pruszinski architects - dac.sa.gov.au · the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and specifically The...

PLANNING STATEMENT

254‐256 THE PARADE NORWOOD SOUTH AUSTRALIA 2nd December 2014

PROJECT TEAM Client: KEVIN CHAPLEY AND ZACK KALAMBOYAS

Architects: PRUSZINSKI ARCHITECTS

Planners: CONNOR HOLMES

Acoustics: AURECON

Traffic engineering: GTA

pruszinski architects pruszinski architects pty ltd ACN070121407 Level 6 149 flinders street adelaide ph:08 82233123

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS

1. Architect’s Statement – Pruszinski Architects

2. Planning Report ‐ Connor Holmes

3. Acoustic Report ‐ Aurecon

4. Traffic Report – GTA

5. Waste Management Statement – Pruszinski Architects

6. SAPN Powerline Clearance Declaration

DOCUMENTS

1. Site Context

2. Surrounding Site Conditions

3. Exterior Design Evolution

4. Ground Floor Plan

5. Level 1 Floor Plan



8. Level 4‐5 Floor Plan

9. Roof Plan

10. Sunshading Diagrams

11. Massing Sections

12. Sections

13. Exterior Design Evolution

14. Exterior Design

15. Elevations

16. Streetscapes

17. Material Concept

ARCHITECT’S STATEMENT 254‐256 The Parade, Norwood. The proposed development at 254‐256 The Parade is located South West of the Portrush Road & The Parade intersection. To the West along The Parade, the predominant land uses are Restaurants, Cafés, Showrooms and Retail Shops. To the North, East and South are predominantly Residential land uses including Town Houses & Cottages as well as the occasional Aged Care and Educational use. The existing site condition is a single storey display type retail establishment with a full depth car park to the west of the site. The streetscape around the site consists of repetitive, low scale built forms that make up the retail shops, cafés and restaurants along The Parade. These repetitive forms are occasionally broken by laneways into surrounding streets and gaps that form Malls into surrounding shops, cafés and larger retailers. Exploring deeper into the surrounding suburb, especially the adjacent laneway cottages and other houses to the east, provides some insight into how the residents use their available space. With local housing often built to within mere meters of the front and side boundaries, the residents have inhabited their front gardens and porches with tables, seating and screening plants, with the front room in the house often a bedroom. The local residents are quite used to living next to the public realm. These ideas translate into the project’s built form on the main street frontage by providing retail spaces of similar scale to that found within the local context, separated by a wide laneway access path with seating areas and plantings leading to the residential apartment building core. This provides a space for residents to meet with friends or inhabit with direct access to the vibrancy of The Parade. The access lane is bounded by windows and doors into the retail spaces. The width of the entry lane continues up into the fabric of the building and separates the residential apartments in to two separated building forms. This separation not only enables the apartments to effectively cross ventilate their internal space but provides each resident with sight lines and a link to The Parade from their front door reminding residents of their urban context. Towards The Parade street frontage, 4 Apartments site above the ground floor retail spaces. The first floor balcony of the neighbouring State Heritage place provides a strong visual element that is continued in the project’s bold canopy line and folds around to provide a visual gap to the west neighbours single storey roof line. To the rear of the site from just below ground floor, to the top of eastern side of level 2 is situated an internal car parking zone that is screened from The Parade context. A single vehicular access point is provided at the rear of the site that is connected to Portrush Road via the rear lane, freeing up The Parade for pedestrian access.

Set 6m back from The Parade street frontage rises the residential components of the development to a height of 18.5m. This reduces the bulk and scale on the main street frontage and also provides clear sight lines to the neighbouring State Heritage place and beyond from vantage points along the parade. The separation of the two residential components is emphasised by the familiar form of sloping roof sections to the apartment buildings. Glancing sight lines between the buildings provide views of the elevated foot paths leading to apartment entries. These elevated footpaths provide naturally ventilated and day light lit spaces whilst providing weather and sun protection to residents. The design of external decks break up the rectilinear form of the building and where situated, soften the corners of the main buildings. The facades are divided into vertical architectural forms and highlight the horizontal extent of different apartments. The apartments are laid out between levels 2 and 5 with a mix of 12 one bed apartments, 21 two bed apartments and 3 three bed apartments; 36 in total, providing a mixture of sizes, views, aspects and locations. Every apartment will have openings on both sides creating cross ventilation, effectively reducing air conditioning load and lighting demands. Mixture of small windows and overhangs to western and eastern facades, plus passive protection to north facade. High performance (low E) glazing. Energy recovery on lift. Tri‐stream waste system. Water collection for landscaping. Use of sustainable building materials and interior products where possible. The design responds to key features of The Parade in the repetition of low scale built form on the street frontage (retail) as well as lanes and malls between buildings and retailers whilst offering residents visual access to The Parade.

pruszinski archiects

254-256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PLANNING STATEMENT

PREPARED ON BEHALF OF KEVIN CHAPLEY OCTOBER 2014

DOCUMENT CONTROL

DISCLAIMER

The opinions, estimates and information given herein or otherwise in relation hereto are made by Connor Holmes in their best judgement, in good faith and as far as possible based on data or sources which are believed to be reliable. With the exception of the party to whom this document is specifically addressed, Connor Holmes, its directors, employees and agents expressly disclaim any liability and responsibility to any person whether a reader of this document or not in respect of anything and of the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance whether wholly or partially upon the whole or any part of the contents of this document. All information contained within this document is

confidential. Unauthorised reproduction of this document without consent may warrant legal action.

COPYRIGHT ©

Connor Holmes 2014. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, recording taping,

or information retrieval systems) without the prior written permission of Connor Holmes.

REVISION DESCRIPTION AUTHOR DATE

V1 Draft Report CV 25.09.14

V2 Final Report CV 28.10.14

REPORT 64026-001 CONTENT

CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION 1

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2. PROPOSAL 2

2.1 Proposal Summary 2

2.2 Retail Design 3

2.3 Residential Apartment Design 3

2.4 Car Parking and Access 3

2.5 Materials, Colours and Landscaping 4

2.6 Waste Management 4

2.7 Environmental 4

2.8 Affordable Housing 5

2.9 Category of Development 5

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3. SITE AND LOCALITY 6

3.1 Site 6

3.2 Locality 7

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 10

4.1 Desired Character 10

4.2 Building Design, Appearance and Heritage 11

4.3 Apartment Amenity 12

4.4 Traffic and Access 13

4.5 Wind Conditions 14

4.6 Noise 14

4.7 Waste 15

4.8 Crime Prevention 16

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. CONCLUSION 17

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The statement has been prepared in support of a proposal seeking to construct a

mixed use multi-level residential and retail development at 254-256 The Parade,

Norwood.

In our opinion, the proposal strongly accords with the desired character envisaged for

the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and specifically The Parade East Policy Area. The

proposal achieves a human scale through an appropriate built form response that is

sympathetic to it its heritage context but also through a high quality landscaped

communal entry garden/plaza space accessible from The Parade.

A high quality apartment amenity is offered that will not be adversely affected in the

event that adjoining properties are redeveloped in the future.

The proposal appropriately removes the existing access on The Parade to create a

continuous active retail frontage on ground level and identifies Portrush Road as the

most appropriate and safer means to access and egress the development.

The proposal is a category 1 form of development and in our opinion displays a

substantial degree of planning merit to warrant Development Plan Consent.


2. PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposal Summary The proposal seeks to construct a mixed use multi-level residential and retail development within the District Centre (Norwood) Zone of the City of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters. The proposed development is comprised of two ground level retail shops, four levels of

residential apartments and associated car parking with access off Portrush Road. Following is summary of each key element of the proposal.


2.2 Retail Design Two retail shops are proposed along The Parade frontage. One tenancy comprises a floor area of 170 square metres and one tenancy comprises a floor area of 200 square metres. The two tenancies are separated by a communal entry garden/plaza space for both retail and residential visitors and the residents who may also seek direct access

from the apartments to The Parade. Notwithstanding the void between the two retail tenancies, it is considered that the retail element of the proposal continues the fine grain retail character of The Parade. The retail tenancies have a finished parapet height of 4.2m.

2.3 Residential Apartment Design

A total of 36 apartments are proposed comprising 12 one bedroom, 21 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom layouts. The apartments are contained on Levels 2 to 5 and are a range of sizes offering different views and aspects.

The one bedroom apartments have floor areas ranging between 53 square metres and 66 square metres and balconies ranging between 6.2 square metres and 10.1 square metres. The two bedroom apartments have floor areas ranging between 78 square metres and 95 squares metres and balconies ranging between 7.84 square metres and 17.22 square metres. The three bedroom apartments have a typical floor area of 122

square metres and balcony of 17.22 square metres. All balconies have a minimum dimension of 2m. All living areas and bedrooms of every apartment have direct access to natural light and are able to be naturally ventilated. The ability for each apartment to obtain natural light and be capable of being naturally ventilated is facilitated by the incorporation of the elevated walkways which are effectively a translation of the

ground level communal entry garden/plaza space at each upper level. This design

feature effectively separates the building into two forms to maximise the penetration of natural light and ventilation through the building but also provides weather and sun protection to residents and greater overall passive surveillance. Level 2 apartments are built to The Parade frontage and the residential levels between level 3 and 5 are setback 6m from The Parade providing an overall building height of

18.5m. The setback from The Parade not only reduces the bulk and scale of the building however it strengthens the predominant built form character along The Parade and provides clear sight lines to the neighbouring State Heritage place and beyond from vantage points along The Parade. The bulk and scale of the building is further articulated by the deliberate placement of balconies on corners of each building form. The placement of balconies at the corner softens these edges whilst breaking up the

rectilinear form of the buildings. The facades are also divided into vertical architectural forms and highlight the horizontal extent of different apartments. The primary entrance to the residential apartment lobby is from The Parade between

the retail tenancies however residents have direct access between apartments and the car park levels.

2.4 Car Parking and Access The proposal provides a total of 44 car spaces in the form of a basement car park (15 car spaces), ground level car park (8 car spaces including 2 car spaces for people with

disabilities) and a first floor car park (21 car spaces). All car parks are linked via internal ramps and all access is provided via the private road which can be accessed on Portrush Road. Bicycle parking for residents (total 20) is provided in a secure store within the car park (Level B1) and a further store for residents is provided at ground level to the rear of the eastern retail tenancy (total 20). A further four spaces are provided in the

communal garden/plaza space for visitors.


2.5 Materials, Colours and Landscaping

In general, the approach to the selected materials, colours and landscaping can be summarised as follows: Internal communal entry garden/plaza space (east side) – traditional random

ashlar ‘Old Adelaide’ cut blue stone as typically found in the traditional and historic building forms along The Parade and in cottages within nearby streets;

Front Screen and Canopy – metal vertical fins in burnt orange and horizontal and end plates in dark grey;

Apartment Gap Ends – raw finished (concrete) providing a compatible appearance with the ‘greyed off’ stone and older roofs of old buildings;

Solid Sections of Balustrades – modern composite materials in dark colours (zinc);

External Walls of Apartments – modern materials in sandstone tones;

Roofing and window frames – grey metal roofing and window frames;

Landscaping to entry garden - timber and stone seating, timber fence and decking and plantings from Japanese Maple (acer palmatum), New Zealand Flax (phormium tenax), Evergreen Giant (liriope muscari) and Clivia (clivia miniata).

2.6 Waste Management

General Waste and Co-Mingled Recycling are proposed to be transported down onto the ground floor waste room of each building via separate bin chutes from the residential floors and manually for ground floor retail tenancies. Green organics and

hard electronic waste will also be moved manually into their respective ground floor storage areas by users.

The proposal seeks to manage/collect waste by utilising the services of a private waste company. The tenancy strata corporation will remove general waste and co-mingled recycling

from the building once a week with green organic waste and hard electronic waste every two weeks as required. The ground floor storage rooms have been designed to have adequate capacity for the buildings waste requirements.

2.7 Environmental The subject site has been historically used for a range of retail uses and carparking suggesting that there has not been any activities undertaken that may have

contaminated the site.

To avoid any doubt, it is recommended that an appropriate condition be imposed on the planning consent (if approved) that requires the applicant to submit a definitive statement from a suitably qualified environmental auditor advising that the land is suitable for its intended purpose.

A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) will also be prepared and implemented in accordance with current industry standards – including the EPA publication “Environmental Management of On-site Remediation” – to minimise environmental harm and disturbance during construction. The Management Plan will incorporate contamination matters (if required).


2.8 Affordable housing On the issue of affordable housing it is important to note that the proposal does not purport to provide affordable housing. The table forming Part 2 of Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008 states: 23-Affordable housing

Development that purports to be for the purposes of the provision of affordable housing (applying the criteria determined under regulation 4 of the South Australian Housing Trust (General) Regulations 1995

Therefore Schedule 8, and in particular the affordable housing referral, was not required in this particular instance.

This application does not fall within the concept of affordable housing for the purposes of the South Australian Housing Trust Regulations because it does not fit criteria set

out under Regulation 4. It is significant to note that an application for development authorisation for a dwelling will only fall within the concept of affordable housing, if in the case of the application, there is in place the legally binding agreement. This application simply does not fall within the statutory concept of affordable housing and therefore is not required to be referred to Housing SA. With respect to the Affordable Housing Overlay of the Development Plan, in our

opinion there appears to be a widespread misconception that there is a requirement that all developments comprising 20 or more dwellings and located within the designated Affordable Housing Overlay area shall provide 15% affordable housing. It is important to note that this Overlay is advisory in nature only. This is confirmed through the wording ‘should’ in the associated PDC 1. In other words, not all development is to include affordable housing as defined by

Regulation 4.

Notwithstanding, we understand that the applicant has made it clear that they will market a number of the apartments to achieve the established affordable housing criteria. The will be achieved by virtue of a number of factors which have been created for the purposes of enabling them to be affordable within the context of the City of

Norwood, Payneham and St Peters. This is the intent underlying the provisions of the Development Plan. The advisory nature only of the Overlay does not render the proposal inappropriate or at variance with the Development Plan.

2.9 Category of Development

The proposed development is located in the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and more specifically within The Parade East Policy Area. Schedule 9, Part 1, 6(1)(h) of the Development Regulations, 2008 states:

6 (1) Any development which consists of any of the following, other than where the site

of the development is adjacent land to land in a zone under the relevant Development Plan which is different to the zone that applies to the site of the development or where the development is classified as non-complying under the relevant Development Plan:

(h) any kind of development within a Local Shopping, District Shopping, Specialty Goods Centre, Local Centre, Town Centre, City Centre, Neighbourhood Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre, Regional Town Centre, District Business, Local Town Centre or District Town Centre zone as delineated in the relevant Development Plan;

While the allotment fronting Portrush Road is adjacent to land that is zoned differently to the subject site, this land itself will not be subject to any redevelopment – it purely maintains access to the site of development – therefore we have formed the opinion

that the proposal constitutes a category 1 development.


3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site The subject site is located on the southern side of The Parade between Portrush Road to the east and Cairns Street to the west. The site has a frontage to The Parade of 32.31m, a frontage to Portrush Road of 9.14m and a site area of approximately 1,755 square metres.

The site contains three allotments and is legally described as the whole of the land comprised in Certificates of Title Volume 5236 Folios 211, 212 and 213 or otherwise

known as 254-256 The Parade, Norwood. Figure 1: Subject site

The site currently contains the office of Jo Chifley however historically has been used

for a number of retail uses including retail showrooms.


The existing building comprises an area of 950 square metres with left in/left out access on The Parade. Off-street parking is provided to the rear of the building.

Access/egress to/from the car park can also be achieved via the private road off Portrush Road.

3.2 Locality The locality comprises the District Centre which contains a range of retail, commercial and community land uses and the Residential Zone to the southwest containing predominantly single storey dwellings constructed in the early 19th century. The locality is also characterised by the Portrush Road/The Parade intersection and State Heritage significant buildings on three of its four corners (northwest, northeast

and southwest) forming notable features at the intersection.


There are also four Local Heritage Places within close proximity of the site including: 232B The Parade, Victorian Bluestone Bath Hotel;

246 The Parade, Victorian Bluestone and Red Brick Corner Shop and Dwelling;

248 The Parade, Two-storey Victorian Red Brick Shop; and

250 The Parade, Victorian Bluestone and Red Brick Dwelling.

The locality is characterised by a broad range of existing building styles representative of a number of eras providing no clear architectural context however a distinct one to two storey form along The Parade is particularly evident.

To the west of the state heritage place on the opposite side of The Parade is the Norwood Squash Club, a 1960’s era building of two storey form and besser block construction.

The Norwood Water Tower adjoins the site to the south. The tower is a notable feature in the locality being the highest building in the area.


The property to the east of the subject site is a state heritage listed two storey building with ground level shops and an upper level dwelling. The building contains two

retail tenancies and is currently being extended to the rear. The allotment to the west is a single storey retail tenancy with rear car parking that extends the distance of the subject site.

Cairns Street, to the southwest, comprises part of the Residential Zone that is closest to the subject site and contains a diverse range of single storey cottages. The rear

boundaries of dwellings within this Zone adjoin the western boundary of 252 The Parade and the Water Tower allotment (i.e. these allotments do not adjoin the subject site).

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 10

4. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

Following a number of Pre-Lodgement Panel meetings and an inner Metro Design Review Panel desktop review session, the key assessment issues relate to: Desired character;

Building design, appearance and relationship to heritage places;

Apartment amenity and potential issues arising from the future development of

adjoining sites;

Traffic and access;

Wind conditions;

Noise;

Waste management; and

Crime prevention

The proposal achieves consistency with key Zone, Policy Area and General Section provisions relating to land use, an active frontage along The Parade, car parking, bicycle parking and building height.

4.1 Desired Character The desired character statement of the District Centre Zone seeks to:

focus retail development on the ground level and residential on the upper levels;

provide a range of apartment sizes to accommodate a variety of occupants;

create upper level spaces above the ground floor level of buildings such as balconies which overlook The Parade;

reinforce the high street character of The Parade whilst ensuring the spires of the former church and church on the northern corners of the intersection of The

Parade and Portrush Road remain as prominent visual elements along The Parade;

encourage a building height of 2-5 storeys (18.5m) on the subject site;

achieve a well-defined low to medium scale built form edge along The Parade (two to three storeys) with a fine grain character that reinforces and maintains the existing streetscape to achieve a human scale at street;

set back level, the upper levels of buildings behind a dominant two-three storey

podium/street wall height;

maintain the prominence and integrity of adjacent or abutting State or Local

Heritage Places;

encourage the incorporation of materials and finishes of a high quality to complement (without replicating) the materials and finishes used in the historic building fabric and which avoids visible expanses of tilt-up concrete walling;

provide shopfronts with visible entry foyers and display windows;

discourage the creation of new vehicle access points from The Parade;

enhance the pedestrian environment of The Parade by avoiding crossovers, providing shelter and creating visual interest; and,

provide secure bicycle parking and storage facilities.

