Agenda Item SCAP - 09 11 2017 - DA 145 E016 17 - ID 2206 ... · Station and Adelaide Rail Station with a further bus connection which stops in close proximity (220 m) to the site

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

CIRQA\\Projects\17085 James Cummings 10OCT17.docx Page 1 of 6

Cirqa Pty Ltd | Cirqa Pty Ltd | Cirqa Pty Ltd | Cirqa Pty Ltd | ABN: ABN: ABN: ABN: 12 681 029 98312 681 029 98312 681 029 98312 681 029 983 | | | | PO Box 144PO Box 144PO Box 144PO Box 144, Glenside SA 5065 , Glenside SA 5065 , Glenside SA 5065 , Glenside SA 5065 | | | | Ph: 0412 835 711Ph: 0412 835 711Ph: 0412 835 711Ph: 0412 835 711 | | | | [email protected]@[email protected]@cirqa.com.au

Ref: 17085|BNW Mr James Cumming Property and Consulting Australia GPO Box 1629 ADELAIDE SA 5001 10 October 2017 Dear James,

“LATITUDE” MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, ALDINGA RESPONSE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS I refer to the proposed mixed-use development at 135 Rowley Road, Aldinga Beach. Specifically, this letter provides a response to traffic and parking matters raised in the City of Onkaparinga’s letter (dated 21 August 2017) regarding the application. Key matters raised by Council are provided in italics, followed by my response.

“A 1.5 m wide footpath was to have been constructed along the length of Sunset Parade

(potentially reducing to 1.2m wide if appropriate towards the eastern end)… The 1.5m wide

footpath can fit within the verge past the existing indented parking at the western end

of Sunset Parade. However, the proposed indented on-street parking towards the eastern

end of Sunset Parade may not allow space for a footpath within the verge (or the

development), and also appears to conflict with refuse collection movements…”

The proposed indented parking on Sunset Parade has been removed from the proposal. This will address Council’s above comments in that adequate verge width will be retained for accommodation of a footpath in this location. “As discussed above, the links between internal and external pedestrian footpaths need

clarification, together with a footpath, on street parking and refuse collection movements

off Sunset Parade. The eastern movements will affect the proposed indented on-street

parking, while both movements will affect the existing kerb and required footpath…”

The site layout plans clearly identify the proposed internal footpaths. As noted above, the proposed indented parking on Sunset Parade has been removed from the proposal. Additionally, the waste collection areas have been revised to accommodate Medium Rigid Vehicles with a reduced, single width crossover for each collection area. This will minimise impact of the waste collection access requirements on footpaths and on-street parking provision.

CIRQA\\Projects\Admin\17085 James Cummings 10OCT17.docx Page 2 of 6

“It should be confirmed that the refuse collection vehicles can adequately negotiate the

small roundabout and streets within the Latitude housing estate, including the route for

exiting the estate noting the potential for on-street vehicle parking.”

The refuse collection vehicles associated with the subject site will be no larger than Council’s standard refuse collection vehicles that service the broader land division. Such vehicles currently utilise the surrounding road network, including the roundabout noted by Council. Furthermore, this roundabout is mountable and easily negotiated by such vehicles. “The Cirqa report provides a car parking assessment including references to council’s

Development Plan Table Onka/3. As part of this, it references 1 space per 3 beds for tourist

accommodation, but not the second part of the rate of ‘or 1 per room plus 1 per employee

whichever is greater’.”

It is acknowledged that the parking assessment should have included the additional rate of one space per room plus one per employee. Nevertheless, such a rate is considered to be excessively onerous. This rate essentially considers that all staff drive to and from the site, that all rooms are occupied and that guests associated with each room have an individual vehicle. Such an occurrence would not be considered a typical design demand (essentially, it would be akin to assessing parking requirements for a shopping centre at the absolute Christmas trading peak). In reality, lower parking demands are likely at most, if not all times, given:

• serviced apartment occupancies typically average below full occupancy (we understand surveyed occupancies of similar facilities to be in the order of 40% to 75%);

• 37 of the 42 apartments will be dual key. While these can be let separately, it is not uncommon for a portion of guests associated with separately let rooms to be associated with one another (for instance, two couples staying in separately keyed rooms but accessing the site via one vehicle); and

• the majority of staff are on-site during traditional business hours at which time guest parking demands are significantly reduced (i.e. when a large proportion of guests are off-site). There is therefore a relatively high level of ‘sharing’ of spaces associated with such serviced apartments which reduces overall peak demands.

“We are unconvinced that a NSW guide is an appropriate reference for independent livings

units at Aldinga Beach.”

The NSW RTA (now RMS) guide is commonly utilised (and accepted) for assessment of parking demands associated with development proposals within South Australia (and in other states, not just NSW). The data utilised by the RTA to derive various parking demand rates was not solely based on inner Sydney locations but included a number of regional areas comparable to Aldinga. Nevertheless, an updated parking provision assessment is provided


below which identifies a higher level of provision than recommended by the RTA guide.

“The rate of one space per unit for ‘aged persons accommodation’ in our Development

Plan is considered the appropriate rate for an outer suburban context, allowing for visitors

to use a dedicated space per unit if the occupants do not have a car.”

Council’s statement above acknowledges that there is a likelihood that not all ILU residents will have a car. Given the assessment identified in the original CIRQA report included separate identification of ILU visitor parking demands, this suggests that Council accepts the resident parking rate will be below one space per ILU. In addition, the dedication of a full-time parking space on-site for visitor use is considered excessive (in lieu of being used by a resident as suggested by Council), particularly given visitor use is typically of a relatively short-term nature. It is also noted that staffing levels associated with ILUs are typically very low and staff are typically assessed as visitors (i.e. they are only on-site for short to medium periods of time). In addition to the above, the proposed parking layout has been updated to provide eight scooter/gopher spaces for ILU residents which would further assist in reducing reliance on private motor vehicles.

“We also suggest that comparisons to rates accepted in CBD or inner-metropolitan areas

are not appropriate at Aldinga Beach, where public and private transport services are not

as frequent or convenient. We anticipate that guests in the serviced apartments (also

occupants and visitors of the independent living units and apartments) are more likely to

use private cars to access the accommodation and the nearby attractions of the beaches

and McLaren Vale.”

As noted above, the rates discussed in the previous CIRQA assessment do not specifically apply solely to inner-metropolitan areas but include data associated with regional locations. Of particular note, the previous assessment did not rely on ‘CBD’ related parking rates. I note that Council’s comment supports the above discussion that guest vehicles will not always be on-site (i.e. when staff parking demands associated with the serviced apartments peak). In any event, while it is accepted that most guests of the serviced apartments will drive, public transport services are available including buses, taxi and ‘Uber’ services. Rail services also operate between the Seaford Rail Station and Adelaide Rail Station with a further bus connection which stops in close proximity (220 m) to the site (or, alternatively, taxi, ‘Uber’ or similar services could be use from the Seaford Rail Station). Such a journey would take approximately 1.5 hours and is not considered excessive (particularly for tourists). Information for access to/from the site will be readily accessible by guests online via the operator’s website and/or most search engines). In addition to the above, there are ‘tour’ services associated with local attractions (in particular, chauffeured wine region tours) which could be utilised by guests. It is also relevant that the site is located immediately opposite a relatively large shopping centre (within walking distance) which is also a key factor in reduced dependency on private motor vehicles (particularly for the apartment and ILU residents but also relevant for serviced apartment guests). It is also reiterated that guests associated with separate rooms may arrive


together and that other factors (discussed above) result in demands of less than one vehicle per apartment/unit.

“Based on the above assessment, it is considered a more appropriate car parking provision

would be… 174-211 [spaces] plus provision for serviced apartment employees.”

Given the various factors discussed above, the above requirement suggested by Council is considered to be conservative and onerous. It is also noted that the previously proposed residential yields and commercial areas have been altered within the updated proposal. Namely, the number of single bedroom private apartments has been reduced by six to be replaced with an additional three two-bedroom apartments have been proposed (a reduction of three apartments). In addition, the café has been reduced to 80 m2 in area and the remaining areas have been altered to ancillary areas associated with the serviced apartments and ILUs. This would reduce the overall requirement by 6 spaces (based on the Development Plan rate). Furthermore, an additional four spaces have been identified on-site (at-grade), albeit one space within the basement will be removed to accommodate a shared area for adjacent parking for persons with disabilities. A total provision of 132 spaces is now proposed on-site.

In addition to the above, I noted that the Development Plan’s Principle of Development Control 17 (Land Division) states that:

“The design of the land division should provide space sufficient for on-street

visitor car parking for the number and size of allotments, taking account of:

(a) the size of proposed allotments and sites and opportunities for on-site parking

(b) the availability and frequency of public and community transport

(c) on-street parking demand likely to be generated by nearby uses.”

