey database as well as other sources, on the basis of a vehicle generation rate per car space. Specifically, I have assumed a traffic generation rate of 3.2 vehicle movements per occupied car space during the weekday afternoon peak hour. Application of this rate to the anticipated peak car parking demand associated with the proposed supermarket (156 car spaces) indicates that this use could be expected to generate approximately 500 vehicle movements in the peak hour. Notwithstanding this generation, it is noted that not all of the vehicle movements generated into and out of the site will be new to the road network, with a significant proportion to be generated by vehicles already on the road network (either directing passing the site or diverting from a trip nearby to visit the proposed supermarket). With respect to the proportion of trips made by diverted or non-diverted trips (i.e. vehicles which are already on the road network), guidance has been sought from AustRoads Guide to Traffic Management Part 12 which suggests trip proportions for shopping centres of 3,000-20,000sqm as follows: New trips: 50% Diverted trips: 22% Non-diverted trips (passer-by): 28% This Guide indicates that of the vehicle trips generated by a shopping centre land use of the size proposed, approximately 50% are from vehicles that are already on the road network (either in the area which divert towards or the site or are simply passing the site) 11. Having regard to this data and for the purposes of assessing vehicle movements at the nearby roundabout (rather than vehicle access points), I have assumed that 40% of the total vehicle generation of the proposed supermarket occurs by vehicles already on the road network within Drysdale. This assumption results in an assessment which is conservative on the high side noting that a discount of 40% rather than 50% has been adopted. On the basis of this assumption, I estimate that the proposed supermarket could be expected to generate up to 300 additional vehicle movements in the peak hour. 5.2 Traffic Distribution and Assignment Having regard for the location of the site and the configuration of the site access points, amongst other things, I have assumed a trip distribution as follows: 75% of traffic to and from the west 25% of traffic to and from the east Moreover, with respect to the new traffic generated to and from the west, I have assumed that it is distributed in accordance with existing traffic volumes at the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout. 11 This proportion is also consistent with the data presented in the Guide for shopping centres of up to 3,000sqm. 18

24 High St Collins St Finally, I have also assumed an equal split of entering and exiting traffic during the peak hour. Based on the above assumptions, the anticipated traffic volume increases at the roundabout are shown in Figure 5.1. It is noted that these traffic volume increases include the provision of diverted trips, which represent a decrease to through traffic on High Street/Collins Street and an increase to traffic to/from Murradoc Road. Figure 5.1: Site Generated Traffic Volumes (Including Diverted Trips) PM Peak Hour Clifton Springs Rd 0 Murradoc Rd PM PEAK HOUR FLOW SITE GENERATED 5.3 Traffic Impact Preamble To assess the impact of proposed developments, VicRoads Guidelines to Transport Impact Assessment Reports specifies: To ascertain the impact of the proposal on existing road infrastructure, in accordance with the TIAR performance objectives detailed in 5.1, a base case should be developed to compare the traffic performance (level of service) of the road network with and without the proposed land use development. The base case should consist of an assessment of the traffic performance (level of service) of the road network without the proposed land use development, at key points in time, including anticipated opening, any key intermediate staging points and of full development (as appropriate). The base case traffic volumes should be derived from existing traffic volumes and an estimate of traffic growth up to these key points in time. The estimated traffic growth should be based on historical growth rates, general land use and relevant travel patterns. An assessment in accordance with these guidelines is presented as follows. 19

25 High St Collins St Base Case Conditions Assumptions In this instance, I consider that it is appropriate to assess an immediate post-development traffic volume scenario which assumes a reasonable timeframe for the construction and opening of the project. Based on advice provided to my office, I have prepared this assessment on the assumption that the development would be operational by the end of This would represent approximately two years of traffic volume growth from the current conditions (surveyed in September 2014 for preparation of this evidence). In the absence of any specific historical traffic volume data for Murradoc Road and the nearby Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout, I have assumed a traffic growth rate of 3% per annum. I consider this growth rate to be appropriate, if not conservative on the high side. Traffic Volumes Having regard to these assumptions, the anticipated Year 2016 base case traffic volumes at the roundabout are shown in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: Base Case Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Clifton Springs Rd 194 Murradoc Rd PM PEAK HOUR FLOW Year: Growth: % per year 20

