Prepared for VicTrack

Prepared by Stephen Hunt

6 February 2017

traffic:

Traffic Expert Evidence

Draft Planning Scheme Amendment

Ormond Station, North Road, Ormond evidence

ratio:consultants Prepared for:

9 Clifton Street VicTrack Richmond VIC 3121 ABN 93 983 380 225 Our reference: 14036Trep01

ratio:consultants pty ltd This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under Copyright Act 1963, no part may be reproduced without written permission of ratio:consultants pty ltd. Disclaimer: neither ratio:consultants pty ltd nor any member or employee of ratio:consultants pty ltd takes responsibility in anyway whatsoever to any person or organisation (other than that for which this report is being prepared) in respect of the information set out in this report, including any errors or omissions therein. ratio:consultants pty ltd is not liable for errors in plans, specifications, documentation or other advice not prepared or designed by ratio:consultants pty ltd.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 2

Chapter / Section Page No.

1 Statement of Witness: ...... 6

2 Introduction: ...... 8

3 Background: ...... 9 3.1 Level Crossing Removal ...... 9 3.2 Development Opportunity ...... 9

4 Draft Planning Scheme Amendment: ...... 10 4.1 Exhibited Documents ...... 10 4.2 Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1 ...... 10 4.3 North Road Ormond Comprehensive Development Plan ...... 12 4.4 Transport Impact Assessment ...... 15 Table of contents:

5 Submissions to Exhibited Amendment: ...... 16 5.1 Overview ...... 16 5.2 Council ...... 16 5.3 VicRoads ...... 16 5.4 Other Affected Parties ...... 17

6 Indicative Development Proposal:...... 18 6.1 GTA Assessment ...... 18 6.2 Circulated Plans ...... 18

7 Car Parking Considerations: ...... 19 7.1 Parking Rates Recommended by the TIA ...... 19 7.2 Review of Parking Rates ...... 20 7.3 Car Parking and Vehicle Access Layout ...... 25 7.4 Loading ...... 25 7.5 Waste Collection...... 26

8 North Road / Katandra Road Intersection: ...... 27 8.1 TIA Concept Plan ...... 27 8.2 Modified Intersection Configuration ...... 28

9 Base Volumes and Time Periods Assessed: ...... 31 9.1 Methodology Review ...... 31

10 Traffic Generation: ...... 33 10.1 Traffic Generation Rates Adopted ...... 33 10.2 Dwellings ...... 33 10.3 Supermarket ...... 34 10.4 Other Retail (Shop, Food and Drink Premises and Take Away Food Premises) ...... 35 10.5 Office ...... 35 10.6 Gymnasium (Restricted Recreation Facility) ...... 36 10.7 Commuter Car Park ...... 36 10.8 Overall Indicative Traffic Generation ...... 37

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 3

11 Traffic Distribution: ...... 38 11.1 August 2016 TIA Traffic Distribution ...... 38 11.2 January 2017 Revised Distribution ...... 38 11.3 Assessment of Traffic Distribution ...... 39

12 Arterial Road Impact Assessment: ...... 45 12.1 Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 45 12.2 Options for Treatment of North Road / Katandra Road ...... 46 12.3 Review of Options ...... 47 12.4 Impact of Widening of Katandra Road ...... 49

13 Impact on Local Street Network: ...... 50 13.1 Existing Local Street Network ...... 50 13.2 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 51 13.3 Development Generated Daily Traffic Volumes ...... 51 13.4 Local Traffic Implications ...... 53

14 Conclusions: ...... 55

Appendices:

Appendix A Concept Intersection Plan

List of Figures:

Figure 4.1 Comprehensive Development Plan - – Site Access Plan ...... 12 Figure 8.1 – North Road / Katandra Road Intersection – September 2015 ...... 27 Figure 8.2 North Road / Katandra Road Intersection – Exhibited Concept Plan ...... 28 Figure 8.3 Vic Roads Shared Katandra- Road Cross-section ...... 29 Figure 8.4 – Katandra Road at North Road ...... 29 Figure 11.1: Graphical Comparison of Traffic Generation Distribution .... 44 Figure 12.1: Comparison of Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 45 Figure 12.2 – Katandra Road – 95%ile Queue Length Summary (GTA 2017) ...... 48 Figure 12.3 – Katandra Road – Average Delay Summary (GTA 2017) ...... 48 Figure 13.1 – Local Street Network in Vicinity of Site ...... 50

List of tables:

Table 6.1: Indicative Development Schedule as Detailed in the TIA ...... 18 Table 7.1: Recommended Car Parking Rates (GTA TIA – August 2016) .. 19 Table 7.2: 2011 ABS Census Car Ownership Data – Flat, Unit or Apartment ...... 20 Table 7.3 – Schedule 1 to CDZ Recommended Parking Rates ...... 24 Table 9.1 North Road – Base Case Volume Summary (vehicles per hour) ...... 32

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 4

Table 10.1: Traffic Generation Rates Adopted in the TIA ...... 33 Table 10.2: Comparison of Expected Traffic Generation ...... 37 Table 11.1 Austroads – Segmentation of Traffic Generation for Shopping Centres ...... 40 Table 11.2 – Retail Trip Distribution ...... 41 Table 11.3: Estimated Site Generated Trips ...... 41 Table 11.4: Comparison of Percentage Traffic Distributions ...... 43 Table 11.5: Comparison of Traffic Generation Distributions (vehicles per hour) ...... 43 Table 12.1 – Katandra Road Treatment Options ...... 46 Table 13.1: Expected Daily Traffic Generation ...... 52 Table 13.2: Comparison of Estimated Daily Development Generated Volumes ...... 52 Table 13.3: Post Development Daily Volumes (vpd) ...... 53

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 5

Reference

1.1.1 Glen Eira Planning Scheme draft planning scheme amendment 1.1.2 Subject Land: Ormond Station, North Road Ormond.

Name

1.1.3 Stephen John Hunt

Position

1.1.4 Principal – Traffic, Ratio Consultants

Address

1.1.5 9 Clifton Street, Richmond, VIC 3121

Qualifications

― Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), 1975, Swinburne University of Technology.

Statement of Witness: ― Graduate Diploma of Highway and Traffic Engineering, 1981,

Chisholm Institute of Technology. 1 Experience

― 2017 – Present: Principal – Traffic, Ratio Consultants. ― 2010 – 2016 : Group Manager – Cardno Victoria ― 2007 – 2010: Consultant, Cardno Grogan Richards. ― 1988 – 2006: Director, Grogan Richards. ― 1975 – 1988: Traffic Engineer with Cities of Doncaster and Templestowe, Caulfield and Prahran.

Professional Expertise

1.1.6 I have worked in the area of Traffic and Transportation Engineering throughout my career. My area of expertise includes traffic advice and assessment of a wide range of land use and development proposals for planning authorities, government agencies, corporations and developers. 1.1.7 My training, qualifications and experience including involvement with a wide variety of developments over a number of years, qualifies me to comment on the traffic and parking implications of this proposal.

Instructions which define the scope of this report

1.1.8 I have been instructed by Clayton Utz Lawyers on behalf of Vic Track, to review a draft planning scheme amendment prepared by Level Crossing Removal Authority which seeks to facilitate a development opportunity for the Ormond Station Site realised in association with the recent removal of the North Road level crossing and prepare an expert evidence statement in relation to traffic and parking issues and to present evidence to the Advisory Committee convened to consider the draft amendment.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 6

Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

1.1.9 In the course of preparing this report the facts, matters and assumptions I have relied upon are outlined as follows:  Site visit, Thursday 12 January 2017.  Exhibited documents related to the draft amendment.  Ormond Station Urban Renewal Opportunity – Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants dated 5th August 2016.  Submissions received to the exhibited amendment.  Glen Eira Planning Scheme.  Nearmap aerial photography www.nearmap.com.au.  Concept Plans of the indicative development issued at the directions of the Committee.  Memo dated 31st January 2017 prepared by John Kiriakidis of GTA Consulting.  Plans of the North Road reconstruction works and shared footway in Katandra Avenue prepared by VicRoads.

Identity of Persons Undertaking the Work

1.1.10 Stephen Hunt of Ratio Consultants, assisted by Luke Richardson also of Ratio Consultants.

Declaration

1.1.11 I confirm that I have read and that I understand the Planning Panels Victoria’s ‘Guide to Expert Evidence’ and that I comply with the provisions of that guide. 1.1.12 I have no relationship with the client other than a business engagement to comment on this matter. 1.1.13 My involvement in this project commenced in December 2016 and I was not involved in the preceding Planning Application process in any way. 1.1.14 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Committee.

Stephen Hunt Principal - Traffic Ratio Consultants

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 7

2.1.1 I have been instructed by Clayton Utz Lawyers on behalf of Vic Track, to review a draft planning scheme amendment prepared by Level Crossing Removal Authority which seeks to facilitate a development opportunity for the Ormond Station Site realised in association with the recent removal of the North Road level crossing. 2.1.2 In particular, I have been requested to provide a peer review assessment of the Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared by GTA Consultants on behalf of Deal Corporation dated 5th August 2016 which was exhibited in association with the proposed planning scheme amendment. I was also asked to respond to traffic and parking issues raised in submissions received to the exhibited amendment, and to present my opinions by way of expert evidence to the Victorian Transport Projects Advisory Introduction: Committee which has been convened to consider the matter.