The adjacent road (Sunset Parade) was constructed as part of the overall land division (of which the subject proposal forms part of). I therefore consider that PDC 17 (Land Division) contemplates use of the associated on-street parking on Sunset Parade for visitor parking associated with the land uses forming part of the overall land division. There is more than adequate parking on the southern side of Sunset Parade to accommodate visitor demands associated with adjacent residential dwellings (on the southern side of the road). Therefore, I consider it appropriate that the 26 on-street spaces available on the northern side of Sunset Parade be accepted for use by visitors associated with the subject development (particularly given such visitor parking would generally be associated with a short to medium time period and that the developer has essentially paid for the construction of these spaces).

On this basis, allowing for serviced apartment guests and staff parking, ILU resident parking, apartment resident parking and one café space on-site (staff), the parking assessment would essentially be equivalent to one space per private apartment, 0.8 spaces per ILU and 0.47 spaces per serviced apartment bedroom/key (or 0.88 spaces per apartment). The remaining demand of 26 visitor spaces could be accommodated on the northern side of Sunset Parade (without impact on availability for visitors associated with opposite residences). On this basis, Table 1 summarises the updated parking assessment.


Table 1 - Updated parking assessment

Use Quantity Type Rate Unit Spaces

Long term / OnLong term / OnLong term / OnLong term / On----site Parkingsite Parkingsite Parkingsite Parking

Private Apartments 10 1-bed 1 per dwelling 10

Private Apartments 27 2-bed 1 per dwelling 27

Independent Living 72 unit 0.8 per unit 57.6

Serviced Apartments 79 bedrooms 0.47 per bedroom 37.1

Commercial 80 m2 4 per 100 m2 1*

Total on-site 132

Short to medium term / OnShort to medium term / OnShort to medium term / OnShort to medium term / On----street Parkingstreet Parkingstreet Parkingstreet Parking

Private Apartments (visitor) 37 apartments 0.25 per dwelling 9.25

Independent Living (visitor) 72 apartments 0.2 per unit 14.4

Commercial 80 m2 4 per 100 m2 2.2*

* Café parking split between on-site (staff) and on-street (patron) Total on-street 26

In relation to the rate provided for serviced apartments, I note that the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court has previously accepted a rate of 0.7 spaces per apartment (not per bedroom or per key) for the Liberty Towers serviced apartments at Glenelg (which included dual key apartments). It is acknowledged that the subject site has a lower level of public transport connectivity. However, in comparison, the proposal will provide 0.88 spaces per serviced apartment. This provides a reasonable level of additional parking provision above that accepted by the ERD Court to account for location/accessibility factors (in fact, it equates to 25% additional parking compared to the rate accepted by the ERD Court). It should be noted that the above assessment excludes consideration of shared parking opportunities (differing peak demand periods) associated with the various uses (which would further reduce the demand compared to that suggested in the above table). Nor does the assessment consider the interaction between uses and associated reduction in parking demands (such as café patrons being associated with the other uses or visitors associated with an ILU resident staying in the serviced apartments). Furthermore, visitor parking demands are typically of a short to medium term time period. Full utilisation of the on-street spaces would not occur at all times but would be infrequent (i.e. once a week or less). The above assessment is therefore considered to include a degree of conservatism.

SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY Amendments have been made to the proposed site layout to address Council comments in relation to footpath provision, waste management and parking considerations. It is noted that Council considers higher parking provision rates to be appropriate compared to that adopted in the original CIRQA assessment. However, I consider the rates identified in Council’s Development Plan to be excessively conservative and overly onerous. Based on the amendments to the site plan and utilisation of on-street


parking (for visitor parking), an updated parking assessment has been provided. This has identified higher provision rates for the serviced apartments and the ILUs can be achieved compared to those previously identified. Furthermore, the updated assessment does not include consideration of shared parking opportunities and therefore includes a degree of conservatism. Please feel free to contact me on 0412 835 711 should you require any additional information. Yours Sincerely,

BEN WILSONBEN WILSONBEN WILSONBEN WILSON

Director, CIRQA Pty Ltd

© Colby Industries

130 - 168 Aldinga Beach Rd,

Aldinga Beach

Waste Management Plan Prepared for: WINWEST

FINAL (Revised)

12 September 2017

ABN 34 122 507 920 24 Anstey Crescent, Marleston, SA 5033 p +61 8 8297 2385 www.colbyindustries.com.au

http://www.colbyindustries.com.au/

© Colby Industries

- IMPORTANT NOTES - This document has been prepared by Colby Industries Pty Ltd for a specific purpose and client (as named in this

document) and is intended to be used solely for that purpose by that client.

The information contained within this document is based upon sources, experimentation and methodology which

at the time of preparing this document were believed to be reasonably reliable and the accuracy of this

information after this date may not necessarily be valid. This information is not to be relied upon or extrapolated

beyond its intended purpose by the client or a third party unless it is confirmed in writing by Colby Industries that

it is permissible and appropriate to do so.

Unless expressly provided in this document, no part of this document may be reproduced or copied in any form

or by any means without the prior written consent of Colby Industries or the client.

The information in this document may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient

of this document (or parts thereof), or do not have permission from Colby Industries or the client for access to it,

please immediately notify Colby Industries or the client and destroy the document (or parts thereof).

This document, parts thereof or the information contained therein must not be used in a misleading, deceptive,

defamatory or inaccurate manner or in any way that may otherwise be prejudicial to Colby Industries, including

without limitation, to imply that Colby Industries has endorsed a product or service.

Document verification

Description Waste Management Plan for proposed development at 130 - 168 Aldinga Beach Rd, Aldinga Beach; Client: WINWEST

Version FINAL, revised per Client’s instructions

Issued 12/9/2017

Verification Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Name C. Colby Client C Colby

Signature

© Colby Industries 1

Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2 Development details ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Waste Management System Design metrics .......................................................................... 2

2.3 Collection access .................................................................................................................... 2

3 Stakeholder consultation ................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Council .................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Developer ................................................................................................................................ 5

4 Waste System services & volumes ................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Services ................................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Waste & recycling generation rates ........................................................................................ 6

5 Waste System design & operation .................................................................................................. 8

5.1 Routine services ...................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Hard waste ............................................................................................................................ 15

5.3 Maintenance Services ........................................................................................................... 16

5.4 Other waste (off-site disposal) .............................................................................................. 16

6 Collection ....................................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Collection access .................................................................................................................. 17

6.2 Collection vehicles ................................................................................................................ 17

6.3 Collection Frequency ............................................................................................................ 17

6.4 Collection Duration ................................................................................................................ 18

6.5 Collection scheduling ............................................................................................................ 18

7 Facility design................................................................................................................................ 19

7.1 Detailed design ..................................................................................................................... 19

7.2 Bin selection .......................................................................................................................... 19

7.3 Signage ................................................................................................................................. 19

7.4 Vermin, hygiene & odour management (inc. ventilation) ...................................................... 19

7.5 Access & security .................................................................................................................. 20

7.6 Transfer pathways ................................................................................................................. 20

8 Operation and management ......................................................................................................... 21

8.1 Management & Operating Responsibility .............................................................................. 21

8.2 Communication strategy ....................................................................................................... 21

8.3 Building User Manual ............................................................................................................ 21

8.4 Community/Strata title arrangements ................................................................................... 21

8.5 Emergency response plan .................................................................................................... 21

9 References .................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1: Waste management requirements in the Council Development Plan & Compliance achieved by this WMP ........................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 2: Results of swept path modelling for collection access ..................................................... 25


1 Introduction This document provides a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for a proposed development at 130 - 168 Aldinga Beach Rd, Aldinga Beach. The site for the proposed development is in the City of Onkaparinga (Council) area. The developer is WINWEST PTY LTD, Project Architect is Tectvs, Traffic Consultant is HDS Australia Pty Ltd, and the Planner is Future Urban Group.

2 Development details 2.1 Overview

The proposed development is a two building, multi-storey, high-density residential development with approximately 248 serviced, independent living or private apartments. The proposed development would include three commercial tenants or areas (e.g. café, gymnasium, office, etc.). There would be public areas, including building lobbies and a Rooftop Terrace. Figure 2-1 overleaf displays an early 3D design concept view developed by the Project Architect for the proposed development. [Please note: this early 3D design concept may be slightly different when

compared with final design plans issued for planning approval; it is provided here for the sole purpose

of assisting readers with visualisation of the proposed development.]

2.2 Waste Management System design metrics

Table 2-1 two pages over summarises the key development metrics adopted for waste management system (WMS) design of the proposed development (based on latest building metrics and design plans issued by the Project Architect). Please note the following:

• Some apartments that are one bedroom are connected by key-locked doors, so they can be linked by tenants to form 2-bedroom living areas.

• The buildings are surrounded by landscaped and garden areas, which would be maintained by an external contractor, who would collect, remove and dispose any garden or greens waste generated at the site.

o Consequently, no on-site storage is needed for this waste stream, and thus, these areas are not listed in Table 2-1.

