EXPERT EVIDENCE STATEMENT - Amazon S3 · 2018. 6. 12. · O’BRIEN TRAFFIC 2. TERRY HARDINGHAM ‐ O'BRIEN TRAFFIC.DOCX: 1136‐1138 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, HIGHETT: 13 MARCH 2018 5 Proposed

EXPERT EVIDENCE STATEMENTGOVERNMENT LAND STANDING ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1136-1138�NEPEAN�HIGHWAY,�HIGHETT

13 MARCH 2018

Suite�2.03,�789�Toorak�Road�

Hawthorn�East,�Victoria�3123�

�

T:� 61�3�9804�3610�

W:� obrientraffic.com��

1136-1138�NEPEAN�HIGHWAY,�HIGHETT

CLIENT:�Kingston�City�Council

OBT JOB NUMBER: 18393

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT 5

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6

4 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 11

5 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT REQUEST 14

6 CAR PARKING 14

7 BICYCLE PARKING PROVISION 16

8 ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS 16

9 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 18

10 PEDESTRIANS & CYCLISTS 20

11 INTERNAL ROADWAY DIMENSIONS 20

12 CONCLUSION 21

CONTENTS

O’BRIEN TRAFFIC 2. TERRY HARDINGHAM ‐ O'BRIEN TRAFFIC.DOCX: 1136‐1138 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, HIGHETT: 13 MARCH 2018

4

1 INTRODUCTION I have been engaged by Russell Kennedy Lawyers on behalf of Kingston City Council to

undertake an investigation of the traffic implications in relation to a Planning Scheme

Amendment request for the former Gas and Fuel Site at 1136‐1138 Nepean Highway,

Highett (the subject site).

I have been instructed by Russell Kennedy Lawyers to:

Review the Amendment and the relevant supporting documents;

Review the Traffix Group Traffic Engineering Assessment, including a full critique of

the assumptions that have been made in the assessment (including adequacy of car

parking, pedestrian and cyclist connectivity, access, traffic generation and traffic

impacts), in order to inform potential changes to the drafting of the proposed

Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 7;

Consider the objectives in the Highett Structure Plan and current Design and

Development Overlay – Schedule 12 in relation to:

‐ Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through the site, noting that key objectives

discuss requirements to provide a permeable site with connections to Southland

and Highett activity centres and railway stations;

‐ Any signalisation requirements and whether relocation of the existing pedestrian

lights on Highett Road is necessary (as discussed in the Highett Structure Plan);

and

‐ The need to open up the precinct to the surrounding street network, particularly

at a pedestrian and cyclist scale (as discussed in the Highett Structure Plan); and

Make any recommendations that may have as a result of my investigation.

In the course of preparing this report, I have examined the following documents:

Traffic Engineering Assessment prepared by Traffix Group (24 August 2017)

Planning Scheme Amendment Report prepared by Meinhardt (August 2017);

Architectural Investigation Report prepared by CHT Architects (August 2017);

Highett Structure Plan prepared by Hansen Partnership, National Economics and

Greg Tucker & Associates (November 2005);

Proposed Schedule 2 to the Residential Growth Zone of the Kingston Planning

Scheme;

Proposed Schedule 7 to the Development Plan Overlay of the Kingston Planning

Scheme;

Proposed Schedule 12 to the Design and Development Overlay of the Kingston

Planning Scheme; and


5

Proposed changes to Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

My assessment of the traffic engineering implications of the proposal is as follows.

2 EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT

As required by Planning Panels Victoria, Guide to Expert Evidence, the following

statements are provided:

Name: Terry James Hardingham

Position: Director

O’Brien Traffic

Address: Suite 2.03, 789 Toorak Road

HAWTHORN EAST VIC 3123

Qualifications:

Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), Ballarat CAE

Diploma of Civil Engineering, Ballarat CAE

Graduate Diploma of Business Administration, Monash University

Relevant Experience:

Over 33 years’ experience in traffic engineering, including:

Over 14 years with various State Government authorities, including RoSTA, RTA and

VicRoads.