2 2.1.3 In addition, I have been asked to review and comment upon matters raised in a Memorandum from John Kiriakidis of GTA to VicTrack / LXRA dated 31st January 2017 which details a traffic modelling review undertaken by that firm in response to issues raised in submissions and in particular including:  Updated traffic volume data collected by GTA in December 2016 following completion of the level crossing removal project.  A review of options for treatment at the intersection of North Road and Katandra Road having regard to the “as-built” configuration of the intersection following the completion of the level crossing removal.  Revisions to traffic generation and distribution analysis, including consideration of potential traffic distribution to Walsh Street.  Updated SIDRA network analysis for the North Road corridor, comparative SIDRA analysis of options for the North Road Katandra Road intersection and analysis of the access point to the site from Katandra Road. 2.1.4 My assessment of the implications of the proposal and the matters considered has been limited due to the time of receipt of the documentation and requirements for circulating expert evidence prior to the hearing. 2.1.5 This report has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Panels Victoria’s ‘Guide to Expert Evidence’. In the course of preparing this assessment, I have inspected the subject site and surrounding road network, reviewed documentation described above and outlined in Section 1.1.9. 2.1.6 My opinions to date with respect to the traffic engineering issues related to the proposed amendment are set out in the following report.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 8

3.1 Level Crossing Removal

3.1.1 Over the next eight years, the Victorian Government has committed to removing 50 level crossings across Melbourne, overseen by the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA). 3.1.2 The level crossing on North Road, Ormond adjacent to Ormond Station was identified as one of the 50 level crossings to be removed. Construction was completed in late 2016, with the rail line lowered below North Road. Ormond Station was also rebuilt as part of the project. 3.2 Development Opportunity Background:

3.2.1 The Victorian Government is considering development opportunities at

3 transport hubs in and around Melbourne. One such opportunity has been identified at the Ormond Station site. 3.2.2 The identified development opportunity at Ormond Station under consideration provides for a mixed use development consisting of ground level retail, residential dwellings, commercial office space and a restricted recreational facility.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 9

4.1 Exhibited Documents

4.1.1 In order to facilitate the proposed mixed use development at Ormond Station, draft planning controls and supporting information were prepared and placed on exhibition from 25 October 2016 until 9 December 2016. 4.1.2 As part of the draft planning scheme amendment, it is proposed to rezone the Site from Public Use Zone 4 (Transport) and General Residential Zone (GRZ) to the Comprehensive Development Zone 1 (CDZ1). 4.1.3 The draft planning scheme amendment seeks to rezone the subject site to Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule One and include the North Road, Ormond, Comprehensive Development Plan dated August 2016 into the Planning Scheme to govern future use and development of the site. 4.1.4 A number of supporting documents were also exhibited, including a transport assessment prepared by GTA Consultants entitled “Ormond Station – Urban Renewal Opportunity – Transport Impact Assessment” dated August 2016. 4.1.5 I note that the above documents were prepared prior to the completion of the North Road level crossing removal and the construction of the new Ormond Station. 4.2 Comprehensive Development Zone – Schedule 1

4.2.1 Schedule 1 to the CDZ, applying to the Ormond Railway Station and associated land, is proposed to be included into the Planning Scheme to realize urban renewal and development opportunities made available through removal of the North Road level crossing and to give effect to the North Road Compressive Development Plan. 4.2.2 The Schedule provides a table of uses, including the following for which a permit is not required: Draft Planning Scheme Amendment:

― Accommodation, 4 ― Shop, and Food and Drink Premises with a combined floor area not to exceed 6,900 sqm, ― Office with a combined floor area not to exceed 500 sqm, ― Restricted Recreational Facility with a maximum leasable area not to exceed 500 sqm, ― Car park, and ― Bus Terminal. 4.2.3 Section 4 of the schedule requires a permit to construct buildings and works, other than for a list of purposes largely related to works associated with removal of the level crossing and for the purposes of railway operations. 4.2.4 A schedule of required information which must accompany a buildings and works application includes:  An Integrated Transport Plan and  A Traffic Loading and Access Management Plan Which must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and addressing matters set out in the Comprehensive Development Plan

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 10

4.2.5 Section 7 sets out the requirements for bicycle parking provision which requires 20 commuter bicycle spaces on the subject land, unless with the consent of the responsible authority. 4.2.6 Except with a permit, bicycle parking provision proposed land uses is otherwise is to be provided in accordance with rates set out in Table 1 to Clause 52.34-3. 4.2.7 Section 8 sets out the requirements for car parking provision which requires 120 commuter spaces to be provided on the subject land, unless with the consent of the responsible authority. 4.2.8 Except with a permit car parking must be provided in the subject land in accordance with the rates set out in column A of Table 1 of Clause 52.06- 5. 4.2.9 A permit may be granted to vary the number of spaces by the responsible authority having consideration of the following, as appropriate.  Whether it is proposed to provide commuter car parking spaces.  The availability of public transport in the locality of the land.  Any effect on vehicle and pedestrian movements in the area.  Any empirical analysis which supports a variation in the number of car parking spaces that should be provided.  The likelihood of multi-purpose trips within the locality which are likely to be combined with a trip to the land in connection with the proposed use.  The variation of car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use over time.  The short-term and long-term car parking demand likely to be generated by the proposed use.  The anticipated car ownership rates of occupants (residents or employees) of the land.  Whether design or other constraints warrant reducing the car parking requirement.  Any other relevant consideration. 4.2.10 Section 9 sets out the requirements for traffic mitigation works requiring a Section 173 agreement between the owner, the responsible authority and VicRoads for the following: a) the provision at the owner’s cost of traffic management measures generally in accordance with the North Road/Katandra/Cadby Avenue Signalised Intersection Concept Layout Plan, Drawing Number 16M1141000-02P1 dated 12 November 2015 prepared by GTA Consultants; or b) alternative traffic mitigation works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and VicRoads.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 11

4.3 North Road Ormond Comprehensive Development Plan

4.3.1 The draft Comprehensive Development Plan, as exhibited, seeks to guide development of the site with respect to objectives, design principles and application requirements addressing a wide range of matters including  Height, massing and urban design  Public realm  Neighboring interfaces  Land use mix and layout  Transport integration  Landscaping 4.3.2 The Comprehensive Development Plan also contains a site access plan to guide primary and secondary vehicle access including access to  commuter car parking,  parking for retail, residential and commercial uses  loading and waste management.  Primary pedestrian access to Ormond Station and retail and commercial uses. 4.3.3 Proposed access to the site is detailed in Part 2 of the Plan, providing for access requirements as shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 Comprehensive Development Plan - – Site Access Plan

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 12

4.3.4 Primary vehicular access for all land uses on the site is specified from Katandra Road, from an unspecified distance north of North Road (beyond the extent of Precinct A) to the northern boundary. No vehicular access is allowed from North Road. Secondary vehicular access is contemplated from Newham Grove from the northern edge of Precinct B to the northern boundary. Secondary vehicular access is specified as catering for residential, presumably town house style development fronting Newham Grove, waste management and loading. 4.3.5 Primary pedestrian access to the station and retail / commercial precincts is specified from North Road and Newham Grove within Precincts A and B. 4.3.6 I concur with the principles of the site access plan, in particular the prevention of vehicular access from North Road and within Precinct A along Katandra Road and Newham Road which ensures that conflict between vehicular and pedestrian /cycle traffic is minimized and that the operation of North Road as a primary arterial road and the North Road / Katandra Road and North Road / Newham Road intersections is not compromised. 4.3.7 I also agree with the designation of primary vehicular access from Katandra Road, having regard to  the existing traffic function of Katandra Road as a local connector road,  the opportunity to signalise the intersection of North Road / Katandra Road to enable convenient access to the arterial road network,  connectivity available to the local street network to the north and north west, and  separation of access from pedestrian interfaces to the station. 4.3.8 Section 3.5 of the CDP sets out the requirements related to Transport Integration. 4.3.9 The Transport Integration Objectives within the CDP are set out as follows:

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 13

4.3.10 Design Principles which should apply to new development on the site are:

4.3.11 I have reviewed the Objectives and Design Principles as contemplated in the draft CDP and agree with the integrated transport approach adopted. 4.3.12 I particularly agree with the principles of encouraging multi-purpose use of on-site parking where possible and provision of adequate replacement commuter parking. 4.3.13 An Integrated Transport Plan (ITP) is required to be prepared in accordance with Clause 4.0 of the CDZ1 which must include the following information:

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 14

4.3.14 Finally, a Traffic, Loading and Access Management Plan (TLAMP) must be prepared in accordance with Clause 4.0 of the CDZ1 to include the following information:

4.3.15 The requirements for, and information sought in both the ITP and the TLAMP are commensurate with industry standards and will ensure that the transport access of future development is appropriately addressed at the planning application stage. 4.4 Transport Impact Assessment

4.4.1 A Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared by GTA Consultants (Ref: V103830, Issue E, dated 5 August 2016) to accompany the draft planning scheme amendment which was placed on exhibition with the draft planning controls as supporting information. 4.4.2 The TIA provided a high level traffic assessment of the development opportunity based on an indicative development schedule and layout. Specifically, the TIA provided an assessment in relation to the following: ― Appropriate bicycle parking provision and layout; ― Appropriate car parking provision and layout; ― Appropriate loading and waste collection arrangements; and ― Anticipated traffic impacts, required mitigating road works and appropriate vehicle access strategy.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 15

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 In response to the exhibited documents, a number of submissions were received, including from Glen Eira City Council (Council), VicRoads and other affected parties, including nearby residents and traders. 5.2 Council

5.2.1 Council prepared a submission in response to the exhibited documents. 5.2.2 Within the submission, Council objects to the draft planning scheme amendment, stating a number of points of objection. Those relevant to traffic are listed below: 2. “The proposed supermarket use and amount of retail floor space is excessive and will: c. Generate excess traffic levels within nearby local streets (2-3 times their saturation levels).” 3. “The intensity of use will potentially require the widening of Katandra Road and possibly forced removal of Council’s Shared Use Path.” 5.2.3 Council also outlined key opportunities for any future project which Council considered to go some way in attempting to address Council’s points of objection and seek to provide a positive outcome for the Ormond community. The traffic related opportunities listed by Council are reproduced below: 3. “An integrated development strengthening pedestrian connectivity through the centre, along North Road and side streets.” 5. “A development that ensures the protection of the Shared Use Path, creates public open space and promotes traffic safety.” 5.3 VicRoads

5.3.1 VicRoads prepared a submission in response to the exhibited documents. 5.3.2 Broadly, VicRoads was supportive of the draft planning scheme amendment, noting the following:

Submissions to Exhibited Amendment: ― VicRoads considers the mix of uses and intensity of development to be appropriate, subject to any proposal not causing detriment to the

5 operation of North Road and public safety; ― VicRoads supports the access strategy shown on the Site Access Plan of the Incorporated Document, although notes that a permit application would not have to be consistent with the Site Access Plan in order for it to be generally consistent with the Incorporated Document; ― VicRoads noted that traffic management works will be required at the intersection of Katandra Road and North Road to facilitate safe and efficient movement onto and off the arterial road network. VicRoads envisages that these traffic management works will comprise traffic signals although notes that the proponent is yet to seek in-principle agreement to such works. VicRoads notes that they require further information to make a decision on this matter. 5.3.3 Despite the broad support for the draft planning scheme amendment, VicRoads is seeking some minor changes to the draft documents.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 16

5.3.4 The minor changes sought by VicRoads can generally be summarised as seeking to: ― Ensure that for any permit application, the access strategy remains generally consistent with the Site Access Plan of the Incorporated Document; ― Make VicRoads a referral authority for future permit applications, where relevant; and ― Require the applicant to meet costs incurred by VicRoads in reviewing and signing the Section 173 Agreement for the provision of traffic mitigation works. 5.4 Other Affected Parties

5.4.1 In addition to Council and VicRoads, a number of other affected parties, including nearby residents and traders have lodged submissions in response to the exhibited documents. 5.4.2 A total of 191 submissions have been received, some of which are supportive of the draft planning scheme amendment and some of which are opposed to the draft planning scheme amendment. 5.4.3 The traffic and parking related issues raised by those opposed to the draft planning scheme amendment are summarised as follows: ― Parking in the area is already restrictive and any parking overflow from development on the site will exacerbate this issue. ― The surrounding streets are already congested and traffic generated by development on the site will exacerbate this issue.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 17