• Table 2-1 includes an assigned or assumed Land Use (Activity) Classification (LUC) based on the South Australian Better Practice Guide (SABPG) for Waste Management in Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014).

o These LUCs were used to identify suitable Waste Resource Generation Rates (WRGRs) listed in the SABPG, to estimate waste and recycling volumes likely to be generated by the proposed development.

o The SABPG, however, does not have WRGRs for some land use activities in the proposed development, so an equivalent LUC was assumed in these cases (e.g. Showroom LUC was assigned to public areas).

2.3 Collection access

Collection of waste and recycling for the development would occur on-property via access points on Sunset Parade, which have been identified with the Traffic Consultant – see Section 5.1.1 and Section 6.


Figure 2-1: Early 3D design concept view (from Aldinga Beach Rd) for proposed development at 130 - 168 Aldinga Beach Rd, per Architect’s Design Response (Tectvs, 2017)


Table 2-1: Proposed development – key design metrics for waste management; from building metrics and design plans issued by Project Architect (Tectvs, 28 April 2017)

Land Use Location Description Land Use (Activity) Classification (LUC) 1

Development Metric(s)

Residential

Building West Serviced Apartments Serviced Apartments

79 Dwellings 79 Bedrooms

Independent Living

High Density Residential


Building East Independent Living


Private Residents 45 Dwellings 75 Bedrooms

Commercial Building West Café Light Café / Takeaway 74 m2 GFA Office Office 93 m2 GFA Gym Retail2 94 m2 GFA

Public Areas

Building West Lobby areas Showroom2 200 m2 GFA (provision) Rooftop Terrace Showroom2 630 m2 GFA

Building East Lobby areas Showroom2 200 m2 GFA (provision)

Table Notes:

1. Per Appendix B in the SABPG (Zero Waste SA, 2014)

2. Assumed LUC for this land use activity.

3 Stakeholder consultation 3.1 Council

Inquiries were made with Council regarding their views and/or preferences for waste management at the proposed development site, including discussions with Council’s Team Leader – Waste & Recycling (Norm Bergman, 2017). Key outcomes from this consultation were:

• Council does not (presently) have the capability (i.e. it currently only provides a standard kerbside collection service, e.g. 140/240L MGBs) to deliver services to this type OF development.

o The proposed development would require larger bulk bins due to its scale, which would need to be provided by a private waste contractor.

• Southern Metropolitan Adelaide is not well serviced by rear-lift trucks that can collect 660/1100L skip bins, but front-lift services using larger bins are readily available.

o Consequently, larger bins (e.g. 1.5/3m3) using front-lift trucks would likely be the best (and most affordable) solution for waste collection.

• Food waste is not currently an expected service in the City of Onkaparinga. o But provision to implement this service in the future should be considered.

• Design of the waste system should look to minimise any potential noise or nuisance issues to nearby properties where possible.

• The various requirements for waste management (for this type of development) in the Council’s Development Plan (DPTI, 30 May 2017) were highlighted and discussed.

o Appendix 1 to this WMP lists these requirements and indicates whether this WMP has achieved compliance with them.

After the above, additional feedback from Council was received via the State Planning Commission (21 August 2017) in response to the original WMP lodged with planning documents. This feedback:

• Requested that food waste should be collected as a private service once the development commences


• That the WMP should confirm (where it does not already) that the development’s waste

management staff will be responsible for: o Security of the compounds to ensure tidiness and correct use by all tenants and also

to prevent dumping; o Putting out and taking in an agreed number and type of bins for any Council collection

service, and ensuring the contents are not contaminated; and o Coordinating the Council hard waste collection service to ensure efficient use with

correct items.

3.2 Developer

Several meetings and/or discussions with the developer (WINWEST), Project Architect (Tectvs Architecture), Planner (Future Urban Group) and Traffic Consultant (HDS Australia) to identify key requirements and/or priorities for waste management at the proposed development site. Key outcomes from these discussions were:

• The residential tenants would be in an older demographic, and some of those living in the serviced apartments might be mobility impaired.

o Cleaners would therefore collect the waste and recycling from the Serviced Apartments.

o Residents in private and independent living apartments would dispose of their own waste and recycling to local disposal areas provided.

• Residents and cleaners would o dispose of waste and recycling into smaller bins (e.g. mobile garbage bins (MGBs) in local disposal areas in the Basement, adjacent to the Lifts, to provide convenience and minimise their travel distances.

• Each Building would have its own external waste compound where bulk bins (and other waste/recycling) could be stored.

o These compounds would be located on the Southern side of the development with collection access from Sunset Parade.

• The smaller bins in local disposal areas in the Basement would be collected by Property Management staff and taken to the external waste compounds to be emptied into the bulk bins.

o This could be achieved by transporting bins via Lifts, corridors and external paths to the waste compounds.

o Alternatively, a motorised tug with bin trailer could be used to transport bins from the basement via access ramp to the external waste compound.

o A bin lifter would be provided in external compound so the smaller bins would be emptied into the bulk bins.

• Commercial tenants would be able to take their own waste to the waste compounds and empty them into the same bulk bins (shared with residential) too.

o Other services and/or bins needed by the commercial tenants would be provided for in the (external) waste compound(s)

The above was reviewed and adjusted by the Developer to meet Council’s revised position (as

outlined above) per additional received via the State Planning Commission (21 August 2017).


4 Waste System services & volumes 4.1 Services

Table 4-1 overleaf summarises the (waste and recycling) services that would be provided to the proposed development.

• Routine Services –

o Residential – ▪ General waste (rubbish), recycling and food waste collection.

• This food waste service may involve an on-site composting disposal or collection for off-site disposal.

o Commercial – ▪ These services would suit the final requirement of commercial tenants, which

may not be determined until the building becomes operational and commercial areas are leased.

▪ The suggested services in Table 4-1 are therefore nominal and some may reasonably not be decided until these tenancies are leased.

• On-call Services – This would include hard waste, on-site collection of lighting, printer/cartridges and batteries for residents, and possibly cooking oil if needed by an on-site cafe.

o On-site collection of lighting, printer/cartridges and batteries for residents is proposed because of their older demographic, likely lower mobility, fewer nearby off-site disposal points, and less local transport options to these off-site disposal points.

• Maintenance Services – This would include garden waste, sanitary waste in public toilets, and lighting from public / shared areas or where contracted for residential apartments.

• External – Commercial tenants would be required to dispose of these items at nearby off-site disposal points (e.g. Officeworks, Mitre 10, local waste disposal sites, etc.)

4.2 Waste & recycling generation rates

Table 4-2 two pages overleaf estimates the waste and recycling volumes at the proposed development. These estimates are based on development metrics and LUCs in Table 2-1 and WRGRs in SABPG (Zero Waste SA, 2014).

• For Food Waste: o In Residential (where no service will be immediately provided), estimated volumes

based in SABPG WRGRs are included in the General Waste stream. o The same applies to waste estimates for Office and Gym tenancies because food

waste collection would not reasonably be implemented due to their small size and waste volumes generated.

• There are no estimates for sanitary, lighting waste, and printer cartridges/batteries as there are no publicly available (and reliable) WRGRs for these items, and their volumes will likely be not substantial anyway.

• The hard waste volume estimates are based on the WRGR for residential land use types given in the SABPG (Zero Waste SA, 2014).


Table 4-1: Waste & recycling services proposed for residents and commercial tenants

Service Type

Residential Commercial

Public areas Serviced Apartments

Independent & Private

Apartments Light Café / Takeaway Office Gym

Routine (regularly scheduled)

• General Waste • Recycling • Food Waste (Future

Provision only)

• General Waste • Recycling / Cardboard

Food Waste (Option) • Recycled deposit

containers (Option)

• General Waste • Recycling / Paper • Confidential paper

(Option, if needed)

• General Waste • Recycling / Paper

General waste

On-call (as needed)

• Hard/E-waste • Lighting • Printer cartridges • Batteries

• Hard/E-waste

• Cooking Oil (Option, if needed)

Maintenance (waste removed by contractor)

• Lighting (public/communal areas, where contracted for residents/tenants) • Sanitary (for public/commercial ablutions if present) • Garden Areas • Catering

External (by resident/tenant off-site)

N/A

• Lighting • Printer Cartridges • Batteries

N/A


Table 4-2: Estimated waste & recycling volumes based on development metrics and LUCs in Table 2-1 and WRGRs in SABPG (Zero Waste SA, 2014); NE – Not estimated; N/A – Not Applicable; Future – future provision will be provided, volumes presently included in General Waste estimate

Waste / Recycling Service

Residential Commercial

Public Areas

High density residential dwellings

Serviced Apartments

Light Café / Takeaway

Office Gym

L/week L/week L/week L/week L/week L/week

General Waste 6,870 2,370 850 160 340 3,790

Recyclables 5,730 1,580 600 140 160 N/A

Food Waste 2,290 1,580 1,130 N/A N/A N/A

Hard waste 1,603 553 17 3 21 59

E-waste 286 99 3 1 4 4

Sanitary NE NE NE NE NE NE

Lighting waste NE NE NE NE NE NE Printer Cartridges/Batteries NE NE NE NE NE NE

TOTAL 16,779 6,182 2,600 304 525 3,854

5 Waste System design & operation 5.1 Routine services

5.1.1 Residential The residential waste system would be designed and operate as follows.

1. User disposal and storage (in apartments)

o Residents would be provided with kitchen bins as follows. a) General waste bin – at least 20L in size, with bin liner b) Commingled recycling waste bin – at least 30L in size c) Food organics bin – 6-8L kitchen caddy (or in-draw bin), with compostable bin

liner

o The bins should be equipped with handles allowing easy carriage by residents or cleaners to the Basement-level local waste disposal areas (see 2 below).