26 Intersection Operation The operation of the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout under base case condition has been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION 6 (a computer based modelling package which calculates intersection performance). It is noted that the most commonly used measure of intersection performance is referred to as the Degree of Saturation (DOS). The DOS represents the flow-to-capacity ratio for traffic movements at an intersection. For roundabouts, a DOS of 0.95 is typically considered the ideal limit, beyond which queues and delays increase disproportionately 12. On the basis of the base case traffic volumes shown in Figure 5.2, Table 5.1 presents a summary of the anticipated future operation of the intersection in 2016 before the development of the site. Detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix B of this report. Table 5.1: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Base Case Operating Conditions PM Peak Hour Condition Approach DOS Average Delay (sec) 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Murradoc Road (East) sec 43 m Base Case Collins Street (Northeast) sec 22 m Clifton Springs Road (North) # sec 43 m High Street (Southwest) sec 31 m DOS Degree of Saturation, # - Intersection DOS Table 5.1 indicates that the roundabout can be expected to operate with a very good level of service (DOS of 0.65) under base case conditions, with manageable vehicle queues and delays on all approaches Post Development Conditions Traffic Volumes By adding the development traffic estimate shown in Figure 5.1 to the base case traffic volumes shown in Figure 5.2, the post development traffic volumes can be estimated. These volumes are shown in Figure 5.3 for the weekday PM peak hour. 12 SIDRA INTERSECTION adopts the following criteria for Level of Service assessment: Level of Service Intersection Degree of Saturation (DOS) Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection Roundabout A Excellent <=0.60 <=0.60 <=0.60 B Very Good C Good D Acceptable E Poor F Very Poor >=1.0 >=1.0 >=1.0 21

27 High St Collins St Figure 5.3: Post Development Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour Clifton Springs Rd 194 Murradoc Rd PM PEAK HOUR FLOW POST DEVELOPMENT Year: 2016 Intersection Operation The impact of the development generated traffic upon the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout has been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION. On the basis of the turning movement estimates presented above, Table 5.2 presents a summary of the anticipated future operation of the intersections following full development of the site. Detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix B of this report. 22

28 Table 5.2: Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road Roundabout Post Development Operating Conditions PM Peak Hour Condition Approach DOS Average Delay (sec) 95 th Percentile Queue (m) Murradoc Road (East) sec 43 m Base Case Post Development Collins Street (Northeast) sec 22 m Clifton Springs Road (North) # sec 43 m High Street (Southwest) sec 31 m Murradoc Road (East) # sec 93 m Collins Street (Northeast) sec 25 m Clifton Springs Road (North) sec 74 m High Street (Southwest) sec 41 m Murradoc Road (East) sec +50 m Impact Collins Street (Northeast) sec +3 m Clifton Springs Road (North) sec +31 m High Street (Southwest) sec +10 m DOS Degree of Saturation, # - Intersection DOS Table 5.2 indicates that the roundabout can be expected to operate with a good level of service (DOS of 0.84) under post-development conditions, with manageable vehicle queues and delays on all approaches. In this respect, I consider that the completion of mitigating road works at this roundabout is not necessary for the proposed development. 5.4 Vehicle Access Arrangements Vehicle access to the existing ALDI and proposed supermarket sites will be provided via three crossovers to Murradoc Road. Of these three crossovers, it is my view that the central access will accommodate the highest quantum of traffic as is straddles both sites and represents the first opportunity for vehicles to enter the sites for vehicles arriving from the west. This central access has been designed with an auxiliary right turn lane into the sites to accommodate the queuing of vehicles waiting to enter the site without impacting eastbound through traffic on Murradoc Road. I am satisfied that the access arrangements can be expected to operate safely and efficiently under a post-development + 10 years of traffic growth scenario. 23

