245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street Blackburn Goodwin St... · 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59...

VCAT Reference: P227/2013

245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street Blackburn

Prepared for: Dolce Development Pty Ltd

Instructed by: Best Hooper

Site Inspections: Thursday 21 March, 2013 (by Nath Chewta) Friday 22 March, 2013 (by Nath Chewta) Thursday 4 April, 2013 (by Jason Walsh)

Date of Report: 18 April 2013

STATEMENT TO VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BY JASON LEE WALSH, TRAFFIC ENGINEER

JASON WALSH

B.E. (Civil), B.Sc., V.P.E.L.A.

245-253 WHITEHORSE ROAD & 59 GOODWIN STREET, BLACKBURN

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Evidence Statement

Study Team: Jason Walsh B.E. (Civil), B.SC., V.P.E.L.A.

Nath Chewta B.E. (Civil), B.BA

Released By:

SIGNED 18 April 2013

DATE

Document Status: fINAL

COPYRIGHT: The ideas and material contained in this document are the property of Traffix Group (Traffix Group Pty Ltd – ABN 32 100 481 570, Traffix Survey Pty Ltd – ABN 57 120 461 510, Traffix Design Pty Ltd – ABN 41 060 899 443). Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Traffix Group constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Traffix Group’s client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Traffix Group and its client. Traffix Group accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

13659vcat2013 Page 2

VCAT Ref: P227/2013 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street, Blackburn

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

3 PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 USE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 CAR PARKING & ACCESS ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.3 BICYCLE PARKING .................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4 LOCALITY & EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................... 6

5 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 ROAD NETWORK ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 5.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.3 TRAFFIC SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.4 EXISTING INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 11 5.5 TRAFFIC GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................................................. 12 5.6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................................... 13

6 PARKING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 16

6.1 CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 16 6.2 CAR PARKING LAYOUT ........................................................................................................................................... 16

7 BICYCLE PARKING ...................................................................................................................................................... 17

8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 18



1 INTRODUCTION

I have been commissioned by Dolce Development Pty Ltd to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed residential development at 245-253 Whitehorse Road and 59 Goodwin Street in Blackburn.

In the course of preparing this statement, I have inspected the subject land, reviewed development plans, and assessed the car parking and traffic impacts of the development.

My qualifications and experience to undertake the following assessment are set out in Appendix A.



2 BACKGROUND An application to develop the subject land for residential use with a basement car park, and reduce the requirement for car parking was submitted to the Whitehorse City Council in October 2012.

A traffic assessment report prepared by my firm accompanied the application.

The application was referred to VicRoads, who had no objection to the proposal.

On 21 January 2013, Council issued a Notice of Refusal to Grant a permit, citing a number of grounds. None of the grounds relate specifically to car parking or traffic issues.

A review of the delegate’s report reveals that Council’s traffic engineers were generally supportive of the parking provision and agreed that the traffic impacts were acceptable.

Following receipt of the Refusal, the Applicant lodged an Application for Review to the Tribunal.

A number of third parties have submitted Statement of Grounds, citing car parking and traffic amongst other issues.

Revised plans, dated 21 March 2013, have been circulated.

My assessment has been undertaken on the latest circulated plans.



3 PROPOSAL 3.1 USE

The development proposes 91 dwellings and a basement car park. The dwellings comprise:

34 x 1-bedroom apartments.

52 x 2-bedroom apartments, and

5 x 2-bedroom townhouses.

3.2 CAR PARKING & ACCESS

The plans illustrate a car park parking provision of 110 car spaces contained within a basement level. It is intended to allocate a single car space to each apartment and townhouse and 18 car spaces, inclusive of two (2) disabled bays, for visitors. This results in a single car space being able to be sold as a second car space for one of the units.

Access is proposed to Goodwin Street, and will be sited approximately 45 metres north of Whitehorse Road. The 6.1 metre wide access ramp will provide for two-way movements to and from the basement.

The existing crossovers will be reinstated as kerb and channel on Goodwin Street and Whitehorse Road, creating the potential for an additional on-street car space.