With respect to the specific desired character envisaged for The Parade East Policy Area, we note that the proposal strikes a chord with the desire to:

provide for small-scale retailing which extend at a lower intensity than the activity of the adjoining Retail Core Policy Area;

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 11

provide non-residential activity at ground level, with residential land uses above ground level;

respect the heritage and streetscape significance of the State Heritage listed

former church and church buildings located on the northern corners of the intersection of Portrush Road and The Parade;

achieve consolidated car parking areas at the rear of the site. For all the above reasons, we believe the proposal strongly accords with the desired character envisaged for the District Centre (Norwood) Zone generally and the more specific directions set in place for The Parade East Policy Area.

4.2 Building Design, Appearance and Heritage With respect to building design, appearance and heritage, the key issues that need to

be considered relate to human scale and whether the proposal responds sensitively to the adjacent heritage item. The achievement of a human scale along The Parade is clearly envisaged in the desired character statement of the District Centre (Norwood) Zone (as previously identified) and reinforced through a number of provisions of the Zone and The Parade East Policy Area as follows:

District Centre (Norwood) Zone Form and Character PDC 10 Development located above the maximum allowable podium/street wall height

should be set back from the street wall boundary in order to:

(a) reinforce a lower scale (2 or 3 storey) building form along the primary and secondary street frontages;

(b) minimise overshadowing of the public realm; and

(c) maintain the prominence and integrity of heritage buildings;

and in order to achieve these aims, the set-back should generally be in the order of 6 metres from the street wall boundary.

PDC 11 The front set-back of new buildings at ground level should maintain the traditional

pattern of development abutting street boundaries to define the street space. PDC 12 Pedestrian spaces should be developed with an open character, which includes high

quality landscaping, and along public street frontages should incorporate pedestrian shelter.

The Parade East Policy Area PDC 3 Development should maintain a pedestrian scale at street level and should include a

clearly defined podium or street wall fronting The Parade (and extending into side streets) with a maximum building height of 2 storeys or 8 metres.

In regard to the above provisions we have formed the opinion that the proposal

achieves an appropriate human scale through: providing a distinct podium element which incorporates the retail tenancies and

the level 2 apartments which represents a street wall height of approximately 8m (within the 2 or 3 storey height envisaged along The Parade);

siting the podium element at street level which maintains the traditional pattern

of development along The Parade abutting to define the street space;

creating no adverse overshadowing of the public realm;

a 6m setback for levels 3 to 5 from The Parade to ensure the prominence of the adjacent heritage item and those on the eastern northern sides of the intersection are maintained;

a communal entry garden/plaza space available to pedestrians which provides an

open character without compromising the fine grain character of built form.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 12

In our opinion, the proposal achieves a human scale through an appropriate built form response but also through the communal entry garden/plaza space. Whilst the podium element respects the existing streetscape character to ensure no overbearing height,

scale, bulk or mass is presented upon The Parade, the accessible garden/plaza space provides pedestrians with an improved amenity offering. The combination of a responsive built form and enhanced pedestrian amenity, in our view, achieves a comfortable human scale. In relation to heritage, Council Wide PDC’s 372-374 relate to development on land adjacent to land containing a heritage place. The proposal is sited adjacent to a state

heritage place to the east. In our opinion, the design of the proposed building: respects and complements the scale and bulk of the state heritage place through

its podium design, horizontal lines and overall height;

incorporates materials, colours and finishes such as stone, metal and concrete

(providing a ‘greyed-off’ finish that references older stone and roofs) that complements the materials of the state heritage place and other historic building forms along The Parade and cottages within nearby streets;

ensures the integrity and prominence of the state heritage place when viewed from all directions is maintained by virtue of siting the upper levels back from the street frontage;

responds to the finer grain detailing and proportion of the state heritage place by breaking up the frontage with the communal entry garden/plaza space;

does not seek to replicate the historic detailing of the state heritage place, rather reference these details in a contemporary manner to ensure the ‘old’ and ‘new’ stand as products of their time.

In consideration of the above, we have formed the opinion that the proposal achieves

Council Wide PDC’s 372-374.

4.3 Apartment Amenity

With respect to apartment amenity, concern has been raised by the Office for Design and Architecture in relation to potential future development to the east and west and how this will significantly impact the amenity of east and west facing apartments. East and west facing apartments are either sited on the common boundary (apartments or balconies) or setback from the boundary (apartments 3m and balconies within 3m).

In relation to the east facing apartments, the adjoining property contains a state heritage place and is currently being extended to the rear as shown in the photo below.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 13

Given the state heritage significance of the existing building, the single storey improvements being made, the need to accommodate on-site car parking and the

visual prominence of the site to the east, in our opinion, it is highly unlikely that this site will be redeveloped to a scale that would detrimentally impact the eastern aspect of the proposal. In regard to the western elevation, we note that two apartments on each level have living areas with windows and balconies on the western boundary and the remaining

apartments and balconies are setback approximately 3m from the western boundary. In the event that the adjoining property to the west is redeveloped, there are effectively two likely outcomes: 1. the adjoining property proposes a development that is built on the boundary in

which case the living areas of the affected apartments will still have openings to

the north or south. Further, the balconies will still have a view to the north or

south;

2. the adjoining property proposes a development that effectively mirrors the

setbacks of the proposed development thus providing sufficient space between

the proposed and future apartments. Notwithstanding, all Building Code issues

are satisfied with the current proposal.

In addition to the above, it is also important to note that the adjacent western property abuts the Residential Zone and therefore any future proposal will be subject to the residential interface provisions which seek a lower scale built form to the rear. This means that any development above one or two storeys directly adjoining the two

apartments which are sited on the boundary is unlikely given the overshadowing impacts such development would create upon the adjoining property within the residential zone.

For the above reasons, we are comfortable with the proposed design with respect to apartment amenity.

4.4 Traffic and Access GTA Consultants (GTA) have been engaged to undertake a traffic assessment to

determine the most appropriate point of access/egress to/from the development (i.e. The Parade or Portrush Road). Within the context of the Development Plan and in particular the desired character for The Parade East Policy Area access/egress is not encouraged on The Parade by virtue of the intent to create an active and continuous ground level retail frontage. Council Wide PDC 135(a) also seeks to enhance active street frontages. Continuing access

from The Parade will hinder positive activation of commercial tenancies on The Parade.

In addition, GTA describe the existing crossover off The Parade as creating a potential conflict with pedestrian movements along The Parade. This potential for conflict is at odds with PDC 16 of the District Centre Zone that seeks to prevent disruption to the continuity of the street. PDC 127(a) also requires parking areas to facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian linkages. The GTA traffic report indicates that access to the site

from The Parade will prove to be an inconvenience to pedestrian traffic along The Parade. Furthermore, GTA advise that continuing access from The Parade will reduce the efficiency of off- street parking for the proposed development. Objective 34 seeks development that provides adequate parking for the demands generated. A restriction

of the efficiency of parking facilities may compromise this Council Wide objective. On a more localised scale PDC 16 of the District Centre Zone seeks to ensure that on-site parking should be provided behind, below or above ground floor uses of buildings which front The Parade. Access to the car parking facility from Portrush Road would be considered more adequate to fulfil this principle.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 14

PDC 104 requires the number of driveway crossovers to be minimised so as to maintain streetscape character. The desired character of The Parade East Policy Area acknowledges that development should respect the significance of The Parade

streetscape. The GTA report notes that there is only one other site within the locality that has driveway access to The Parade, hence, the removal of the access to The Parade would aid in minimising driveway access points and also add to the amenity of the locality through the enhancement of the streetscape. The existing access on The Parade is also considered to create an unsafe environment. The access is obstructed to the view of the left hand approach lane from Portrush Road

intersection by the curvilinear nature of The Parade, east of Portrush Road. This is inconsistent with PDC 116 (a) and (b) which seek to avoid unreasonable interference with the flow of traffic on adjoining roads and to provide adequate separation distances from existing roads.

Access via Portrush Road is further supported by PDC 116 (a) and the GTA report which suggests the Portrush Road intersection will apply reasonable breaks in traffic to

satisfy the requirements of the access and egress to the proposed development. Therefore, if the proposed development was only to utilise the Portrush Road crossover, it is not anticipated it would unreasonably interfere with the flow of traffic. Respecting the advices obtained from GTA and the expectations in the Development Plan on creating an active frontage along The Parade, the Portrush Road access point

is the most appropriate outcome.

4.5 Wind Conditions

PDC 295 requires buildings of three storeys or more to minimise any micro-climatic wind patterns created as a result of the building height. Further, PDC 297 encourages a building of 5 storeys or more (or 18.5m or more) to minimise the risk of wind tunnelling effects on adjacent streets.

Aurecon have undertaken an assessment of wind conditions around the proposed development based on average weather patterns. Due to the low rise nature of the

proposed development, upper level setbacks from The Parade and shielding provided by surrounding buildings it is not anticipated that the building will influence the wind patterns of the surrounding micro-climate. On the basis of the expert advices obtained, we have formed the opinion that the proposal achieves the relevant provisions relating to wind.

With respect to potential wind impacts within the centre of the building, it is important to note that the walkways (which also act as verandahs) and landscaping (including trees) will minimise the risk of wind tunnelling within this particular area. We note that PDC 297 identifies verandahs around a building as a mechanism to deflect downward travelling wind flows over pedestrian areas.

4.6 Noise The Noise and Emissions Overlay within the Development Plan identifies the subject site within a ‘designated area’ to which specific objectives and PDC’s apply. In such circumstances, particular design and construction features need to be implemented by

a development to minimise the impact of noise on the residential apartments. Based on a noise monitoring and modelling exercise, Aurecon identifies the eastern and northern facades of the proposed development to be particularly susceptible to traffic generated noise. In particular, Portrush Road is identified as being a high generator of noise pollution.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 15

The report outlines the suitability of 150mm precast concrete walls with a minimum density of 2,340kg/m3 to meet the requirements for sound intrusion. Similarly a minimum 200mm thick concrete slab has been considered as suitable for flooring:

Aurecon have provided recommendations for windows and external glass doors for each apartment based on the individual categories identified during the noise survey conducted. Laminated glass ranging between a thickness of 6.76mm and 12.5mm VLAM Hush is recommended. Two window types are recommended based on positioning of the apartments, those being a sliding or double hung type or an awning type. Sliding windows are not recommended for Category 3 or 4 bedrooms.

To achieve adequate sound attenuation on Level 5 it is expected that the roofing will require sheet metal cladding and 165mm of 7kg/m3 insulation. Two layers of 13mm plasterboard in bedroom ceilings are required to adequately ensure internal sound criteria for the top floor.

PDC 1(a) of the Noise and Emissions Overlay recommends that development should

shield sensitive areas from noise pollution through placement of more sensitive rooms in locations further from the emission source or through the erection of noise attenuation barriers. In our opinion, the adoption of the Aurecon recommendations will ultimately satisfy the requirements of the Noise and Air Emissions Overlay.

4.7 Waste With respect to waste management, General Waste and Co-Mingled Recycling is proposed to be transported down onto the ground floor waste room of each building via separate bin chutes from the residential floors and manually for ground floor retail

tenancies. Green organics and hard electronic waste will also be moved manually into their respective ground floor storage areas by users. The proposal seeks to manage/collect waste by utilising the services of a private waste

company. The tenancy strata corporation will remove general waste and co-mingled recycling

from the building once a week with green organic waste and hard electronic waste every two weeks as required. The ground floor storage rooms have been designed to have adequate capacity for the buildings waste requirements. In our opinion, the proposed waste management strategy reflects consistency with

PDC’s 299-301.

4.8 Crime Prevention

The following provisions relating to crime prevention are considered relevant in the

assessment of this application.

Crime prevention

PDC 62 Development should be designed to maximise surveillance of public spaces through the incorporation of clear lines of sight, appropriate lighting and the use of visible permeable barriers wherever practicable.

PDC 63 Buildings should be designed to overlook public and communal open spaces and

streets to allow casual surveillance. PDC 64 Buildings should be designed to minimise and discourage access between roofs,

balconies and windows of adjoining dwellings. PDC 65 Development, including car park facilities should incorporate signage and lighting

that indicate the entrances and pathways to, from and within the site. PDC 66 Site planning, buildings, fences, landscaping and other features should clearly

differentiate between public, communal and private areas.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 16

PDC 67 Development should avoid pedestrian entrapment spots and routes and paths that are predictable or unchangeable and offer no choice to pedestrians.

PDC 68 Development fronting an alleyway, laneway (including a service lane), or other

minor or unserviced street should be located and designed to maximise safety and security.

PDC 69 Development fronting a laneway (including a service lane), or other minor or

unserviced street should maximise the potential for passive surveillance by ensuring that the building can be seen from nearby buildings and the laneway/minor streets/unserviced streets.

Upon our review of the proposal plans we have formed the opinion that the design of

the development achieves the intent of these provisions for the following reasons:

clear lines of sight at provided within the carpark levels particularly around the

stairwell, storage cage and lift areas avoiding entrapment spots;

motion sensor lighting is provided throughout the carpark and stairwell providing

a safe environment during the evening;

the carpark is provided with a secure single access and egress point for vehicles

which is also provided with security lighting upon entry via the private road;

upper level apartments have balconies that overlook The Parade, the private road

and the area west of the private road encouraging passive surveillance of these

areas;

balconies are setback off the side boundaries, or where sited on common

boundaries, are separated a sufficient vertical distance from adjacent roof tops to

discourage access between the balconies and the roof tops;

the design of the communal entry garden/plaza space provides an effective

transition zone between the public realm (The Parade) and the secure lobby and

carpark ground entry to differentiate public and private areas;

screening treatments and planters are provided adjacent to atrium windows of all

apartments to protect the amenity and maintain the safety of residents.

REPORT 64026-001 PAGE | 17

5. CONCLUSION

The proposal seeks to construct a mixed use multi-level residential and retail

development at 254-256 The Parade, Norwood.

The proposed development is comprised of two ground level retail shops, four levels of

residential apartments and associated car parking with access off Portrush Road.

In our opinion, the proposal is highly appropriate for the site and locality for the

following reasons:

the proposal strongly accords with the desired character envisaged for the District

Centre (Norwood) Zone and the more specific directions set in place for The

Parade East Policy Area;

the proposal achieves a human scale through an appropriate built form response

but also through the communal entry garden/plaza space;

apartment amenity will not be adversely affected in the event that the adjoining

properties are redeveloped in the future;

Portrush Road is the most appropriate means to access and egress the

development;

the proposal will not result or be affected by any adverse wind or noise impacts;

an appropriate waste management strategy is proposed; and

the design of the overall development will prevent crime or the potential for

crime.

Accordingly, Development Plan Consent should be granted by the Development

Assessment Commission.

254-256 The Parade

Acoustic & Wind Engineering Report

Pruszinski Architects

18 September 2014

Revision: 1

Reference: 243859

Project 243859 File 140909 254-256 The Parade - Acoustics & Wind.docx 18 September 2014 Revision 1

Document control record

Document prepared by:

Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

ABN 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T F E W

+61 8 8237 9777 +61 8 8237 9778 [email protected] aurecongroup.com

A person using Aurecon documents or data accepts the risk of:

a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version.

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Aurecon.

Document control

Report title Acoustic & Wind Engineering Report

Document ID Project number 243859

File path \\aurecon.info\shares\AUADL\Admin\Data\General Staff\Disciplines\Noise and Vibration\Projects\254-256 The Parade, Norwood\Report\140909 254-256 The Parade - Acoustics & Wind.docx

Client Pruszinski Architects Client contact

Rev Date Revision details/status Prepared by Author Verifier Approver

0 9 September 2014 Draft BD BD

1 18 September 20-14 Final BD/NM BD NM NM

Current revision 1

Approval

Author signature Approver signature

Name Bill Dawson Name Neil Mackenzie

Title Senior Engineer Title Technical Director

Project 243859 File 140909 254-256 The Parade - Acoustics & Wind.docx 18 September 2014 Revision 1 Page i

Contents 1 Introduction 1

2 References 2

3 Existing Noise Environment 3

4 Existing Wind Environment 5

4.1 General 5

4.2 Statutory Regulations 5

4.3 Wind Effects 7

5 Design Criteria - Acoustics 8

5.1 Sound Insulation 8

5.2 Intrusive Noise 9

5.3 Noise Emissions 10

6 Design Criteria - Wind 13

7 Assessment and Recommendations - Acoustics 14

7.1 Environmental Noise Emissions 14

7.2 External Noise Intrusion 14

7.3 Sound Insulation to Apartments 20

8 Assessment and Recommendations - Wind 22

8.1 North East Quadrant 22

8.2 South-West Quadrant 22

9 Disclaimer 22

Appendices Appendix A

Façade Markups

Appendix B

External Glazing Recommendations

Project 243859 File 140909 254-256 The Parade - Acoustics & Wind.docx 18 September 2014 Revision 1 Page 1

1 Introduction This report provides acoustic and wind engineering input for the proposed new 254-256 The Parade mixed-use development and recommendations required to comply with the relevant legislation. The new residential development will be located at 254-256 The Parade, Norwood, on the corner of The Parade and Portrush Road. The mixed-use development consists of 4 levels of residential apartments with commercial tenancies and car parking on the first two floors. The proposed development will have the following site boundaries:

The north side of the development faces onto The Parade, with commercial tenancies and church on the northern side of The Parade

The eastern side of the development is an existing heritage development, beyond which is Portrush Road

The southern side of the development faces a private access road, with residential properties to the south

The western side of the development shares a boundary with existing commercial tenancies

We note the following key issues associated with the 254-256 The Parade development:

Control of external noise impacting on noise-sensitive spaces within the development, in accordance with the Minister’s Specification SA 78B ‘Construction requirements for the control of external sound’ (eg noise due to vehicle traffic on The Parade and Portrush Road impacting on habitable spaces within the apartments)

Provision of suitable sound insulation within the development to meet the National Construction Code requirements, and control noise intrusion between different uses within the development

Control of noise intrusion from the balconies and common corridor / lobby areas to ensure the acoustic amenity of tenants is maintained, and the internal noise design criteria is achieved (eg noise emission from balconies)

Environmental noise emissions due to operation of mechanical plant (including air conditioners, air handling units, condensers, etc) must be controlled to prevent undue impact on nearby existing residential properties in the vicinity of the development.