6.1 GTA Assessment

6.1.1 The TIA prepared by GTA Consultants and exhibited as supporting information for the draft planning scheme amendment outlines an indicative development schedule which is reproduced in Table 6.1 below. Table 6.1: Indicative Development Schedule as Detailed in the TIA

Use Number/Size

Residential 220 dwellings

Retail 6,900sqm

Office 500sqm

Restricted Recreation Facility 500sqm

Car Spaces 650 car spaces

6.1.2 The TIA indicates that the retail description covers supermarket, shop, food and drink premises and take away food premises, whilst the 650 car spaces includes 120 commuter car spaces. 6.1.3 In addition, it is noted that the traffic analysis undertaken in the TIA assesses the restricted recreation facility as a gymnasium. 6.1.4 The TIA also states that vehicle access to the indicative development would likely comprise the following: ― Access to the multi-levels of car parking on Katandra Road. ― Access to on-site loading facilities on Newham Grove. ― Minor access to some small scale residential use on Newham Grove. 6.1.5 I note that the schedule of uses considered by GTA essentially conforms Indicative Development Proposal:

to the indicative development schedule included in the Table to Schedule 1 to the CDZ allowable without a permit. 6 6.2 Circulated Plans

6.2.1 In response to Advisory Committee Direction 11 and 12, Concept Plans for the indicative development were circulated by Deal Corp. 6.2.2 The concept plans as prepared by Clarke Hopkins Clarke appear to correspond to the development mix and composition as assumed in the GTA TIA and I note that the memo of the 31st January 2017 adopted the same development composition. 6.2.3 As such I have adopted the development mix as detailed in Table 6.1 for the purposes of this assessment.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 18

7.1 Parking Rates Recommended by the TIA

7.1.1 The TIA recommends minimum and maximum car parking rates, for land uses contemplated on the site as reproduced in Table 7.1. Table 7.1: Recommended Car Parking Rates (GTA TIA – August 2016)

Land Use Minimum Rate Maximum Rate

1 bedroom 0.6 spaces per dwelling 0.8 spaces per dwelling

2 bedroom 0.8 spaces per dwelling 1.0 spaces per dwelling Dwelling 3 bedroom 1.2 spaces per dwelling 1.4 spaces per dwelling

Visitors 0 spaces 0.04 spaces per dwelling

Supermarket 3.5 spaces per 100sqm 4.0 spaces per 100sqm

Shop 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 2.5 spaces per 100sqm

Food and Drink Premises 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 4.0 spaces per 100sqm

Take Away Food Premises 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 4.0 spaces per 100sqm

Office 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 2.5 spaces per 100sqm

Restricted Recreation Facility 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 5.0 spaces per 100sqm Car Parking Considerations:

Commuter Car Park 120 spaces 120 spaces 7 7.1.2 Clause 8.0 of the draft Schedule 1 to the CDZ which was exhibited as part of the proposed planning scheme amendment states that car parking must be provided on the subject land in accordance with the rates set out in Column A of Table 1 of Clause 52.06-5. 7.1.3 Clause 8.0 also states that a permit may be granted to vary the number of car spaces required for a particular use. 7.1.4 In my opinion, having regard to the proposed planning controls and the nature and location of the proposed development, it is appropriate for a range of parking rates to be nominated in a similar manner as documented in the TIA. 7.1.5 The rates should nominate a maximum (or standard) rate which corresponds to the peak demand expected to be generated for each land use type, having regard to the location and nature of the development opportunity. This rate, which seeks to contain parking demands within the site while recognizing the opportunities for shared parking, would not require a permit. 7.1.6 A lower, minimum rate, should also be nominated, which seeks to identify lower demands commensurate with the objectives of a transit oriented development, minimizing traffic generation and encouraging a variety of transport modes. These rates would be subject to a permit, justified with reference to the decision guidelines proposed within Schedule 1 to the CDZ.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 19

7.2 Review of Parking Rates

7.2.1 The TIA states that the recommended rates have been derived from a number of sources, including: ― Car parking surveys of existing similar developments; ― The RMSNSW ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’; ― Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme; ― Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011 Census car ownership data; and ― Sustainable transport design principles. 7.2.2 The TIA does not provide any further specifics as to how the particular rates have been derived. 7.2.3 To this end, I have undertaken an independent assessment of appropriate parking rates to confirm appropriate minimum and maximum rates.

Dwellings

7.2.4 The statutory car parking rates for dwellings are as follows: ― 1 space to each one or two bedroom dwelling; and ― 2 spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling. 7.2.5 To determine existing car ownership for flats, units and apartments in the area, I have sourced ABS Census car ownership data for the immediate area (area generally bound by Katandra Road, Oakleigh Road, Grange Road and North Road), the suburb of Ormond and the Glen Eira Municipality. The data is provided in Table 7.2. Table 7.2: 2011 ABS Census Car Ownership Data – Flat, Unit or Apartment

Average Car Ownership Number of Bedrooms Immediate Area* Ormond Suburb Glen Eira Municipality

0.85 cars per 0.84 cars per 0.81 cars per One-Bedroom dwelling dwelling dwelling

1.01 cars per 1.03 cars per 1.07 cars per Two-Bedroom dwelling dwelling dwelling

0.93 cars per 1.46 cars per 1.43 cars per Three-Bedroom dwelling dwelling dwelling

*Area generally bound by Katandra Road, Oakleigh Road, Grange Road and North Road 7.2.6 The average car ownership identified by the above ABS Census car ownership data is generally in line with the maximum rates recommended by the TIA (0.8 spaces per one-bedroom dwelling, 1 space per two- bedroom dwelling and 1.4 spaces per three-bedroom dwelling) and I am therefore satisfied that these are appropriate maximum rates for any future residential development at the site. 7.2.7 It is noted that the recommended rates for dwellings are lower than the commensurate rates within Clause 52.06 and the “default” rates specified in Schedule 1 to CDZ1. 7.2.8 In my opinion, having regard to the transit oriented design objectives of the land and the location of the site with excellent access to public transport and facilities, consideration should be given to lowering the parking requirements for residential development on the site to reflect the rates recommended by GTA and confirmed by the ABS data.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 20

7.2.9 These rates provide for residential parking which can realistically be expected to cater for likely car ownership levels and hence contain residential parking onsite. 7.2.10 Having regard to the style of accommodation and the location, parking provision lower than the expected demands, effectively promoting lower car ownership and sustainable transport objectives should also be considered. In my opinion, the rates recommended by GTA as a minimum rate are appropriate satisfying likely demands while seeking to encourage and promote transit objectives of the site. 7.2.11 On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the minimum resident parking rates recommended by the TIA (0.6 spaces per one-bedroom dwelling, 0.8 spaces per two-bedroom dwelling and 1.2 spaces per three- bedroom dwelling) are appropriate.

Residential Visitors

7.2.12 The statutory car parking rate for residential visitors is as follows: ― 1 space to every 5 dwellings or 0.2 spaces per dwelling. 7.2.13 GTA in the TIA has recommended a maximum rate of 0.04 spaces per dwelling and a minimum provision of zero. 7.2.14 I note that Column B of Table 1 to Clause 52.06-8 of the Planning Scheme does not require the provision of visitor car parking. 7.2.15 Whilst it is at the discretion of individual Councils to specify in a Parking Overlay when the rates listed in Column B are applicable, I note that it is generally intended for the rates listed in Column B to be applied in Activity Centres or similar locations, where a ‘whole of centre” approach is adopted, with lower rates reflecting efficiencies of shared parking and convenient access to public transport. I consider this principle to be relevant in this instance. 7.2.16 Furthermore, I note that the indicative development comprises a variety of retail and recreation land uses which lends itself to efficiencies gained by the sharing of parking between customers and residential visitors. 7.2.17 On the basis of the above, it is my view that on-site parking specifically set aside for visitors need not be provided.

Supermarket

7.2.18 The statutory car parking rate for a supermarket is as follows: ― 5 spaces to each 100 sqm of leasable floor area. 7.2.19 Case studies undertaken by this firm and other firms indicate parking demands associated with supermarkets are generally in the range of 3 to 5 spaces per 100 sqm. with the upper end of the range generally occurring at full line major supermarkets with generous and convenient onsite parking. 7.2.20 GTA have recommended parking for the supermarket component of the site at a maximum rate of 4.0 spaces per 100 sqm and a minimum rate of 3.50 spaces per 100 sqm. 7.2.21 In assessing an application for a supermarket proposal in Surrey Hills, immediately adjacent to Surrey Hills Station considered by VCAT in February 2016, I relied upon case study data collected at two comparable supermarkets in North Balwyn and Heidelberg, which demonstrated peak parking demands of 3.58 and 3.60 spaces per 100sqm, both recorded on a Saturday.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 21

7.2.22 In that case I concluded that the proposed provision of 4.33 spaces per 100 sqm would comfortably cater for peak demands. 7.2.23 I would expect a portion of the supermarket’s customer base to be comprised of commuters from the Station, as well as nearby residents, including from within the development site within comfortable walking distance. 7.2.24 As such and having regard to the ability for parking demands to be shared with other commercial uses on the site (and potentially commuter spaces out of hours) it is considered that a maximum rate of 4.0 spaces per 100sqm for the supermarket component of the development is appropriate. 7.2.25 A minimum rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 sqm is also considered appropriate, having regard to the case study data referenced above.

Shop and Food and Drink

7.2.26 The statutory car parking rate for both shop and food and drink premises is as follows: ― 4 spaces to each 100 square metres of leasable floor area. 7.2.27 GTA have recommended a rate of 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm as both a maximum and minimum rate for shop and a range of between 2.5 and 4.0 spaces per 100 sqm for food and drink premises. 7.2.28 Similar to the supermarket use, I expect a portion of the associated retail and food and drink premises customer base to be comprised of commuters from the Station, as well as residents and staff of the indicative development and other nearby developments which are able to walk to the site. 7.2.29 In addition to the above, I would also expect a portion of the indicative customer base to be secondary trips to the supermarket and the wider Ormond NAC. As such, I would expect that the shop component of the development would generate parking at a rate marginally lower than the Clause 52.06 Column A rate. 7.2.30 The Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100 sqm is generally accepted as an appropriate rate within Activity Centres, having regard to shared parking opportunities and, in my opinion, is an appropriate maximum rate for both shop and food and drink premises on the subject site. A minimum rate of 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm as recommended in the TIA is recommended.