3.3 BICYCLE PARKING

The development proposes to provide a total of 31 bicycle spaces, comprising 21 secure tenant spaces within the basement, and 10 visitor spaces at-grade near to the Goodwin Street vehicle entry.

3.4 WASTE MANAGEMENT

A Waste Management Plan has been prepared. Waste will be stored in the basement, with collection undertaken by a private contractor from Goodwin Street. The contractor or body corporate representative will transfer bins to the street for collection and return the bins following collection.



4 LOCALITY & EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site, addressed as 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street, Blackburn is located at the north-east corner of the Whitehorse Road and Goodwin Street intersection in Blackburn.

A locality plan of the site is presented in Figure 1.

Reproduced with permission from Melway Publishing Pty Ltd.

Figure 1: Locality Plan

The site is irregular in shape with a total site area of approximately 5,250 square metres. The site has frontages to Whitehorse Road of approximately 81 metres, and to Goodwin Street of approximately 75 metres.

The site comprises three (3) individual land titles, and is currently occupied by two (2) single-storey residential tenancies and a residential hotel (Nunawading Motor Inn). Access to each parcel is taken via independent crossovers.

The site is zoned Residential 1 (R1Z) with a mix of uses in the surrounding area, including commercial, retail and industrial uses to the south of Whitehorse Road as shown in Figure 2.

Subject Site



Figure 2: Planning Scheme Zoning Map

SUBJECT SITE



5 TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 ROAD NETWORK

Whitehorse Road is a Road Zone Category 1 and a major east-west arterial under VicRoads management. Whitehorse Road extends east from Burke Road and continues as the Maroondah Highway in Croydon North.

In the vicinity of the site, Whitehorse Road operates as a divided carriageway providing three (3) traffic lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit adjacent to the subject site is 70kmh with morning and evening peak clearway times.

Goodwin Street is a local residential street aligned in a north-south direction, extending north from Whitehorse Road to connect to Springfield Road. Goodwin Street has a pavement width of 7.7 metres. Parking is typically unrestricted, with the exception of ‘No Stopping’ on the east side of Goodwin on the approach to Whitehorse Road.

The intersection of Goodwin Street and Whitehorse Road is arranged as a T-intersection, with priority afforded to Whitehorse Road. Movements in to and out of Goodwin Street are restricted to left-in / left-out due to the constructed median on Whitehorse Road.

Photographs illustrating the nearby road network are shown from Figure 3 to Figure 6.

Figure 3: Whitehorse Rd – View East Figure 4: Whitehorse Rd – View West

Figure 5: Goodwin St – View North Figure 6: Goodwin St – View South



5.2 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The development site has reasonable access to public transport within convenient walking distance, with a number of bus routes operating proximate to the subject site. Specifically, bus route 286 provides a service between Box Hill and the Pines and operates along Goodwin Street with a stop located on the site’s frontage.

Bus route 901 providing a service between Frankston and Melbourne Airport operates along Whitehorse Road, with the nearest stop approximately 150 metres to the west near Linden Street.

The key public transport services located within walking distance of the site are summarised in

Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 7.

Table 1: Public Transport Services in the Vicinity of the Subject Site

Service Between Via Distance to Node

Smart Bus Route 901

Frankston – Melbourne Airport

Various including Blackburn Railway

Station

150m on Whitehorse Rd

Smart Bus Route 286

Box Hill - The Pines Shopping Centre

Blackburn Railway Station

on Goodwin St

Night Rider 966

City – Croydon - Lilydale Victoria St &

Maroondah Hwy 150m on Whitehorse

Rd

Figure 7: TravelSmart Map

5.3 TRAFFIC SURVEYS

The application report included peak hour traffic surveys at the intersection of Whitehorse Road and Goodwin Street, conducted on Tuesday 8th November, 2011 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm.

The peak hour recorded volumes are illustrated in Figure 8.

SUBJECT SITE

13659vcat2013 Page 10


Figure 8: Peak Hour Traffic Counts – November 2011

Observation during these times highlighted significant gaps in Whitehorse Road east bound traffic. These gaps occur as a result of platooning caused by the upstream traffic signals at Surrey Road. In effect, the gaps allow reasonable egress from Goodwin Street and the opportunity to travel across to the existing median break at Terracotta Drive to facilitate a U-turn for motorists destined towards the City.