▪ Cleaners may empty waste collected from Serviced Apartments into larger bags on their trolley (instead of carting apartment bins down to the local disposal area).

o Figure 5-1 overleaf gives some examples of kitchen bins previously suggested by Council (Adelaide City Council, 2016).


Figure 5-1: Examples of waste and recycling kitchen bins suggested by Council (Adelaide City Council, 2016)

2. Local Disposal area

o There would be four local disposal areas in the Basement level, adjacent to the Lifts – see Figure 5-3 overleaf.

o Each local disposal area would have the following bins sets of waste disposal areas: ▪ General waste - 2×240L MGBs ▪ Recycling - 2×240L MGBs ▪ Food waste – Future provision for a 140L MGB ▪ Drop-off items – Basket(s)/box(es) for printer cartridges, lighting and

batteries. o Residents or cleaners would empty the waste and/or recycling into the above bins or

receptacles.

3. Bin/waste transfer

o Property Management would check the bins daily and if full, transport them to the external waste compounds for disposal into bulk bins or storage (for drop-off items).

o This bin/waste transfer would be: ▪ Performed manually via Lift to Ground level and then external path to waste

compounds (see Figure 5-3, and Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6 on pages overleaf); and/or

▪ Using a motorised tug with bin trailer (see example in Figure 5-2 below) via the Basement vehicular access ramp.

o Emptying of the (general waste, recycling and food waste) MGBs into bulk bins would be performed using a suitable mobile bin lifter (see example in Figure 5-4 two pages over)

Figure 5-2: Example of motorised tug with 2-bin trailer for 240L MGBs (Source: www.spacepac.com.au). Note: This is an example only, specifications and selection to be confirmed at detailed design stage of project

http://www.spacepac.com.au/


Figure 5-3: Location of local disposal areas in the Basement Level, including local disposal paths for residents or cleaners and bin/waste transfer pathways for Property Management to take bins to the external waste compounds for disposal (updated)

0 6 10 20Local Disposal Path

Col lection Transfer Path

POSSIBLE MOTORISED BIN TRANSFER PATH



Figure 5-4: Example of mobile bin lifter suitable for 140/240L MGBs (Source: www.spacepac.com.au). Note: This is an example only, specifications and selection to be confirmed at detailed design stage of project

4. Waste Storage

o There would be two external waste storage compounds, one for Building West (see and Figure 5-5), another for Building East (see Figure 5-6).

o Each compound would have the following waste storage/space provision to support Routine Services.

▪ General waste - 2×3m3 front-lift bins (with wheels) ▪ Recycling - 1×3m3 front-lift bin (with wheels) ▪ Food waste – 1×2.5m3 Biobin®1, a purpose designed Marrel-type skip bin One or both the compounds would have future space provision for an on-site composting system and/or collection bins for future service provision. ▪ Space to store –

• Bin(s)/box(es) for printer cartridges, batteries &/or lighting • Spare 240L MGBs for local disposal areas (in event that they need to

be replaced because of damage.) • Equipment, e.g. tug and trailer, mobile bin lifter

o Each compound would be – ▪ Screened –

• So that residents at the proposed development could not see waste bins or storage from their apartment windows; and

• Neighbouring residents would not see the see waste bins or storage area from their properties or public road.

{Cont. three pages over}

1 The Biobin® is a patented organics collection system developed, supplied and serviced by PeatsSoil and

Garden Supplies Pty Ltd, see: http://www.biobin.net/index.php?id=2

http://www.spacepac.com.au/

http://www.biobin.net/index.php?id=2


Figure 5-5: Building West Ground Level showing waste compound and transfer pathways from residential local disposal areas (at Basement level) and Commercial user storage (in tenancy) at Ground Level (updated)

0 6 10 20

ACCESS GATE


Local Disposal Path


COMMERCIAL USER

(TENANCY) STORAGE

- NOMINAL

ORG (Biobin) 2.5m3

GEN 3m3

GEN 3m3

TEM P H ARD WASTE

O THERREC 3m3

R

24

0

G 24

0

BIN

L

IFT

ER

EQ UIP

FRONT-LIFT

COLLECTION TRUCK

MARELL

SKIP TRUCK

BIN

PR

ES

EN

TA

TION


Figure 5-6: Building East Ground Level showing eternal waste compound and transfer pathways from residential local disposal areas (at Basement level) (updated)

0 6 10 20

ACCESS GATE


Local Disposal Path


ORG (Biobin) 2.5m3

GEN 3m3

GEN 3m3

TEM P H ARD WASTE

O THERREC 3m3

R

24

0

G 24

0

BIN

LIFTE

R

EQ UIP

FRONT-LIFT

COLLECTION TRUCK

MARELL

SKIP TRUCK

BIN

PR

ES

ENTA

TION


▪ Paved – with suitable hard surfaces. ▪ Covered – to minimise rain ingress and run-off from the hard surfaces. ▪ Graded to drain – so any cleaning wash water or rain run-off was directed to

sewer. ▪ Provided with access to services –

• Power – that may be needed to charge or operate equipment. • Mains water – that may be needed to wash down equipment or bins

from time to time. 5. Collection

o General waste & recycling bins (front-lift service) ▪ Collection would occur twice weekly. ▪ Property Management would transfer rubbish and recycling 3m3 bins to

outside the compound for collection days. ▪ At each location:

• The front-lift waste collection truck would (in forward direction) enter via a gate from Sunset Parade;

• Manoeuvre in the area provided to position forks into sleeves on bins;

• Lift and empty bins; • Then manoeuvre (on property) to exit (in forward direction) from

property back onto Subset Parade. ▪ The Traffic Consultant has undertaken swept path modelling using a Medium

Rigid Vehicle (MRV) (8.8m length) and confirmed that the above is feasible for the currently proposed preliminary waste system design.

• The results of this modelling are included in Appendix 2 to this WMP. o Food waste Biobin® (skip bin service)

▪ Collection would occur fortnightly from each waste storage compound. ▪ At each location, the skip bin collection truck would:

• Enter in forward direction (but opposite direction to Front-lift truck) via the gate on Sunset Parade;

• Manoeuvre in the area provided to reverse up to the Biobin® in the waste compound;

• Lift the bin onto the truck; • Then manoeuvre (on property) to exit (in forward direction) from

property back onto Subset Parade; ▪ The collection truck would take the bins to a local organics recycling depot

(e.g. Peats Soils at Whites Valley), empty them, then return to the property and drop the bins back off in the waste compounds.

▪ The skip bin collection vehicle is the same size or a smaller truck than the front-lift truck, and the above should therefore be feasible based on the swept path modelling already undertaken by the Traffic Engineer for an MRV (see Appendix 2).

o Other Routine Services ▪ Collection frequency would be dictated by Property Management to meet the

site’s needs. ▪ Collection trucks would enter, park in the on-property area in front of waste

compounds, then exit in same way as described above as for front-lift trucks. • These collection trucks would, however, may be smaller in size and

operate and/or load waste differently (e.g. rear-lift, flat-top, etc.).


5.1.2 Commercial The commercial waste systems for tenants would use the same front-lift waste bins (in external waste compounds) for disposal but operate slightly differently and may require additional waste/recycling bins for other services (e.g. food waste, confidential paper, recycled deposit containers, etc.).

1. User disposal and storage (in tenancies)

o Each tenant would keep bins in their tenancies for the services they needed, e.g. ▪ General waste & recycling – a 240L MGB for each ▪ Food waste – 140 or 240L MGB ▪ Other services – bin(s), box(es) and/or crates as needed.

o These bin(s), box(es) and/or crates would be selected at time of tenancy fit-out to meet the tenants’ needs and preferences.

2. Bin/waste transfer

o Commercial tenants would transfer their bins/waste to the external waste storage (Building West) compound for emptying/storage/collection

▪ Tenants may be permitted to use the motorised tug and trailer for this purpose.

▪ Where agreed, Property Management may transfer bins for commercial tenants.

3. Waste Storage

o General waste & recycling – Commercial tenants would empty rubbish and recyclables from 240L MGBs into the 3m3 front-lift bulk bins (shared with residential) using the bin lifter provided.

o Food waste – 140 or 240L MGB(s) would be emptied into the Biobin® using the bin lifter provided

o Other services – Tenants would empty into bins provided or place bin(s), box(es) and/or crates in relevant collection areas.