Office

7.2.31 The statutory car parking rate for office is as follows: ― 3.5 spaces to each 100 square metres of net floor area. 7.2.32 GTA, within the TIA, have recommended an overall rate of 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm. 7.2.33 Research into parking generation for office uses within middle suburban locations shows a variation in demand having regard to a number of factors including parking availability, proximity to public transport and size of office tenancies. A component of office parking is also related to visitor / customer parking. 7.2.34 A rate of 2.5 spaces per 100 sqm is considered appropriate to cater for generated staff demands, having regard to proximity to the station, and is recommended as an appropriate rate. Customer demands can be accommodated on a shared basis with retail uses.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 22

Restricted Recreation Facility (Gymnasium)

7.2.35 The ‘restricted recreation facility’ land use is not listed within Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme. In such an instance, Clause 52.06 requires that parking be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 7.2.36 In order to determine likely gymnasium parking demands, I have sought guidance from the RMSNSW ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’. The guide recommends the following parking rates be adopted for gymnasiums: ― 3 spaces per 100 square metres for a gymnasium located within a regional centre and is in close proximity to rail/bus services; and ― 4.5-7.5 spaces per 100 square metres if a gymnasium is located in a sub-regional area. 7.2.37 In this instance, the indicative development is located within the Ormond NAC and will be located directly above Ormond Station. Similar to the retail uses, I would expect a portion of gymnasium patrons to be comprised of commuters from the Station, as well as residents and staff of the indicative development and other nearby developments which are able to walk to the site. 7.2.38 As such, I would expect parking demands associated with the indicative gymnasium to be at the lower end of the above scale at 3 spaces per 100 square metres. 7.2.39 On the basis of the above, I consider the range recommended by the TIA (2.5-5.0 spaces per 100 square metres) to be appropriate in this instance.

Commuter Car Park

7.2.40 Clause 8.0 of the draft Schedule 1 to the CDZ which was exhibited as part of the proposed planning scheme amendment states that unless with the consent of the responsible authority, 120 commuter car spaces must be provided on the subject land. 7.2.41 Review of historical photography indicates that prior to the removal of the North Road level crossing and the new Ormond Station being built, there was in the order of 155 commuter car spaces across three car parks. 7.2.42 Two of the car parks (in the order of 115 spaces), were accessed from Newham Grove, whilst the third car park (in the order of 40 spaces) was accessed from Katandra Road. 7.2.43 As part of the works associated with the removal of the North Road level crossing and the new Ormond Station being built, the commuter car park accessed from Katandra Road was removed, whilst the two car parks accessed from Newham Grove were demolished and reconstructed. 7.2.44 The resultant overall provision of commuter car parking was reduced to 117 spaces, all of which are accessed from Newham Grove. 7.2.45 On the basis of the proposal maintaining the current number of commuter spaces onsite, I consider the provision of commuter car parking in accordance with the draft Schedule 1 to the CDZ to be appropriate.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 23

Recommended Parking Rates

7.2.46 Based on the above discussion, the following rates are recommended to be included in Schedule 1 to the CDZ. Table 7.3 – Schedule 1 to CDZ Recommended Parking Rates

Land Use Minimum Rate Maximum Rate

1 bedroom 0.6 spaces per dwelling 0.8 spaces per dwelling

2 bedroom 0.8 spaces per dwelling 1.0 spaces per dwelling Dwelling 3 bedroom 1.2 spaces per dwelling 1.4 spaces per dwelling

Visitors 0 spaces 0 spaces

Supermarket 3.5 spaces per 100sqm 4.0 spaces per 100sqm

Shop 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 3.5 spaces per 100sqm

Food and Drink Premises 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 3.5 spaces per 100sqm

Take Away Food Premises 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 3.5 spaces per 100sqm

Office 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 2.5 spaces per 100sqm

Restricted Recreation Facility 2.5 spaces per 100sqm 5.0 spaces per 100sqm

Commuter Car Park 120 spaces 120 spaces

Disabled Car Parking Provision

7.2.47 The TIA states that disabled car parking should be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). 7.2.48 I agree with this statement.

Motorcycle Parking

7.2.49 The TIA states that motorcycle parking should be provided for all land uses at a minimum rate of one motorcycle space for every 100 car spaces unless the responsible authority is satisfied that a lesser number is sufficient. 7.2.50 I note that there is no requirement within the Glen Eira Planning Scheme to provide motorcycle parking. 7.2.51 As such, I make reference to Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 13 to the Parking Overlay of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, which requires a motorcycle parking provision of one space to every 100 car spaces. This rate is consistent with the rate recommended in the TIA. 7.2.52 On the basis of the above, I consider a rate of one motorcycle space for every 100 car spaces to be acceptable.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 24

7.3 Car Parking and Vehicle Access Layout

Car Park Layout

7.3.1 The TIA states that the car park should be designed in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme, and where appropriate, the relevant Australian Standards. The TIA also notes that in addition to this, supermarket operators typically have their own design requirements which deliver more generous car space dimensions than those required by the Planning Scheme and Australian Standard. 7.3.2 The TIA subsequently summarises some typical design requirements for car parks for the supermarket use and for all other uses on the site, including the commuter car park. 7.3.3 I agree that the car park should be designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme, and where appropriate, the relevant Australian Standards and I consider the specific design requirements listed by the TIA to be acceptable.

Vehicle Access

7.3.4 The TIA also states that vehicle access should be designed in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme, and where appropriate, the relevant Australian Standards. 7.3.5 The TIA subsequently lists a number of access design principles which should be adopted. 7.3.6 I agree that vehicle access should be designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme, and where appropriate, the relevant Australian Standards and I consider the access design principles listed by the TIA to be acceptable. 7.4 Loading

7.4.1 The TIA states that for smaller rigid vehicles, loading areas should be designed in accordance with Clause 52.07 of the Planning Scheme, whilst loading areas for larger vehicles should be designed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. 7.4.2 The TIA subsequently lists a number of specific design principles for the loading areas. 7.4.3 I agree that the loading areas should be designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme for smaller rigid vehicles, and in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard for larger vehicles. I also consider the specific design principles listed by the TIA to be acceptable. 7.4.4 The TIA also states that vehicle access to the loading areas should be via Newham Grove, should be designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme and relevant Australian Standard requirements and should be supported by a swept path assessment where appropriate. 7.4.5 I consider loading access to Newham Grove to be acceptable and agree that the design should be in accordance with the Planning Scheme and relevant Australian Standard requirements and should be supported by a swept path assessment.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 25

7.5 Waste Collection

7.5.1 The TIA states that waste collection should be controlled by a Waste Management Plan (WMP) which should define the locations of the bin storage areas, the collection arrangements and the size of the vehicle to be used for collection, with a swept path assessment undertaken where appropriate. 7.5.2 I agree with the above requirements stated in the TIA.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 26

8.1 TIA Concept Plan

8.1.1 Based upon analysis undertaken by GTA and documented within the August 2016 TIA, it is proposed to undertake upgrading works at the intersection of North Road and Katandra Road in order to facilitate access to the development site. 8.1.2 Prior to the crossing removal the configuration of the North Road / Katandra Road intersection is shown in Figure 8.1. Figure 8.1 – North Road / Katandra Road Intersection – September 2015

8.1.3 The intersection provided for left turn movements out of Katandra Road only, with left and right turn inbound movements permitted. A splitter island was constructed in Katandra Road to separate opposing movements, also acting as a pedestrian refuge. In addition, Cadby Avenue, which forms the southern leg of the intersection operated as a

North Road / Katandra Intersection: two way street, with left in / left out only to North Road. 8.1.4 Concept plans included in the TIA for the intersection (Ref: 16M1141000- 8 02P1, dated 12 November 2015) show the installation of traffic signals with the design based on the configuration of the intersection prior to the removal of the North Road level crossing. 8.1.5 The concept plan is shown in Figure 8.2.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 27

Figure 8.2 North Road / Katandra Road Intersection – Exhibited Concept Plan

8.1.6 The concept plan provides for fully directional traffic movements with separate left and right turning lanes provided in Katandra Road, achieved by removal of the splitter island and resumption of some on-street parking on the east side of Katandra Road. It is understood that the concept did not rely on widening of Katandra Road at the intersection or narrowing of footpaths with the configuration achieved with in the 13.0 m width then available. 8.1.7 The proposal also contemplated retention of two-way traffic flow in Cadby Avenue and the introduction of right turns into the street from North Road, facilitated by a right turn slot within the median. 8.1.8 Pedestrian facilities across all four legs of the intersections are included as part of the signal design. 8.1.9 It is noted that Clause 9.0 of the exhibited CDZ Schedule 1 requires mitigating works at the intersection generally in accordance with the concept plan. 8.2 Modified Intersection Configuration

8.2.1 In association with the removal of the level crossing, modifications were made to the North Road / Katandra Road intersection. The works were undertaken in accordance with VicRoads Plans which provided for the construction of North Road and provision of a 2.5 m wide shared path on the west side of Katandra Road as shown in Drawing OMD_C005 8.2.2 The adopted configuration resulted in reduction in the width of the Katandra Road road pavement from 13.0m to between 9.1 and 10.8m, due to extention of the kerb on the western side to provide a wider verge. 8.2.3 A 2.5m shared path was proposed, offset 1.3 m from the kerb and “merging” with the station concourse on the western side. This is shown in Figure 8.3 depicting the design cross-section of Katandra Road approximately 20m north of the intersection.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 28

Figure 8.3 Vic Roads Shared Katandra- Road Cross-section

8.2.4 In effect, as constructed, a carriageway width of approximately 8.7m has been provided in Katandra Road at the intersection, allowing a 3.5m wide northbound lane and a 3.7m wide southbound land, separated by a 1.5m wide painted median at the intersection. North of the intersection, the cross-section allows for 3.5m traffic lanes in each direction and parking along the eastern kerb. 8.2.5 It is noted that the shared path is incorporated into the station concourse (and the landscaping buffer) for approximately 30m north of the intersection effectively providing a “shared” concourse area approximately 5.7m in width. To the north and along Cadby Avenue to the south, the shared path reverts to the nominated 2.5m width. 8.2.6 The as constructed layout of the intersection is shown in Figure 8.4 Figure 8.4 – Katandra Road at North Road

8.2.7 It is noted that a number of services appear to have been located within the shared concourse area as is evident from the aerial photo.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 29

8.2.8 GTA, in the memo dated 31st January 2017 have identified that the as- constructed configuration of Katandra Road will not allow the implementation of the concept design unless widening of the road is undertaken, potentially by narrowing the verge on the western side. 8.2.9 Council does not support the potential widening of Katandra Road and due to the resultant reduction in the width of the forecourt area and potential need to remove the shared path in this area.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 30