2 References [1] Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1668.1:1998 ‘The use of ventilation and

airconditioning in buildings, Part 1: Fire and smoke control in multi-compartment buildings’

[2] Australian Standard AS 2021-2000 ‘Acoustics: Aircraft noise intrusion –building siting and construction’

[3] Australian / New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2107:2000 ‘Acoustics –Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors’

[4] Burnside (City) Development Plan, consolidated 30 January 2014

[5] Minister’s Specification SA 78B ‘Construction requirements for the control of external sound’’, February 2013, Government of South Australia

[6] National Construction Code Building Code of Australia 2014, Australian Building Codes Board

[7] Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan, consolidated 31 October 2013

[8] Preliminary architectural drawings for 254-256 The Parade Apartments dated 11 June 2014. Drawings: 02 – Existing layouts, 04 – Ground floor plan, 05 – Level 1 floor plan, 06 – Level 2 floor plan, 07 – Level3-5 floor plan, 11 – Sections, 13 – Exterior design, 14 – Elevations.

[9] South Australian Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007

[10] World Health Organisation, ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, 1999


3 Existing Noise Environment An environmental day-time and night-time noise survey was undertaken in the vicinity of 254-256 The Parade, Norwood to document existing noise levels and noise sources impacting on the future development during the day-time and night-time. The measurements were carried out using a Type 1 Larson Davis LD 831 sound level meter (equipped with a LD PRM 831 pre-amplifier and a PCB 377B02 ½” microphone). The sound level meter was field calibrated with a Larson Davis LD CA 200 pistonphone before and after the noise survey, with the calibration found to be consistent. The microphone of the sound level meter was fitted with an approved windshield at all times throughout the survey. The attended noise survey locations are shown in Figure 1, and are summarised as follows:

Location A – At the edge of the carpark and footpath adjacent The Parade

Location B – In the carpark adjacent Portrush Road, at the corner of the proposed development

Location C – At the south-western corner of the proposed development along the private access road (furthest from The Parade and Portrush Road)

Figure 1: Attended noise survey locations

254-256 The Parade residential development Location A – The Parade

Location B – Portrush Road

Location C – Private Road


A summary of the existing measured day-time and night-time noise levels I presented in Table 1 below. It should be noted that the weather was calm with only very sparse cloud cover, and with a light breeze (<2m/s) throughout the day-time and night-time noise surveys.

Table 1: Summary of attended noise measurements conducted on 4 September 2014

Location Measurement

time

Measured noise levels, dBA Observations

LAeq LAmax LA10 LA90

Location A – The Parade

10.15am to 10.30am

67 84 70 59

Traffic on The Parade dominant including cars, buses, and trucks. Noise from bus take-off from nearby Bus Stop 10.


10.30am to 10.45am

66 79 70 53 Traffic on Portrush Road dominant including cars, buses, and trucks.


10.45am to 11.00am

57 71 60 50 Traffic on The Parade and Portrush Road equally dominant.

Location A – The Parade

10.30pm to 10.45pm

61 76 64 52 Traffic on The Parade dominant with intermittent heavy truck movement on Portrush Road audible.


10.45pm to 11.00pm

63 83 65 49 Traffic on Portrush Road dominant including fuel tanker brake squeal and idling at traffic lights.


11.00pm to 11.15pm

59 79 60 46

Traffic on The Parade and Portrush Road equally dominant with hum of nearby outdoor condenser units just audible (mounted on the side of the existing tower).

Note:

LAeq refers to A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over the measurement period. It is used to quantify the average noise level over a time period.

LA10 refers to the A-weighted noise level which is exceeded for only 10% of the measuring period. It is usually used as the descriptor for intrusive noise level and represents ambient road traffic noise in general.

LA90 refers to the A-weighted noise level which is exceeded for 90% of the measuring period. It is usually used as the descriptor for background noise level during the measurement period.

Based on our site inspection and attended noise survey, we note the dominant noise sources on-site will be vehicle traffic movement along The Parade and Portrush Road as follows:

Passenger vehicles

Buses (including the nearby Bus Stop 10 on the southern side of The Parade)

Truck movements along Portrush Road (including brake squeal and air brakes)

Vehicle idling, acceleration and tyre squeal associated with stop / start traffic at The Parade and Portrush Road intersection traffic lights


4 Existing Wind Environment

4.1 General

Wind is one of the most highly variable meteorological elements, both in speed and direction. It is influenced by a wide range of factors, from large scale pressure patterns, to the time of day and the nature of the surrounding terrain. Because the wind is highly variable it is often studied by means of frequency analyses (often in the form of wind roses) of data obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for a particular site (data from the closest weather station is used). Data from the BOM is often presented as averaged values (speed/direction) over time (10 minutes to 1 hour). In excess of 4000 observations of wind speed (10 minute average) and direction were used to analyse the variation of wind speed with direction for the site (based on data from the Kent Town weather station). Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the probability distribution of wind speed and direction for seasonal variations and annually. It is apparent that: The prevailing wind direction is from the South West, largely a result of afternoon wind

conditions chiefly in the warmer months (spring and summer), with the hot land mass resulting in recirculation of air from the cool ocean mass.

Winter breeze is most often from the Westerly sector. Very infrequent wind comes from the Easterly sector. Wind speed is typically 2.8 - 5.6m/s, though in the warmer months (Spring and Summer), the

probability distribution is slightly skewed, with the wind speed typically 5.6-8.3m/s (and typically from the South-West in the afternoon).

For about 95% of the time, the wind speed is typically less than 8-10m/s (classified on the Beaufort scale as a fresh breeze).

4.2 Statutory Regulations

The Adelaide City Council’s Council Wide Policy requires that developments in the Central Business Area and Mixed Use Zones over 21m, that are to be built at or on the street frontage should submit a “Wind Effects Assessment Report” to demonstrate that the development will not create a wind tunnel effect. The report is required to identify and analyse the effects of wind conditions on users in various locations within the development site, on the street at footpath level and other areas in the vicinity of the building.


Figure 2 Wind speed (10 minute average) probability distribution

Figure 3 Wind direction (10 minute average) probability distribution

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0 0 - 2.8 2.8 - 5.6 5.6 - 8.3 > 8.3

Wind Speed (m/s)

Pro

bab

ilit

y (%

)

AUTUMNSPRINGWINTERSUMMERANNUAL

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

N NE E SE S SW W NW

Direction

Pro

bab

ility

(%

)

AUTUMN

SPRING

WINTER

SUMMER

ANNUAL


4.3 Wind Effects Figure 4 provides a schematic illustration of the wind flow pattern around a single wide high-rise building. As the wind flow approaches the building, it gradually diverges. Part of the flow is deviated over the building (1) and part of it flows around the building (2). At the windward facade, a stagnation point with maximum pressure is situated at approximately 70% of the building height. From this point, the flow is deviated to the lower pressure zones of the facade: upwards (3), sidewards (4) and downwards (5).

The considerable amount of air flowing downwards produces a vortex at ground level (6) called standing vortex, frontal vortex or horseshoe vortex. The main flow direction of the standing vortex near ground level is opposite to the direction of the approach flow. Where both flows meet, a stagnation point with low wind speed values is created at the ground in front of the building (7). The standing vortex stretches out sideways and sweeps around the building corners where flow separation occurs and corner streams with high wind speed values are created (8). The corner streams subsequently merge into the general flow around the corners (9).

At the leeward side of the building, an under-pressure zone is created. As a result, backflow or recirculation flow occurs (10,13). A stagnation zone is marked downstream of the building at ground level where the flow directions are opposite and low wind speeds exist (11; end of the recirculation zone). Beyond the stagnation zone, the flow resumes its normal direction but wind speeds stay low for a considerable distance behind the building (i.e. the far wake) (12).

The backflow is also responsible for the creation of slow rotating vortices behind the building (13). Between these vortices and the corner streams (9), a zone with a high velocity gradient exists (the shear layer) that comprises small, fast rotating vortices (16). The shear layers originate at the building corners where flow separation occurs. [Ref. 4].

Figure 4 Description of wind flow around a building


5 Design Criteria - Acoustics

5.1 Sound Insulation The Building Code of Australia (BCA) Volume 1, National Construction Code (NCC) 2014 for Class 2 buildings (buildings containing two or more sole-occupancy units, each being a separate dwelling) provides minimum sound insulation requirements which must be complied with. The sound insulation provisions as stipulated by the NCC are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2: National Construction Code (NCC) sound insulation requirements

Sound insulation of partitions NCC requirement

Wall

Walls between sole-occupancy units Rw + Ctr 50

Walls between sole-occupancy units and stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like

Rw 50

Walls between wet areas (bathroom, sanitary compartment, laundry or kitchen) in one sole-occupancy unit and a habitable room (other than kitchen) in an adjoining unit

Rw + Ctr 50

(Discontinuous construction)

Walls between sole-occupancy units and a plant room or lift shaft Rw 50

(Discontinuous construction)

Floor

Floor between sole-occupancy units

or

Floor between sole-occupancy units and plant room, lift shaft, stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like

Rw + Ctr 50

and

Ln,w + CI 62

Door Doors assemblies located in a wall between a sole-occupancy unit and a stairway, public corridor, public lobby or the like

Rw 30

Pipes and

ductwork

Soil, waste, water supply and stormwater pipes and ductwork to habitable rooms (other than a kitchen)

Rw + Ctr 40

Soil, waste, water supply and stormwater pipes and ductwork to kitchens and non-habitable rooms

Rw + Ctr 25

Note:

1. Sole-occupancy unit refers to a room or other parts of a building for occupation by one or joint owner, lessee, tenant, or other occupier to the exclusion of any other owner, lessee, tenant, or other occupier and includes a dwelling.

2. Discontinuous construction refers to a wall having a minimum 20 mm cavity between 2 separate leaves; for masonry, where wall ties are required to connect leaves, the ties are of the resilient type; and for other than masonry, there is no mechanical linkage between leaves except at the periphery.

3. The required sound insulation of a wall must not be compromised by a door assembly.

4. Where a wall required to have sound insulation has a floor above, the wall must continue to the underside of the slab above, or to the underside of a ceiling that provides the sound insulation required for the wall.


5.2 Intrusive Noise The Minister’s Specification SA 78B stipulates performance requirements for external noise intrusion through the building envelope and ventilations systems, and is applicable to road traffic noise sources impacting on development within a designated area identified on the Noise and Air Emissions Overlay in the relevant Development Plan.

Based on the Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) Noise and Air Emissions Overlay (excerpt shown in Figure 5), we note that the proposed 254-256 The Parade development is located within the Designated Area along a Type B road, and therefore the requirements of the Minister’s Specification apply (as summarised in Table 3).

Figure 5: Noise and Air Emissions Overlay (excerpt from Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan)

Table 3: Internal sound criteria for road and rail sound intrusion stipulated in Minister’s Specification SA 78B

Type of room

Internal sound criteria

Applicable time period Building design target averaged over the total

number of such rooms in the building

Maximum allowable for individual rooms in the

building

Bedroom 30 dB(A) Leq, 9hr (transport)

30 dB(A) Leq, 15min (people)

35 dB(A) Leq, 9hr (transport)

35 dB(A) Leq, 15min (people) Night (10.00pm to 7.00am)

Other habitable room, other than a bedroom

35 dB(A) LAeq, 15hr 40 dB(A) LAeq, 15hr Day (7.00am to 10.00pm)

254-256 The Parade residential development


5.3 Noise Emissions The South Australia Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 provides a framework for environmental planning and decision making and a clear set of publicly agreed environmental noise objectives. Determination of noise limits are based on the methodology in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy and the land use categories principally promoted by the relevant Development Plan.

Figure 6: Land zoning in the vicinity of the project site based on the Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) and Burnside (City) Development Plans.

Based on the Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan and the Burnside (City) Development Plan, we note that the 254-256 The Parade development is located within the District Centre (Norwood) zone, with the surrounding noise-sensitive receivers located within Residential zones, the Mixed Use Historic (Conservation) zone, and Business zone. We note that the following land uses are principally promoted by within the respective Development Plan for the nearby relevant zones:

District Centre (Norwood) zone: ‘Development providing specialty shops, restaurants, cafes, offices, consulting rooms, recreation and community facilities, together with medium to high density residential development’

Residential zone: ‘Development providing a variety of housing types and density which do not adversely affect the established character of the relevant locality’

Mixed Use B zone: ‘Development providing small-scale offices and consulting rooms together with residential use’

Business zone: ‘Development providing offices, consulting rooms, retail showrooms and other business related activities’

Legend DCe(Nwd) – District Centre (Norwood) R - Residential MU(B) - Mixed Use B B - Business Ed - Educational RH(C) – Residential Historic (Conservation) MUH(C) – Mixed Use Historic (Conservation)

254-256 The Parade residential development


Table 4 presents the relevant indicative noise factors based on the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

Table 4: Relevant indicative noise factors

Land use category Indicative noise factor (dBA)

Day (7am to 10pm) Night (10pm to 7am)

Residential 52 45

Commercial 62 55

Mixed use (residential & commercial)* 57 50

* Note: If the land use does not fall within a single land use category, the indicative noise levels is the average of the relevant factors (in this case, the average of residential and commercial)

The indicative noise levels at each receiver are then based on:

The indicative noise factors within which the source and receiver are located; or

The average of the indicative noise factors (where the source and receiver are located within different zones); or

The indicative noise factor within which the receiver is located, if the noise source is separated from the receiver by another locality at least 100 metres wide

In accordance with the Policy, the indicative noise levels for receivers in each nearby zone are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of calculated indicative noise levels for noise-sensitive receivers

Receiver zone Indicative noise level (dBA)


District Centre (Norwood) zone 57 50

Residential zone 55 48

Mixed Use B zone 57 50

Business zone 60 53

For development authorisation applications (ie planning purposes for future noise sources), a predicted source noise level (continuous) should not exceed the relevant indicative noise level less 5 dBA. The noise emission criteria (based on the average of the indicative noise factors less 5 dBA) applicable to noise emitted from the development such as HVAC plant, fans, and condensers are summarised in Table 6.


Table 6: Summary of environmental noise criteria developed in accordance with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007

Receiver zone

Continuous noise criteria for noise emissions (dBA)


District Centre (Norwood) zone 52 45

Residential zone 50 43

Mixed Use B zone 52 45

Business zone 55 48

In addition, a 5 dBA penalty applies to predicted noise levels (up to a maximum penalty of 10 dBA) if the noise from the development contains any characteristics (ie a tonal, impulsive, low frequency or modulating characteristic).


6 Design Criteria - Wind The Davenport criteria are often used for wind comfort assessment in outdoor areas and are defined in Table 7 and Table 8. The Davenport criteria are used to assess wind force only and do not allow for variations in ambient temperature, solar radiation, and other environmental variables.

The comfort criteria are based on the exceedance of the threshold wind speeds occurring less than 5% of the time (approximately once every 3 weeks). The value of 5% has been established as giving a reasonable allowance for extreme and relatively infrequent winds that are tolerable within each category. For example, if the mean hourly wind speed at a particular location is less than 4 m/s for 95% of the time then that location is classified as C4. At the other extreme, if the wind speed exceeds 8 m/s more than 5 % of the time but exceeds 10 m/s less than 5% of the time, then category C1 applies and the location would be considered windy though not necessarily unsafe. A wind speed in excess of 10 m/s more than 5% of the time would incur a category of C1+.

Table 7 Davenport Comfort Criteria

Comfort rating

Description Threshold mean hourly wind speed exceeded <

5% of the time Appropriate use Description of wind effects

C1+ Uncomfortable for

all uses >10 m/s Uncomfortable for all uses

Umbrellas used with difficulty Hair blown straight Difficult to walk straight

C1 Fast or business

walking 10 m/s

Local areas around tall buildings where people

are not expected to linger

Force of wind felt on body Trees in leaf begin to move

C2 Leisurely walking

or window shopping

8 m/s General areas of walking

and sightseeing

Moderate, raises dust, loose paper Hair disarranged Small branches move

C3 Short period

standing or sitting 6 m/s

Appropriate for bus stops, window shopping and

building entrances

Light leaves and twigs in motion Wind extends lightweight flag

C4 Long period

standing or sitting 4 m/s

Reading a newspaper, eating and drinking

Light wind felt on face Leaves rustle

For the safety criteria, once per annum during daylight hours equates to a seasonal threshold exceedance of 0.023 %. A wind speed greater than 15 m/s but less than 20 m/s occurring once a year is classified as unsuitable for general public which includes elderly, cyclists and children. Able bodied users are those determined to experience distress when the wind speed exceeds 20 m/s once per year.

Table 8 Davenport Safety Criteria

Safety rating Description Mean hourly wind speed

exceeded once per annum

S1 Unsuitable for Able Bodied 20 m/s

S2 Unsuitable for General Public 15 m/s


7 Assessment and Recommendations - Acoustics

7.1 Environmental Noise Emissions

7.1.1 Mechanical Services Plant

Environmental noise emission from the project site will primarily consist of noise from new building services equipment associated with the development. They include the operation of plant mounted on the roof, car park ventilation fans, general ventilation systems, as well as fixed domestic machines (such as outdoor condensing units). This equipment when left untreated may have an adverse impact on the neighbouring residents within the development and therefore need careful design.

The location and the specific selection of building services plant equipment for the development have not been made at this stage. The selected mechanical equipment will be reviewed and assessed for conformance with established internal noise criteria presented in Section 5.3 at the detailed design stage of the project once the mechanical services specifications and drawings are available. Compliance with the environmental noise limits will be achieved with appropriate acoustic engineering control methods that may include:

Selecting service plant equipment on the basis of low noise emissions

Locating noisy equipment away from potentially affected receivers

Ensuring all mechanical equipment (fans, etc.) have adequate vibration isolation installed

Installing acoustic louvres to plant rooms

Selecting appropriate façade / envelope (roof, wall, door etc.) construction for plant rooms

Building solid noise barriers / partial enclosures on the roof around any noisy equipment

Including privacy barriers between balconies of adjacent sole-occupancy units.

Installing silencers and acoustically lined ductwork

Utilisation of variable speed controls

7.1.2 Ground Level Transformer

Based on the location of the future transformer at ground level, no adverse impact due to operation of the future transformer is expected, however detailed assessment of the transformer should be undertaken (once the size / capacity has been confirmed) to ensure the environmental and internal noise criteria are achieved. Generally the transformer should be mounted on neoprene mounts or waffle pads to minimise structure-borne noise transfer through the development.

7.2 External Noise Intrusion The external traffic noise impact on the façade of the 254-256 The Parade development has been modelled in SoundPLAN based on the proposed site layout, and the requirements of the ‘verification method’ of Minister’s Specification SA 78B. The modelling is based on the Type A and Type B road noise sources provided in the Specification, and takes into account the distance from the sound source to the building envelope and shielding provided by permanent structures. Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows the predicted worst-case day-time (Leq 15hr) traffic noise impact on the development.