Two years’ experience as a senior traffic engineering consultant with Grogan

Richards Pty Ltd, consulting engineers.

Over 17 years’ experience with O’Brien Traffic/Andrew O’Brien & Associates Pty Ltd

including four years as the Senior Transportation Engineer at the City of Glen Eira on a

part‐time basis, as part of a contract under which my firm provides traffic engineering

services to the Council. Appointed a Director of the company in April 2007.

Area of Expertise:

Substantial experience and expertise in traffic engineering, particularly in regard to the

traffic planning, transport planning, road safety engineering, arterial road traffic

management, local area traffic management and traffic impact assessment of


6

developments including parking demands and traffic generation.

Assistance in Preparing this Report

I had assistance in the preparation of this report from Derek Lee, O’Brien Traffic.

Notwithstanding this assistance, all opinions expressed in this report are mine.

Instructions

My instructions from Russell Kennedy Lawyers are provided on the previous page.

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS

LOCATION AND LAND USE

The subject site is the former Gas and Fuel site located on the western side of the

Nepean Highway, south of Highett Road. The location of the subject site and

surrounding area is shown in Figure 1. A recent aerial photograph is shown in Figure 2.

COPYRIGHT MELWAY PUBLISHING PTY. LTD. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION

FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE

Subject Site


7

COPYRIGHT NEARMAP.COM.AU REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION

FIGURE 2: AERIAL PHOTO OF SUBJECT SITE

The site, which is zoned Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (RGZ1), has frontages of

147.65 metres to Nepean Highway, 67.75 metres to View Street, and 66.90 metres to

Station Street. It comprises an area of approximately 6.33 hectares.

Vehicle access to the subject site is currently provided via a 7.8m wide crossover located

approximately 30 metres from the sites southern boundary to the Nepean Highway

service road. No other vehicle access to the site is provided.

SURROUNDING LAND USE

The site is located adjacent to the Moorabbin Justice Service Centre (east of the site)

and Sir William Fry Reserve (south of the site). To the east of the site is the

Sandringham line railway reserve and to the north of the site is a residential area

accessed via Station Street and View Street. The nearest commercial areas are further

to the north (Highett Road shopping precinct) and further to the south (Southland

Shopping Centre).

ROAD NETWORK

Nepean Highway is a State Highway under the control of VicRoads and is located within

a Category 1 Road Zone under the Planning Scheme. It runs in a northwest‐southeast

direction between Glen Huntly Road, Elsternwick and Marine Drive, Safety Beach. In the

vicinity of the subject site, it has a dual carriageway with three traffic lanes in each

direction and has a posted speed limit of 80 km/h.

The Nepean Highway service road runs parallel to the western side of Nepean Highway

between Bay Road and Highett Road. It is restricted to one‐way traffic (northbound

only) and has a pavement width of approximately 7.1 metres, with kerbside parking

Subject Site


8

permitted on the western side of the road. The default urban speed limit of 50 km/h

applies to the service road.

Station Street is a local street under the control of Kingston City Council. It runs in a

north‐south direction from Highett Road before transitioning to a west‐east direction at

View Street. It has one lane in each direction throughout its length. In the vicinity of the

subject site it has a pavement width of approximately 7.2 metres. Kerbside parking is

permitted on the western side for the most part, with the exception of a section of 90‐

degree angled parking near the railway line. The east side is a ‘No Stopping’ zone at the

Highett Road end while unrestricted parking is allowed south of the 90‐degree angle

parking. The default urban speed limit of 50 km/h applies to the service road.

View Street is a local street under the control of Kingston City Council. It runs in a north‐

south direction between Highett Road and Station Street. It has one lane in each

direction throughout its length. In the vicinity of the subject site it has a pavement width

of approximately 7.4 metres. Kerbside parking is permitted on both sides of the road.

The default urban speed limit of 50 km/h applies to the service road.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The two‐way Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volume on Nepean Highway between

Highett Road and Bay Road is 65,000 vehicles per day.