9.1 Methodology Review

9.1.1 The TIA prepared by GTA which was exhibited in association with the draft amendment was prepared in August 2016, prior to the completion of the level crossing removal. 9.1.2 As such, it was necessary for the assessment to consider not only the traffic implications of the development opportunity on the subject site but the potential / likely impacts of traffic volumes and operation following the removal of the level crossing and the complementary roadworks. 9.1.3 The impact of the proposed development was undertaken by assessing the additional traffic expected to be generated, by the proposed development, predominantly by assessing impacts during two critical time periods as follows: ― Friday afternoon commuter peak period, corresponding to peak activity on the surrounding road network and high peaking characteristics of likely land uses on the subject site. ― Saturday lunchtime period, corresponding to conventional peaks in activity of retail uses and consequently peak site generation. 9.1.4 I am satisfied that the time periods assessed in the TIA correspond to the critical peak periods and allow the key operational impacts of the proposal to be reviewed. 9.1.5 It is noted that the additional analysis detailed in the January 2017 memo includes assessment of the AM peak hour as well as the two time periods above. The inclusion of this time period, corresponding to the morning commuter peak period, provides a useful additional reference. 9.1.6 Estimates of “base volumes” within the August 2016 TIA were prepared seeking to represent traffic conditions on the surrounding road network following removal of the level crossing. 9.1.7 This was done utilising network traffic volume data collected prior to the crossing removal, factored (up) to represent traffic growth expected to be achieved through the crossing removal with reference to the Victorian Integrated Transport Model. This effectively resulted in volumes being increased on North Road by between 5% and 16% during the peak periods assessed in the base or reference condition. 9.1.8 Additional traffic surveys were undertaken in December 2016 following

Base Volumes and Time Periods Assessed: completion of the crossing project, intended to ratify the base volume

estimates within the TIA. It was recognized that data collected in late

9 December, in the immediate pre-Christmas period will most likely demonstrate some seasonal characteristics, such as higher levels of retail trips and lower numbers of school trips. 9.1.9 In order to “validate” the volume data, SCATS traffic volume data was obtained from VicRoads at the North Road / Jasper Road intersection immediately to the east, which provided data on relative peak hour volumes during November and December 2016. With reference to this data, the December 2017 data was factored (again up) by between 2.4% and 11.5% to represent typical conditions. 9.1.10 I have reviewed the methodology undertaken in the establishment of the base volume used for analysis purposes and am satisfied that it provides an acceptable basis for assessing the relative traffic impact of the proposed development and required mitigating works.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 31

9.1.11 It is also noted that comparison between the factored base volumes in the August 2016 TIA and the January 2017 memo shows close correlation between estimates as summarized in Table 9.1. Table 9.1 North Road – Base Case Volume Summary (vehicles per hour)

Friday PM Peak Saturday Midday Peak

Eastbound Westbound Total Eastbound Westbound Total

Aug-16 1602 1476 3078 1416 1383 2799

2016 Base 1690 1714 3404 1570 1580 3150 Case

Dec-16 1795 1525 3320 1497 1502 2999

2017 Base 1867 1586 3453 1533 1538 3071 Case

9.1.12 I am comfortable that the 2017 base volumes, as presented in the 31st January 2017 memo, are appropriate base volumes for consideration of the traffic impacts of the proposal. 9.1.13 I have adopted these volumes as the basis for my analysis and review of traffic impact and mitigating works required.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 32

10.1 Traffic Generation Rates Adopted

10.1.1 I have reviewed the traffic generation rates adopted in the August 2016 TIA and considered the appropriateness of the rates against relevant case study data and industry standards. 10.1.2 The traffic generation rates adopted by the TIA are summarised in Table 10.1. Table 10.1: Traffic Generation Rates Adopted in the TIA

Land Use Friday PM Peak Saturday Midday Peak

0.25 movements per 0.25 movements per Dwelling dwelling dwelling

8.96 movements per 9.77 movements per Supermarket 100sqm 100sqm

Traffic Generation: Other Retail (Shop, Food and 5.6 movements per 10.7 movements per Drink Premises and Take Away 100sqm 100sqm Food Premises)

10 0.57 movements per Office - staff car space

Gymnasium (Restricted 3 movements per 3 movements per Recreation Facility) 100sqm 100sqm

0.55 movements per car 0.26 movements per Commuter Car Park space car space

10.1.3 It is noted that the rates adopted in the August 2016 TIA appear to have been retained for additional modelling undertaken in the January 2017 memo, except for the “other retail” component which has been factored down in accordance with relative generation between supermarket and other retail in the RTA Guide. 10.1.4 The revised rates for other retail in the January 2017 memo correspond to 3.6 and 7.1 movements per 100sqm for the Friday and Saturday peak respectively. 10.1.5 My opinions with respect to the rates adopted, and hence the overall traffic generation estimates are discussed in the following sections. 10.2 Dwellings

10.2.1 The rate adopted in the TIA for residential dwellings of 0.25 movements per dwelling per hour (or 2.5 movements per day) is a rate which is typically adopted for apartment style accommodation in areas such as South Yarra, Richmond and Fitzroy with excellent access to public transport and facilities. 10.2.2 While the subject site is extremely well located with respect to public transport, a slightly higher reliance on private vehicle travel may occur due to the relative distance from the CAD and other activity centres. As such, for analysis purposes, I have adopted a slightly higher rate of 0.3 peak hour vehicle movements per apartment with an allocated car space during the Friday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. 10.2.3 It is noted however that the rate adopted in the TIA is per dwelling, as opposed to per apartment with a car space such that, depending on parking provision, the two rates may ultimately align more closely.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 33

10.2.4 In addition to the above, I note that case study data indicates that townhouses generally generate traffic at a slightly higher rate than apartments. Accordingly, the proposed townhouses, accessed from Newham Grove, have been analysed adopting a slightly higher rate of 0.5 peak hour vehicle movements per townhouse with an allocated car space during the Friday PM and Saturday midday peak hours. 10.2.5 Indicative plans indicate 18 townhouses at ground level, with access to Newham Grove. It is assumed the remaining 202 dwellings are apartments, with access to Katandra Road. 10.2.6 Application of the abovementioned rates to the indicative 18 townhouses and 202 apartments equates to a total of 70 vehicle movements associated with the indicative residential component during both the Friday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour, 15 additional movements to the estimates in the TIA. 10.3 Supermarket

10.3.1 Traffic generation surveys have been undertaken by my firm and others at many supermarkets in and around Melbourne of varying size and location. These surveys generally show traffic generation rates typically between 11 and 13 movements per 100 square metres during the Friday afternoon peak period with slightly higher rates during the Saturday lunch peak. 10.3.2 In May 2016, in assessing applicable traffic generation rates for a supermarket proposal in Surrey Hills, immediately adjacent to Surrey Hills Station, I relied upon data from the NSW RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (2002), which is generally regarded as an appropriate standard for Melbourne metropolitan development characteristics. In that case this was supported by case study data collected by Cardno at a Coles supermarket in North Balwyn in February 2009. 10.3.3 The RTA ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ suggests that supermarkets typically generate traffic at a rate of 13.8 vehicle movements per 100 square metres during the Friday PM peak and at a rate of 14.7 vehicle movements per 100 square metres during the Saturday midday peak. 10.3.4 Also, in considering supermarkets within shopping centres, such as the subject proposal, for floor areas less than 10,000 square metres the RTA guide suggests rates of 12.5 movements per 100 square metres to be applied to the Friday commuter peak and 16.3 for the Saturday peak. 10.3.5 The North Balwyn site generated traffic at a rate of 12.77 movements per 100 square metres on a Friday afternoon. 10.3.6 Based on that data, I conservatively adopted a rate of 13 vehicle movements per 100 square metres in the Friday afternoon peak and 16.5 at Saturday lunchtime in the Surrey Hills matter. 10.3.7 These rates are higher than the rates of 8.96 and 9.77 movements per 100 square metres adopted in the TIA which are based on case study data collected by GTA at a supermarket in Ivanhoe, factored to account for estimates of relative trading levels between the two sites and transport mode share for shopping trips applicable to the relevant local government areas. 10.3.8 While it can be expected that the subject proposal on the subject site, located within a transit oriented development with a higher than “normal” rate of linked trips will generate reduced volumes of primary trips, in my opinion higher generation rates for this component should be tested to ensure a robust assessment.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 34

10.3.9 Accordingly, for the purposes of this assessment, I have adopted the following rates for the supermarket component of the development. ― Friday PM Peak – 12.5 movements per 100 square metres ― Saturday lunchtime – 14.0 movements per 100 square metres 10.3.10 Application of these rates to the indicative supermarket floor area of 4,100 square metres equates to an expected traffic generation of 513 vehicle movements during the Friday PM peak hour (146 in addition to the GTA estimate of 367 vehicles per hour) and 574 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour (173 in addition to the GTA estimate of 401 vehicles per hour). 10.4 Other Retail (Shop, Food and Drink Premises and Take Away Food Premises)

10.4.1 The rate adopted by the August 2016 TIA for the other retail (5.6 vehicle movements per 100 sqm during the Friday PM peak and 10.7 vehicle movements per 100 sqm during the Saturday midday peak) is in line with the rate recommended by the NSW RTA ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’. 10.4.2 The rate has been reduced in the January 2017 assessment having regard to the relative rates between supermarket and other retail in that guide. It is noted however that the rate per supermarket adopted, derived from other sources) is lower than the RTA rate. In absolute terms, the revised “other retail” rate is also lower. 10.4.3 In this respect, and in line with my views on the appropriate supermarket rate discussed in 10.3 above, I consider the rates recommended by the RTA, and initially adopted in the August 2016 TIA, while likely to be conservative, provide a suitable basis for a robust assessment of the proposal. 10.4.4 Application of these rates to the indicative “other retail” floor area of 2,800 sqm equates to an expected traffic generation of 157 vehicle movements during the Friday PM peak hour, 55 movements in excess of the revised estimate, and 300 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour, 101 in excess of the revised estimate. 10.4.5 It is noted that the combined retail generation rates adopted, including the supermarket and specialty shops, corresponds to an overall rate of 9.7 vehicle movements per 100 sqm during the Friday PM peak and 12.7 during the Saturday midday peak. 10.4.6 The rates are marginally lower than rates recommend by the NSW RTA for shopping centres less than 10,000 sqm, which is appropriate having regard to the transit oriented nature of the proposal. 10.5 Office

10.5.1 Office traffic generation is typically defined as a function of the parking supply, with up to 60% of office car spaces generally turned over in the commuter peak hours. 10.5.2 For the purposes of this assessment, I have assumed that 60% of the office car spaces will be turned over in the PM peak. For the recommended parking rate of 2.5 spaces to each 100 square metres, this equates to an expected PM peak hour traffic generation rate of 1.5 vehicle movements to each 100 sqm. In effect, this is consistent with the rate adopted by the TIA (0.57 vehicle movements per staff car space).