29 6. Other Considerations 6.1 Bicycle Parking & Facilities 6 Statutory requirements for the provision of bicycle parking and associated facilities are set out in Clause of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Application of the rates outlined in this Clause to the proposed development indicates that it generates a statutory bicycle parking requirement of 14 bicycle spaces including 6 staff spaces and 8 visitor spaces. The proposed development plans (Prepared by i2c, Drawing No. TP03, Rev. E) indicate 5 bicycle hoops (suitable for the parking of 10 bicycles) external to the Coles building for use by customers to the supermarket. This provision exceeds the statutory requirement for customer bicycle parking and is considered appropriate. These development plans do not, however, specifically detail employee bicycle parking on-site. Having regard to the statutory requirement of 6 bicycle parking spaces for the proposed development, it is recommended that these 6 bicycle spaces be provided in a secure location internal to the building. In addition to the requirement to provide employee bicycle parking, the Clause requires 1 shower for the first 5 employee bicycle parking spaces and 1 shower for each subsequent 10 employee bicycle parking spaces (if 5 or more employee bicycle parking spaces are required). Application of these rates to the statutory employee bicycle parking requirement of 6 bicycle spaces indicates that the proposal also generates a statutory requirement of 1 change room/shower. It is recommended that that this change room and shower also be provided. 6.2 Loading & Waste Collection Statutory Requirements Clause of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is applicable where buildings or works are constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials. The Clause anticipates the proposed development has statutory requirement of a loading area of 45.4sqm. Reference to the development plans indicate that a loading area of at least 200sqm is to be provided along the eastern boundary of the site. This provision exceeds the statutory requirement and is considered to be appropriate for the proposed development Layout/Dimensions The proposed loading area has been designed to accommodate vehicles of a size up to and including 19m articulated vehicles. The accessibility of this loading area has been confirmed by Cardno using AutoTURN (a computer package designed to simulate vehicle swept paths in a CAD environment). The swept path indicates that 19m articulated vehicles are able to reverse into the dock although are required to utilise a small section of the car parking area. I am satisfied that this swept path illustrates that appropriate vehicle access is proposed to this loading area, although I recommend that loading and unloading occur outside of peak operating house to reduce the potential for conflict within the car park. 24

30 6.2.3 Refuse Collection It is understood that waste will stored and collected from the on-site loading area via a private contractor. I consider this arrangement to be appropriate for the proposed development. 25

31 7. Response to Third Party Submissions 7.1 Overview 7 In preparing this evidence, I have also reviewed a number of third party submissions relating to the proposed development. These submissions outline various concerns with the proposed development, including: i ii iii iv The absence of a north-south road connection. The existence of poor pedestrian connectivity between the subject site and the existing Town Centre. The congestion from increased traffic movement at the roundabout. The provision of insufficient on-site car parking. A succinct response to those submissions is outlined below. 7.2 North-south Road Connection Background In preparing this evidence, I have been provided with extensive material relating to this road connection. I understand that the relevant history relating to this road link is as follows: 2009 Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan In April 2009, Council initially adopted the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, with this Plan subsequently amended in September 2010 and various elements incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme via Amendment C194. Of relevance to the site, the Plan does not reference the need for any north-south road link, with the text related to vehicle and pedestrian access to the site specified on page 17: The number of vehicular access points should be minimised and limited to two access points (subject to traffic engineering advice). The primary vehicular access point should be adjacent to the western boundary to minimise conflict with pedestrian movement along the active frontages of the supermarket building. This access point will allow entry/exit of vehicles. The eastern access assists in reducing potential queuing of vehicles when undertaking a right hand turn into the site from Murradoc Road. Sufficient distance is required from the major round-a-about located at the junction of Murradoc Road and High Street to the east [sic]. The primary pedestrian access point should be from the main entry point of the building which orientates towards the street frontage. This is typically the centre of the building frontage; however other access points could also be further to the west where the majority of those accessing the site by foot will enter from. Other pedestrian paths should be provided throughout the site to provide safe passage of travel and avoid conflicts with vehicular movement. Key pedestrian paths should be provided along active frontages and key access points through the car park. Pedestrian access from the residential development to the south could also be provided. 26