Figure 7: Predicted traffic noise impact (viewed from the north-east)

Figure 8: Predicted traffic noise impact (viewed from the south-west)


Based on the acoustic modelling, the sound exposure categories for each façade developed in accordance with the Minister’s Specification SA 78B are shown in Appendix A. The construction requirements for the building envelope and ventilation system to habitable rooms in accordance with the Minister’s Specification SA 78B are presented in Table 9 (to be read in conjunction with the façade mark-ups provided in Appendix A). Detailed recommendations for each element are provided in the following sections.

Table 9: Minimum acoustic performance requirements for each sound exposure category façade in accordance with Minister’s Specification SA 78B.

Sound exposure category

Element Acoustic requirements

1

External walls RW + Ctr 45 for all habitable rooms

Windows and external glass doors Refer Appendix B *

Ventilation system RW 40

2

Ground floor RW + Ctr 50 for all habitable rooms



External doors other than external glass doors RW 27 for all habitable rooms

Roof and ceiling RW + Ctr 35 for bedrooms


3






RW + Ctr 35 for all other habitable rooms


4






RW + Ctr 40 for all other habitable rooms


* Note: Minister’s Specification SA 78B provides minimum RW + Ctr (airborne) depending on the sound exposure category, and the area of window and external glass doors as a percentage of the floor area of the room. Refer to Appendix B for glazing recommendations for each space.


Control of external noise intrusion into the apartments will be critical to maintain the acoustic amenity of the tenants, and ensure a pleasant living environment within the residential development. Recommendations for the building envelope to achieve the internal acoustic design criteria are based on the following considerations:

Calculation of predicted traffic noise impact on the apartments to achieve the continuous noise design criterion of LAeq 30 dBA in bedrooms during the night-time, and LAeq 35 dBA in other habitable spaces during the day-time. In addition, the maximum noise criterion of LAmax 45 dBA inside bedrooms must be achieved to minimise sleep disturbance.

The designated sound source spectral adjustment levels for road traffic noise stipulated within the Minister’s Specification SA 78B

The Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions (acceptable construction practise) of the Minister’s Specification SA 78B

Noise from balconies to adjacent sole-occupancy units (people talking).

Noise from people in the public walkways impacting on the centrally located bedrooms

7.2.1 External Walls

We note that 150mm thick precast concrete (minimum density of 2,340 kg/m3) will be suitable to meet the RW + Ctr 50 (airborne) requirement for noise intrusion through Class 2, Class 3 and Class 4 external walls, and will meet the RW + Ctr 45 (airborne) requirement for noise intrusion through Class 1 external walls.

7.2.2 Ground Floor Slab

We note that a 200mm thick concrete slab (minimum density of 2,340 kg/m3) will be suitable to achieve the RW + Ctr 50 (airborne) requirement for the ground floor. Where the concrete slab is poured onto a profiled or corrugated sheet (eg KingFlor sheeting), care shall be taken to ensure that the profiled areas / reduced concrete thickness do not reduce the acoustic performance of the slab (to be determined at the detailed design stage of the project).

7.2.3 Windows and External Glass Doors

We note the external glazing acoustic performance requirements are provided in Appendix B, with a summary of each type of glazing presented in Table 10. The specified glazing for each facade will be suitable to meet the requirements for external noise intrusion through windows and glass doors.


Table 10: Recommendations for external windows and glass doors

Acoustic requirement

Windows Sliding doors / windows

RW + Ctr 25 6.38mm thick laminated glass with

sliding or double hung type opening 6.38mm thick laminated glass with sliding door or

double hung type opening window


sliding or double hung type opening 6.76mm thick laminated glass with sliding door or

double hung type opening window


awning type opening 10.76mm thick laminated glass sliding door or double

hung type opening window


awning type opening 12.5mm VLAM Hush™ glass sliding door or double

hung type door

RW + Ctr 37 12.5mm VLAM Hush™ glass with

awning type opening A sliding window to Sound Exposure Category 3 or 4

bedrooms is not recommended

All operable windows and doors should have an aluminium or timber frame, and be fitted with appropriate compressible rubber / silicone acoustic seals around the perimeter to provide an airtight system when closed (brush type seals will not be suitable). Glass in external doors should be set and sealed in an airtight non-hardening sealant, or a soft elastomeric gasket or glazing tape.

7.2.4 Roof and Ceiling for Top Floor Apartments

We note the following ceiling constructions for top floor apartments will be suitable to meet the requirements for external rain, traffic and aircraft noise intrusion:

Level 2 apartments with deck above: We note that the level 3 deck consisting of a 200mm thick concrete slab (minimum density of 2,340 kg/m3) extending above the level 2 apartment bedrooms and living spaces will be suitable to achieve the RW + Ctr requirements for the apartments on the northern side of the development closest to The Parade.

Level 5 bedrooms: Sheet metal cladding on minimum 150mm deep purlins with a layer of 165mm thick, 7kg/m3 glass wool or rock wool insulation installed hard under the roof sheet (between the roof sheet and the purlins), and two layers of 13mm thick plasterboard to the bedroom ceilings (to achieve RW + Ctr 40).

All other rooms on level 5: Sheet metal cladding on minimum 150mm deep purlins with a layer of 165mm thick, 7kg/m3 glass wool or rock wool insulation installed hard under the roof sheet (between the roof sheet and the purlins), and one of 13mm thick plasterboard to the ceiling (to achieve RW + Ctr 35).

7.2.5 External Doors (Non-glazed)

Non-glazed external doors (between apartments and the common areas / walkways / portico) should consist of minimum 40mm thick solid core doors (side hinged) fitted with compressible acoustic seals (to achieve RW 30). Glass inserts should consist of minimum 6.38mm laminated glass.


7.2.6 Ventilation Systems

In sound exposure categories 1, 2 and 3 (refer Appendix B), natural ventilation must be provided in accordance with F4.6 and F4.7 of Volume One and 3.8.5.2 of Volume Two of the NCC.

In sound exposure category 4 (ie the closest apartments within 10 metres of The Parade), a mechanical ventilation system that complies with AS 1668.2 must be provided with:

Relief air paths (or evaporative air conditioning) must be fully ducted to allow for the operation of the system with windows and external doors closed; and

The fresh air (or make up air) inlets and exhaust outlets must be at a point on the building furthest from The Parade and Portrush Road where practicable

7.2.7 Aircraft Noise Intrusion

Aircraft noise is assessed in accordance with AS 2021-2000. Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contours have been referenced from the Adelaide Airport Master Plan 2009, 2029 ANEF.

The project site is located at approximately 9 km east of the Adelaide airport. Intermittent aircraft noise impacting on the proposed development will be less than road traffic noise given that the development site is well outside the 20 ANEF contour line for the year 2029 ANEF (shown in Figure 9). In accordance with AS 2021-2000, additional consideration of aircraft noise break-in is not required.

Figure 9: Year 2029 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) Contours for Adelaide Airport

Proposed development to the east


7.3 Sound Insulation to Apartments

7.3.1 Inter-Tenancy Walls

Walls separating apartments must achieve a laboratory sound insulation rating of at least Rw + Ctr 50 to meet the minimum NCC requirements. An indicative wall construction that is deemed to satisfy the minimum NCC sound insulation requirement is provided in Table 11.

Table 11: Inter-tenancy walls

Alternative wall configurations will be analysed for compliance during the detailed design stage (eg walls to achieve the Green Star points if pursued). Issues that need to be considered at the time of design and construction include:

Avoiding locating electrical sockets back-to-back in partition wall between dwellings

Avoiding situating a bedroom of a sole occupancy unit to adjoin a wet area (kitchen/toilet) of another sole occupancy unit. Internal layouts should be planned utilising stacked layout and wet-to-wet area parallel arrangement.

Where two layers of sheeting materials (eg plasterboard) are to be installed, the second layer must be fastened over the first layer so that the joints do not coincide with those of the first layer

All junctions with the façade to be taped and filled solid.

Avoid locating service risers / shafts, plant rooms and other noise sources immediately adjacent bedrooms wherever possible

7.3.2 Partitions within Apartments

There are no requirements in NCC for internal wall and partitions within sole-occupancy units. Spaces within an apartment generally do not require a high level of acoustic privacy. However, there should be moderate sound insulation for normal speech (loud speech may still be clearly audible). An example of such a system is provided in Table 12.

Description Construction

Two rows of 64mm steel studs at 600mm centres with

a) An air gap of not less than 20mm between the rows of studs;

b) 50mm thick Glasswool insulation with a density of 11kg/m3, positioned between one row of studs and

c) Two layers of 13 mm fire protective grade plasterboard fixed to outside face of both sides of the partition.


Table 12: Partitions within apartments

Subjective rating

Description Weighted Sound Reduction Index

(Rw) Recommended typical wall system

Average Privacy

Moderate sound insulation for normal speech. Speech

audible and intelligible (unless soft).

40

One row of 51mm steel studs at 600mm centres with 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard fixed to both sides, and 50mm thick, 11kg/m3 glass wool insulation to the cavity

To ensure that noise flanking into habitable spaces does not impact on the acoustic isolation of the service pipes and ductwork (eg through ceiling penetrations, return air grilles, etc), we recommend that partitions to all bathrooms and wet areas within apartments extend full-height.

7.3.3 Floors

Airborne sound isolation We note that a 200mm thick concrete slab (minimum density of 2,340 kg/m3) will comply with the NCC requirement of Rw + Ctr 50 for airborne sound insulation.

Impact isolation The impact isolation requirements as described in Section 5.1 will be achieved either by the use of carpeted flooring above the habitable areas or acoustic impact treatment where hard floor surfaces, such as tiles or timber, are installed above another sole occupancy units or areas of a different classification. In the case of hard floor surfaces above habitable areas, the use of a resilient layer (acoustic underlay) between the hard flooring and the 170mm thick concrete slabs can be adopted to meet the impact noise requirement of Lnw + CI (impact) not more than 62. Suitable acoustic underlays include elastomeric self-levelling screeds (e.g. Construction Chemicals, Latticrete) or acoustic mats (eg Regupol). Details of appropriate treatment are to be determined at the detailed design stage of the project.

7.3.4 Soil and Wastewater Pipes

The NCC requires a construction between wastewater pipework from one sole occupancy unit to another that will achieve a rating of Rw + Ctr 40. A minimum construction consisting of 1 layer of 13mm plasterboard ceiling plus acoustic pipe lagging (eg Pyrotek Soundlag 4525c) with 50mm thick, 14kg/m3 glass wool acoustic insulation in the cavity will achieve this.

Where waste water pipework is located in a ceiling above a non-habitable space such as a bathroom, construction to achieve an acoustic rating of no less than Rw + Ctr 25 is required. This rating can be achieved by a single layer of 13mm plasterboard ceiling construction with 50mm thick, 14kg/m3 glass wool acoustic insulation in the cavity.


8 Assessment and Recommendations - Wind The wind environment for each quadrant was assessed in terms of the potential exceedance of threshold wind speeds that relate to comfort levels perceived during standard pedestrian activities.

8.1 North East Quadrant Winds from the North West are similar in frequency to those from the North East, occurring about 10% of the time, with the average speed typically about 5m/s. The joint probability distribution of wind speed and direction gives a threshold of about 3.4m/s (exceeded for less than 5% of the time). This is unlikely to be exceeded as a result of the development due to shielding by existing buildings in the North-East quadrant, the set-back of elevated sections of the façade from The Parade, and the low-rise nature of the development.

8.2 South-West Quadrant Winds from the South West are most frequent, occurring up to 30-35% of the time in Spring and Summer, with average wind speeds frequently up to 8m/s. The joint probability distribution of wind speed and direction gives a threshold of 6.4m/s (exceeded for less than 5% of the time). Acceleration of winds to ground level are unlikely to results given shielding provided by buildings to the South-West, and the low rise nature of the development.

9 Disclaimer This assessment of wind conditions around the proposed development has been based on engineering judgment gained from past assessments of wind effects measured on-site and in a wind tunnel, as well as assessed from computational methods. No wind tunnel tests or computational analysis has been used to more accurately quantify the local wind effects for comparison with criteria referenced herein.

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

Appendix A Façade Markups

Appendix B External Glazing Recommendations

Lev

el

Dw

ell

ing

Ro

om

So

un

d E

xp

osu

re

Ca

teg

ory

Gla

zin

g a

rea

(m2)

Ro

om

flo

or

are

a

(m2)

Are

a o

f g

lazi

ng

as

%

of

flo

or

are

a

Re

qu

ire

d g

lazi

ng

pe

rfo

rma

nce

Aco

ust

ic t

rea

tme

nt

req

uir

ed

fo

r w

ind

ow

sA

cou

stic

tre

atm

en

t re

qu

ire

d f

or

slid

ing

do

ors

/ w

ind

ow

s

Livin

g3

15

30

48

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

49

11

76

%R

W+

Ctr

37

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

gS

lid

ing

win

do

w t

o S

ou

nd

Exp

osu

re C

ate

go

ry 4

be

dro

om

s is

no

t re

com

me

nd

ed

Livin

g4

14

40

34

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

14

71

35

5%

RW

+C

tr 3

71

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

Sli

din

g w

ind

ow

to

So

un

d E

xpo

sure

Ca

teg

ory

4 b

ed

roo

ms

is n

ot

reco

mm

en

de

d

Be

dro

om

22

51

14

2%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g3

82

83

0%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

37

10

69

%R

W+

Ctr

37

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

gS

lid

ing

win

do

w t

o S

ou

nd

Exp

osu

re C

ate

go

ry 3

be

dro

om

s is

no

t re

com

me

nd

ed

Livin

g1

11

24

44

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

25

11

43

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g3

83

42

2%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

15

12

38

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g1

10

32

29

%R

W+

Ctr

25

6.3

8m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.3

8m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

23

8%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

22

51

14

3%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g1

16

25

63

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

25

12

37

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g1

16

25

63

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

25

12

37

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g1

23

33

70

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

33

6%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

22

51

14

1%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g3

23

40

58

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

13

51

33

3%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

23

51

33

5%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

32

51

23

9%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g3

23

40

58

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

12

51

43

3%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

22

51

33

4%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g1

10

32

30

%R

W+

Ctr

25

6.3

8m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.3

8m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

23

8%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

21

51

04

5%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g3

13

30

42

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

33

3%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

21

51

23

6%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g3

13

37

34

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

33

6%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

21

51

14

0%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g1

13

26

48

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

15

12

37

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g1

13

25

49

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

15

12

38

%R

W+

Ctr

28

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

sli

din

g o

r d

ou

ble

hu

ng

ty

pe

op

en

ing

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Livin

g3

19

38

51

%R

W+

Ctr

34

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

12

.5m

m V

LAM

Hu

sh l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

23

51

33

5%

RW

+C

tr 3

41

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

2.5

mm

VLA

M H

ush

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

22

51

23

8%

RW

+C

tr 3

16

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h a

wn

ing

ty

pe

op

en

ing

10

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Livin

g1

24

32

74

%R

W+

Ctr

31

6.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss w

ith

aw

nin

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g1

0.7

6m

m l

am

ina

ted

gla

ss s

lid

ing

do

or

/ w

ind

ow

Be

dro

om

11

51

33

5%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Be

dro

om

21

51

33

6%

RW

+C

tr 2

86

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

wit

h s

lid

ing

or

do

ub

le h

un

g t

yp

e o

pe

nin

g6

.76

mm

la

min

ate

d g

lass

sli

din

g d

oo

r /

win

do

w

Leve

ls 3

-5

Ap

t 3

01

Ap

t 3

02

Ap

t 3

03

Ap

t 3

04

Ap

t 3

05

Ap

t 3

06

Ap

t 3

07

Ap

t 3

08

Ap

t 3

09

Leve

l 2

Ap

t 2

01

Ap

t 2

02

Ap

t 2

03

Ap

t 2

04

Ap

t 2

05

Ap

t 2

06

Ap

t 2

07

Ap

t 2

08

Ap

t 2

09

Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

ABN 54 005 139 873

55 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia

T +61 8 8237 9777 F +61 8 8237 9778 E [email protected] W aurecongroup.com

Aurecon offices are located in: Angola, Australia, Botswana, Chile, China, Ethiopia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam.

A A

B B

C C

D D

EFG

EFG

LIFT

CAR PARK

LEVEL 1B

BELOW

RA

MP

D

OW

N T

O 1A

down to

level 1B

LAND 1B

RL 2.8

LEVEL 2

RL 4.20

up from

level 1B

up to

level 3

LAND 1B

RL 2.8

LEVEL 2

RL 4.20

up to

level 3

LAND 2.5

RL 5.80

920

920

92

0

KITCHEN

2.5 x 2.6m

820

BED

3.3 x 3.1m

820

ft

ENSUITE

2.7 x 1.4m

WIR

2.7 x 1.5m

LAUNDRY

2.1 x 1.4m

LIVING

6.0 x 3.6m

DECK

2.0 x 3.7m

POWDER

2.1 x 1.4m

ALL LANDSCAPING SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT REVIEW AND COLLABORATION. TYPICAL

PLANTING: ZEALAND FLAX (PHORMIUM TENAX),

EVERGREEN GIANT (LIRIOPE MUSCARI) AND CLIVIA

(CLIVIA MINIATA).

STATE HERITAGE

NO

RT

H

SE

AT

ING

KITCHEN

2.4 x 3.2m

920

ft

82

0

82

0

RO

BE

BATH

2.9 x 1.4m

BED

3.1 x 3.2m

LIVING

3.4 x 5.9m

720720

92

0

DECK

5.6 x 2.0m

BED 1

3.7 x 3.3m

LIVING

5.7 x 4.6m

KITCHEN

3.2 x 2.5m

920

BED 2

3.1 x 3.5m

DECK

2.5 x 4.0m

2.6 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

LIVING

5.2 x 4.0m

BED 1

3.6 x 3.5m

BED

3.4 x 3.0m

920

RO

BE

DECK

2.8 x 3.0m

920

82

0

820

ft

ENSUITE

2.8 x 1.5m

POWDER /

LAUNDRY

2.4 x 1.5m

82

0

ft

82

0

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

DECK

2.8 x 3.0m

920

82

0

820

ft

ENSUITE

2.8 x 1.5m

POWDER /

LAUNDRY

2.4 x 1.5m

82

0

RO

BE

BED

3.5 x 3.0m

BED 2

3.1 x 3.3m

BED 1

3.5 x 3.3m

2.6 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

DECK

2.3 x 4.0m

LIVING

5.4 x 4.0m

LIVING

6.0 x 4.0m

LIVING

6.0 x 4.0m

LINEN

820820

RO

BE

WIR

82

0

ft

ENSUITE

1.5 x 2.8m

2.4 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

82

0

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

820820

RO

BE

WIR

82

0

ft

ENSUITE

1.5 x 2.8m

2.4 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

LINEN

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

refuse

chutes

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

82

0

ft

ENSUITE

1.7 x 2.8m

BED 2

3.4 x 3.2m

82

0

ROBE

82

0

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

82

0

RO

BE

WIR

DECK

2.3 x 4.4m

BED

3.1 x 3.1m

ft

BATH

1.5 x 3.1m

LIVING

4.6 x 4.4m

DECK

2.9 x 2.9m

82

0

820

920

DECK

2.1 x 3.0m

BED

3.3 x 3.0m

ft

82

0

WIR

2.0 x 2.2m

82

0

KITCHEN

2.9 x 2.3m

LIVING

5.3 x 3.4m

SEATING

SE

AT

RO

BE

820

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

ALL RESIDENTS RECEIVE A

CONNECTION TO THE PARADE

CONTEXT.