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 35

10.5.3 In addition, I expect that there will be a small amount of traffic generation associated with the office during the Saturday midday peak. For the purposes of this assessment, I have assumed that during the Saturday midday peak the office generates half as much traffic as during the Friday PM peak, equating to a rate of 0.75 vehicle movements per 100 square metres. I note that the TIA did not assume any traffic generation associated with the office during the Saturday midday peak. 10.5.4 Application of the abovementioned rates to the indicative office floor area of 500 sqm equates to an expected traffic generation of 8 vehicle movements during the Friday PM peak hour and 4 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour. 10.6 Gymnasium (Restricted Recreation Facility)

10.6.1 The rate adopted by the TIA for the gymnasium (3 vehicle movements per 100 sqm during both the Friday PM peak and Saturday midday peak) is in line with the rate recommended by the RTA ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ for gymnasiums in metropolitan regional centres during the evening peak hour. 10.6.2 As previously discussed, the indicative development is located within the Ormond NAC and will be located directly above Ormond Station. I would therefore expect a portion of gymnasium patrons to be comprised of commuters from the Station, as well as residents and staff of the indicative development and other nearby developments which are able to walk to the site. 10.6.3 On this basis, I consider the rate adopted by the TIA (3 vehicle movements per 100 sqm during both the Friday PM peak and Saturday midday peak) to be appropriate and I have adopted this rate in my assessment. 10.6.4 Application of these rates to the indicative gymnasium floor area of 500 sqm equates to an expected traffic generation of 15 vehicle movements during both the Friday PM peak hour and the Saturday midday peak hour, as estimated by GTA. 10.7 Commuter Car Park

10.7.1 The TIA references surveys of the existing commuter car parks at Ormond Station which indicate rates of 0.55 vehicle movements per car space during the PM peak hour and 0.26 vehicle movements per car space during the Saturday midday peak hour. 10.7.2 I consider this an appropriate method for determining the likely traffic generation associated with the commuter car park and have adopted these rates for the purposes of my assessment. 10.7.3 Application of the above rates to the commuter car parking provision of 120 spaces equates to an expected traffic generation of 66 vehicle movements during the Friday PM peak hour and 31 vehicle movements during the Saturday midday peak hour. 10.7.4 It is noted that these movements are existing movements, relocated from the existing access from Newham Grove to Katandra Road.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 36

10.8 Overall Indicative Traffic Generation

10.8.1 I have provided a comparison of the overall traffic generation estimated by the 2017 GTA assessment with the overall traffic generation estimated by my assessment in Table 10.2. 10.8.2 Overall, my assessment estimates an additional 217 vehicle movements during the Friday PM peak hour and an additional 293 vehicle movements during the Saturday lunchtime peak hour. 10.8.3 The difference is primarily a result of the higher traffic generation rates which I have adopted for the supermarket and retail use at each of these time periods. Table 10.2: Comparison of Expected Traffic Generation

Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour Use GTA 2017 My GTA 2017 My Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment

Dwelling 55vph 70vph 55vph 70vph

Supermarket 367vph 513vph 401vph 574vph

Other Retail (Shop, Food and Drink Premises and 102vph 157vph 199vph 300vph Take Away Food Premises)

Office 7vph 8vph 0vph 4vph

Gymnasium (Restricted 15vph 15vph 15vph 15vph Recreation Facility)

Commuter Car 66vph 66vph 31vph 31vph Park

Total 612vph 829vph 701vph 994vph

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 37

11.1 August 2016 TIA Traffic Distribution

11.1.1 The August 2016 TIA has assessed the likely distribution of the supermarket and retail uses based on trade catchment data and estimated the distribution detailed below: ― North Road to/from the east: 44% ― North Road to/from the west: 47% ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 6% ― Cadby Avenue to/from the south: 3% 11.1.2 For the other uses (residential, office, gymnasium and commuter car park), the TIA has assessed the likely distribution based on existing traffic proportions observed on the surrounding road network and estimated the distribution detailed below: ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 10% ― Katandra Road to/from the south: 90% ― North Road to/from the east: 50% (of 90%) Traffic Distribution: ― North Road to/from the west: 50% (of 90%)

11.1.3 The following is noted in relation to the TIA adopted distribution.

11  In excess of 90% of traffic activity generated by the site is assumed to approach and depart from the south via the North Road/Katandra Road intersection with relatively small percentage of traffic assigned to the local street network to the north.

 The distribution, while guided by assessment of the retail catchment of the site and residential trip purposes, appears to be predicated on a rationale of primarily assigning trips to North Road in the first instance, assuming the attractiveness of the arterial network for convenient access to the site.

 This rationale is likely to provide a conservatively high estimate of traffic usage of the North Road / Katandra Road intersection.

 Conversely, the usage of local street connections, including deviations of existing residential trips from catchments to the north, north east and to a lesser extent north west to access facilities proposed on the site, may be underestimated, particularly if congested conditions are predicted at the North Road / Katandra Road intersection making alternate routes more attractive. 11.2 January 2017 Revised Distribution

11.2.1 In the January 2017 memo, a revised distribution and assignment assessment is provided, which, amongst other considerations, recognizes in practice the use of streets such as Walsh Street and Katandra Road north based on existing travel patterns and connectivity provided to Grange Road. 11.2.2 The revised distribution, shown in Table 4 of the January memo, redirects 7% of supermarket and retail traffic and 4% of other traffic to Grange Road via Walsh Street, with a commensurate reduction in traffic movements in North Road east of Katandra Road.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 38

11.3 Assessment of Traffic Distribution

11.3.1 I have undertaken an independent assessment of likely traffic distribution characteristics of development on the subject site to enable an independent review of the impact of the proposal on the operation of the Katandra Road / North Road intersection and to assess potential impacts of generated traffic movements on local streets to the north and east. 11.3.2 On this basis I have undertaken a detailed first principles review of traffic distribution and assignment of each component use to quantify alternate distribution characteristics which may occur. Supermarket and Retail Traffic Distribution 11.3.3 The proposed supermarket and retail facilities on the site, while attracting a proportion of their trade through linked commuter based trips or from residential apartments proposed within the development, will draw a significant proportion of their trade, and hence traffic generation, from the existing established residential precincts in the immediate area, and pass-by trips drawn predominantly from North Road. 11.3.4 Traffic generated can be expected to consist of a variety of trip types generally broken up into three categories:  New trips specifically generated to the site including from the surrounding residential areas which would otherwise not occur if the facility was not developed.  Diverted trips, being existing supermarket trips currently destined to alternate locations, which may be diverted to the site due to convenience or other market factors. For instance, residents in streets to the north of the site who at present use supermarkets at Glenhuntly or Carnegie, may be attracted to the new supermarket on the site due to its proximity, deviating trips to the streets serving the site. While this may concentrate traffic to the immediate area, overall trip numbers do not increase with impact potentially reduced through shorter trip lengths and options for modal change.  Passing and linked trips on the existing road network which may divert into the site. This can be expected to be largely passing traffic from North Road but may also occur when trips to the supermarket are linked to existing trips to the area such as commuter trips or pickup activity related to existing nearby schools. 11.3.5 In order to estimate the likely composition of generated traffic, and hence inform the distribution of trips, I have referred to the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 12 – Traffic Impacts of Development (2009). 11.3.6 The Austroads Guide sets out a commentary on linked trips (Commentary 8). Table C8.1 sets out “a typical example of the segmentation of traffic generation for shopping centres” sourced from Queensland Department Of Main Roads (2006). A copy of the table is shown below.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 39

Table 11.1 Austroads – Segmentation of Traffic Generation for Shopping Centres

11.3.7 The Austroads Guide defines the three trip types as follows:

11.3.8 These trip types correspond to the trip types described in 11.3.3 11.3.9 For a shopping centre between 3,000sqm and 20,000sqm the research suggests that approximately 50% of trips generated to the site are new trips, 22% diverted trips and 28% undiverted drop in trips. 11.3.10 Whilst North Road provides a key connection to the east and west, I note that there are local road connections to nearby residential catchments which may be preferred over North Road by residents in these catchments. In particular: ― Walsh Street provides a local road connection towards Grange Road and residential catchments to the east and northeast; ― Katandra Road provides a local road connection towards Glen Huntly Road and residential catchments to the north. Katandra Road also provides a local road connection towards Booran Road and the residential catchment to the northwest via the rail crossing at Woodville Avenue; ― Cadby Avenue provides a local road connection from the residential catchment to the south operating as one-way northbound at North Road only. 11.3.11 Given the location of the site, the configuration of the surrounding road network, nature of the generated trips, the location of existing supermarkets and residential catchment areas identified in the Economic Assessment prepared by Deep End Consulting, the following distribution of retail trips by trip type has been estimated.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 40

Table 11.2 – Retail Trip Distribution

SW SE S NE N/NW Trip Trip Total Type Percentage North North Cadby Walsh Katandra Rd Rd Av St Rd

New 50% 30% 22.5% 2.5% 20% 25% 100%

Diverted 22% 40% 40% 0% 10% 10% 100%

Pass-By 28% 45% 45% 0% 0% 10% 100%

Total 36% 33% 1% 12% 18% 100%

11.3.12 In total, it is expected 70% of retail trips will utilize Katandra Road via the North Road intersection, with the balance of trips, largely locally generated, approaching from the north along Katandra Road or the east via Walsh Street. It is noted that a large proportion of the trips utilizing these routes are diverted (existing) trips generated from established residential areas nearby. 11.3.13 It is noted that overall, 28% of trips attracted to the retail components of the development are expected to be “pass by” trips which are existing traffic on the network which deviates into the site, and hence are not new or additional trips on the road network. 11.3.14 The rate for pass by trips has also been adopted by GTA in the January 2017 assessment. 11.3.15 The number and type of trips generated by the indicative supermarket and retail components of the development is detailed in Table 11.3. Table 11.3: Estimated Site Generated Trips

Period New Trips Diverted Trips Pass-by trips Total

Friday PM 335vph 147vph 188vph 670vph Peak

Saturday 437vph 192vph 245vph 874vph Midday Peak

11.3.16 Practically for the purposes of this assessment, new trips and diverted trips are new trips to the area, whilst pass-by trips are not new trips to the area, simply existing trips which are redirected into and out of the indicative development. 11.3.17 In developing the post development peak hour traffic volumes, these pass-by trips therefore need to be redirected as appropriate. Residential Traffic Distribution 11.3.18 As discussed above, Walsh Street, Katandra Road and Woodville Avenue (via Katandra Road) provide local road connections through to Grange Road, Glen Huntly Road and Booran Road respectively. 11.3.19 On this basis, it is expected that a proportion of residential traffic will arrive at/depart the site via the local road connections than has been allowed for in the TIA.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 41