To further understand traffic conditions, my firm commissioned additional peak hour surveys on Thursday 21st March 2013, recording all traffic movements for the intersections of Whitehorse Road, Goodwin Street and Terracotta Drive. The surveyed times were 7.00AM to 9.00AM and 4.00PM-6.30PM.

The peak hour results of the traffic surveys are presented at Figure 9. The morning peak volume period was observed 8AM to 9AM on Whitehorse Road and Goodwin Street and 7.45AM to 8.45AM on Whitehorse Road and Terracotta Drive. The afternoon peak hour was recorded 4.45PM and 5.45PM for each intersection.

Based on the 2011 and 2013 surveys, it is estimated that Goodwin Street has a daily traffic volume of in the order of 1,200 vehicles.

Figure 9: Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts: Whitehorse Rd / Goodwin St & Whitehorse Rd / Terracotta Dr (2013)

Go

od

win

St

PM AM

Whitehorse Rd

22

65

74 34

2004 1005

1316 2060

PM AM

Whitehorse Rd

45

116 79 27

1863 1012 Go

od

win

St

PM AM

Whitehorse Rd

1232 1998

Terr

aco

tta

Dr

148

47

29 52

38 94

15 44

13659vcat2013 Page 11


5.4 EXISTING INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE

To determine the prevailing conditions of the Whitehorse Road / Goodwin Street and Whitehorse Road / Terracotta Drive intersections, a SIDRA analysis has been undertaken on the 2013 traffic counts and prevailing road geometry.

SIDRA is a computer program originally developed by the Australian Road Research Board, which can be used to analyse the operation of intersections. SIDRA provides information about the capacity of an intersection in terms of a range of parameters, as described below:

Degree of Saturation (D.O.S.) is the ratio of the volume of traffic observed making a particular movement compared to the maximum capacity for that movement. Various values of degree of saturation and their rating are shown below.

Up to 0.6 Excellent

0.6 to 0.7 Very Good

0.7 to 0.8 Good

0.8 to 0.9 Acceptable

0.9 to 1.0 Poor

Above 1.0 Very Poor

95th Percentile Queue represents the maximum queue length, in metres, that can be expected in 95% of observed queue lengths in the peak hour.

Average Delay (seconds) is the average delay time that can be expected for all vehicles making a particular movement in the peak hour.

The results of the SIDRA analysis, summarised in Table 2 and Table 3, reveal the intersections currently operate in the ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ categories in both peak periods.

Table 2: Whitehorse Rd / Goodwin St – Peak Hour Existing Conditions Analysis

Leg Movement

AM Peak PM Peak

DoS Av.

Delay (s) 95th’ile

Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)

95th’ile Queue (m)

Goodwin St (N) Left 0.24 17 7 0.20 27 5

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Left 0.19 9 - 0.35 9 -

Through 0.19 - - 0.35 - -

13659vcat2013 Page 12


Table 3: Whitehorse Rd / Terracotta Dr – Peak Hour Existing Conditions Analysis

Leg Movement

AM Peak PM Peak

DoS Av.


Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)


Terracotta Dr (S) Left 0.34 41 9 0.54 29 18

Whitehorse Rd (E)

Left 0.37 8 - 0.23 9 -

Through 0.37 - - 0.23 - -

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Through 0.18 - - 0.34 - -

Right (U-turn)

0.76 52 30 0.25 23 6

5.5 TRAFFIC GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION

VicCode 2, the predecessor of The Good Design Guide for Medium Density Housing, suggests, as a guide, adoption of a traffic generation range of 6-7 vehicle trips per day for townhouses or apartments.

The RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (Ver. 2.2, October 2002) adopts a daily traffic rate of 5 – 6.5 vehicle movements per dwelling inclusive of 0.5-0.65 weekday peak hour vehicle trips per hour per apartment during peak hours.

In view of the above, and in consideration of the size of the apartments and location of the development, I consider that a design traffic generation rate of 6 vehicles per day (vpd) per apartment is appropriate. Peak hour trips will be in the order of 10 percent of the daily traffic generation, that is, 0.6 vehicles per hour (vph) per apartment.