CASUALTY CRASH HISTORY

A review of the recent crash history (2012‐2016) indicates that there have been 4

casualty crashes at the intersection of Nepean Highway and Turner Road at the front of

the site. Two of the crashes involved vehicles performing U‐turns on Nepean Highway

(one fatal and one serious injury). The other crashes involved a vehicle hitting a fixed

object (serious injury) and a left‐turning vehicle being hit by an oncoming vehicle (other

injury).

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT

Public Transport

The public transport services in the vicinity of the subject site are shown in Figure 3.


9

SOURCE: PUBLIC TRANSPORT VICTORIA (PTV) WEBSITE

FIGURE 3: PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES

The subject site is located approximately 650 m from Highett train station and 1 km

from Southland train station. Both stations are on the Frankston line.

The closest bus stop to the subject site is approximately 75 m away along Nepean

Highway and is serviced by the following routes:

ROUTE NUMBER ROUTE DESCRIPTION

708 Carrum – Hampton via Southland

823 North Brighton – Southland via Moorabbin

TABLE 1: BUS SERVICES

Bicycle Network

The bicycle network in the vicinity of the subject site are shown in Figure 4. There are no

formal or informal bike routes within close proximity to the site.

Subject Site


10

SOURCE: TRAVELSMART MAP

FIGURE 4: BICYCLE NETWORK


11

4 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

HIGHETT STRUCTURE PLAN (NOVEMBER 2005)

The Structure Plan, under Access and Circulation, proposes “a New Grid of Streets”

where the aim is to establish an open and permeable pattern of public streets through

the precinct. The Plan states that the new grid of streets will integrate the precinct with

the adjoining street network for cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. Principal car access will

be from Nepean Highway via two possible signalised intersections.

Lower order road links will be established to the north to provide limited opportunity for

car movement to and from the Highett Shopping Centre. A restricted form of vehicle

access is appropriate in response to capacity constraints on Highett Road, amenity

considerations in Station Street and View Street, and the desire for main traffic flows to

be directed towards Nepean Highway. Design considerations will emphasise pedestrian

and cyclist movements along these streets, and the creation of visual corridors into and

through the precinct from surrounding streets and entry points.

The Plan states that achievement of such a pattern of roads will require coordination of

development between land owners in accordance with an outline development plan that

will need to be prepared for the area. I note that a Development Plan for the area is yet

to be prepared.

The plan goes on to say that as part of this street pattern a new pedestrian and bicycle

link is proposed across Bay Road to Southland. This link will act as a major route for

pedestrians and cyclists, and will utilise the proposed street network through the

precinct, and incorporate a new shared path through Sir William Fry Reserve. The link

will provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection between the new development

precinct and Southland and a direct route to any future new station at the rear of

Southland. The route will be the primary conduit between the new development area

and Southland and as such should be considered as a high priority in the master planning

of the Highway West precinct.

Contributions towards the cost of a new shared pedestrian and bicycle link over Bay

Road should be sought from key land owners/developers within the precinct, and also

from further development of Southland. I am not aware of what the state of play is in

regards to contributions linked to the Southland Development towards such a link.

However, it is clear to me that the main beneficiaries of a convenient link will be the

future residents of the subject site.

Car parking within this precinct should be within multi‐level buildings to maximise the

potential for active land uses and for ground level landscaping. Expanses of ground level

car parking will generally be discouraged, except for short term parking. I note that the

preliminary concept plans do not include expanses of ground level car parking. The

preliminary concept plans are discussed in the following section.


12

PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN

The preliminary concept plan for the potential residential development of the site was

prepared by CHT Architects in November 2014. The concept plan is shown in Figure 3 on

the following page.

The residential development on the concept plan is noted as consisting of 11 apartment

buildings that range between 6 and 8 levels and also 26 stand‐alone townhouses. The

total gross floor area (GFA) of the apartment buildings is 109,224m2. There is no

mention of potential apartment numbers on the plans.

Access to the site is shown indicatively via a new connection to the main carriageway of

Nepean Highway that would serve as the main entry to the site. There would be a

secondary access via a connection to Remington Drive (to the south of the site). A total

of seven of the 26 proposed townhouses would have direct vehicle access via View

Street.