4. Collection

o Would occur in same way as described for residential Routine service collection described in Section 5.1.1.

It should be noted that each rateable commercial property (unless excluded by Council’s

Development Plan) can access the following Council bins for recycling and waste disposal (http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/kerbside_bin_collection_service/bin_options.jsp#commercial).

• 1 x 240 litre yellow-lidded recycling bin (collected fortnightly) • 1 x 140 litre red-lidded waste to landfill bin (collected weekly)

The Council kerbside service may be suitable for some commercial tenants by negotiation with Council assuming a suitable kerbside collection point (e.g. on Sunset Parade, Rowley Rd or Aldinga Beach Rd) can be identified. Where this is the case, Property Management will ensure that commercial tenants (through conditions in tenancy agreements) put out and take in an agreed number and type of bins for any Council collection service, and ensure the contents are not contaminated.

5.2 Hard waste

Hard waste collection would be a private at-call service organised for residents and commercial tenants through Property Management, with collection direct from their apartments or tenancy, or from a temporary hard waste area set up in one of the external waste compounds. Council may work with Property Management to assist in providing hard waste collections for residents at the proposed development via its current at-call hard waste collection service (http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/other_services/hard_waste_collect

http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/kerbside_bin_collection_service/bin_options.jsp#commercial

http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/kerbside_bin_collection_service/bin_options.jsp#commercial

http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/other_services/hard_waste_collections.jsp


ions.jsp). It is recommended that access to this service should be discussed with Council after planning consent is secured and before the building becomes operational. Where the Council hard waste collection service is accessed, Property Management will be responsible for coordinating the Council hard waste collection service to ensure efficient use with correct items.

5.3 Maintenance Services

Services provided by maintenance contractors would include:

• Garden waste – this would be collected and disposed off-site by the contractor engaged to maintain landscaped and garden areas.

• Sanitary waste – these would be collected from public or commercial tenant toilets by a contractor, who would dispose of this was off-site.

• Lighting – a building maintenance contractor would be responsible for replacing and disposing off-site lighting from public areas or serviced and/or independent living units.

• Catering – disposal of waste generated by community events organised for residents at the site (e.g. in the Rooftop Terrace) would be arranged by the relevant catering contractor.

These maintenance services would be organised and/or coordinated by Property Management. Contractors would use their own (temporary) bins and equipment, vehicles and/or sub-contractors for collecting waste and disposing of it off-site; no on-site provision for waste storage is needed.

5.4 Other waste (off-site disposal)

For commercial tenants, advice would be provided in the Building User Manual (see Section 8.3) to residents on off-site disposal of other waste items they may generate (e.g. lighting, printer cartridges).

http://www.onkaparingacity.com/onka/living_here/waste_recycling/other_services/hard_waste_collections.jsp


6 Collection 6.1 Collection access

The on-property collection points for waste at the proposed development would be the paved areas adjacent external waste compounds, as illustrated in Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6. Collection trucks would access these collection points from Sunset Parade. Entry to and exit from the property at these collection points would occur in a forward direction. Collection access has been modelled by the Traffic Consultant using an MRV to simulate a front-lift truck with results included in Appendix 2 to this report. The Traffic Consultant’s report should provide more information regarding the access of waste collection trucks to the collection entry points on Sunset Parade.

6.2 Collection vehicles

Table 6-1 below summarizes the expected type and size of collection trucks that would collect waste and/or recycling at the proposed Development. There are potentially a variety of different trucks that may need to be accommodated. Property Management would need to confirm with waste contractors when organizing services that their collection trucks are able to meet the access arrangements that have been provided for.

Table 6-1: Potential dimensions and clearance requirements for waste trucks expected at this development

Type of

Vehicle Front-lift truck Rear-lift truck

Pan-tech/skip/ flat-bed

truck

Vehicle

Dimensions

3.6-3.9m (h) x 2.7m (w) x 8.5-10m (l)

(final dimensions depend on truck selection)

3.6m (h) x 2.7m (w) x 8-10m (l) (final dimensions depend on truck

selection)

4m (h) x 2.7m (w) x 7-9m (l) (final dimensions on waste contractor

and/or truck selection)

Vehicle

turning circle

18-25m (depending on truck selection)

18-25m (depending on truck selection)

15 -25m (depending on truck selection)

Travel/Access

provisions:

See Vehicle Dimensions above Vertical Clearance: 3.8-4.2m (depending on truck selection)



Operating

provisions

(when parked &

loading)

Parking Space Length: 10-12m Vertical Clearance: Up to 7m

(depending on truck selection & allowing for front loading)

Parking Space Length: 10-12m Vertical Clearance: Up to 3.9m

(depending on truck selection & allowing for rear loading)

Parking Space Length: 10-14m Vertical Clearance: Up to 4.5m

(depending on truck selection & allowing for rear bin / waste loading)

6.3 Collection Frequency

The Routine services across the site would be coordinated and aligned (by Property Management) so that a single waste contractor collects for each service (as opposed to more than one contractor delivering the same service), to minimize collection events. Collection of front-lift bins for general waste and recycling from the two external compounds would occur up to twice weekly. Collection of the Biobin® would occur from the two external compounds would occur fortnightly. This would result in four collection events per week to each waste compound, with a fifth collection event every fortnight. In addition, there would be periodic on-call collections for Hard/E-waste, which may occur once to twice a month (but either could be more or less per month depending on site demands). Property Management would coordinate and schedule a regular Hard waste service to the proposed Development for this purpose. Furthermore. there may be regular collections for sanitary waste (e.g. on a weekly basis) as well as collections scheduled for other specialized recycling services that commercial tenancies may request (e.g. cooking oil for a café).


It is important to recognize that the above-mentioned scheduled collection frequencies are based on waste generation rates which may reflect ‘peak’ loadings for these types of land use activities.

Consequently, when the building becomes operational, the collection frequencies may be less than these if waste generation is lower than design values recommended by the South Australian Better Practice Guide (Zero Waste SA, 2014).

6.4 Collection Duration

Routine collection events for front-lift bins to the proposed Development may range from 5 to 10 minutes (assuming bins are presented outside the compound as proposed in this WMP). Duration of a Biobin® would take approximately 5 minutes. The duration of a Hard waste collection events may be up to 10-40 min depending on type and number of items being loaded and where they need to be collected from. Sanitary collections may take 20-30 min depending on number of toilets and their locations. Time requirements for other services provided to the site would depend on the type and number of bins being collected and where from.

6.5 Collection scheduling

Collection events should be scheduled to occur outside of peak access hours to minimize associated traffic impacts on Sunset Parade, as well as at times to minimize impacts on local amenity and site access by residents / tenants. These collection times should be determined before the building becomes operational based on advice from the Traffic Engineer, in consultation with Council, selected waste contractor, and other relevant authorities or stakeholders. Scheduling of collection would need to comply with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (South Australian Government, 2008) as well as the rubbish collection requirements of the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 (South Australian Government, 2017) (commencing 1 July 2017), to minimise adverse impact on amenity. Final scheduling arrangements would be embedded into the waste collection contract agreement(s).


7 Facility design guidance 7.1 Detailed design

The Developer should obtain appropriate engineering advice and design data to finalize design specifications and spatials during building detailed design, to ensure that the WMS can be installed and function and operate as proposed in this WMP. This will include the achieving following design and operating requirements or outcomes.

7.2 Bin selection

Bins would conform to the Australian Standard for Mobile Waste Containers (AS 4213), including bins colours. Council may assist with supplying MGBs for residential local disposal areas, or commercial tenants where a Council collection service will be provided.

7.3 Signage

Appropriate signage would be used to ensure correct disposal of waste and recyclable materials in local disposal areas. These should conform to the signage requirements in South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in Residential or Mixed Use Developments (Zero Waste SA, 2014). Council may supply signage for this purpose.

7.4 Vermin, hygiene & odour management (inc. ventilation)

7.4.1 Inspection and Cleaning An inspection and cleaning regime would be development and implemented by Property Management to ensure that surfaces and floors around transfer pathways and waste storage areas are kept clean and hygienic and free of loose waste and recycling materials. This would include:

• Regularly (weekly) surface clean and sanitize any local disposal areas, and clean waste compounds and bulk bins every 2-3 months.

• Ensuring that any spillages can be reported and cleaned up immediately and sanitized.

Commercial tenants would be obliged to undertake similar regimes as part of their tenancy agreements.

7.4.2 Residential local disposal rooms The Basement Level local disposal rooms should be mechanically (or naturally) ventilated for control of odours. The ventilation would extract to atmosphere, to prevent odour build up. If mechanically ventilated, extraction vent discharge locations shall be selected to avoid impact on residents, tenants and/or neighbours. If these rooms are enclosed, consideration should be given to whether rooms should be air-conditioned if required to maintain them at moderate temperatures (<25°C) during hot weather conditions, to minimize odour generation by putrescible matter.