11.3.20 Based on residential trip purposes (work, shop, education and leisure) and the locations of employment zones, shopping centres, schools and recreational activities with respect to the site, I estimate the following residential traffic distribution during the Friday PM peak for apartments with access to Katandra Road: ― North Road to/from the east: 29% ― North Road to/from the west: 35% ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 15% ― Walsh Street to/from the east: 21% 11.3.21 On the Saturday midday peak, I expect a slightly different distribution as a result of less work based trips. My estimated residential traffic distribution during the Saturday midday peak for apartments with access to Katandra Road is as follows: ― North Road to/from the east: 28% ― North Road to/from the west: 30% ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 20% ― Walsh Street to/from the east: 22% Office Traffic Distribution 11.3.22 Similar to the retail and residential discussions above, it is my view that a larger proportion of office traffic will arrive at/depart the site via the local road connections than has been allowed for in the TIA. 11.3.23 Based on the available connections, I estimate the following distribution for the office traffic: ― North Road to/from the east: 40% ― North Road to/from the west: 30% ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 10% ― Walsh Street to/from the east: 20% Gymnasium and Commuter Car Park Traffic Distribution 11.3.24 Similar to the retail, residential and office discussions above, it is my view that a larger proportion of gymnasium and commuter car park traffic will arrive at/depart the site via the local road connections than has been allowed for in the TIA. 11.3.25 For the purposes of this assessment, I have estimated an even split for the gymnasium and commuter car park traffic between the primary connections to the site as follows: ― North Road to/from the east: 25% ― North Road to/from the west: 25% ― Katandra Road to/from the north: 25% ― Walsh Street to/from the east: 25%

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 42

Overall Traffic Distribution and Design Volumes 11.3.26 Having regard to the directional distributions of traffic for each of the land use components contemplated on the site, the overall modelled distribution of traffic movements in percentage terms is shown in Table 11.4, compared to the comparable percentage distribution in the GTA January 2017 analysis. Table 11.4: Comparison of Percentage Traffic Distributions

SW SE S NE N/NW Assessment Total Cadby Katandra North Rd North Rd Walsh St Av Rd

My 35% 32% 0% 14% 19% 100% Assessment

GTA 2017 44% 49% 0% 0%* 7% 100% Assessment

* It is noted that a variation in distribution of traffic to Walsh Street was undertaken, however, for the purposes of analysis at North Road / Katandra Road, this was not factored in. 11.3.27 The estimated generated peak hour traffic movements onto the road network, adopting the revised traffic generation and distribution estimates, compared to the GTA design volumes are shown in Table 11.5 and Figure 11.1 Table 11.5: Comparison of Traffic Generation Distributions (vehicles per hour)

SW SE S NE N/NW Period Assessment Total North North Cadby Walsh Katandra Rd Rd Av St Rd

My 284 262 7 115 152 820 Assessment Friday PM Peak GTA 2017 269 298 0 0 41 608 Assessment

My 346 317 9 130 183 985 Saturday Assessment Midday Peak GTA 2017 307 344 0 0 45 696 Assessment

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 43

Figure 11.1: Graphical Comparison of Traffic Generation Distribution

11.3.28 I note that whilst my assessment results in a higher overall design volumes, my estimated development generated peak hour turning volumes at the North Road / Katandra Road / Cadby Avenue intersection are comparable to those in the TIA, primarily due to my adopted distribution which assigns a marginally higher proportion generated trips to local street to the north and east.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 44

12.1 Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

12.1.1 The GTA 2017 assessment has prepared post development peak hour traffic volumes on the basis of the base case volumes plus the development generated traffic, with the pass-by discount applied. 12.1.2 The post development volumes as reported in the GTA 2017 assessment for the relevant intersections are compared against my post development volumes in Figure 12.1. Figure 12.1: Comparison of Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Arterial Road Impact Assessment:

12

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 45

12.2 Options for Treatment of North Road / Katandra Road

12.2.1 As discussed in Section 8, the TIA identified upgrading works at the North Road / Katandra Road intersection designed to accommodate traffic movements generated by the development whilst maintaining acceptable levels of service for traffic movements on North Road as well as facilitating pedestrian and cycle movements to the station and along the shared path running adjacent to the railway line. 12.2.2 The concept option which requires an overall pavement width of approximately 13m in Katandra Road, can now only be achieved by widening of the kerb on the west side, narrowing the verge accommodating the shared path and station forecourt area. This is opposed by Council due predominantly to the potential for the shared path to be compromised. 12.2.3 GTA has undertaken detailed analysis of options for alternate treatment at the intersection, having regard to the traffic movements required to be accommodated at the intersection and the physical constraints restricting capacity upgrades. 12.2.4 Three options have been identified as described in Table 6 of the January 2017 memo and reproduced in Table 12.1. Table 12.1 – Katandra Road Treatment Options

12.2.5 In effect, Option 2 approximates the concept option exhibited with the amendment, which would now require Katandra Road to be widened on the west side to accommodate the additional stand-up lane with the following exceptions:  The length of the second lane in Katandra Road is reduced to 20m in length.  Cadbury is reverted to one way northbound only, with left turn movements out only. 12.2.6 Option 1 seeks to signalize the intersection as per Option 2 without widening the road, which limits the Katandra Road approach to a single shared left and right turn lane. 12.2.7 Option 3 considers signalizing the intersection while retaining the existing left turn only exit from Katandra Road. This results in outbound movements towards the west being rediverted, notionally performing a u-turn at the North Road / Lillimuir Street intersection 100m east of Katandra Road. 12.2.8 On the basis of available options for treatment of the intersection, I am satisfied that the three options considered are the best available in traffic movements terms.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 46

12.2.9 GTA have conducted a thorough review of the three options having regard to a number of criteria including:  Overall performance of the road network using SIDRA having regard to AM, PM and Saturday peak operation,  Performance of Katandra Road intersection, particularly in relation to queues and delays that can be expected in Kantadra Road having regard to the restricted standup capacity available.  Safety systems review.  SmartRoads Assessment 12.2.10 A weighted merit assessment has subsequently been prepared which provides a largely subjective assessment of each of the criteria and to reach a total “score”. 12.2.11 On this basis, GTA have recommended Option 2 as the preferred treatment. 12.3 Review of Options

12.3.1 In the limited time available, I have not been able to perform a compressive assessment of each option and hence my opinions are based on a review of the GTA criteria, network analysis and SIDRA modelling. 12.3.2 As detailed in Sections 10 and 11, variations in traffic generation and distributions have been identified which results in changes to design volumes on the network, including through the North Road / Katandra Road intersection. 12.3.3 As further discussed in 11.3.28, the variations generation and distribution in volumes at the intersection effectively “cancel each other out” such that peak hour design volumes through the intersection remain comparable. 12.3.4 A test comparison of SIDRA outputs related to degrees of saturation, queues and delays in Katandra Road undertaken by Ratio indicates similar outputs to the criteria assessed by GTA in the January analysis and, based on this I am comfortable forming my initial opinions based on the GTA outputs. 12.3.5 The analysis indicates that, in terms of the overall operation of North Road, similar levels of service, and overall satisfactory operation will result through the modelled North Road network, for all three options. As such I do not consider this to be a substantive issue in selection of the preferred option. 12.3.6 In my opinion, the principle criteria in assessment of each option relates to the operation of Katandra Road to cater for generated traffic and, most importantly the potential traffic implications on the surrounding local street network resulting from reduced capacity being available to accommodate departing traffic. 12.3.7 In particular, it is possible that reduced capacity at the intersection will result in departing traffic seeking alternate routes through local streets, with consequent amenity, safety and operational issues. 12.3.8 In this regard, I have assessed the relative modelling of delays and queues on the northern approach to the intersection modelled by GTA and summarized in Figures 9 and 10 of the January memo, reproduced as Figure 12.2 and Figure 12.3.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 47

Figure 12.2 – Katandra Road – 95%ile Queue Length Summary (GTA 2017)

Figure 12.3 – Katandra Road – Average Delay Summary (GTA 2017)

12.3.9 Figure 12.2 shows that for Options 1 and 3, whereby the Katandra Road approach is limited to a single traffic lane, the 95%ile queue for each design period is modelled to extend approximately 170m back from the intersection, which is effectively back to Walsh Street, compared with queues of between 50 and 70m in Option 2. 12.3.10 Average delays are relatively similar however, modelled between 50 and 60 seconds for Options 1 and 3, compared with between 35 and 47 seconds for Option 2. 12.3.11 It is considered that the extent of queuing as modelled for the single lane option is such that, despite the relatively minor average delay difference, could lead to traffic deviations to avoid the queue, resulting potentially in traffic increases in local streets to the east and north. 12.3.12 As such, it is considered that Option 2 should be preferred as the preferred treatment.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 48

12.3.13 If, for various reasons, the widening of Katandra Road north of the intersection is considered either undesirable or not feasible, then I consider that either Option 1 or Option 3 can be implemented satisfactorily. 12.3.14 In these circumstances, a more detailed local area traffic management review should be undertaken to minimize and mange traffic potential traffic movements in the local area. 12.4 Impact of Widening of Katandra Road

12.4.1 Concern has been expressed as to the implications of widening of Katandra Road on the western side, particularly in relation to the retention of the shared path and safety and operation issues related to pedestrian access to Ormond Station. 12.4.2 In my opinion, a minimum pavement width of 10.5m in Katandra Road would be required to satisfactorily accommodate the recommended two outbound lanes and a single north bound lane, effectively requiring widening on the western side by 1.5m. 12.4.3 It appears that this can be achieved within the notional landscape buffer between the kerb and the shared path, as shown on the Vic Roads cross- section in Figure 8.3. Immediately to the north of North Road, in the vicinity of the entry to the Station, the available width of approximately 5.8m would allow widening while still maintaining the 2.5 m shared path and a 3m separate area adjacent to the station entry. 12.4.4 On this basis, I am comfortable that appropriate widening can be taken without undue safety implications. 12.4.5 It is noted that service trenches appear to be located behind the kerb, and detailed investigations as to the nature of the services and the cost of relocation, if required, should be undertaken in association with further investigations with regard to the feasibility of Option 2. 12.4.6 I have been provided with a plan prepared by GTA Consultants dated 2/2/2017 attached as Appendix A. I have reviewed the plan and note that it matches approximately the minimum dimensions I have described in 12.4.2 above.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 49

13.1 Existing Local Street Network

13.1.1 The existing local road network in the vicinity of the subject site is shown in Figure 13.1 Figure 13.1 – Local Street Network in Vicinity of Site