Pedestrian and cyclist access to Station Street and View Street as well as Nepean

Highway, Remington Drive and Sir William Fry Reserve are proposed. However, there

are no road links to Station Street or View street shown on the plans. There is also no

mention of a new pedestrian and bicycle link across Bay Road to Southland.


13

SOURCE: TRAFFIX GROUP TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 5: CONCEPT PLAN FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (CHT ARCHITECTS, NOV 2014)


14

5 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT REQUEST

The Planning Scheme Amendment Request seeks to make the following amendments to

the Kingston Planning Scheme to enable development of the site for residential use:

Minor wording changes to Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use (under the Municipal

Strategic Statement)

The proposed changes would properly identify the implementation strategy for the

site through application of the proposed Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 7

(DPO7)

Amend the existing Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 12 (DDO12) to

delete reference to the subject site

This would enable the proposed DPO7 to guide development of the site, instead of

DDO12.

Apply the Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 2 (RGZ2) to the site

This seeks to introduce a new schedule to the zone with a maximum building height

requirement of 26 m in place of the default 13.5 m maximum height.

Apply the Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 7 (DPO7) to the site

This allows a comprehensive plan to be applied to the site with respect to proposed

use and development of each part of the site.

6 CAR PARKING

The assessment by Traffix Group summarised that the following parking requirements

would be “supportable for a planning application for the subject site”:

Townhouses: as per the statutory parking rate required in Clause 52.06 of the

Planning Scheme.

One‐bedroom apartments: At least 0.7 resident car spaces per dwelling, instead of 1

space as required in the Planning Scheme.

Two‐bedroom apartments: as per the statutory parking rate required in Clause

52.06 of the Planning Scheme (1 resident car space per dwelling).

Three‐bedroom apartments: at least 1.5 resident car spaces per dwelling, instead of

2 car spaces as required in the Planning Scheme.

Visitor parking: At least 0.13 car spaces per dwelling (or 1 visitor space for every 7.7

dwellings) instead of 1 visitor space for every 5 dwellings as required in the Planning

Scheme.


15

The reduced parking requirements mentioned above were justified in the report based

on a number of factors, such as:

The 2011 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census Data for the suburb of Highett

and City of Kingston which indicates that the average car ownership rate for one‐

bedroom and three‐bedroom dwellings is lower than the number of car spaces

required in the Planning Scheme;

The location of the site within walking distance of public transport options, such as

Highett train station, Southland train station, and Southland bus interchange;

Surveys in 2014 of a nearby 78‐unit development at 1142 Nepean Highway which

indicated a peak visitor parking demand of 0.13 visitor parking spaces per dwelling.

Kingston Council’s waiver of the entire visitor parking requirement (15 spaces) for

the same development (as a precedent for reduced on‐site visitor parking provision

in the area)

The availability of 10 on‐street parking spaces for visitors on the Nepean Highway

service road, and potentially more on‐street spaces along the access roads within

the proposed street network on the site.

It is considered that some reduction in the Planning Scheme parking requirement may

justified based on the latest ABS car ownership data for Highett and for Kingston. The

latest Census car ownership data from 2016 for the suburb of Highett and for Kingston

for “flat or apartment in a one, two, three four or more storey blocks is summarised in

Table 2 and Table 3.

TABLE 2: FLAT OR APARTMENT CAR OWNERSHIP IN KINGSTON

TABLE 3: FLAT OR APARTMENT CAR OWNERSHIP IN HIGHETT

The data indicates that there is a strong case supporting a reduced rate for three‐

No motor vehicles 299 25% 480 12% 60 5%

One motor vehicle 764 65% 2484 62% 567 46%

Two motor vehicles 116 10% 1040 26% 602 49%

Total

Average 0.84

4004

1.14

1229

1.44

KingstonTotal

One‐Bed Two ‐Bed Three‐Bed

1179

No motor vehicles 36 19% 125 14% 7 6%

One motor vehicle 132 69% 555 60% 57 48%

Two motor vehicles 23 12% 238 26% 55 46%

Total

Ave

191 918 119

0.93 1.12 1.40

HighettTotal

One‐Bed Two ‐Bed Three‐Bed


16

bedroom flats or apartments. Based on this 2016 data I would support the proposition

that “at least 1.5 resident car spaces per dwelling” be provided instead of the 2 car

spaces as required by the Planning Scheme.