7.4.3 External waste compounds These should be fenced or walled with closable gates to prevent access by vermin and so residents, tenants and neighbours cannot see the waste bins or storage areas. These compounds should also be covered to minimise rain ingress.


The compounds should be paved with suitable sealed hard surfaces, graded to a drain, with static basket screen, that discharges to sewer (not stormwater). Provision should be made for power for operation of equipment and mains water supply and hoses to enable cleaning of surfaces and equipment.

7.4.4 Front-bin selection Front-lift bins will full plastic bodies or at least plastic lids would be selected to minimise noise associated with collection events. Drainage points (sealable) on bins should be considered to enable on-site cleaning.

7.4.5 Bin cleaning Provision should be made for periodic bin cleaning to minimise odour. This can be conducted on-site or outsourced to an external contractor as part of the above hygiene and odour management program (e.g. bins would be removed, replaced with a (temporary) spare, taken off-site, cleaned, then returned by the contractor).

7.5 Access & security

The Basement level local disposal room would be accessible to residents by keypad or fob. Access arrangements to external waste compounds would be negotiated with relevant waste contractors for bin/waste collection and emptying. External waste compounds would have secure access arrangements to ensure tidiness and correct use by all tenants and to prevent dumping.

7.6 Transfer pathways

The following is provided as a guide for finalising sizing and designing (local, bin, and collection) transfer pathways during detailed design of the proposed development.

• Disposal pathways –

o Local disposal – ideally less than 30m and free of steps, no grades greater than 1:15, and cater for

mobility impaired users.

o Collection – ideally less than 40m (unless motorised equipment for bin/waste transfer) with no steps or

grades greater than 1:10

• Corridor widths –

o 140/240L MGBs or smaller bins / loads – min. 1,000 mm (min. 1,200mm preferred)

o 660L or larger skips and/or waste loads – min. 1,500mm

• Doors –

o Local disposal access – 800mm

o Transfer pathways– Appropriate to the size of bin to be transported, e.g.

▪ 240L MGB – min. 800mm

▪ 660L skip – min. 1,200mm

▪ 1,100L skip – min 1,500mm

• Floors & paths – Hard and/or sealed surfaces (as appropriate) where bins and skips are to be carted

• Lifts – All lifts should be sized to allow for bulky hard waste items.


8 Operation and management 8.1 Management & Operating Responsibility

Property Management would be responsible for managing and operating the WMS for the site as outlined in previous sections.

8.2 Communication strategy

Provision would be made to provide education and training in use of the WMS as follows. Council may aid with providing communication advice and materials for this purpose.

8.2.1 Residents & tenants This would include:

• Waste management advice in resident’s Building User Manual (see below) located in each apartment;

• First-day training by Property Management when new occupant or tenant arrives (including expected or required waste and recycling management and disposal practices);

• Annual follow-up reminder/refresher notices which may include results of audit/monitoring (if conducted).

8.2.2 Property Management staff A separate training and education program for Property Management staff would be undertaken, to ensure that they can effectively perform waste management responsibilities, including managing hard waste.

8.3 Building User Manual

The Building User Manual for residents and tenants will include:

• Roles and responsibilities for residents, tenants, Property Manager and collection contractors • Instructions for correctly disposing of waste and recycling (including access and correct use of

storage areas and disposal points) • Advice for disposal and /or recycling of other domestic waste materials (e.g. printer cartridges,

lighting, etc.) • Relevant health and safety advice • Contact information for further information, questions and issues

8.4 Community/Strata title arrangements

Obligations for residents and/or property owners to comply with requirements for proper waste management (in line with this WMP) would be written into the Community/Strata plan lodged with the Lands Titles Office.

8.5 Emergency response plan

Property Management should develop an emergency response plan to manage waste or related issues at the proposed Development, including for the following specific events.

• Collection service(s) not available


9 References Adelaide City Council. (2016, September 27). Guide to waste & recycling bins. DPTI. (30 May 2017). City of Onkaparinga Development Plan. . South Australian Department of

Planning, Transport & Infrastructure. HDS Australia. (6 May 2017). Swepth path modelling using MRV of proposed waste collection access

at 130-168 Aldinga Beach Rd. Prepared by: Hugh Dixon. Received by email. Norm Bergman, T. L.–W. (2017, April 27). Waste Management proposed at 130-168 Aldinga Beach

Rd, Aldinga Beach. South Australian Government. (2008). Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 under the

Environment Protection Act 1993, Version: 31.3.2008. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/

South Australian Government. (2017). Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016. State Planning Commision. (21 August 2017). Letter from City of Onkaparinga regarding SPC

Reference No. 145/E016/17. Tectvs. (2017). Design Response: 130-168 Aldinga Beach Rd. Tectvs. (28 April 2017). Preliminary Building plans & Building Matrix, 28/04/17. Zero Waste SA. (2014). South Australian Better Practice Guide – Waste Management in Residential

or Mixed Use Developments.


Appendix 1: Waste management requirements in the Council Development Plan & Compliance achieved by this WMP

Relevant Section & Requirement Compliance

Achieved?

1 Medium and High Rise Development (3 or More Storeys) 1.1 PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1.1.1 Site Facilities and Storage

24 Development should provide a dedicated area (that does not form part of any private or communal open space) for the on-site collection and sorting of recyclable materials and refuse, green organic waste and wash-bay facilities for the ongoing maintenance of bins. This are should be screened from view from public areas so as to not to detract from the visual appearance of the ground floor. Where the number of bins to be collected kerbside is 10 or more at any one time provision should be made for on-site commercial collection.

✓

14 Development with a gross floor area of 2000 square metres or more should provide for the communal storage and management of waste.

✓ 2 Residential Development 2.1 PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 2.1.1 Site Coverage 9 Site coverage should ensure sufficient space is provided for: (f) convenient storage of household waste and recycling receptacles

✓ 2.1.2 Site Facilities and Storage 23 Site facilities for group dwellings, multiple dwellings and residential flat buildings should include: (c) household waste and recyclable material storage areas away from dwellings.

✓ 27 The path used to transfer waste and recycling from a storage and recycling area to the kerb should: (a) ensure that waste transfer is simple and safe at all times (b) be a minimum path width of 0.9 metres (c) be free of steps and have a grade of no more than 1-in-10.

Not applicable (No kerbside

collection)

3 Supported Accommodation, Housing for Aged Persons and People with Disabilities 3.1 PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 2(e) mail boxes and waste disposal areas within easy walking distance of all units.

✓ 4 Waste 4.1 OBJECTIVES

1 Development that, in order of priority, avoids the production of waste, minimises the production of waste, re-uses waste, recycles waste for re-use, treats waste and disposes of waste in an environmentally sound manner.

✓

2 Development that includes the treatment and management of solid and liquid waste to prevent undesired impacts on the environment including, soil, plant and animal biodiversity, human health and the amenity of the locality.

✓

4.2 PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

1 Development should be sited and designed to prevent or minimise the generation of waste (including wastewater) by applying the waste … management hierarchy

✓

2 The storage, treatment and disposal of waste materials from any development should be achieved without risk to health or impairment of the environment

✓

6 Development that involves the production and/or collection of waste and/or recyclable material should include designated collection and storage area(s) that are:

✓

(a) screened and separated from adjoining areas ✓

(b) located to avoid impacting on adjoining sensitive environments or land uses ✓

(c) designed to ensure that wastes do not contaminate stormwater or enter the stormwater collection system ✓


(d) located on an impervious sealed area graded to a collection point in order to minimise the movement of any solids or contamination of water

✓

(e) protected from wind and stormwater and sealed to prevent leakage and minimise the emission of odours ✓

(f) stored in such a manner that ensures that all waste is contained within the boundaries of the site until disposed of in an appropriate manner.