PASSIVE SUNSHADING DEVICES TO

EAST AND WEST FACADES. TYPICAL.

LAUNDRY /

LINEN

LAUNDRY

LA

UN

DR

Y

LA

UN

DR

Y

CORNER OF BUILDING SET BACK TO ALLOW VIEW TO

HERITAGE BUILDING FROM WEST.

APARTMENTS PROVIDE PASSIVE

SURVEILLANCE TO REAR LANE.

PLANTING, SCREENS AND

OVERHEAD WALKWAYS PROVIDE

RESISTANCE TO WIND TUNNELLING

AND DOWN DRAUGHT EFFECTS.

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

RAISED BED PLANTING AREAS.

CROSS VENTILATION TYPICAL.

SCREEN

SCREEN

SCREEN

SCREEN

SCREEN

SCREEN

3000

3m SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS EAST

AND WEST.

NON-GLAZED EXTERNAL DOORS TO

ACHEIVE Rw 30.

WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS TO

ACHIEVE Rw + Ctr 50.

WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS AND PUBLIC

CORRIDORS AND SERVICE AREAS TO ACHIEVE

Rw 50



INTERNAL APARTMENT WALLS

GENERALLY 13mm PLASTERBOARD

ON 64mm STEED STUDS. 50mm 11kg/mį

INSULATION ADDED BETWEEN LIVING

ROOMS AND MASTER BEDROOMS.

SOLID EXTERIOR APARTMENT WALLS

TO HABITABLE AREAS TO ACHIEVE

Rw + Ctr 50.



Rw + Ctr 50.

DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO BE

USED ON ALL NORTH APARTMENTS

FOR PARADE/PORTRUSH ROAD NOISE

REDUCTION AND THERMAL

PERFORMANCE. (ACHIEVES

PERFORMANCE BEYOND ACOUSTIC

RECOMMENDATION)

EXTERNAL GLAZED WINDOWS AND

DOORS TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM Rw + Ctr

RATING SET OUT IN APPENDIX B OF

THE ACOUSTIC REPORT.

EXTERNAL GLAZED WINDOWS AND DOORS TO

ACHIEVE MINIMUM Rw + Ctr RATING SET OUT IN

APPENDIX B OF THE ACOUSTIC REPORT.

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS

1. EVERY APARTMENT HAS OPENINGS CREATING

CROSS VENTILATION, EFFECTIVELY REDUCING AIR

CONDITIONING LOAD AND LIGHTING DEMANDS.

2. MIXTURE OF SMALL WINDOWS AND OVERHANGS

TO WESTERN AND EASTERN FACADES, PLUS

PASSIVE PROTECTION TO NORTH FACADE.

3. HIGH PERFORMANCE (LOW E) GLAZING.

4. ENERGY RECOVERY ON LIFT.

5. TRI-STREAM WASTE SYSTEM.

6. WATER COLLECTION FOR LANDSCAPING.

APARTMENT SCHEDULE

1 BEDROOM: 12

2 BEDROOM: 21

3 BEDROOM: 3

TOTAL APARTMENTS: 36

ACOUSTIC TARGETS

1. APARTMENT EXTERNAL WALLS TO ACHIEVE

Rw + Ctr 50

2. WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS TO ACHIEVE

Rw + Ctr 50

3. APARTMENT ENTRY DOORS TO ACHIEVE Rw 30

4. DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO APARTMENT

BEDROOMS TO ENHANCE ACOUSTICS AND

THERMAL LOAD/LOSS.

5. PERFORMANCE GLASS TO LIVING AREAS AND

OTHER HABITABLE ROOMS TO ENHANCE

ACOUSTICS AND THERMAL LOAD/LOSS.

06

ISSUE 04

LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN

254-256 THE PARADE

SCALE: 1:100

27.10.2014

NORTH

bill.dawson

Group

Legend Sound Exposure Category 1 Sound Exposure Category 2 Sound Exposure Category 3 Sound Exposure Category 4

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

LIFT

A A

B B

C C

D D

EFG

EFG

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

WALKWAY

up to

level 4

LEVEL 3

RL 7.40

up to

level 4

LAND 2.5

RL 5.8

LAND 3.5

RL 9.00

920

BED 1

3.4 x 3.4m

BED 2

3.4 x 3.3m

820

RO

BE

820

DECK

8.2 x 2.1m

KITCHEN

2.5 x 3.6m

920

BED 3

3.2 x 3.4m

BED 2

3.4 x 3.1m

82

0

BED 1

4.2 x 3.3m

STATE HERITAGE

NO

RT

H

SE

AT

ING

ALL RESIDENTS RECEIVE A

CONNECTION TO THE PARADE

CONTEXT.

LAUNDRY

ft

BATH

1.7 x 2.8m

ENSUITE

2.8 x 2.4m

82

0

820

1.7 x 1.6m

82

0

RO

BE

DECK

2.8 x 2.8m

920

82

0

BED 1

3.3 x 3.6m

LIVING

6.0 x 4.0m

LIVING

7.1 x 4.1m

KITCHEN

2.5 x 3.6m

ENSUITE

1.9 x 3.8m

WIR

LIN

EN

3.4 x 3.1m

BED 2

82

0

RO

BE

KITCHEN

2.5 x 3.0m

82

0

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

ft

ENSUITE

1.5 x 2.8m

820

ROBE

LINEN /

LAUNDRY

refuse

chutes

DECK

2.8 x 3.0m

82

0

SO

UT

H

SE

AT

IN

G

920

82

0

ft

820

ft

BATH

28 x 1.5m

ROBE

LAUNDRY

820

POWDER

82

0

LIN

EN

82

0

82

0

RO

BE

ft

LIVING

7.1 x 4.0m

2.7 x 3.2m

KITCHEN

BED 2

3.2 x 3.3m

ft

WIR

BED 2

3.6 x 3.3m

LIVING

4.0 x 6.0m

920

DECK

4.1 x 2.7m

RO

BE

820

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

82

0

LINEN

82

0

ENSUITE

1.5 x 4.2m

920

BED 2

3.1 x 3.5m

DECK

2.5 x 4.0m

2.6 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

LIVING

5.2 x 4.0m

BED 1

3.6 x 3.5m

BED

3.4 x 3.0m

920

RO

BE

DECK

2.8 x 3.0m

920

82

0

820

ft

ENSUITE

2.8 x 1.5m

POWDER /

LAUNDRY

2.4 x 1.5m

82

0

ft

82

0

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

DECK

2.8 x 3.0m

920

82

0

820

ft

ENSUITE

2.8 x 1.5m

POWDER /

LAUNDRY

2.4 x 1.5m

82

0

RO

BE

BED

3.5 x 3.0m

BED 2

3.1 x 3.3m

BED 1

3.5 x 3.3m

2.6 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

DECK

2.3 x 4.0m

LIVING

5.4 x 4.0m

LIVING

6.0 x 4.0m

LIVING

6.0 x 4.0m

LINEN

820820

RO

BE

WIR

82

0

ft

ENSUITE

1.5 x 2.8m

2.4 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

82

0

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

820820

RO

BE

WIR

82

0

ft

ENSUITE

1.5 x 2.8m

2.4 x 2.9m

KITCHEN

LINEN

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

2.6 x 3.2m

KITCHEN

LIVING

5.7 x 4.3m

WALKWAY

WIR

BED 2

3.4 x 3.1m

BED 1

3.6 x 3.4m

820

82

0

ft

BATH

1.5 x 2.8m

820

82

0

WIR

ft

ENSUITE

2.2 x 2.3m

DECK

8.2 x 2.1m

301

302

303

304

305

308

309

307

306

NORTH APARTMENT DECKS EXTEND TO THE

PARADE BOUNDARY ON LEVEL 3 ONLY. WHERE

DECKS ABOVE APARTMENTS OR RETAIL

SPACES, INSTALL THERMOFOIL INSULATION

DIRECTLY UNDER SLAB WITH ACOUSTIC

INSULATION ABOVE CEILING.

NORTH APARTMENT DECKS EXTEND TO THE

PARADE BOUNDARY ON LEVEL 3 ONLY. WHERE

DECKS ABOVE APARTMENTS OR RETAIL

SPACES, INSTALL THERMOFOIL INSULATION

DIRECTLY UNDER SLAB WITH ACOUSTIC

INSULATION ABOVE CEILING.

ALL LANDSCAPING SUBJECT TO LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT REVIEW AND COLLABORATION. TYPICAL

PLANTING: ZEALAND FLAX (PHORMIUM TENAX),

EVERGREEN GIANT (LIRIOPE MUSCARI) AND CLIVIA

(CLIVIA MINIATA).

PASSIVE SUNSHADING DEVICES TO EAST AND

WEST FACADES. TYPICAL.

PASSIVE SUNSHADING DEVICES TO

EAST AND WEST FACADES. TYPICAL.

LAUNDRY

LAUNDRY

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

SCREEN

SC

RE

EN

SC

RE

EN

CROSS VENTILATION TYPICAL.

PASSIVE SUNSHADING DEVICES TO EAST AND

WEST FACADES. TYPICAL.

3000 3000

3m SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS EAST

AND WEST.

3000

60

00

NON-GLAZED EXTERNAL DOORS TO

ACHEIVE Rw 30.

APARTMENTS PROVIDE PASSIVE

SURVEILLANCE TO REAR LANE.

WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS TO ACHIEVE Rw

+ Ctr 50.

WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS AND PUBLIC

CORRIDORS AND SERVICE AREAS TO ACHIEVE

Rw 50





INTERNAL APARTMENT WALLS GENERALLY

13mm PLASTERBOARD ON 64mm STEED STUDS.

50mm 11kg/mį INSULATION ADDED BETWEEN

LIVING ROOMS AND MASTER BEDROOMS.



Rw + Ctr 50.



Rw + Ctr 50.

DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO BE

USED ON ALL NORTH APARTMENTS

FOR PARADE/PORTRUSH ROAD NOISE

REDUCTION AND THERMAL

PERFORMANCE. (ACHIEVES

PERFORMANCE BEYOND ACOUSTIC

RECOMMENDATION)

EXTERNAL GLAZED WINDOWS AND DOORS TO

ACHIEVE MINIMUM Rw + Ctr RATING SET OUT IN

APPENDIX B OF THE ACOUSTIC REPORT.

EXTERNAL GLAZED WINDOWS AND

DOORS TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM Rw + Ctr

RATING SET OUT IN APPENDIX B OF

THE ACOUSTIC REPORT.

PLANTING, SCREENS AND

OVERHEAD WALKWAYS PROVIDE

RESISTANCE TO WIND TUNNELLING

AND DOWN DRAUGHT EFFECTS.

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS

1. EVERY APARTMENT HAS OPENINGS CREATING

CROSS VENTILATION, EFFECTIVELY REDUCING AIR

CONDITIONING LOAD AND LIGHTING DEMANDS.

2. MIXTURE OF SMALL WINDOWS AND OVERHANGS

TO WESTERN AND EASTERN FACADES, PLUS

PASSIVE PROTECTION TO NORTH FACADE.

3. HIGH PERFORMANCE (LOW E) GLAZING.

4. ENERGY RECOVERY ON LIFT.

5. TRI-STREAM WASTE SYSTEM.

6. WATER COLLECTION FOR LANDSCAPING.

APARTMENT SCHEDULE

1 BEDROOM: 12

2 BEDROOM: 21

3 BEDROOM: 3

TOTAL APARTMENTS: 36

ACOUSTIC TARGETS

1. APARTMENT EXTERNAL WALLS TO ACHIEVE

Rw + Ctr 50

2. WALLS BETWEEN APARTMENTS TO ACHIEVE

Rw + Ctr 50

3. APARTMENT ENTRY DOORS TO ACHIEVE Rw 30

4. DOUBLE GLAZED WINDOWS TO APARTMENT

BEDROOMS TO ENHANCE ACOUSTICS AND

THERMAL LOAD/LOSS.

5. PERFORMANCE GLASS TO LIVING AREAS AND

OTHER HABITABLE ROOMS TO ENHANCE

ACOUSTICS AND THERMAL LOAD/LOSS.

07

ISSUE 04

LEVEL 3-5 FLOOR PLAN

254-256 THE PARADE

SCALE: 1:100

27.10.2014

NORTH

bill.dawson

Group

Legend Sound Exposure Category 1 Sound Exposure Category 2 Sound Exposure Category 3 Sound Exposure Category 4

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Rectangle

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

bill.dawson

PolyLine

bill.dawson

Line

melbourne

sydney

brisbane

canberra

adelaide

gold coast

townsville

perth

Suite 4, Level 1,

136 The Parade

NORWOOD SA 5067

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

t// +618 8334 3600

www.gta.com.au

Our Ref: 14A1182000

30 October 2014


Level 6, 149 Flinders Street

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Attention: Mr. Ben Hewitson (Senior Architect)

Dear Ben

RE: 254-256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD – ACCESS OPTIONS REVIEW

GTA Consultants (GTA) has been requested to undertake a review of the proposed access

options for a mixed used development located at 254-256 The Parade, Norwood. It is understood

the development will comprise 370sq.m of retail GLFA and 39 apartments and associated on-site

parking.

The purpose of this letter is to provide a preliminary assessment of the proposed access options

from a traffic engineering perspective and identify opportunities and constraints of each option.

These options are based on alternative scenarios for access to the site from Portrush Road, The

Parade and Cairns Street. The options follow a meeting with DPTI on 8th April 2014 and comments

received from DPTI on 27 May 2014.

Existing Situation

Portrush Road

Portrush Road functions as a two-way arterial road under the care and control of the Department

of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and is considered a major traffic and freight route1.

Portrush Road is aligned in a north to south direction and is configured with 2 lanes in each

direction on median divided carriageways. The approximately 18.5m wide road (measured

adjacent the site) is set within an approximately 24m wide road reserve. A Clearway operates at

all times along Portrush Road adjacent to the subject site.

Portrush Road is subject to a posted speed limit of 60km/h and carries approximately 36,400

vehicles per day2.

The Parade

The Parade functions as a two-way arterial road under the care and control of the Department

of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) and is considered a priority public transport corridor

and priority pedestrian area1. The Parade is aligned in an east to west direction and is configured

with 2 lanes in each direction on median divided carriageways. The approximately 19.5m wide

road (measured adjacent the site) is set within an approximately 30m wide road reserve.

Kerbside parking is restricted adjacent to the site between the hours 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm

1Based on information contained in “A Functional Hierarchy for South Australia’s Land Transport Network” June 2013

2 Based on data obtained from DPTI Road Asset Management Section – 28 September 2014

GTA

Le

tte

r 2014

141030ltrrep-14A1182000-Option Summary - FINAL.docx 2 of 11

Monday to Friday. A mixture of 1 hour time limit and unrestricted parking is permitted outside of

these times.

The Parade is subject to the default built up urban speed limit of 50km/h and carries

approximately 16,400 vehicles per day3.

The existing site has one crossover to Portrush Road and one crossover to The Parade. Both

access provide ingress and egress vehicular movements and is limited to left-in/left-out

manoeuvres. The crossover to Portrush Road is connected to a right-of-way driveway providing

access to the subject site and neighbouring properties.

The crossover to The Parade is primarily allocated to the existing site providing access to the on-

site car park but there are no physical limitations to prevent it being utilised for access to and

from the adjacent properties. It is noted there is only one other driveway access to The Parade

along this section of the road.

The existing site’s access arrangement is shown in Figure 1 overleaf.

Figure 1: Existing Site Access Arrangement

The existing crossover to The Parade creates potential conflict with pedestrian movements which

is not considered desirable given The Parade retail precinct and large volumes of pedestrian

movements.

A summary of traffic generation for the previous bulky goods retail use is shown in Table 1 and

Table 2. Peak hour trip generation rates and daily trip generation rates are based on findings of

surveys undertaken by the NSW Government Transport, Roads and Maritime Services in 2009 for

bulky goods retail stores within the Sydney metropolitan area.

3 Based on data obtained from DPTI Road Asset Management Section – 28 September 2014


Table 1: Previous Use Weekday Traffic Generation

Land Use Size Peak Hour Trip

Generation Rate

Daily Trip

Generation Rate

Peak Hour

Trips Daily Trips

Bulky Goods

Retail 950sq.m 2.7 trips per 100sq.m 17 trips per 100sq.m 26 162

It is estimated the former bulky goods retail use could have generated up to 26 vehicle trips in the

peak hour distributed evenly between the two accesses with approximately 13 trips at each

access during the peak hour. This could have reflected trading on a peak day, such as a

Thursday. Weekday peak period traffic distribution for the previous bulky goods retail use is shown

in Table 2

Table 2: Previous Use Weekday Traffic Distribution

Access Point Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips

The Parade 13 81

Portrush Road 13 81

Proposed Access Arrangement

The proposed development is to include:

Access from Portrush Road via an existing laneway;

Remove access from The Parade to improve the street frontage and pedestrian safety.

The proposed development is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed Site Access Arrangements

The Parade is a highly utilised pedestrian area with wide footpaths on each side, and an

indented parking lane along its length. Closing off the crossover to The Parade would be


beneficial from a pedestrian and street scape perspective with removal of potential motor

vehicle and pedestrian conflicts.

Predicted Traffic Generation

The predicted traffic generation is based on the proposed development. For the purposes of this

analysis, GTA has assumed for the commercial and residential uses a peak hour traffic generation

rate of 2 trips per retail tenancy (given the limited parking for the retail tenancies).

The residential trip generation rates are based on the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments

(RTA, 2002) for high density residential, with a peak hour of 0.24 trips per apartment respectively.

On this basis, the resulting peak hour traffic generation of the proposed site is summarised in Table

3.