However, for one and two‐bedroom flats or apartments the data supports the Planning

Scheme rates of 1 resident space per dwelling and no reduction. In fact, the data

indicates that the most common flat or apartment is a two‐bedroom apartment and the

average car ownership of a two‐bedroom apartment is actually over 1 car per

apartment.

In summary, I would support a reduction in the car parking rate for 3‐bedroom

apartments from 2 to, “at least 1.5 spaces per dwelling”. However, I recommend the

retention of the Planning Scheme rate of 1 space for each one and two‐bedroom

dwelling.

In relation to visitor parking, I recommend that at least 0.15 spaces per residential

dwelling be provided within the site to minimise the likelihood of overflow parking into

the surrounding road network. While the difference in my recommended visitor parking

rate is only 0.02 spaces per dwelling then the Traffix Group, if there will ultimately be

over 1,500 dwellings on the subject site, then the 0.02 rate equates to 30 additional

visitor parking spaces or a continuous kerb length of at least 210 metres.

As a detail, I recommend that the vehicle crossovers to the seven townhouses fronting

View Street be noted on the plans arranged so that at least three on‐street parking

spaces are provided directly in front of the townhouses. Three spaces are in line with

the requirement of an Access Street for one parking space per two lots. This will reduce

the potential for car parking impacts on existing residents of View Street.

7 BICYCLE PARKING PROVISION

The assessment does not discuss specific bicycle parking numbers and only states that a

dedicated bicycle space would likely need to be allocated to all the dwellings without a

car space. This allocation of additional bicycle parking is supported.

For the proposal, it is recommended that bicycle parking should be provided at least

double the Planning Scheme Clause 52.34 requirement to ensure that a convenient

alternative to car usage is readily and conveniently available. The land is ideally located

to make use of bicycle transportation for work, shopping or leisure.

8 ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS


17

The traffic assessment refers to a previous staged permit application for the site from

2009 which considered a Stage 1 yield in the order of 190 dwellings and an overall

masterplan yield of 730 dwellings. VicRoads assessed the application at the time and

had no objection to the development of Stage 1, subject to some approval conditions.

The Traffix Group assessment commented on the approval conditions set by VicRoads

and found that:

The site would require a signalised access due to the existing high traffic volume on

Nepean Highway and the limited capacity of the existing U‐turn slots;

The recommended location for the new signalised access is directly opposite Turner

Road (approximately 300 metres south of the Nepean Highway / Highett Road traffic

signals;

Early stages of any development could potentially occur prior to the installation of traffic

signals (subject to further detailed assessments during the application stage);

A s173 agreement exists which intends to facilitate a secondary access via a connection

through 1144 Nepean Highway (forming a loop road through both sites); and,

A direct connection from the site to Station Street/View Street could be considered in

the future as it would provide an opportunity for residents of those streets to access the

new signals on to Nepean Highway.

The proposed access arrangements with the main access being a signalised intersection

on Nepean Highway is considered vitally important to mitigate the traffic impact of the

proposal on the surrounding street network. The key capacity and safety concerns are

in relation to the requirement to complete U‐turns within the Nepean Highway.

A signalised access direct to Nepean Highway will provide the safest and most

convenient access to and from the subject site. The location of a signalised cross‐

intersection opposite Turner Street would place it suitably separated from adjacent

signalised intersections at Highett Road and Bay Road. While the existing service roads

would need to be truncated either side of the new cross‐intersection, that can readily be

achieved and will contribute to them functioning as intended, as low volume service

roads.

There is no discussion of the opportunities and constraints of vehicle access via Station

street or View Street. Based on the Highett Structure Plan, one of the opportunities was

for local road connections from the subject site to the Highett Road shopping strip.