Application of this rate to the 91 dwellings, results in a daily traffic generation of 546 movements, inclusive of 55 movements during peak hours.

It is typical to adopt a residential distribution comprising 20% arrivals and 80% departures in the morning peak hour, and 60% arrivals and 40% departures during the afternoon peak hour. It is therefore projected that the development will generate:

AM PEAK: 11 arrivals and 44 departures

PM PEAK: 33 arrivals and 22 departures

For the purposes of the assessment, the peak hour traffic distribution for the site has been assumed based on 30% of traffic being generated to / from the north (Eastern Freeway, local shops on Springfield Road), and 70% to / from the south (Whitehorse Road).

Based on the above assumptions, it is projected that the daily post development Goodwin Street traffic volume will be approximately 1,600 vehicles south of the proposed development access.

Clause 56 of the Planning Scheme outlines a target volume of 2,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day for Access Streets, which have a pavement width 7 – 7.5 metres. Goodwin Street operates as an access street, with a pavement width of approximately 7.7 metres, and therefore the projected traffic volume is within the expected function and operation of the street.

Figure 10 illustrates the projected peak hour turning movements at the site access.

13659vcat2013 Page 13


Figure 10: Projected Peak Hour Development Traffic

5.6 TRAFFIC IMPACTS

It is projected that in the order of 17 movements, or on average a movement approximately every three minutes in peak hours, will travel to / from the north along Goodwin Street. This level of traffic is relatively low and will have no material impact on the operation of the road network, including the intersection of Springfield Road and Goodwin Street.

In regard to the intersection of Whitehorse Road and Goodwin Street, the development is projected to distribute in the order of 40 movements to / from this intersection.

For the purposes of this assessment it will be presumed that movements to / from Whitehorse Road will be split 67% to the west and 33% to the east. Movements will therefore comprise:

AM Peak

Goodwin Street Left Turn Out 30 movements, including 20 movements to the centre median to undertake a u-turn at Terracotta Drive.

Goodwin Street Left Turn In – 8 movements, including 3 u-turn movements at the Linden Street median break

PM Peak

Goodwin Street Left Turn Out 15 movements, including 10 movements to the centre median to undertake a u-turn at Terracotta Drive.

Goodwin Street Left Turn In – 23 movements, including 8 u-turn movements at the Linden Street median break

The projected post development peak hour traffic volumes have been imposed on existing volumes and are presented in Figure 11.

It is noted that the development traffic generated to the Whitehorse Road / Linden Street intersection will be in the order of three (3) and eight (8) movements in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. This is a low level of traffic and will have no material impact to the performance of this intersection.

Go

od

win

St

PM AM

Site Access

7 14 10

3

15 30

23

8

13659vcat2013 Page 14


Figure 11: Projected Post Development Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

To determine the post development operation of the intersection, the predicted AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes have been input to SIDRA, analysed and compared to existing conditions.

The results of the SIDRA analysis are summarised in Table 4 to Table 7, and highlight that traffic generated by the development can be assimilated by the existing road network, with no significant change to its operation.

Table 4: Whitehorse Rd / Goodwin St Intersection – SIDRA AM Peak Hour Comparison

Leg Movement

Existing AM Peak Projected AM Peak

DoS Av.


Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)


Goodwin St (N) Left 0.24 17 7 0.31 18 10

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Left 0.19 9 - 0.19 9 -

Through 0.19 - - 0.19 - -

Table 5: Whitehorse Rd / Goodwin St Intersection – SIDRA PM Peak Hour Comparison

Leg Movement

Existing PM Peak Projected PM Peak

DoS Av.


Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)


Goodwin St (N) Left 0.20 27 5 0.27 29 7

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Left 0.35 9 - 0.36 9 -

Through 0.35 - - 0.36 - -

The results of the analysis of the intersection of Goodwin Street and Whitehorse Road demonstrate that the additional traffic can be accommodated with only minor increases to delays and queues for motorists egressing Goodwin Street.