Impact on Local Street Network: 13.1.2 Katandra Road is classified as Collector Road, running north south

parallel to the Frankston railway line between North Road and Oakleigh Road. North of Oakleigh Road, it continues as Royal Avenue, connecting to Glenhuntly Road at Glenhuntly Railway Station. 13 13.1.3 Katandra Road / Royal Avenue forms part of a collector street network serving the broader area, which includes Leila Road and Oakleigh Road, which run east from Katandra Road to Murrumbeena Road, providing in relation to the subject site, connection to Grange Road from Katandra Road. 13.1.4 Woodville Avenue runs west from Katandra Road via an underpass of the railway line, providing a collector link to Booran Road as well as local access to recreational facilities at Gunn Reserve and Beatty Avenue Reserve. 13.1.5 The collector street network serving the area has roads of varying width, with Katandra Road and Oakeigh Road having pavement widths of approximately 7.5m and Leila Road and Woodville Avenue approximately 9.0m. 13.1.6 The collector street network is supported by a grid network of local streets, which include Walsh Street, which runs between Katandra Road and Grange Road parallel to Leila and Oakleigh Roads. Walsh Street, while classified as a local street, has a pavement width of 9.5m, similar to the higher order Leila Road. 13.1.7 Ulupna Road and Lillimur Street are local roads running in a north south direction between Oakleigh Road, completing the local grid network.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 50

13.1.8 Newham Grove is a local street which runs north from North Road on the west side of the railway line, terminating at Foch Street which runs west to Booran Road. Newham Grove, which currently provides sole access to commuter parking serving Ormond Station, has a pavement width of approximately 7.5m. 13.2 Existing Traffic Volumes

13.2.1 In association with the preparation of the TIA traffic volume surveys were undertaken in local streets in the vicinity of the site in October 2015. 13.2.2 The recorded average daily weekday volumes were recorded as follows: ― Katandra Road, south of Walsh Street: 2,218 vehicles per day ― Katandra Road, north of Walsh Street: 2,020 vehicles per day ― Newham Grove: 620 vehicles per day ― Walsh Street: 1,661 vehicles per day 13.2.3 It is considered that these volumes reflect existing volumes and have been adopted for my analysis. 13.2.4 Recorded volumes are typical for higher order access streets and lower order connector roads, with target volumes in the order of 3,000 vehicles per day specified for these classifications under Clause 56.06 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme in relation to Access and Mobility Management for residential subdivisions. 13.3 Development Generated Daily Traffic Volumes

TIA Assessment 13.3.1 Table 14 of the 31st January 2017 memo prepared by GTA Consultants, provides estimates of generated daily traffic volume increases which were projected from generated (or attracted) traffic from the development scenario tested for the subject site, including volumes reassigned from the original analysis, recognising the connectivity available via Walsh Street to Grange Road. 13.3.2 The following additional volume estimates were projected: ― Katandra Road, south of Walsh Street: 5,375 vehicles per day ― Katandra Road, north of Walsh Street: 416 vehicles per day ― Newham Grove: 50 vehicles per day ― Walsh Street: 250 vehicles per day 13.3.3 As discussed in Sections 10 and 11, I have adopted slightly modified traffic generation and distribution rates for the purposes of my analysis and hence I have undertaken an independent review of daily traffic movements, adopting consistent rates and distribution characteristics derived above. Traffic Generation Rates 13.3.4 My adopted daily traffic generation rates for each of the indicative uses are listed below. ― Apartments: 3 vehicle movements per dwelling ― Townhouses: 5 vehicle movements per dwelling ― Supermarket and Other Retail: 95 vehicle movements per 100sqm ― Office: 10 vehicle movements per 100sqm ― Gymnasium: 20 vehicle movements per 100sqm ― Commuter Car Park: 3 vehicle movements per car space

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 51

13.3.5 My adopted daily traffic generation rates for the apartments and townhouses assume that the daily traffic generation rates are 10 times the peak hour generation rates. This assumption is based on case study data of residential traffic generation. 13.3.6 My adopted daily traffic generation rates for the supermarket and other retail, office and gymnasium have been sourced from the RTA ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments) factored in accordance with the adopted peak hour rates. 13.3.7 My adopted daily traffic generation rate for the commuter car park assumes each space is filled and vacated at least once, with half of the spaces filling and vacating twice. 13.3.8 Overall, it is estimated that the following daily traffic generation will be generated / attracted to the subject site as shown in Table 13.1. Table 13.1: Expected Daily Traffic Generation

Use Estimated Daily Volumes

Dwelling 696vpd

Supermarket and Other Retail 6,554vpd

Office 50vpd

Gymnasium (Restricted Recreation 100vpd Facility)

Commuter Car Park 360vpd

Total 7,760vpd

Overall Traffic Generation 13.3.9 The overall estimated daily traffic generation of 7,760 vehicle movements is 1670 vpd higher than the GTA estimate in Table 12 of the 31st January memo. The difference is largely due to the higher rates I have adopted for the retail component and marginally higher rate for dwellings. 13.3.10 Estimates of distributed daily traffic movements to surrounding street network, compared to the similar analysis provide in Table 14 of the January 2017 GTA memo is provided in Table 13.2. Table 13.2: Comparison of Estimated Daily Development Generated Volumes

Street Table 14 GTA Jan Memo My Assessment

Katandra Road, south of 5,375vpd 5,242vpd Walsh Street

Katandra Road, north of 416vpd 1,390vpd site access

Newham Grove 50vpd 90*vpd

Walsh Street 250vpd 1,038vpd

Total 6,091vpd 7,760vpd

*Volume increases on Newham Grove do not include reductions in existing volumes resulting from the relocation of the commuter car park from Newham Grove to Katandra Road.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 52

13.3.11 Predominate increases in daily volume will occur in the section of Katandra Road south of the site access, with volumes south of Walsh Street estimated to increase by approximately 5,200 vpd. 13.3.12 An additional 1,400 vehicles per day are estimated in Katandra Road immediately north of the site and slightly over 1,000 vehicles per day in Walsh Street east of Katandra Road. 13.3.13 Beyond these points, traffic will dissipate through the permeable local street network. Post development Daily Traffic Volumes 13.3.14 Conservatively assuming that all traffic generated by the proposed development is new to the surrounding road network, estimated increases to daily volumes on local streets in the vicinity of the site are shown in Table 13.3. Table 13.3: Post Development Daily Volumes (vpd)

Street Existing Generated Volumes Post Development

Katandra Road, south of Walsh 2,218vpd 5,242vpd 7,460vpd Street

Katandra Road, 2,020vpd 1,390vpd 3,410vpd north of site access

Newham Grove 620vpd 90vpd 710vpd

Walsh Street 1,661vpd 1,038vpd 2,699vpd

13.4 Local Traffic Implications

13.4.1 Having regard to the nature of the development, the location of the proposed access point to Katandra Road and the permeability of the surrounding local road network, traffic volumes on streets immediately adjacent to the site are expected to increase following development. 13.4.2 Predominant access is expected via Katandra Road to North Road and volumes in this section of the street can be expected to increase significantly in relative terms. Total volumes are however commensurate with a higher order connector road and appropriate for the projected future function of the road as contemplated in the Site Access Plan. 13.4.3 As discussed in Section 8.2, three options are under consideration for the treatment of the North Road / Katandra Road intersection. In traffic management terms, it is desirable for sufficient capacity to be achieved at the intersection to cater comfortably for projected volumes and, as such I support Option 2 in that regard.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 53

13.4.4 Traffic volumes in Katandra Road to the north of the site are also expected to increase, with total volumes of approximately 3,500 vehicles per day estimated. While marginally higher than target volumes for a lower order connector street, the projected volumes are considered acceptable for the following reasons:  Traffic increase estimates are likely to be conservatively high, as it assumes that all traffic generated is new to the street. In practice, a component of traffic modelled is likely to be existing traffic using the street to gain access to commuter parking at Ormond Station, existing trips to Ormond Activity Centre or trips to other shopping destinations to the south including Centre Road, Bentleigh.  Traffic movements will dissipate north of the site, with a component of traffic assigned to Katandra Road subsequently likely to use, Leila Road, Oakleigh Road and Woodville Grove. 13.4.5 Traffic volumes in Walsh Street are expected to increase, given the convenient connection offered between Katandra Road and Grange Road in proximity to the proposed site access. 13.4.6 Increases, while significant in relative terms, remain within acceptable limits for a higher order access street and will be accommodated by the existing geometry of the street and traffic management measures in place. 13.4.7 As with Katandra Road, traffic will dissipate east of Katandra Road due to the permeable street network. 13.4.8 While minor increases in traffic movements are expected in Newham Grove related to the proposed townhouse access, overall volumes are likely to decrease as a consequence of the relocation of existing commuter parking to Katandra Road.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 54

Based on my assessment of the draft amendment and supporting documentation, submissions received and independent analysis undertaken in the course of preparing this report, I have concluded as follows. 1. The site access plan proposing primary vehicular access from Katandra Road and precluding vehicular access from North Road will appropriately provide for access to the site, supporting the arterial function of North Road and pedestrian access to Ormond Station and the development site.

2. The proposal to signalise the intersection of North Road / Katandra Conclusions: Road is supported, providing convenient direct access to the arterial network to the site via Katandra Road and the proposed signalised intersection.

14 3. The preferred option in traffic management terms for treatment at the North Road / Katandra Road intersection is to provide two stand-up lanes on the northern approach as contemplated by Option 2 considered by GTA Consultants in the memo dated 31st January 2017. This option provides sufficient capacity to accommodate projected total traffic movements with minimal queueing in Katandra Road at peak times, without compromising the level of service of arterial traffic on North Road.

4. The widening of Katandra Road on the west side to accommodate the additional stand-up lane can be achieved without compromising the integrity or function of the 2.5 m wide shared path running along Katandra Road or the amenity of the pedestrian forecourt to Ormond Station.

5. In the event that Option 2 is not supported or feasible, Option 1 or 3 will provide adequately for projected traffic volumes, subject to traffic management measures being considered to manage queueing at peak times and to discourage traffic redistributions to alternate routes.

6. Traffic increases projected in local streets in the vicinity of the site are considered acceptable and commensurate with the existing traffic function of the network.

7. Parking controls within the amendment should be structured to provide for standard and minimum rates, providing a range of parking between covering expected generated demands to a lower level supporting the objectives of a transit oriented development.

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 55

Concept Intersection Plan

Appendix A

Ormond Station, Ormond/ 14036T 56 P LOT T ED B Y : R in j u .A b r a h a m ON 0 3 - F e b - 17 A T 9 :5 3 :3 4 A M RAILWAY LINE CADBY AVE

R O A D N O R T H

KATANDRA NEWHAM REMOVE PARKINGSPACES MATCH INTOEXISTING DESIGNER DATE PROPOSED CONCEPTINTERSECTION LAYOUT ROAD NORTH RD/KATANDRA /CADBYAV 02 FEBRUARY'17 A.DELL'ISOLA GTA

ORMOND STATION GROVE www.gta.com.au ORMOND c o nsultants PRELIMINARY PLAN DRAWING NO. SCALE ONLY SUBJECTTOCHANGE FOR DISCUSSIONPURPOSES 1:500 @A3 WITHOUT NOTIFICATION V117670-01-P1 MELWAY REF 68/E8