✓


Appendix 2: Results of swept path modelling for collection access

Figure A2-1: Swept path modelling of an MRV for access to the Building West waste compound (HDS Australia, 6 May 2017)

Figure A2-2: Swept path modelling of an MRV for access to the Building East waste compound (HDS Australia, 6 May 2017)

Our Ref: 2011-0930AL

October 5, 2017 Property and Consulting Australia 1/89 King William Street Adelaide GPO Box 1629 Adelaide SA 5001 [email protected] FAO James Cummings We have reviewed the existing calculations which were generated as part of the initial phase of residential works. From this review it can be established that MLEI did consider a contribution from the development, Latitude Apartments, albeit this was an assumption. In the initial stage of the design development MLEI considered an approximate value for the contributing areas. However, as part of the detail design, MLEI used DRAINS (Industry standard drainage design software) to model the proposed development and this was submitted to Council. My update to the original report from May 2017, relied upon data which was dated, 29th January 2013, however, my colleague has since found additional data from the 4th June 2013, which shows that the design can accommodate flows of 220l/s in the 10yr ARI event and 419l/s in the 100yr ARI event. As such I revised me flow data, which were due to my calculations taking into consideration a much greater “time of contribution”. This can delay the effect of the peak rainfall contributing to the system and also assumes water within the network takes longer to influence the system. A review of this updated information has confirmed that the modelled analysis provided higher flow rates from the development than had been assumed in the initial design. It would appear as part of the initial design stage, MLEI considered a constant flow (base flow), this means we established the peak flow as a constant value, irrespective of peak events, thus, our design can be said to be conservative. Whilst we have shown a much higher run off rate, any revisit to the layout or change to the architectural design of the Apartments must consider that the current assumed proportional split between hard stand and grassed area has defined the flows from the 2013 design submission. If Planning Conditions for the proposed apartments require a revision to the design, albeit this may be unlikely but could occur, it may require a review of the current analysis incase there were to be an increase in the flow which, because of recent updates in Planning Conditions, cannot be accommodated within the existing network. As such, MLEI would suggest that the Client be prepared to consider the inclusion of additional storage for the apartments, something that may require inclusion within the Architectural design. We can review and determine the site flows and use the catchment flows once we establish the finalised & agreed layout. As a civil design option, we could provide oversized pipes or underground storage crates, but, from an architectural view, the submission/revised layout may need to consider ponds, depressed landscaping etc. if the potential runoff from the apartments exceeds our initial assumptions Based upon our findings within the 2013 calculations, we believe that the Council should consider a Condition as part of the Planning, instead of a Reserved Matter. As I mentioned earlier, and MLEI have now confirmed, MLEI

mailto:[email protected]

can show design intent from a modelled analysis of the proposed development including the contribution from the Latitude apartments. This has proven that the design had “sized” for the future flow and in MLEI’s opinion, and assuming no changes to the layout or current planning conditions, will show an acceptable design. Kind regards, Colin Graham BEng (Hons) MIEAust MIHE GMICE Senior Civil Engineer

Our Ref: 2011-930AL

May 1, 2017

With regard to the Aldinga Beach site, previously referred to as Lot 51, Aldinga Beach Road, MLEI have been requested to determine whether the future development of lots 90-96, 97 & 98 can be accommodated within the existing system, we can confirm as follows. As part of calculation data submitted 29th January 2013, an assumed inflow from the future community titles was provided, which had been identified as

• Lots 97 & 98 o 80l/s in the 10yr event and o 150l/s for the 100yr event and;

• Lots 90 to 96 o 30ls in the 10yr event and o 60l/s for the 100yr event

These flows were generated using a coefficient for runoff of;

• 0.8 for paved areas and

• 0.2 for grassed areas and were accepted throughout the entire design process for the complete site. The Time of Contribution (Tc) values were also provided and accepted throughout the calculation for the entire development. Using the Tc values stated in the assumptions the future community titles were assumed to generate conservative flows (See MLEI drawing 2011-930AL/CO4/A1 rev C2), however, using the known information i.e. catchment area, the rainfall intensity, and the agreed runoff coefficient, the stormwater generated for;

• lots 97 & 98 in the o 10yr event was just under 36l/s and the o runoff from the 100yr event was just under 68l/s

this was compared to 80l/s and 150l/s respectively, this represents 45% capacity of the design assumption (all be it with a greater Tc of 18minutes). For lots 90-96 the assumed, and conservative runoff, was estimated to be

• 30l/s for the 10yr event and

• 60l/s for the 100yr event. However, with improved and known information, the calculated runoff for the same location has been shown to be

• 21l/s for the 10yr event and

• 40l/s for the 100yr event. This represents approximately 50% capacity of the design assumption. As part of our calculation process, the blocking factor for the 100yr event was 50% for sag pits and 20% for on-grade pits (an assumption of reduced capacity for various reasons), whilst this does not immediately correlate to a restriction by 50% or 20% it again shows that the assumption was generous and that the calculated flow from the community titles will be significantly less. It can be confirmed that the original MLEI design accounted for greater assumed run offs, as such MLEI Consulting Engineers have shown that the determined runoff rates, Q, are much lesser in value and it can be concluded that the capacity of the existing stormwater system is sufficient for the proposed community titles assuming no significant increase in impervious area were to occur. Yours sincerely Colin Graham B.Eng (Hons), MIHE, MIEAust, GMICE

Stormwater Management Report Lot 51, Aldinga Beach Road, Aldinga Beach

Project Reference: 2011-930AL

ISSUE B

Date: 1 May 2017

Contents 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Proposed Development .................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Site Description ................................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 Existing Drainage ............................................................................................................................... 5

5.0 Design Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 5

6.0 Stormwater Calculations ................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 Strategy Overview of Stormwater Management Plan ...................................................................... 9

7.0 Outfall Drainage ................................................................................................................................ 9

8.0 Cost opinion .................................................................................................................................... 10

9.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix 1 – Layout Plan ...................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix 2 – Water Quality Assessment Results ................................................................................. 13

Appendix 3 –Calculations ...................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix 4 – Council Requirements ..................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 5 – Concrete Detention Tank ................................................................................................ 21

Appendix 6 - Letter of Confirmation of Stormwater Capacity from Future Development ................... 40


ProposedDevelopment

Location

4.0 Existing DrainageGiven theexistingCouncil drainage reserveover the easementno further surveyor other alternativeto existing drainage systems has been completed at this stage.

5.0 Design Requirements

5.1 QuantityThe City of Onkaparinga requires that all stormwater discharged from this Greenfielddevelopmentsiteshall be controlled such that it doesnot exceed the pre-development flow rate. It isarequirementthat the sealed stormwater drainage systems shall be designed to accommodate aminimal10 year average recurrence intervalrain event.

There are furtherregulationsincludingrequirements for theprotection of buildings anddesigncriteria forlessfrequentARI events.Althoughthese design aspectshave beenconsideredfor thisreport, they will be addressedin full duringdetailed design.

5.2 QualityThe City of Onkaparinga requiresthe implementation of asystemto improve stormwater quality.The system shall be designed suchthat the water is treated toachievethe following percentagereductions of pollutants from the typical annual urban load before entering a watercourse orexisting stormwater systems.

Suspended solids 80% reduction

Totalphosphorus 45% reduction

Totalnitrogen 45% reduction

Litter 70% reduction

A copy ofthe Councils stormwater requirements as provided by Mr Ben Victory of the City ofOnkaparingacan be found in Appendix 4.

6.0 Stormwater Calculations

6.1 RainfallThe design rainfall intensities at the site were sourced from The Australian Bureau of Meteorologywhich has developed a method to allow determination of a full set of Intensity Frequency Duration(IFD) Curves. Table 1.0 below is a tabulation of the rainfall intensities used in the calculations. Theassociated IFD chart is shown in Figure 4.0.

FLOW RATESQ = 12.46 xARIIt

ARI• Intensities(mm/h) Q (m3/s)Duration 10 years 100 years ARI 10 ARI 1005 minutes 99 187 1.23354 2.330026 minutes 91.8 173 1.143828 2.1555810 minutes 73.2 137 0.912072 1.7070212 minutes 68.8 128.42 0.857248 1.600113214 minutes 64.4 119.84 0.802424 1.493206416 minutes 60 111.26 0.7476 1.386299618 minutes 55.6 102.68 0.692776 1.279392820 minutes 51.2 94.1 0.637952 1.172486

22 minutes 49.04 89.98 0.6110384 1.121150824minutes 46.88 85.86 0.5841248 1.069815626 minutes 44.72 81.74 0.5572112 1.018480428 minutes 42.56 77.62 0.5302976 0.967145230 minutes 40.4 73.5 0.503384 0.915811 hour 26.1 47 0.325206 0.585622 hour 16.5 29.8 0.20559 0.3713083 hour 12.6 23 0.156996 0.286586 hour 7.93 14.7 0.0988078 0.18316212 hour 4.91 9.16 0.0611786 0.114133624 hour 2.92 5.2 0.0363832 0.06479248 hour 1.65 2.74 0.020559 0.034140472 hour 1.15 1.86 0.014329 0.0231756

The required volume of a retardation basin size to limit the discharge rate to maximum pre-development flowswas calculated and the results are provided in Table 3.0 below. The maximumdetention required for a 1 in 10 ARI is 238KL and for a 1 in 100 ARI is 342KL.

Table3.0: Calculateddetention volume

DETENTION

Duration 10 Year ARI 100 Year ARIKL KL

5 minutesLESS THAN Tc6 minutes

10 minutes 192.6953011 283.768197312 minutes 221.6298072 324.908003314 minutes 238.1935172 342.576745816 minutes 242.5595634 337.280287618 minutes 234.9558822 309.693571820 minutes 215.6887634 260.737706222 minutes 215.5877721 246.909709924 minutes 209.5500747 222.223481430 minutes 156.654908 0

1 hour Terminate

6.0 Strategy Overview of Stormwater Management Plan

Basedon thehighdensityof the development on thesite there is minimal areaavailablefor aboveground water treatment and retardations systems. Henceanundergroundsystem is proposed. It isunderstood that the option of the developer making financial contributions to Councils existingstormwater systems as opposed to the construction of the following system is an available option.