32 2010 ALDI Hearings In February 2010, an Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning to consider proposed developments for five new ALDI stores. Specific to this development, the ALDI supermarket to the immediate east of the site was considered and the Advisory Committee recommended that the Minister adopt a rezoning of land at 6-26 Murradoc Road to a Business 1 Zone (now Commercial 1 Zone) for which an ALDI supermarket was subsequently constructed. At this time, the Advisory Committee also considered the need for a north-south pedestrian link through the site from Murradoc Road to the residential subdivision to the south (under a Section 173 agreement between the land owner and Council). In this respect, the Advisory Committee found that the requirement for the land owner to provide land to Council for a public pedestrian path was not obligatory and that a pedestrian connection through the southern fence of the ALDI site (once the land to the south was acquired as a public reserve) would be sufficient. It is noted that in accordance with this finding the ALDI development was later approved, and its plans endorsed in October 2011, with only the potential for a pedestrian link. For reference, the endorsed plan is reproduced below in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: Endorsed Plan for ALDI Supermarket 2011 Enquiry by Design In 2011, Council engaged a suite of consultants, including TTM Consulting, to conduct an Enquiry by Design process to develop the Drysdale Town Centre. This resultant report outlined a number of suggestions pursuant to the layout and functioning of the Town Centre, including matters relating to its movement network (i.e. system of streets running in both the north-south and east-west directions). 27

33 Specifically, this report outlined the following (page 14): Plan 8 shows the addition of potential streets to the existing network. It would enable more buildings to front streets, which further assists with the activation of public space ( human Habitat corridors ), provides route choices, emergency access, and traffic distribution. To achieve the network shown on the previous page it would be necessary to negotiate with the developer of the Drysdale Walk development (shown below) to increase the vehicular connectivity between the development and the town centre. Pedestrian linkages, as proposed, will sometimes afford reasonable walking opportunities but in areas of low pedestrian activity a safe and amenable condition does not present at all hours of the day. Vehicles have eyes in them, and the vehicular activity, or even potential activity, can usually result in a safer walking experience. 28

34 With respect to the suggested movement network, I note that the north-south road link does not appear to have been recommended on the back of any strategic transport modelling or the like for Drysdale (which demonstrated a need for the road) and is specified in the report as merely a potential street network Master Plan Endorsement for Central Walk Development In August 2011, the urban design master plan for the Central Walk Development to the south of the site was endorsed by Council. Despite the recommendation outlined above in the Enquiry by Design report that a vehicle connection should be investigated, the endorsed plan did not include a road link but instead only included a pedestrian link to the ALDI site. This pedestrian link is consistent with the requirements shown in the endorsed ALDI plans Drysdale Urban Design Framework In August 2012, Council endorsed the Drysdale Urban Design Framework (UDF) which had been prepared to provide guidance on the future growth and development of the Town Centre. In accordance with the principles outlined in the Enquiry by Design report but in contrast to the plans endorsed for the ALDI and Central Walk developments (as well as the ALDI Advisory Committee Hearing), the UDF included a potential north-south road link through the site to connect Murradoc Road to the approved residential subdivision to the south. Specifically, it is noted that the UDF shows the north-south road link within its Urban Design Framework Plan presented on page 11 (as reproduced over page in Figure 7.2) to connect the Council Depot Site and the Central Walk residential development (page 10). 29

35 Figure 7.2: UDF Urban Design Framework Plan Amendment C283 In 2014, Amendment C283 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme was pursued to, amongst other items, give effect to the UDF by applying policy from within the report to Clause of the Planning Scheme and by including the UDF document as a reference to this Clause. 30