These potential connections would be part of “a new grid of streets”. The constraints

include amenity considerations in Station Street and View Street and the capacity

constraints on Highett Road.

To address these constraints, it was noted within the Structure Plan “to ensure that

primary vehicle access for all traffic from the precinct is directed to Nepean Highway to

mitigate traffic impacts and minimise the speed and volume of vehicle movements within


18

the adjoining residential area.” In my opinion, there is clearly an opportunity to provide

for at least one local road connection to Station Street and View Street and while this

would result in increased traffic movements within those streets, they both appear to

have the capacity to accommodate a modest increase in traffic without any significant

amenity detriments.

Whether the existing pedestrian signals on Highett Road, 50 metres west of the Station

Street, should be relocated to a signalised Station Street/Henry Street intersection is a

complex question. This would seem to be a logical outcome if and when the Station

Street/Henry Street intersection was signalised. However, what is the likelihood of the

Station Street/Henry Street intersection being signalised?

While the Structure Plan noted that signalising the Station Street/Henry Street

intersection would provide “an appropriate connection” between the subject site and

the activity centre, it appears to me that signalising this intersection may result in

additional and mostly undesirable traffic utilising the local road network created. While

there are other signalised intersections along Highett Road, these are either at collector

roads or dead‐end local roads. It would not be desirable to turn Station Street into a

collector road and signalising a local road is usually not warranted.

My recommendation is to investigate in detail the option to provide a local road

connection from the subject site to Station Street and View Street but to not factor in

traffic signals at the Station Street/Henry Street intersection for the foreseeable future.

In regards to the provision of a secondary access via a road through 1144 Nepean

Highway, I note that this is as envisaged by the Structure Plan. The resultant loop road is

anticipated to be of most benefit to residents living within 1144 Nepean Highway as

they would be able to conveniently access the new signalised intersection on Nepean

Highway. The trade‐off for this convenience and the potentially safer access is the

likelihood for more traffic to pass through their site. However, given the existing

connections to Nepean Highway, this is unlikely to be an increase that would have

significant implications for resident amenity with 1144 Nepean Highway.

9 TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

POTENTIAL LOT YIELD

The Traffix Group assessment bases its traffic generation rates on an upper limit yield of

1,547 apartments. This is derived by assuming that 85% of the gross floor area shown in

the concept plans would be net saleable area and that the apartments have an average

size of 60 m2 (one‐bedroom or two‐bedroom dwellings). The 26 townhouses shown on

the plan are assumed to be two‐bedroom dwellings.


19

These lot yield assumptions are considered to be reasonable for an assessment of the

traffic implications.

TRAFFIC GENERATION

The traffic generation rates in the assessment are based on the RTA Guide to Traffic

Generating Developments (2002). Given the assumption that the development would

consist of one‐bedroom or two‐bedroom dwellings, the assessment adopts a rate of 4

trips per dwelling per day and 0.4 peak hour trips per dwelling per day. This equates to

6,300 trips and 630 peak hour trips per day for the entire site.

The traffic generation rate proposed is considered to be potentially low. At this

preliminary stage rates of 5 to 6 trips per dwelling are recommended unless actual

numbers from a similar residential precinct in a similar location can be provided.

TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION

The assessment assumes that the distribution of traffic from the site would follow

existing splits along Nepean Highway, which are approximately 60% northbound and

40% southbound (AM Peak) and 40% northbound and 60% southbound (PM Peak).

The traffic distribution assumptions are considered reasonable for a preliminary

assessment. However, a more robust assessment of the actual distribution from an

existing residential precinct in a similar location is desirable.

TRAFFIC IMPACT

The assessment mentions that a signalized intersection providing sole access to the site

from Nepean Highway can accommodate the entire traffic generation (6,300 vehicles

per day). This daily traffic volume is consistent with a collector road function, which

would typically require signals at an intersection with a major arterial road such as

Nepean Highway.

It is considered that traffic signals are warranted for the proposal development based on

the existing limited capacity of U‐turn movements in nearby median breaks along

Nepean Highway.