Table 3: Traffic Generation Estimate for Proposed Residential

Land Use Size Peak Hour Trip

Generation Rate

Daily Trip

Generation Rate

Peak Hour

Trips Daily Trips

Retail 370sq.m 2 trips per tenancy 10 trips per tenancy 4 trips 20 trips

Residential 36 Apartments 0.24 per apartment 2.4 9 trips 87 trips

The above trip generation rates assume a peak to daily trip ratio of 10% and are based on the

understanding that two car parking spaces will be provide for each retail tenancy and that these

will predominantly be used as staff parking. Customer trips for the retail component would be

based on pedestrian and on-street parking in The Parade precinct. The trip generation rates for

the residential component include residents and visitors including service providers, deliveries and

on street movements such as taxis and pick-up and set-down activities.

Based on the above results, the proposed site is expected to generate 13 trips in the peak hour

compared to 26 trips in the peak hour for the previous bulky goods retail use. This is assuming

peak hour traffic generated from the proposed retail and residential land uses are coincidental,

representing the worst case scenario.

The predicted AM and PM weekday trip distribution at the Portrush Road access is shown in

Table 4.

Table 4: Predicted AM and PM Weekday Traffic Distributions

Access Movement AM Peak Hour

Trips

PM Peak Hour

Trips

Portrush Road Left turn out 8 5

Left turn in 5 8

The proposed development traffic generation of 13 trips during the peak hour would be similar to

the assumed existing traffic generation at the Portrush Road access of 13 trips during the peak

hour (at the existing access point). The impact on Portrush Road would therefore be

unnoticeable amongst the existing peak hour volumes. The access point would continue to

operate as left turn in and out only, with adequate sight distance available to and from the

access point.

The location of the access into the on-site car park suits the car park design constraints and assists

to achieve the maximum parking provision. The removal of the existing driveway on The Parade

could gain a parking space.


Access Point Operation

An analysis using SIDRA Intersection software for the proposed access has been undertaken to

assess the delay expected for vehicles exiting the site during peak periods. Results of the SIDRA

analysis for the AM and PM peak periods are shown in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.

Table 5: Summary of SIDRA Results for AM Peak Period

Movement Average Delay Average Queue Length Level of Service

Portrush Road (through

movement) 0 0m A

Left turn into site 10.7 seconds 0m A

Left turn out of site 35.8 seconds 1.9m C

Table 6: Summary of SIDRA Results for PM Peak Period

Movement Average Delay Average Queue Length Level of Service

Portrush Road (through

movement) 0 0m A

Left turn into site 10.7 seconds 0m A

Left turn out of site 54.6 seconds 1.6m D

The above results show the proposed access to Portrush Road will operate at Level of Service C

or better during the AM peak and Level of Service D or better during the PM peak.

During free flow of traffic on Portrush Road there will be gaps available for the anticipated

movements from the site.

The SIDRA results are consistent with site observations during the weekday AM and PM peak

period whereby sufficient gaps were identified in the free flow of traffic along Portrush Road to

enable vehicles to exit the site. SIDRA results do not consider the Pedestrian Actuated Crossing

on Portrush Road to the south of the site, high numbers of heavy vehicles in the kerbside lane, or

buses stopped in the kerbside lane to the south of the site. It was observed that these factors also

created regular gaps in the traffic on Portrush Road that would allow vehicles to exit the site.

Traffic on Portrush Road will be stopped regularly by the traffic signals at The Parade intersection,

with the queue extending past the access point on Portrush Road during peak times. During

these times, drivers exiting the site will rely on courtesy from drivers on Portrush Road to allow them

to join the queue. This is typical of many locations in the metropolitan area.

Results of the SIDRA analysis indicate a minimal delay of 10.7 seconds for left turn movements into

the site and no delay for through movements on Portrush Road. Based on these findings, GTA

does not consider any changes are required to the design of Portrush Road for access to the site.

SIDRA analysis has also been performed assuming a similar size development of the adjacent

Portrush Road site using the same access to Portrush Road (effectively doubling the traffic

volumes). No notable change was identified for left turn movements into the site and for through

movements on Portrush Road. Vehicles exiting the site would experience similar delays to the

proposed development traffic volumes.

GTA does not consider that a left turn treatment is warranted given the low volumes of traffic

anticipated to use the site, the likelihood of traffic stopping on Portrush Road for The Parade

traffic signals, the understanding of drivers of Portrush Road for the existing access point and

other access points on Portrush Road (it is not a controlled access road) and the insignificant

impact of the proposed traffic on the access point on traffic flowing on Portrush Road.


Austroads Guide to Road Design - Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections discusses

warrants for major road turn treatments (at road intersections) based on traffic volumes in the

major road through lane closest to the turning movement and the number of turning movements

per hour.

The kerbside lane of Portrush Road adjacent to the subject site carries in the order of 570 vehicles

per hour in the AM peak hour and 670 vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour. It is anticipated

that during the AM peak there would be 5 left turns into the site and during the PM there would

be 8 left turns into the site.

On this basis, application of the Austroads warrants suggests that an Urban Basic Left-turn

Treatment (BAL) would be required on Portrush Road for the AM peak hour movements into the

site and an Urban Auxiliary Left-turn Treatment – Short turn lane (AUL(S)) would be required for the

PM peak hour movements into the site.

However, the Austroads turn treatment warrants relate to road intersections and not driveways

and therefore the requirements do not apply to the proposed access. Given the results of the

SIDRA analysis and observations detailed above, GTA considers that the Austroads left turn

treatment on Portush Road into the site are not required and typical driveway access would be

appropriate.

Access Routes

Traffic entering the site will be required to do so via a left turn from Portrush Road, with drivers

required to approach from the south on Portrush Road. It is expected that the most vehicles

entering the site from the East and West will do so via Kensington Road (or another adjacent side

street) and make a left turn into the site from Portrush Road. A very small number of vehicles are

expected to enter the site from the north via Portrush Road.

Profile.id is an organisation that compiles and presents Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data

and is available from the Council website. A review of data was undertaken to identify the

employment locations of residents living within the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters (western)

region based on the analysis from Profile.id.

Based on this review, it is estimated that only 10% of employment trips are expected to the site

from the north on Portrush Road, with most trips expected from routes to the south or west. Most

of the south and west origins would likely approach from Portrush Road (south) or Kensington

Road (from the west). Based on the peak hour traffic volume, it would be expected that less

than 2 trips would be from the north on Portrush Road, with the bulk of the trips (11) from the south

or west on Portrush Road. Hence, there would typically be very few vehicles requiring to make a

U-turn on Portrush Road from the north.

Those vehicles that may require a U-turn are likely to at William Street or Cypress Street to the

south of the site on Portrush Road. These locations have clear sight distance, and drivers would U-

turn based on prevailing traffic conditions at the time. The impact of these movements would be

unnoticeable in amongst the existing traffic conditions on Portrush Road.


Option 1 – Entry via The Parade – Exit via Portrush Road

Option 1 proposes to:

Provide an entry only single lane driveway from The Parade.

Retain the existing crossover to Portrush Road facilitating left-out only movements.

This option is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Option 1 – Proposed Site Access Arrangement

Based on the above figure, this option proposes to:

Relocate the existing crossover to The Parade to the east, positioned adjacent to the

proposed retail facilitating left-in only movements.

Retain the existing crossover to Portrush Road facilitating left-out only movements.

This option will impact the pedestrian environment on The Parade with entry only vehicle

movements across the footpath. The site generated traffic is expected to be distributed evenly at

each of the access with 6-7 trips at each access during the peak period. The impact of this

traffic would be similar to the existing situation and have unnoticeable impact on Portrush Road.

The proposed driveway would be very close to the Portrush Road intersection (within 20 metres)

and would present conflicts to traffic on The Parade following the turning vehicle with limited time

for indicating intentions to enter the site. Drivers may also be required to stop on the road to

give-way to pedestrians crossing the driveway.

There would be a loss of 1 on-street parking space to accommodate the proposed driveway,

however this would be offset by the gain of 1 space from removal of the existing driveway.


Option 2 – Two Way Access to The Parade

Option 2 provides an alternative access arrangement which includes:

Remove access to the right of way driveway to Portrush Road;

Provide a two-way crossover to The Parade at the western end of the site frontage.

The option is shown in Figure 4.


This option would have an increase in traffic entering the site via The Parade through the

pedestrian oriented zone.

Sight distance for drivers exiting the site to The Parade will not meet the requirements of

AS2890.1:2004 (Figure 3.2) for a 60km/h frontage road where 83 metres is required. The curvilinear

alignment of The Parade (east) obstructs the view to the left hand approach lane prior to

Portrush Road, and vehicles entering from Portrush Road (via left turn to The Parade).

It is noted that the required sight distance is also not met for the existing driveway on The Parade.

The proposed driveway would be very close to the Portrush Road intersection (within 20 metres)

and would create conflicts to traffic on the road following the turning vehicle with limited time for

indicating intentions to enter the site (as per Option 1).

The driveway location permitting two-way access would limit the efficiency of the parking layout

and loss of parking would result in the design of the parking area. Overcoming this issue would

result in a loss of useable commercial space if the driveway was realigned to suit the car park

layout.


Option 3 – Access via Cairns Street

Option 3 provides this option proposes to:

Remove access to The Parade and Portrush Road for vehicles;

Develop a right of way driveway to the west of the site with a crossover to Cairns Street;

Retain access for other properties to Portrush Road.

This option is shown in Figure 5.


This option would eliminate the traffic impacts on Portrush Road and The Parade, and transfer site

generated traffic (14 trips in the peak hour) to Cairns Street.

This would also require a legal right of way to be negotiated with the adjacent property owners

and the likelihood of obtaining a right of way is very low.

Notwithstanding, Cairns Street is also very narrow with a carriageway of less than 5 metres, with

parking restrictions likely required to maintain appropriate access along the street. It is also a

dead-end street.

GTA does not consider that the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development would

be appropriate on Cairns Street given its existing characteristics with a narrow carriageway and

on-street parking. An access point to Cairns Street would impact existing on-street parking, with a

number of spaces removed due to the need for appropriate turning paths into and out of a new

driveway.


Summary

Three alternative options have been developed for the proposed development on the site with

various options for access from The Parade, Cairns Street or Portrush Road.

The analysis of these options has concluded:

The overall traffic generation of the proposed development would likely be less than

the previous bulky goods retail land use, with a decrease from 26 to 13 trips in the peak

hour;

There is poor sight distance for vehicles exiting to The Parade, to observe vehicles

approaching from Portrush Road from the existing access point and also any new

access points;

Any driveway on The Parade will be in close proximity to Portrush Road and provide

limited warning for drivers to enter the property, with conflict for following vehicles on

The Parade due to limited warning and sight distance;

Access to a driveway on The Parade is better with the ability to turn from the north, east

and south from Portrush Road. However, it would be expected the predominant origin

of trips to the site would be from the west (i.e. city) where a similar approach from roads

to the south (from Portrush Road) would be required;

The Portrush Road access point has appropriate sight distance for entry and exit

movements which will limit the potential for conflict (as per The Parade access point),

and would need to be retained under any option given existing right of way by various

properties adjacent to the site;

The Portrush Road access point would need to be retained under any option as other

properties have a right of way over the lane. There is opportunity to integrate access

for the neighbouring (water tank) site with improved left turn facilities if this site is ever

developed;

The Parade is designated as a pedestrian environment in the relevant development

plan and would be impacted by additional access points directly to The Parade (there

are few currently);

Removal of the access point on The Parade will gain a parking space and re-connect

the streetscape environment without interruption by driveways;

Analysis of the proposed access point on Portrush Road found an insignificant impact

on Portrush Road traffic, and minor delays for vehicles exiting to Portrush Road during

peak periods;

Minimal delay is expected for left turns into the site and no delays are expected for

through movements on Portrush Road, which confirms that a left turn lane into the site is

not required;

Assuming a similar size development of the adjacent Portrush Road site and that access

is shared, there will be no notable change to the operation of the access point.

The above review has found that retention of access to Portrush Road is the most desirable and

appropriate given it will limit impact on The Parade pedestrian environment and potentially

consolidate access for adjacent properties. I trust the above is satisfactory and to your needs.


Naturally, should you have any questions or require any further information please do not hesitate

to contact me in our Adelaide Office on (08) 8334 3600.

Yours sincerely

GTA CONSULTANTS

Paul Morris

Director

WASTE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT – 254-256 The Parade, Norwood. The proposed development at 254-256 The Parade Norwood is a mixed use residential and retail building on south side of The Parade just west of Portrush Road. The use mix consists of ground floor retail tenancies, ground floor and level 1 parking as well as upper storey residential. Using the Design Guide for Residential Recycling appendix 2: Waste Resource Generation Rates, produced by the Adelaide City Council, the following waste management solutions are provided. Table 1: Calculations of average waste generation is based on the following information: 370sqm Retail (Allowed for 7 day trade) 36 Apartments/Households (63 beds)

Floor Land Use WASTE (excluding food)

CO-MINGLED RECYCLING GREEN ORGANICS (including food)

Ground Retail (<100m2) (litres per trading day) Total Day: Total Week:

5 litres / 10m2 / day 185 litres / day 1295 litres / week

2.5 litres / 10m2 / day 93 litres / day 648 litres / week

0.25 litres / 10m2 / day 9 litres / day 65 litres / week

Level 2-5 Apartments (medium density dwellings) Total Day: Total Week: eWaste Component Total Week:

30 litres / bed / week 270 litres / day 1890 litres / week 0.77m3 / household / year 0.53m3 / week

20 litres / bed / week 180 litres / day 1260 litres / week

10 litres / bed / week 90 litres / day 630 litres / week

Summary Total Day: Total Week: Total eWaste Week:

455 litres / day 3185 litres / week 0.53m3 / week

273 litres / day 1908 litres / week

99 litres / day 695 litres / week

General Waste and Co-Mingled Recycling are transported down onto the ground floor waste room of each building via separate bin chutes from the residential floors and manually for ground floor retail tenancies. Green organics and hard electronic waste are moved manually into their respective ground floor storage areas by users. The information gathered from table 1 indicates the need for the following requirements for waste bins in the complex. 660L MGB’s used due to their ease of handling. 660L General Waste Bin (red): 5 Bins provide 1.0 weeks of service 660L Recyclable Materials (yellow): 4 Bins provide 1.4 weeks of service 660L Organic Waste (green): 3 Bins provide 2.8 weeks of service 660L Hard Electronic Waste (black): 2 Bins provide 2.4 weeks of service A waste removal company will be contracted by the tenancy strata corporation to manage waste and empty bins from the ground floor, in accordance with the frequency outlined in this report. We expect the tenancy strata to remove general waste and co-mingled recycling from the building once a week with green organic waste and hard electronic waste every two weeks as required. Waste is expected to be collected during the day at a similar time to local council collection in the area. The ground floor storage rooms have adequate capacity for the buildings load requirements. pruszinski architects

pruszinski architects pruszinski architects pty ltd ACN070121407 Level 6 149 flinders street adelaide ph:08 82233123

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

UPPER LEVEL BIN

CHUTE ROOMS

GROUND FLOOR WASTE

MANAGEMENT ROOM

roller door

CO-MINGLED

RECYCLING

CHUTE

GENERAL

WASTE CHUTE

GROUND FLOOR GREEN

WASTE MANAGEMENT

STORE

CIRCULATION

AREA

660L bin

1360 x 770

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

660L bin

1360 x 770

660L bin

1360 x 770

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

BIN STORAGE

AREA

660L bin

1360 x 770

660L bin

1360 x 770

660L bin

1360 x 770

CO-MINGLED

RECYCLING CHUTE

GENERAL WASTE

CHUTE

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

660L bin

1360 x 770

660L bin

1360 x 770

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

660L bin

1360 x 770

LIFT

SHARED

ZONE

REFUSE AND

RECYCLING ROOM

SECURE

BICYCLE STORE

20 SPACES

4 bikes

SAPN

TRANSFORMER

motorised door

8 SPACES

RE

FU

SE

1:5 1:10

1:5 1:10

RA

MP

U

P T

O 1A

RA

MP

D

OW

N T

O

SU

B-G

RO

UN

D

RA

MP

U

P T

O

GR

OU

ND

1:10

B

O

L

CAR PARK LEVEL

GROUND

CAR PARK LEVEL

SUB-GROUND

FFL 0.00

BASEMENT B1

RL -1.40

up to

ground

GROUND

RL 0.00

up to

level 1A

up to

ground

LIFT

LOBBY

level 1A

STORAGE

CAGE

TOILET AND

SHOWER

ft

SECURE

BICYCLE STORE

20 SPACES

AIR LOCK

LIFT LOBBY &

CARPARK GROUND

ENTRY

roller door

refuse

chutes

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

660L bin

1360 x 770

660L bin

1360 x 770

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

66

0L

b

in

13

60

x 7

70

loading

option 3

bins wheeled

to truck at

time of

collection

two way traffic flow

retained for all options

loading

option 1

loading

option 2

p o

r t r u

s h

r o

a

d

p r i v a t e r o a d

GROUND FLOOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

MINI-MEDIUM REAR LOADER WASTE

TRUCK MANOEUVRING AND LOADING PLAN

option 1

option 2

Material Specifications (General)Rails 32NB (38.1) x 1.6mm Pipe / Powder Coated / Hot Dipped Galvanised FinishSupports Ø19 x 1.2mm Pipe / Powder Coated / Hot Dipped Galvanised Finish

CBR4SCPowder Coated

CBR4SCGHot Dipped Galvanised

End View1058

Front View1200

828

300Spacing between multiple racks

300

HDPE plastic sleeveprotects bicycle

Single-sided access

Ø38 PipeLeaning Rail

Ø19 PipeWheel Supports

30 x 8mm Base Rail

Flat PackCompact CBR4SC

4BIKE

PARKING

Australia’smost popular rack.

1000s installed in Australia.

The Compact Security Bicycle Rack is supplied in flatpack for do-it-yourself installation.

Security Rails and Wheel Supports are supplied unattached and can be quickly bolted to

the Base Rail to provide Single, Double Sided or Angled units.

Countersunksocket screws

M12 x 20

Base Rails

Masonry anchor12 x 60mm

Supplied in Flatpack(1000 x 830 x 140mm)

www. s e c u r a b i ke. c om . au 38

P roduc t Range > B i cyc l e Racks > Ho r i z ont a l

Urban & Regional Planning Solutions ABN 19 104 348 905

H:\Synergy\Projects\2014\2014-0228 St Ignatius College Junior School Land\Correspondence\C001_V3_160113_DAC.docx

Plan · Facilitate · Resolve

Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road (cnr Alexandra Ave) Rose Park, SA 5067 Telephone (08) 8333 7999 [email protected] www.urps.com.au

Ref: 2014-0288 16 January 2015 Mr Ted Byrt Presiding Member Development Assessment Commission GPO BOX 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001 <Email: [email protected]> Dear Mr Byrt

RE: REPRESENTATION DA155/M053/14 FOR 254 – 256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD

1.0 REPRESENTING MANRESA SOCIETY INC.

URPS is acting on behalf of Manresa Society Inc. (MSI), a body associated with Saint Ignatius College.