36 In particular, Amendment C283 proposed to replace the then current Drysdale/Clifton Spring structure plan map with an updated version depicting a road connection (north-south road link) as per the UDF through the western boundary of the development site. Within the Panel Report for the Amendment (specifically within Section 5.3 commencing on page 13), the potential north-south road link is discussed at length, including: The exhibited map indicates a "Future road and/or pedestrian connection" that, while at a small scale, seems to be over the Coles land and the land to its north linking with a possible east west road, apparently coinciding with "McKenzie Street" within the Council depot site. In respect of the latter site, Council in its submission said there are no current plans to relocate the Council depot. The Panel is of the view that, given the uncertainties about these roads, the designation on the Structure Plan map should be altered to indicate a general interpretation of the principles within the DUDF and avoid the map being interpreted as a literal translation of the ideas in the Framework. Thus a feature similar to the existing "bubbles" could be applied to the map, reading: "Improve north south and east west road and/or pedestrian connections where possible." In September 2014, Greater Geelong City Council adopted Planning Scheme Amendment C283 in the form recommended by the Panel, with no reference to the proposed north-south road link Summary of My Opinion Having regard to the above, I consider that there is an absence of strategic justification (via the completion of strategic transport modelling for example) that demonstrates that the north-south road link is needed or indeed is expected to provide a transport benefit to the Town Centre above and beyond that which could otherwise be provided via the pedestrian link. By way of example, I note that there does not appear to be any need for greater vehicle access to/from the approved Central Walk residential development to the south of the site which has been designed with access from alternate roads (including Woodville Street to the south of that development and Mortimer Street, which in turn connects to Murradoc Road, to the east of the site). Similarly, I do not consider that the road would provide a broader bypass benefit to the Town Centre, noting that a more formal bypass route is proposed considerably further to the east of the site, and indeed could lead to rat-running issues if it were provided into the residential development to the south. From a purely traffic engineering perspective, I also question the feasibility of a north-south road link at this location that crosses Murradoc Road, and thus likely requires management via traffic signals or a roundabout, in such close proximity (approximately 130m) to the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout. Given the above, I do not share the views that a north-south road link is required or that it should be pursued through the site. 7.3 Pedestrian Connectivity to Existing Town Centre As discussed in Section of this Evidence, a number of existing pedestrian footpaths exist in the vicinity of the site and abutting the proposed development. At the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout, it is noted that the crossing of all approaches is possible (including the east-west crossings to the existing Town Centre), with these movements aided by refuges which allow pedestrians to make staged crossings of the roads. Although these crossings are not controlled via signals, I note that only one 31

37 casualty accident involving a pedestrian has been recorded in the vicinity of the site in the last available five year period, with this accident occurring to the east of the site on Murradoc Road (at Mortimer Street). In my view, the absence of an accident trend at this roundabout suggests that the pedestrian movements are able to be completed safely. Given the above and whilst I am aware that the full signalisation of the roundabout is specified in the UDF as a long-term aspiration (which would improve pedestrian connectivity at this location), I do not consider that sufficient need, nexus or equity exists to require the upgrade of pedestrian crossings at this location as part of the proposed development. 7.4 Traffic Congestion at Roundabout As discussed in Section 5 of this Evidence, the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road intersection is expected to operate satisfactorily following full development of the site without improvement works. In this respect, I also note that Victorian Government has recently committed $0.5m toward the Drysdale Network Planning Study and the development of a business case to fix traffic issues in Drysdale. I understand that this Study is expected to be completed in late 2015 and expect that it will examine options to alleviate traffic flows and congestion through the roundabout, amongst other areas, including consideration of: the signalisation of the roundabout, and/or the construction of the Drysdale Bypass (in part or full) to the east of the site In my view, the analysis contained within this Evidence illustrates that this roundabout can be expected to operate satisfactorily without these potential works and I accordingly do not agree with the view that the assessment of the planning permit application should be postponed until the outcomes of this Study are known. Finally, I also note that this view is consistent with that expressed by VicRoads in their letter dated 1 July 2014 which offers no objection to Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and the planning permit application, subject to the following conditions: 1. The redundant vehicle crossover shall be removed with kerb and channel reinstated to the satisfaction of VicRoads. 2. The proposed crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans (Ref No Drawing No. TP03) to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority 7.5 Insufficient On-site Car Parking For the reasons outlined in Section 4 of this Evidence, I do not agree that the proposed on-site car parking provision is insufficient. 32