PM AM

Whitehorse Rd

60

146 102 35

1863 1012 Go

od

win

St

PM AM

Whitehorse Rd

1232 1998

Terr

aco

tta

Dr

148

47

39 72

38 94

13659vcat2013 Page 15


Table 6: Whitehorse Rd / Terracotta Dr Intersection – SIDRA AM Peak Hour Comparison

Leg Movement

AM Peak Projected AM Peak

DoS Av.


Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)


Terracotta Dr (S)

Left 0.34 41 8 0.34 41 8

Whitehorse Rd (E)

Left 0.37 8 - 0.37 8 -

Through 0.37 - - 0.37 - -

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Through 0.18 - - 0.18 - -

Right (U-turn) 0.76 52 30 0.87 70 44

Table 7: Whitehorse Rd / Terracotta Dr Intersection – SIDRA PM Peak Hour Comparison

Leg Movement

PM Peak Projected PM Peak

DoS Av.


Queue (m) DoS

Av. Delay (s)


Terracotta Dr (S)

Left 0.54 29 18 0.54 29 18

Whitehorse Rd (E)

Left 0.23 9 - 0.23 9 -

Through 0.23 - - 0.23 - -

Whitehorse Rd (W)

Through 0.34 - - 0.34 - -

Right (U-turn) 0.25 23 6 0.29 24 7

In existing conditions, high west bound traffic volumes can result in motorists performing a u-turn at Terracotta Drive experiencing some delay. The development is projected to add 20 movements, or on average a movement every three (3) minutes during peak periods, to this intersection. This is a modest increase to traffic volumes and can be accommodated, with noticeable but manageable impacts.

The above analysis is considered relatively conservative, as it includes traffic generated by the existing uses on the site.

Based on the above assessment, I am satisfied that development traffic, whilst noticeable, can be accommodated by the surrounding road network. It is noted that both VicRoads and Council’s traffic engineer have agreed that traffic impacts are manageable.

13659vcat2013 Page 16


6 PARKING CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS

The car parking requirements for the proposed development are outlined under Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme as follows.

1 space to each one and two bedroom dwelling.

1 visitor space to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

Application of the above rates to the proposed development (91 dwellings) results in a statutory requirement for 109 car spaces, comprising, 91 tenant spaces and 181 visitor spaces.

The proposed car parking provision of 110 car spaces, inclusive of an allocation of 18 car spaces for visitors, meets the statutory car parking requirements, and therefore does not need a permit for a waiver of car parking.

6.2 CAR PARKING LAYOUT

I have reviewed the proposed car park layout and access arrangements under the relevant requirements of the Planning Scheme and Australian Standard for off-street parking facilities, where relevant.

The car park has largely been designed to accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

Car spaces have been illustrated with minimum dimensions of 2.6 metres wide, 4.9 metres deep, and accessed from aisles 6.4 metres wide.

Blind aisles have been appropriately extended and clearances have been provided for spaces adjacent to a wall.

Car spaces 10, 11, 53, 54 and 71 have columns that sit within the door opening envelope and technically should be 2.7 metres wide. I am of the view that this is a small number of car spaces in the overall provision, and I am satisfied that with a minimum width of 2.6 metres these spaces are still conveniently accessible.

The basement ramp is setback approximately 4 metres from Goodwin Street and then includes a transition grade of 1 in 8 for two (2) metres. I am satisfied that this arrangement is consistent with the requirements of the Planning Scheme, allowing exiting motorists to prop, assess pedestrian traffic and give way if required.

The ramp has a maximum grade of 1 in 5, which is consistent with the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

Based on the foregoing assessment, I am satisfied that the proposed car parking layout and access arrangements have been designed to accord with, or meet the intent of the Planning Scheme and Australian Standards for ramp grades, transitions and head clearances, and will provide for convenient and accessible parking.

1 Practice Note 22 (June, 2012) specifies that where a car parking calculation results in a requirement that is not a whole

number, the number of spaces should be rounded down to the nearest whole number.

13659vcat2013 Page 17


7 BICYCLE PARKING Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme sets out the statutory bicycle parking requirements for new developments. Residential developments require the provision of a resident space for every five (5) dwellings and a visitor space for every 10 dwellings.