20

10 PEDESTRIANS & CYCLISTS

CONNECTIVITY

The preliminary concept plan shows pedestrian and cyclist links through the site which

connect to Station Street, Nepean Highway service road, Remington Drive, and William

Fry Reserve. The assessment considers the level of pedestrian and cyclist connectivity

shown on the concept plan to be appropriate.

It is considered that a more robust assessment of the surrounding area should be

undertaken and in particular, the likely benefits of providing a link to Southland over Bay

Street as contemplated by the Highett Structure Plan.

RELOCATION OF PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS ON HIGHETT ROAD

The Highett Structure Plan suggests relocating the existing pedestrian signals on Highett

Road to the intersection of Highett Road with Station Street and Henry Street in

conjunction with redevelopment of the subject site. This aims to improve safety for

both pedestrians and vehicles and establish a safer and more accessible street network.

It is noted that the assessment by Traffix Group does not discuss the possible relocation

of the pedestrian signals. However, as I indicated in Section 8, signalising the Station

Street / Henry Street intersection would likely result in undesirable outcomes for

residents of the precinct.

11 INTERNAL ROADWAY DIMENSIONS

The assessment states that:

at least one internal road is likely to be required to become a public road, being the

loop road connection between 1144 Nepean Highway and the site’s main entry to

Nepean Highway (opposite Turner Road); and

other roads within the site could potentially be private roads.


21

The public road would need to comply with the requirements of Clause 56.06‐8 of the

Planning Scheme, while any private roads may be able to justify lesser road reserve

dimensions.

12 CONCLUSION

Based on the considerations outlined above, it is my opinion that:


22

In relation to parking provision, based on the latest Census car ownership data from

2016 for the suburb of Highett and City of Kingston, there is a case for providing

“not more than 50% of three‐bedroom dwellings with a single car space”. However,

the data also supports the retention of the Planning Scheme parking rates for one

and two‐bedroom dwellings;

In relation to visitor parking it is recommended that at least 0.15 spaces per

residential dwelling be provided within the site to minimise the likelihood of

overflow parking into the surrounding road network;

In regards to bicycle parking, it is recommended to be provided at least double the

Planning Scheme Clause 52.34 requirement to ensure that a convenient alternative

to car usage is readily and conveniently available;

The proposed access arrangements with the main access being a signalised

intersection on Nepean Highway is considered vital to mitigate the traffic impact of

the proposal on the surrounding street network;

There is clearly an opportunity to provide for at least one local road connection from

the subject site to Station Street and View Street as they both appear to have the

capacity to accommodate a modest increase in traffic without any significant

amenity detriments. It is recommended to investigate in detail the option to

provide a local road connection from the subject site to Station Street and View

Street but to not factor in traffic signals at the Station Street/Henry Street

intersection for the foreseeable future;

The traffic generation rate adopted is potentially low and it is recommended that

rates of 5 to 6 trips per dwelling be used unless actual numbers from a similar

residential precinct in a similar location can be provided;

The traffic distribution assumptions are considered reasonable for a preliminary

assessment. However, a more robust assessment of the actual distribution from an

existing residential precinct in a similar location is desirable;

In regards to pedestrian and bicycle connections, a more robust assessment of the

surrounding area should be undertaken and in particular, the likely benefits of

providing a link to Southland over Bay Street as contemplated by the Highett

Structure Plan;

Signalising the Station Street / Henry Street intersection would likely result in

undesirable outcomes for residents of the precinct;

All proposed public roads will need to comply with the requirements of Clause

56.06‐8 of the Planning Scheme, while any private roads may be able to justify lesser

road reserve dimensions.

Terry Hardingham


23

Director ‐ O’Brien Traffic

Documents

EXPERT EVIDENCE STATEMENT - Amazon S3 · 2018. 6. 12. · O’BRIEN TRAFFIC 2. TERRY HARDINGHAM ‐ O'BRIEN TRAFFIC.DOCX: 1136‐1138 NEPEAN HIGHWAY, HIGHETT: 13 MARCH 2018 5 Proposed