38 8. Conclusions Based on the analysis and discussions presented within this evidence, I make the following conclusions: 8 Car Parking i ii The proposed development has a statutory car parking requirement of 194 car spaces. The proposed on-site car parking provision shared between the proposed and existing ALDI supermarkets is acceptable, noting: o o o The Car Parking Demand Assessment indicates that a car parking demand of up to 233 occupied car spaces can be expected. In the event that this peak demand was generated (which is considered unlikely for the reasons outlined in this Evidence), an off-site car parking demand of up to 4 car spaces could be expected. More than sufficient car parking vacancies exist on the immediate frontage of the site to accommodate this potential off-site demand. iii iv Whilst not considered to be necessary, potential exists to increase the on-site car parking provision. The proposed parking layout meets or exceeds Planning Scheme and/or Australian Standard requirements. Traffic Impact i ii iii iv The proposed development could be expected to generate up to 300 additional vehicle movements in the Friday PM peak hour. The Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout can be expected to operate with a good level of service (DOS of 0.84) under postdevelopment conditions, with manageable vehicle queues and delays on all approaches. The completion of mitigating road works at this roundabout is not necessary for the proposed development. The vehicle access arrangements can be expected to operate safely and efficiently under a post-development + 10 years of traffic growth scenario. Other Considerations i ii The proposed customer bicycle parking provision exceeds statutory requirements but it is recommended that 6 staff bicycle parking spaces and 1 changeroom/shower should be provided in accordance with statutory requirements. The proposed loading area exceeds statutory requirements and is considered to be satisfactory although it is recommended that its use be managed such that 19m articulated vehicles do not arrive during peak retail trading hours. Response to Third Party Submissions i ii I do not share the views that a north-south road link is required or that it should be pursued through the site. I do not consider that sufficient need, nexus or equity exists to require the upgrade of pedestrian crossings at the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout as part of the proposed development. 33

39 iii iv I do not agree with the view that the assessment of the planning permit application should be postponed until the outcomes of the VicRoads Network Planning Study are known. I do not agree that the proposed on-site car parking provision is insufficient. Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance that I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel. Tim De Young Director 13 November

40 Appendix A Appendix A Tim De Young Curriculum Vitae

41 Tim De Young Director Tim is a transport planner and engineer with 12 years of experience in Australia. He joined GTA in 2002 as a graduate consultant after completing a Bachelor of Engineering and Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Melbourne. Tim has been employed at GTA since this time and has held the position of Director since Over the past decade, Tim has worked on some of the largest private sector development projects in Victoria, including recently proposed or completed expansions at Chadstone, Highpoint and Doncaster Shopping Centres. Tim has also managed a number of complex public sector transport studies in this time, including the Northern Maribyrnong and Brunswick Major Activity Centre Integrated Transport Strategies. Proposed Bus Interchange and Office Development at Chadstone Shopping Centre Tim regularly presents expert transport planning and engineering evidence at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and Panels Victoria, and has recently completed a Master of Business Administration at Monash University. Office Melbourne Qualifications Bachelor of Engineering (Honours), University of Melbourne Bachelor of Commerce, University of Melbourne Master of Business Administration (Dean s Commendation), Monash University Memberships and Affiliations Engineers Australia Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association (MVPELA) Australian Institute of Traffic Planning & Management (MAITPM) Engineers without Borders Project Experience Traffic & Transport Planning Retail Chadstone Shopping Centre (in construction) Highpoint Shopping Centre (complete) Doncaster Shopping Centre (complete) Tooronga Village Shopping Centre (complete) Bunnings Warehouses, including Hawthorn, Port Melbourne, Box Hill, Mentone, Mill Park, Sunshine and Highpoint (complete) Residential Flemington Life Residential Developments, Flemington Racecourse (proposed) Aerial Residential Development, Camberwell (complete) Saltwater Coast Residential Subdivision, Point Cook (complete) The Age Site Residential Development, Melbourne CBD (proposed) Education Carey Baptist Grammar School Kew Campus Penleigh & Essendon Grammar School Keilor Campus Professional Background 2002 Present: GTA Consultants Tim has worked on a large variety of projects at GTA across a broad range of specialised areas of expertise, including: -Transport Impact Assessments & Appraisals -Integrated Transport Planning -Car Parking Strategy & Management -Transport Masterplanning -Local Area Traffic Management -Road Safety TIm has been a Director of GTA since 2011 and is a member of its National Board. Integrated Transport Planning Northern Maribyrnong Integrated Transport Strategy Brunswick Major Activity Centre Integrated Transport Strategy Car Parking Strategy & Management Bangkok Intelligent Parking System Study Brunswick Major Activity Centre Parking Strategy