6.1 Minor SystemA 10 year ARI drainage scheme compromising a piped drainage will be required in all road reserveswithin the development. The pipe drainage network will interconnect and be directed to anunderground concrete detention tank. It is proposedthat the detention tank will be the calculatedsize (238kL) to limit the post development 1 in 10 year ARI flow to the pre-development 1 in 10 yearARI flow.

The detention tank will then discharge to astormwater treatment trainthat has been calculated toreduce the pollutants to the required levels.The treatment train consists ofA Rocla CDSP0506GPT,a Roclafirst defenceseparatorbefore discharging via agrassedswale. Thetreatment traincalculations have beendetermined using the software packageMUSICand can be found in Appendix2.

6.2 Major SystemThe major systemwill incorporatetwo elementsof comprisingwork to cater for the 100 year ARIeventsexceedingthe minorsystemscapacity and retardationfacilities. The detention requirementsfor the 1 in 10 year ARIis104kLless than the required size to restrict the 1 in 100 year ARIpredevelopment flows to the 1 in 100 year ARI post-development flows.It is proposed in this lowprobability event that surface poolingwithin the road reserveis utilised for theadditional104 KL.Depths of any surface pooling will be restricted to 250mm, such not to cause any damage tovehicles,a likelylocations for surface pooling will bethe road area directly above the main detentiontank. Detailed designlevel design will ensure thatthat the surface poolingstill meetsCouncilsrequirements for building protection.Based on the 12m road reserve width and the 250mm depth atotal of 35m of road will be neededfor surface pooling. In the main 238kL detention tanka dualpipeoutlet system will be require to increase the discharge rate to the allowable flow rate for the 1in 100 ARI event.

The design for the development will also incorporate adesignatedoverflow path forthe 1 in 100year ARI event and for stormwater system failures.Alternativelyit maybe required the pipesareupsized toaccommodatethe 1 in 100 year flow rates.

7.0 Outfall DrainageThe detention calculations allow for the outfall flow rates to be predevelopment flow rates and nofurther restrictions from existing systems have been made. However given the recent watertreatment project adjacent the property anyfurther restrictionson flow rates are unlikelyto benecessary. This will be confirmedduringdetail design in conjunctionwith Council.

8.0 Cost opinionMLEI Consulting Engineers have been requested to supply a costopinionfor the constructionof thedetention tank and the installation ofthe treatment train. The following isa round numberedengineering cost opinion.MLEI have been advised that this cost opinion may be used by theDeveloper and Council for negotiation on the value of contributions to the Councilto utilise theirexistingwater treatment facilityas opposed to construction of this proposed system.

Thedetention tank has been based on a 5mx30mx1.6mundergroundtank,constructedof 150mmreinforcedshotcrete walls and a bondek coverwith reinforcement top and bottom.

Table 8.0:Engineering cost opinion

Cost Opinion

Detention tank Quantity Rate Unit Total Cost

Supply and install as per Williams Concrete Products quote 60086.Please see appendix $92,500.00

Total Cost $92,500.00

Treatment train Quantity Rate Unit Total Cost

Excavation for Rocla units (cut to fill) 50 8.5 m3 $425.00

Excavation for swale 600 8.5 m4 $5,100.00

Rocla CDS P0506 Unit and first defence- supply and delivery 1 25833 Unit $25,833.00

Labour toinstall units 16 75 hours $1,200.00

Crane Hire 3 200 hours $600.00

Grassing of swale (inlcuding 6mths maintenance) 625 $7 m2 $4,625.00

Backfill (reuse cut untill the underside of road base) 12 10.75 m3 $129.00

Total Cost $37,912.00

Construcion Cost of Detention and Water Treatment system $130,412.00

MLEI provide the following breakdown of this cost such to segregate contributions if thedevelopment is staged.

Table 8.1: Breakdown of engineering cost opinionper block

Land use Area (m2)% of total area excludingroads/reserve- 43000m2

Proportion ofWater treatment and DetentionCost- $130412

Residential lots 1-96 34288 79.73953488 $103,989.92

PER BLOCK $1,083.23

Roads / reserve 9300 N/A N/A

Community title T01 4400 10.23255814 $13,344.48

Communitytitle T02 4300 10 $13,041.20

This equates to $1,083.23 plus 10% GST perstandard residentialallotment, $13,344.48 plus 10% GSTfor the community titleT01 and$13,041.20 plus 10% GST for the community title T02.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this cost opinion is not to be used by any third party without the consent of MLEI Consulting Engineers. Pleasenote this engineering cost opinion is for the use of early feasibility studies only. MLEI Consulting Engineers are not Quantity Surveyors anddeclare that we do not have the expertise of a Quantity Surveyor. This cost opinion is a probable estimation of costs involved with thedevelopment and may vary at the time of construction. Contingency should be allowed and a Quantity Surveyor engaged prior to finalisingthe construction budget.

MLEI are indemnified from any legal dispute which may arise from a difference in final construction costs and the hereby presented costopinion.

The rates associated with our cost opinion are based on market rates for similar construction activities at the time of this report. The ratesfrom existing information at the time of this report are based upon a combination of experience, judgement and commercially availableconstruction cost guides.

Final costs of construction will be affected by many aspects including but not limited to:

The economic climate at the time of the tender; Price escalations; Availability of trades at the time of construction; Final detailed designs and investigation; Latent conditions during construction; Site levels; The size or staging of the final developments; and Civil construction industry activity.

9.0 ConclusionsThe water quality treatment and flow control regimes proposed in this report can readily be installedas part of the construction program for theproposeddevelopment at the subject site.

The water quality treatmenttrain proposedis a practical option for thereductionof pollutant levelsin accordancewith recognised best practiceperformancestandards and can be readily managed andmaintained.

In conclusion the stormwater management strategy detailing water quality treatment andretardation proposals offered in this report arepracticalapproaches to and comply withstormwaterquality and quantity control best practice.

Our Ref: 2011-0930AL

October 5, 2017 Property and Consulting Australia 1/89 King William Street Adelaide GPO Box 1629 Adelaide SA 5001 [email protected] FAO James Cummings We have reviewed the existing calculations which were generated as part of the initial phase of residential works. From this review it can be established that MLEI did consider a contribution from the development, Latitude Apartments, albeit this was an assumption. In the initial stage of the design development MLEI considered an approximate value for the contributing areas. However, as part of the detail design, MLEI used DRAINS (Industry standard drainage design software) to model the proposed development and this was submitted to Council. My update to the original report from May 2017, relied upon data which was dated, 29th January 2013, however, my colleague has since found additional data from the 4th June 2013, which shows that the design can accommodate flows of 220l/s in the 10yr ARI event and 419l/s in the 100yr ARI event. As such I revised me flow data, which were due to my calculations taking into consideration a much greater “time of contribution”. This can delay the effect of the peak rainfall contributing to the system and also assumes water within the network takes longer to influence the system. A review of this updated information has confirmed that the modelled analysis provided higher flow rates from the development than had been assumed in the initial design. It would appear as part of the initial design stage, MLEI considered a constant flow (base flow), this means we established the peak flow as a constant value, irrespective of peak events, thus, our design can be said to be conservative. Whilst we have shown a much higher run off rate, any revisit to the layout or change to the architectural design of the Apartments must consider that the current assumed proportional split between hard stand and grassed area has defined the flows from the 2013 design submission. If Planning Conditions for the proposed apartments require a revision to the design, albeit this may be unlikely but could occur, it may require a review of the current analysis incase there were to be an increase in the flow which, because of recent updates in Planning Conditions, cannot be accommodated within the existing network. As such, MLEI would suggest that the Client be prepared to consider the inclusion of additional storage for the apartments, something that may require inclusion within the Architectural design. We can review and determine the site flows and use the catchment flows once we establish the finalised & agreed layout. As a civil design option, we could provide oversized pipes or underground storage crates, but, from an architectural view, the submission/revised layout may need to consider ponds, depressed landscaping etc. if the potential runoff from the apartments exceeds our initial assumptions Based upon our findings within the 2013 calculations, we believe that the Council should consider a Condition as part of the Planning, instead of a Reserved Matter. As I mentioned earlier, and MLEI have now confirmed, MLEI


can show design intent from a modelled analysis of the proposed development including the contribution from the Latitude apartments. This has proven that the design had “sized” for the future flow and in MLEI’s opinion, and assuming no changes to the layout or current planning conditions, will show an acceptable design. Kind regards, Colin Graham BEng (Hons) MIEAust MIHE GMICE Senior Civil Engineer

Documents

Agenda Item SCAP - 09 11 2017 - DA 145 E016 17 - ID 2206 ... · Station and Adelaide Rail Station with a further bus connection which stops in close proximity (220 m) to the site