MSI is the registered owner of the land directly to the south of the land subject to the proposed development as contained in Development Application 155/M053/14. The MSI land contains the former water tower structure and is described as Allotment 50 in Deposited Plan 44631, contained in Certificate of Title Volume 6130, Folio 856. A copy of the relevant Certificate of Title is attached. The MSI site also enjoys access to a right of way over allotment 210 fronting Portrush Road.

The former water tower has been converted to accommodate three residential apartments and telecommunication antennas. The MSI site is located within the District Centre Zone.

2.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPRESENTATION

This representation is a response to the Development Assessment Commission’s (DAC) Category 2 Public Notification process associated with this Development Application. The URPS town planning representation is supported by expert traffic advice provided by Frank Siow and Associates dated 16 January 2015, commissioned by MSI.

MSI has no in-principle objections to the proposed land use and looks forward to the subject land accommodating an appropriate and high quality development as contemplated within the Norwood, Payneham and St Peters Development Plan (consolidated 31 October 2013).

MSI is keen to ensure interface issues are appropriately addressed to ensure existing residents, future educational and/or commercial opportunities on the MSI site are retained within the context of the Development Plan. The retention of opportunities

2

for future expansion is expressly envisaged by Council Wide (Centres, Shops and Business) Principle of Development Control (PDC) 321. In addition, District Centre (Norwood) Zone Objective 2 emphasises the desired outcome for “functionally cohesive and integrated” developments. The achievement of such PDCs and Objectives should consider likely development impacts on the MSI site if the site was to be developed in accordance with the land use policies contained in the Development Plan (e.g. mixed use retail and residential apartments).

3.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Having reviewed the Development Plan, locality and the proposal, we are of the opinion that the proposal should better address the following matters to ensure compliance with the Development Plan and legal obligations:

Free and Unrestricted Right of Way

Retail Parking and Reserved Parking

Car Parking Assessment

Parking Layout and Access

Waste Management Service Vehicles

Traffic Impact

Commentary on the GTA Preliminary Access Options Review Report

Loading and Unloading for Retail Tenancies

Balconies

Noise Emission

Overshadowing and Overlooking

Electricity Supply / SA Power Network Transformer

Construction Process.

3.1 Free and Unrestricted Right of Way

As noted in the attached Certificate of Title and Identification Survey plan, the MSI site (allotment 50) enjoys “free and unrestricted right of way” over part of allotment 50 and allotment 210 (portion of the subject site). The right of way essentially provides free and unrestricted access rights for the owners/occupiers of allotment 50 (MSI) and the subject land (the Applicants) to portion of allotment 50 and allotment 210 to Portrush Road.

MSI invites the Applicant to confirm that the right of way will not contain any temporary or permanent structures/materials such as (but not limited to) waste bins, waste trucks associated with loading and unloading, car parking spaces or loading and unloading of materials during the construction process or post construction.

3

Once this confirmation is provided, MSI desires this outcome is reconfirmed in any planning condition.

3.2 Retail Parking and Reserved Parking

The following information is extracted from the advice provided by Frank Siow and Associates. The Frank Siow and Associates’ report also contains additional issues of concern which are discussed later.

Inappropriately, the proposed development does not cater for any customer parking of the retail tenancies. There are several critical issues regarding the provision of car parking that have not been addressed by the Applicant. As discussed in Section 2.0, the GTA report does not address the provision of car parking for the development. Given the shortfall of car parking and the ‘private’ nature of the proposed car parking, significant parking overflow would result onto The Parade, where on-street parking is already regularly used to capacity.

3.3 Car Parking Assessment

The following information is extracted from the advice provided by Frank Siow and Associates.

Based on the Council's Development Plan, the car parking required would be 46 spaces for the apartments and 19 spaces for the retail tenancies, (i.e. total of 65 spaces). Even allowing for some discounting of the parking requirement, due to proximity of public transport and provision of bicycle parking facilities, the provision of 44 spaces would still be well below the requirement. The parking shortfall would therefore be very significant.

The Guide to Traffic Generating Development RMS NSW is a commonly referenced parking standard by traffic engineers. Based on the parking rate specified in the NSW standard for the residential apartments, and using the Development Plan parking rate for retail tenancies, the parking required for the development would be approximately 57 spaces. Even allowing for some discounting, due to proximity of public transport and provision of bicycle parking facilities, there would still be a parking shortfall of approximately 7 spaces.

However, this assessment assumes that parking generated by the retail tenancies would be able to use the proposed car park. As this does not appear to be the case, a significant parking shortfall for the retail tenancies would be created. This also assumes that the car park would be shared between apartment residents and visitors. This would not be the case if apartments are sold with a parking space attached to the title and visitors are also not able to access a “secured” car park.

3.4 Parking layout and Access

The following information is extracted from the advice provided by Frank Siow and Associates.

No documentation has been provided indicating that the proposed car parking will satisfy the requirements of the parking standard, AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. There are a number of design issues that have not been addressed.

4

The ramps to and from the basement carparking should have a width of 6.1m measured from wall to wall. It is currently unclear whether this has been satisfied as the ramp measures approximately 5.5m wide but appears to have solid walls immediately adjacent to it and therefore would not comply with the parking standard (applies to all three ramps).

The car park entrance must also have a width of 6.1m to allow two way access. It is currently only 5.8m wide and does not comply with the parking standard.

There are also insufficient sight lines for vehicles exiting the car park to view an approaching vehicle using the right of way due to the solid walls on both sides of the entrance and therefore the design does not comply with the parking standard.

It is unclear if the motorised roller door is part of a secured access arrangement, (i.e. if the door opening is only activated by remote control). This would have impacts on the use of the car park by others (e.g. retail customers or apartment visitors) and potentially delay other right of way users while the door is in the process of being opened. Usually the roller door is set back by at least one car length within the subject site to minimise obstruction to others.

3.5 Waste Management Service Vehicles

Based on a typical ‘rear lift’ refuse truck (Cleanaway), servicing of the bins cannot occur within the proposed car park due to the head height constraint. A head height requirement of 3.4m is required for this type of truck, whereas the proposed head height of the development is less than 2.8m.

If refuse collection would were to occur within the right of way, the truck would need to park within this right of way for a length of time, given that the driver would then need to pull out individual bins on collection day from the other end of the building and wheel them out for the pick-up. Depending on the number of bins being collected at one time, this may cause delay and obstruction within the right of way, where unrestricted rights of way exist for neighbouring properties. The parking of the refuse truck on an unrestricted right of way may create a legal issue between property owners.

There is no space for a refuse truck to turn around and exit to Portrush Road in a forward direction. If the refuse truck were to use the car park entrance as a ‘turn around’ area, it would need to reverse ‘blindly’ out of the car park as there are no sightlines at the car park entrance.

The service access issue has therefore not been adequately addressed.

3.6 Traffic Impact

The proposed development has not had regard to the potential development of the adjoining site (Lot 50) which relies on the right of way for access. The traffic impact assessment on Portrush Road has not taken this additional development into account.

5

Due to the proximity of the traffic signals to the right of way access, the right of way may need to be upgraded to provide a larger entry radius to enable entering vehicles to leave the Portrush Road carriageway quickly.

3.7 Commentary on the GTA Preliminary Access Options Review Report

Frank Siow and Associates notes that the GTA report is titled "Access Options Review". The GTA report on the first page advised that its report is a preliminary assessment of access options for the development. It also referred to 39 apartments in the development, whereas 36 apartments are proposed. There is therefore no formal detailed traffic report prepared specifically for this major development. As parking provision and traffic access are major issues for the proposed development, this absence of a traffic report is of concern.

There is a significant parking shortfall issue that would arise from the proposed development. As the GTA report was for the preliminary assessment of access options, there is no commentary made regarding the parking provision for the proposal.

The GTA report states that the removal of the existing driveway on The Parade to the development site could gain a parking space. The existing bus zone commences on the eastern side of the existing driveway. Therefore, the removal of the crossover on The Parade does not gain any parking space on The Parade.

The GTA report does not give regard to the use of the right of way by other traffic in assessing the operating conditions at the access point on Portrush Road. There are also potential sight line issues that have not been considered at the proposed entrance of the development car park, for users to view traffic using the right of way.

The site to the south of the proposed development (Lot 50) is part of the District Centre Zone. Currently pedestrian access from Lot 50 to The Parade is possible, albeit technically pedestrians would be using private land. However, in a general accessibility context, the proposed development would remove the previously direct pedestrian access link from the southern allotment (Lot 50) to The Parade.

3.8 Loading and Unloading for Retail Tenancies

It is unclear where loading and unloading will be undertaken to service the retail tenancies. Are these activities to occur on the right of way, in the car park or on The Parade? These activities should not occur on the right of way.

3.9 Balconies

MSI would prefer to avoid a scenario that results in the use of balconies for outdoor storage that facilitates a cluttered and poor visual amenity. MSI would prefer confirmation that legally enforceable deeds will be incorporated with the development that controls the use of the balcony spaces.

3.10 Noise Emission

MSI is concerned that the existing residents in the tower and potential residential apartments on the MSI site may be detrimentally affected by excessive noise

6

emissions. The following Development Plan provisions provide guidance in respect to how noise issues should be addressed:

Council Wide (Orderly and Sustainable Development) PDC12 states:

“Development should take place in a manner which is not liable to cause an unreasonable nuisance to neighbours or the community or significantly detrimentally affect the amenity, use or enjoyment of nearby properties by:

(a) the emission beyond the site boundaries of noise, vibration, odour, atmosphere liquid or other pollutants, wastewater, waste products, electrical interference, light overspill or loss of privacy.

Council Wide (Interface Between Land Uses) PDC 83 states:

“Development should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality or cause unreasonable interference through any of the following:

(b) noise.

Council Wide (Interface Between Land Uses) PDC 89 states:

“Development that emits noise (other than music noise) should include noise attenuation measures that achieve the relevant Environment Protection (Noise) Policy criteria when assessed at the nearest existing noise sensitive premises.”

Council Wide (Residential) PDC 261 states:

“Noise generated by fixed noise sources such as air-conditioning units and pool pumps should be located, designed and attenuated to avoid causing potential noise nuisance to adjoining landowners and occupiers”.

We note the Aurecon acoustic report states:

“Environmental noise emission from the project site will primarily consist of noise from new building services equipment associated with the development. They include the operation of plant mounted on the roof, car park ventilation fans, general ventilation systems, as well as fixed domestic machines (such as outdoor condensing units). This equipment when left untreated may have an adverse impact on the neighbouring residents within the development and therefore need careful design.

The location and the specific selection of building services plant equipment for the development have not been made at this stage. The selected mechanical equipment will be reviewed and assessed for conformance with established internal noise criteria presented in Section 5.3 at the detailed design stage of the project once the mechanical services specifications and drawings are available. Compliance with the environmental noise limits will be achieved with appropriate acoustic engineering control methods that may include:

selecting service plant equipment on the basis of low noise emissions;

locating noisy equipment away from potentially affected receivers;

ensuring all mechanical equipment (fans, etc) have adequate vibration isolation installed;

installing acoustic louvres to plant rooms;

selecting appropriate facade/envelope (roof, wall, door etc.) construction for plant rooms;

7

building solid noise barriers/partial enclosures on the roof around any noisy equipment;

including privacy barriers between balconies of adjacent sole-occupancy units;

installing silencers and acoustically lined ductwork;

utilisation of variable speed controls.”

Within the context of the specifically mentioned Development Plan policies, we recommend that the location and design of the acoustic engineering control methods (including those relating to air-conditioning plant, car park ventilation and noise from cars accessing the car parking spaces) should be articulated and assessed prior to any Development Plan consent, rather than rely on a separate review / approval process that may have an impact on the design of the development resulting in different impacts on the MSI site.

3.11 Overshadowing and Overlooking

We are of the opinion that the proposed development fails to adequately address overshadowing and overlooking issues. The former water tower accommodates three apartments (i.e. dwellings) and the site has the potential to accommodate educational facilities (e.g. school ovals) or mixed use developments (including residential). The design of the proposal should have regard to these potential opportunities as envisaged by the previously mentioned PDC 321.

Relevant Overshadowing and Overlooking Development Plan policies are listed as follows:

Council Wide (Orderly and Sustainable Development) PDC 11 states:

“Buildings should be designed so as not to unreasonably overlook or overshadow indoor or outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings”.

Council Wide (Residential Development) PDC 201 states:

“Unless otherwise specified in the relevant Zone and/or Policy Area, development should ensure that at least half of the ground level private open space of existing buildings receive direct sunlight for a minimum of two hours between 9:00am and 3:00pm on 21 June. Development should not increase the overshadowed area in cases where overshadowing already exceeds these requirements.”

Council Wide PDC 216 states:

“Unless otherwise specified in the relevant Zone and/or Policy Area, the setback of dwellings from their side and rear boundaries should be progressively increased as the height of the building increases: (a) to minimise the visual impact of the building from adjoining properties; (b) to minimise the overshadowing of adjoining properties; (c) to maintain adequate natural light to existing and future adjoining dwellings and private

open space; and (d) to ensure adequate natural light and winter sunlight is available to the main activity areas

of adjacent buildings.

8

Council Wide (Medium and High Rise Development (3 or More Storeys)) PDC 295 states:

“Multi-storey buildings should: (a) minimise detrimental micro-climate and solar access impacts on adjacent land or

buildings, including effects of patterns of wind, temperature, daylight, sunlight, glare and shadow.”

Council Wide (Centres, Shops & Business) PDC 321 states:

“Development within business, centre and shopping zones should conform to the following design principles:

(a) development should provide for the integration of existing and future facilities so as to promote ease of pedestrian movement and sharing of facilities as well as to retain the opportunity for future expansion within the Zone.

(d) development should not cause nuisance or hazard arising from: (ii) excessive noise (iv) overlooking (v) overshadowing (vi) visual intrusion”.

Council Wide (Environment and Conservation) PDC 347 states:

“Development should not have significant adverse micro-climatic impacts on other land and buildings, particularly with regard to: (a) increased overshadowing resulting in loss of winter sunlight to active outdoor living areas; (b) decreased daylight illumination.

Concerns relating to overshadowing particularly relating to this locality, are emphasised by the Desired Character statement of “The Parade East Policy Area” of the District Centre (Norwood) Zone”. The statement notes “It is expected that any redevelopment of the former Water Tower site will seek to improve the amenity of residents in Cairns Street, in terms of reducing the current level of overshadowing and visual amenity impacts associated with the existing structure.” Having regard to the mass of the proposed development, it is anticipated that the overshadowing of the proposed development is likely to be significantly more substantial than that the existing tower.

Although an overshadowing plan has been presented by the Applicant, additional explanation is considered necessary to ensure the relevant Development Plan policies have been appropriately addressed.

3.12 Electricity Supply / SA Power Networks Transformer

The Development Application does not comment on whether an SA Power Networks Transformer is required on the site (similar to the pad-mounted transformer contained on allotment 50).

9

Information relating to the need for and location of a transformer cabinet is necessary to avoid any potential redesign of the proposal that may, in turn, result in a detrimental impact on the MSI site.

It is suggested that this issue should be addressed by the Applicant prior to DAC considering this matter.

3.13 Construction Process

Having regard to the traffic flow issues confronting The Parade and the restrictive nature of the site given the requirements of the proposed development, MSI desires greater confidence that the construction of the development will not detrimentally impact on its site or the right of way.

4.0 CONCLUSION

MSI has no in-principle objections to the development proposal and welcomes the redevelopment of the site subject to ensuring it makes a positive contribution to the locality.

In summary, the following issues are presented for the Applicants and DAC’s consideration:

Confirmation is sought that there will be no temporary or permanent use of the existing right of way that will impact on its “free and unrestricted” designation.

The proposal has a significant short fall of car parking spaces that is likely to further impact on car parking issues within the locality.

There are significant concerns with respect to non-achievement of Australian Standards relating to access and sightlines.

A traffic report is desired that specifically addresses how waste will be collected in a manner that does not detrimentally impact on neighbouring properties.

There are significant concerns that the development of the subject land will place significant access capability issues on the right of way to Portrush Road, particularly if MSI proposes to develop its site for a medium to high rise development as envisaged by the Development Plan. Such an outcome would not facilitate integrated and cohesive development outcomes.

Additional investigations and details are desired to address noise issues.

Additional investigations and design details are desired to address overlooking and overshadowing issues.

Information is desired clarifying the need for a SA Power Network transformer cabinet, and associated impacts on the design of the development.

It is respectfully suggested that the issues raised in this representation be satisfactorily addressed prior to the matter being presented to DAC for a determination.

10

On behalf of MSI, I would appreciate the opportunity to appear before DAC in support of this representation.

Yours sincerely,

Grazio Maiorano FPIA Director

Encl: Allotment 50 (MSI Site) Certificate of Title Identification Survey Plan Frank Siow and Associates Report

FRANK SIOW & ASSOCIATES Traffic and Parking Consultants

P.O. Box 253

Kensington Park SA 5068

Tel/Fax: (08) 8364 1351

Mobile: 0411 445 438

Email: [email protected]

Traffic Engineering Traffic & Parking Studies Road Safety Audits Bicycle Planning

16 January 2015

Mr Grazio Maiorano

URPS

Suite 12/154 Fullarton Road

ROSE PARK SA 5067

Dear Mr Maiorano,

254-256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

REPRESENTATION AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT

As requested, I have reviewed the traffic and parking aspects of the proposed multi-storey mixed

use development. The subject site is located on the southern side of The Parade near the

intersection of Portrush Road.

In preparing this assessment, I have inspected the subject site and reviewed the documentation

associated with the proposal, including a Planning Statement by Connor Holmes and a report,

“254-256 The Parade, Norwood – Access Options Review” by GTA Consultants.

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

The proposal is a mixed use multi-level residential and retail development comprising of two retail

shops on ground level (170m2 and 200m2) and a total of 36 apartments from levels 2 to 5. The

apartments would have 12 one bedroom units, 21 two bedroom units and 3 three bedroom units.

44 car parking spaces are provided over three levels (15 spaces on the basement, 8 spaces on the

ground and 21 spaces on the first floor). Access to the car park is proposed via the existing private

road (right of way) off Portrush Road. A motorised roller door is proposed for the car park

entrance, which indicates that it would be a “secured” access. 44 bicycle parks are also proposed,

of which 4 rails would be located in the plaza area accessible by visitors of the development.