Application of these rates to the proposed development equates to a requirement to provide 27 bicycle spaces, comprising 18 resident spaces and nine (9) visitor spaces.

The development plans illustrate a total 31 bicycle spaces, exceeding the statutory requirements. The 31 bicycle spaces comprise 21 secure tenant spaces within the basement, and 10 at-grade spaces (provided as five bicycle hoops) for visitors.

Accordingly, the bicycle parking provision for the development is considered satisfactory.

13659vcat2013 Page 18


8 CONCLUSIONS Having visited the site, reviewed relevant documents and plans, and undertaken an assessment of the parking and traffic conditions, I am of the opinion that:-

a) The development will generate in the order of 546 vehicles per day, inclusive of 55 movements during peak hours.

b) This level of traffic, whilst noticeable, can be accommodated by Goodwin Street, and at the intersection of Goodwin Street / Whitehorse Road and Terracotta Drive / Whitehorse Road.

c) The development has a resident and visitor car parking requirement for 109 car spaces, which is met by the proposed provision of 110 on-site spaces.

d) The car park layout and access will provide for convenient access to and from the development and individual car spaces.

e) The development proposes a bicycle provision of 31 spaces, exceeding the statutory bicycle parking requirements.

f) There are no traffic engineering reasons why a planning permit for the proposed residential development should be refused, subject to the appropriate conditions.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and there are no matters of significance which I regard as relevant which, to the best of my knowledge, have been withheld from the Tribunal.

JASON WALSH

DIRECTOR TRAFFIX GROUP 18 April 2013

Name

Jason Walsh - Director, Traffix Group Pty Ltd

Address

Suite 8, 431 Burke Road GLEN IRIS VICTORIA 3146

Qualifications

My educational qualifications and membership of professional associations are as follows:-

Bachelor of Civil Engineering, Monash University

Bachelor of Science, Monash University

Member, Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association

Experience

I have approximately 17 years experience in Traffic Engineering including,

1995-2000 at Turnbull Fenner (now Traffix Group), including short term placements at the cities of Bayside and Whittlesea,

2000-2011 at Grogan Richards Pty Ltd (now Cardno),

2011-present at Traffix Group.

Areas of Expertise

Car parking and Traffic.

Traffic advice and assessment of land uses and development proposals to planning authorities, government agencies, corporations and developers (including major residential, retail, food and drink, commercial, industrial, institutional and mixed use projects.

Preparation and presentation of evidence before VCAT and Panels.

Expertise to Prepare this Assessment

My experience and expertise over the past 18 years, including involvement with varied forms of developments, qualifies me to comment on the traffic implications of the proposed development.

Instructions

I was retained by Best Hooper on behalf of Dolce Development Pty Ltd in March 2013 to undertake a traffic engineering assessment and prepare an evidence statement for the residential development of 245-253 Whitehorse Road and 59 Goodwin Street, Blackburn.


Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon

Circulated development plans prepared by Elenberg Fraser dated 21 March 2013.

Third Party Statement of Grounds.

City of Whitehorse Statutory Planning Delegate Report, dated 21 January 2013.

Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit issued by Whitehorse City Council, dated 21 January 2013.

AustRoads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections, version 2009.

Traffic Impact Assessments prepared by Traffix Group, dated 2 December 2011 and 19 November 2012.

Traffix letter response to VicRoads, dated 10 May 2012.

Turning movement surveys commissioned by Traffix Survey.

Public Transport Victoria, http://ptv.vic.gov.au/, date viewed 25 March 2013.

Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Site inspection, and

Relevant experience.

Documents Taken into Account

See above.

Identity of Persons Undertaking Work

Jason Walsh as per the evidence statement.

Nath Chewta (Engineer, Traffix Group) assisted with preparation of the evidence report.

Other suitably qualified staff assisted with the collection of traffic survey data.

Summary of Opinions

See Conclusions section of the evidence statement.


http://ptv.vic.gov.au/

245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street Blackburn Goodwin St... · 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59...

Documents

Transcript of 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59 Goodwin Street Blackburn Goodwin St... · 245-253 Whitehorse Road & 59...