2.0 GTA REPORT

The GTA report is titled "Access Options Review". The GTA report on the first page clearly

advised that its report is a preliminary assessment of access options for the development. It also

referred to 39 apartments in the development, whereas 36 apartments are proposed. There is

therefore no formal detailed traffic report prepared specifically for this major development. As

parking provision and traffic access are major issues for the proposed development, this absence of

256 The Parade, Norwood Frank Siow & Associates

2

a traffic report is of major concern in terms of process. I note that other detailed reports have been

included in the application, such as the noise assessment.

In Page 4 of the GTA report, it detailed the assumption that ALL customer parking for the retail

tenancies would rely on on-street parking. In other words, there would not be any on-site parking

provision for the retail tenancies, other than 4 on-site spaces for staff.

There is therefore a significant parking shortfall issue that would arise from the proposed

development. As the GTA report was for the preliminary assessment of access options, there is no

commentary made regarding the parking provision for the proposal.

On the same page, the GTA report states that the removal of the existing driveway on The Parade

to the development site could gain a parking space. The existing BUS ZONE commences on the

eastern side of the existing driveway. Therefore the removal of the crossover on The Parade does

not gain any parking space on The Parade.

The GTA report does not give regard to the use of the right of way by other traffic in assessing the

operating conditions at the access point on Portrush Road. There are also potential sight line issue

that has not been considered at the proposed entrance of the development car park, for users to

view traffic using the right of way.

The site to the south of the proposed development (Lot 50) is part of the District Centre Zone.

Currently pedestrian access from Lot 50 to The Parade is possible, albeit technically pedestrians

would be using private land. However, in a general accessibility context, the proposed

development would remove the previously direct pedestrian access link from the southern

allotment (Lot 50) to The Parade.

3.0 RETAIL PARKING AND RESERVED PARKING

GTA have previously indicated that customer parking for the retail tenancies would not be

provided on-site. The proposed design of the car park reinforces this aspect.

For example, none of the car parking spaces or aisleways are designed for a retail land use (User

Class 3), as they are currently dimensioned 2.4m wide by 5.4m long with an aisle width of 5.8m

(Use Class 1A). These dimensions would not meet the requirements of AS/NZS 2890.1-2004 for

User Class 3.

Public access from the front plaza area to the car park also appears to be prevented by a secured

lobby entrance. This further reinforces the view that the proposed development does not cater for

any customer parking of the retail tenancies.

It is unclear if the apartments would be sold with 1 or 2 parking spaces attached to the each unit.

If done in this manner, most of the parking spaces would become "reserved" spaces and not able

to be used by others or used as “shared” parking between apartment residents and visitors.


3

It is unclear how visitor parking for the apartments are to be accommodated within the car park.

Between 6-7 visitor parking spaces for the apartment visitors would be required. If these

apartment visitors are not able to access the proposed car park (motorised roller door shown at

the car park entrance), then the parking impact on The Parade would be further compounded

when apartment visitors also have to find parking on The Parade.

It is unclear how public disabled parking would be provided for the retail tenancies, given that the

2 proposed disabled spaces are located within a "closed off" car park, presumably not accessible to

the public.

There are several critical issues regarding the provision of car parking that have not been

addressed by the Applicant. As discussed in Section 2.0, the GTA report does not address the

provision of car parking for the development. Given the shortfall of car parking and the ‘private’

nature of the proposed car parking, significant parking overflow would result onto The Parade,

where on-street parking is already regularly used to capacity.

4.0 PARKING PROVISION

Council’s Development Plan specifies the following parking rates (Table NPSP/8, NPSP/9 and

NPSP/10):

District Centre (Norwood Zone) 1 space per studio (no separate bedroom), 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling

1.25 spaces per 3 + bedroom dwelling

0.25 per dwelling visitor parking

Retail – shop or a group of shops 5 spaces per 100m² of gross leasable area

> than 250m²

Bicycle parking

Residential 1 for every 2 dwellings plus 1 for every 5 dwellings (visitors)

Shop 1 for every 150 square metres of gross leasable floor area plus

1 per 300 square metres of gross leasable area (visitor)

Based on the Council's Development Plan, the car parking required would be 46 spaces for the

apartments and 19 spaces for the retail tenancies, ie total of 65 spaces. Even allowing for some

discounting of the parking requirement, due to proximity of public transport and provision of

bicycle parking facilities, the provision of 44 spaces would still be well below the requirement. The

parking shortfall would therefore be very significant.

The Guide to Traffic Generating Development RMS NSW is a commonly reference parking

standard by traffic engineers. Based on the parking rate specified in the NSW standard for the

residential apartments, and using the Development Plan parking rate for retail tenancies, the

parking required for the development would be approximately 57 spaces. Even allowing for some

discounting, due to proximity of public transport and provision of bicycle parking facilities, there

would still be a parking shortfall of approximately 7 spaces.

However, this assessment assumes that parking generated by the retail tenancies would be able to

use the proposed car park. This does not appear to be the case, therefore a significant parking

shortfall would be created. This also assumes that the car park would be shared between


4

apartment residents and visitors. This would not be the case, if apartments are sold with a parking

space attached to the title and visitors are also not able to access a “secured” car park.

Based on both assessments above, ie having regard to the Development Plan and NSW standard,

the proposal would not provide adequate parking to support the development. In the scenario that

retail customers are not provided with on-site parking, the parking shortfall would be in the region

of say 13 to 14 spaces. In the scenario that apartment visitors are not able to access the car park

due to the “secured” entry arrangement, the parking shortfall would be in the region of 6 to 7

spaces. A significant parking shortfall would result and would have significant and adverse impacts

on The Parade, as on-street parking on The Parade is already regularly used to capacity.

This parking shortfall is considered to be excessive and unreasonable.

Bicycle parking for visitors, of up to 8 bicycles would be required, in accordance with the

Development Plan. The proposal plan shows that up to 4 visitor bicycles wold be accommodated

within the plaza area, ie only half the requirement. The visitor bicycle parking provision is

inadequate.

5.0 PARKING LAYOUT AND ACCESS

No documentation has been provided indicating that the proposed car parking will satisfy the

requirements of the parking standard, AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. There are a number of design issues

that have not been addressed.

The ramps must have a width of 6.1m measured from wall to wall. It is currently unclear

whether this has been satisfied as the ramp measures approximately 5.5m wide but appears to

have solid walls immediately adjacent to it and therefore would not comply with the parking

standard (applies to all three ramps).

The car park entrance must also have a width of 6.1m to allow two way access. It is currently

only 5.8m wide and does not comply with the parking standard.

There are also insufficient sight lines for vehicles exiting the car park to view an approaching

vehicle using the right of way due to the solid walls on both sides of the entrance and therefore

the design does not comply with the parking standard.

It is unclear if the motorised roller door is part of a secured access arrangement, ie if the door

opening is only activated by remote control. This would have impacts on the use of the car

park by others (eg retail customers or apartment visitors) and potentially delay other right of

way users while the door is in the process of being opened. Usually the roller door is set back

by at least one car length within the subject site to minimise obstruction to others.

If the proposal were to be amended to allow retail customers to also use the car park, being a

publicly accessible car park, turning bays would need to be included for the dead end car park

as required by the parking standard. This would reduce the parking provision to less than 44.


5

Amendments to the car park dimensions would also be required which would also further

reduce the number of parking spaces provided.

Each of the internal bicycle store areas are shown as providing parking for 20 bicycles. The

store room is only approximately 6.3m wide and 10 ‘rails’ are indicated. The bicycle parking

standard requires the bicycle rails spaced at 1200mm centres. Consequently, only 5 rails could

be accommodated within this 6.3m length and would only accommodate 10 bicycles.

Therefore 20 bicycles could not be accommodated in each of these storage rooms. The design

should be amended accordingly.

6.0 SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS

The current car park layout does not cater for service vehicle access.

Based on a similar ‘rear lift’ refuse truck, our assessment indicates that servicing of the refuse bins

cannot occur within the proposed car park due to the head height constraint. A head height

requirement of 3.4m is required for this type of truck, whereas the proposed head height of the car

park would be less than 2.8m.

If refuse collection would were to occur within the right of way, the truck would need to be

parked within this right of way for a potentially significant amount of time, given that the driver

would then need to pull out individual bins from the other end of the building. Depending on the

number of bins being collected at any one time, this could cause delay and obstruction within the

right of way, where unrestricted right of way exists for neighbouring properties. The parking of

the refuse truck on an unrestricted right of way may create a legal issue between property owners.

There is no space for a refuse truck to turnaround and exit to Portrush Road in a forward

direction. If the refuse truck were to use the car park entrance as a ‘turnaround’ area, it would

need to reverse ‘blindly’ out of the car park as there are no sightlines to other right of way users at

the car park entrance.

The refuse truck access issue has therefore not been addressed. Bin pick up within the car park

does not appear to be possible due to head height constraints. Bin pick up requiring the truck to

park in the right of way may not be legally possible as it would affect the unrestricted right of way

arrangement for other property owners and these trucks would also have difficulty turning around

to travel to Portrush Road in a forward direction.

Furthermore, there is no nominated location for delivery vehicles to park and unload goods to the

two proposed retail shops. Service access for the retail tenancies has not been addressed.

If refuse trucks and delivery trucks are required to use the car park, AS 2890.2-2002 requires head

height clearances of 3.5m for small rigid trucks and 4.5m for medium rigid trucks within the car

park. These head height clearances are not available in the proposed design.

In summary, there is no provision for suitable service vehicle access for the proposed

development. Refuse collection cannot occur within the car park area due to the head height


6

restrictions and there has been no loading zone space allocated to service the proposed retail

tenancies.

7.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT

The proposed development have not had regard to the potential development of the adjoining site

(Lot 50) which relies on the right of way for access. The traffic impact assessment at Portrush

Road has not taken this additional development into account.

Due to the proximity of the traffic signals to the right of way access, the right of way may need to

be upgraded to provide a larger entry radius to enable entering vehicles to leave the Portrush Road

carriageway quickly.

8.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The following provisions of the Development would, in our opinion, be relevant.

City wide

Movement, Transport and Car Parking

Objective 32: A form of development adjoining main roads which will:

(a) ensure traffic can move efficiently and safely;

(d) provide for adequate off-street parking; and

(e) provide limited and safe points of access and egress.

Objective 34: Development which provides adequate and safe car parking appropriate to the demands generated.

PDC 123 Development should provide off-street vehicle parking in accordance with rates contained in Tables

NPSP/8 and 9.

Our assessment indicates that there would be a significant parking shortfall that would arise from

the proposed development. The overflow parking onto The Parade would have a significant and

adverse impact on the District Centre.

PDC 107 Development should include appropriate on-site provision to enable the parking, loading, unloading,

turning and fuelling of vehicles.

PDC 118 On-site parking and manoeuvring areas servicing development abutting arterial roads should be

designed to enable all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

PDC 122 Development should be sited and designed to provide convenient access for people with a disability.

PDC 127 Vehicle parking areas should be sited and designed to:

(d) result in minimal conflict between customer and service vehicles;

(h) where practical, provide the opportunity for shared use of car parking and integration of car parking

areas with adjoining development to reduce the total extent of vehicle parking areas and the requirement for

access points;

The proposed development does not make satisfactory provision for servicing of the site and

turning of service vehicles. It is also unclear how disabled parking would be accessed by the

public, given the secured nature of the car park entrance. The proposed development does not

provide shared use of the car parking as all customers of the retail tenancies are expected to park

on-street.


7

PDC 114 Pedestrian and cycling facilities and networks should be designed and provided in accordance with

relevant provisions of the Australian Standards and Austroads Guides.

PDC 120 Driveways and parking areas should be designed and constructed to:

(e) be consistent with Australian Standard AS: 2890 – Parking facilities.

PDC 126 Development should provide carparking which is consistent with Australian Standard AS: 2890 - Parking

facilities.

The proposed car park has not been designed to the requirements of the parking standard, with

respect to ramp and entrance widths, entrance sight distance requirement and service access. The

proposed bicycle parking has not been designed to the requirements of the bicycle standard.

Centres, Shops & Business

PDC 305 Provision for the movement of people and goods within business, centre and shopping zones or areas

should comply with the following:

(a) development should not cause inconvenient and unsafe traffic and pedestrian movements or be likely to result

in the need for significant expenditure on transport and traffic works, or facilities within, or outside, the locality;

(d) access to car parking areas should be designed not to cause congestion or detract from the safety of traffic on

abutting roads;

(e) adequate and convenient provision should be made for service vehicles and the storage and removal of waste

goods and materials;

(h) on-site parking shall be determined having regard to:

(i) the amount, type and timing of movement generated by the use;

(ii) the design, location and configuration of parking spaces;

(iv) the potential for shared use of parking spaces;

(v) the effect on surrounding activities;

(vii) the availability of appropriate on-street parking;

PDC 320 Development within business, centre and shopping zones should conform to the following access and car

parking principles:

(a) development should provide safe and convenient access for private cars, cyclists, pedestrians, service vehicles,

emergency vehicles and public utility vehicles;

(d) development should provide sufficient off-street parking to accommodate customer, employee and service

vehicles;

(e) car parking areas should be located and designed in such a way as to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian

access from vehicles to facilities, safe and convenient traffic circulation, minimal conflict between customer and

service vehicles and should include adequate provision for manoeuvring into and out of parking bays;

(f) the layout of all parking areas should be designed so as to obviate the necessity for vehicles to back onto public

roads;

(g) individual parking areas should, wherever possible, be so located and designed that:

(i) shopping development should provide for separate parking spaces for the disabled;

(j) opportunities for the shared use of car parking between development sites should be exploited so as to reduce

the total extent of car parking areas;

The proposed does not provide adequate parking on-site. The proposed development does not

provide opportunity for shared use of the car parking, as all customers of the retail tenancies and

apartment visitors are expected to park on-street. The potential parking shortfall would have

adverse impacts on The Parade and for existing businesses in the District Centre. There is already

limited on-street parking available on The Parade.

The proposed development does not make satisfactory provision for servicing of the site and

turning of service vehicles.


8

PDC 321 Development within business, centre and shopping zones should conform to the following design

principles:

(a) Development should provide for the integration of existing and future facilities so as to promote ease of

pedestrian movement and sharing of facilities as well as to retain the opportunity for future expansion within the

zone.

(c) Development should provide:

(i) off-street loading, service areas and service vehicle manoeuvring areas;

The proposed development has not had regard to the potential development site located to the

south (Lot 50) when assessing the traffic impact of the right of way access to Portrush Road. Lot

50 is currently an undeveloped site within the District Centre Zone.

The proposed development does not make satisfactory provision for servicing of the site.

9.0 SUMMARY

In the previous sections of my report, I have detailed the concerns regarding the traffic and

parking aspects of the proposed development. I am of the opinion that there are a number of

significant issues that have not be adequately and satisfactorily addressed.

Insufficient traffic assessment and consideration in the Applicant’s development

application.

Insufficient parking provision to support the mixed use development. A significant parking

shortfall would result. This would result in overflow parking onto The Parade whereby the

on-street parking is already regularly used to capacity.

A number of aspects of the proposed layout of the car parking do not comply with the

parking standards (AS/NZS 2890.1-2004 and AS 2890.2-2002).

The proposed development does not make satisfactory provision for servicing of the site

and deliveries for the retail tenancies.

On the basis of the above assessment, I am unable to support the proposed development, from a

traffic and parking perspective.

Yours sincerely,

Frank Siow

FRANK SIOW

MIEAust MAITPM MIPWEA

REGISTER SEARCH OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * VOLUME 6138 FOLIO 856 *

COST : $26.50 (GST exempt ) PARENT TITLE : CT 6137/806REGION : EMAIL AUTHORITY : PS 12035697AGENT : PIPSP BOX NO : 000 DATE OF ISSUE : 02/06/2014SEARCHED ON : 03/09/2014 AT : 17:55:15 EDITION : 1CLIENT REF 2014-0228

REGISTERED PROPRIETOR IN FEE SIMPLE----------------------------------- MANRESA SOCIETY INC. OF 2 MANRESA COURT ATHELSTONE SA 5076

DESCRIPTION OF LAND------------------- ALLOTMENT 50 DEPOSITED PLAN 44631 IN THE AREA NAMED NORWOOD HUNDRED OF ADELAIDE

EASEMENTS--------- SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT OVER THE LAND MARKED C TO DISTRIBUTION LESSOR CORPORATION (SUBJECT TO LEASE 8890000) (TG 8284102)

SUBJECT TO A FREE AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE LAND MARKED A

TOGETHER WITH A FREE AND UNRESTRICTED RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE LAND MARKED B APPURTENANT ONLY TO THE LAND MARKED X

SCHEDULE OF ENDORSEMENTS------------------------ 8677001 LEASE TO OPTUS MOBILE PTY. LTD. COMMENCING ON 24.10.2009 AND EXPIRING ON 23.10.2014 OF PORTION (A CABLE TRAY,B CABLE TRAY,F CABLE TRAY,L CABLE TRAY/F CABLE TRAY,H CABLE TRAY,B,G,J AND K IN GP 360/1995 AND T IN GP 642/1994)

10403872 CAVEAT BY HUTCHISON 3G AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD. OVER PORTION (F,H,L,M,N,P,Q,R,S,W,Y AND Z IN GP 821/2000 AND A,B AND C IN GP 126/2005)

10447908 CAVEAT BY SILVER EARTH PTY. LTD. OVER PORTION

11537526 LEASE TO TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD. COMMENCING ON 1.9.2010 AND EXPIRING ON 31.8.2015 OF PORTION (TT IN GP 452/1997)

CONT.

Page 1 of 3

REGISTER SEARCH OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * VOLUME 6138 FOLIO 856 *

PARENT TITLE : CT 6137/806REGION : EMAIL AUTHORITY : PS 12035697AGENT : PIPSP BOX NO : 000 DATE OF ISSUE : 02/06/2014SEARCHED ON : 03/09/2014 AT : 17:55:15 EDITION : 1

NOTATIONS--------- DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THIS TITLE ------------------------------ NIL

REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S NOTES ------------------------- PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 126/05 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 189/00 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 213/95 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 360/95 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 452/97 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 552/94 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 642/94 PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 821/00

END OF TEXT.

Page 2 of 3

6138 85603/09/2014 17:55:15

Page 3 of 3

12th February 2015 Mr Ted Byrt Development Assessment Commission Roma Mitchell House – Level 5 136 North Terrace ADELAIDE SA 5000 Dear Mr Byrt, RESPONSE TO REPREESENTATIONS (DA/155/M053/14) 254-256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD We thank the Development Assessment Commission for providing this office with the representations received in

relation to the above development application during the category 2 public notifications.

As requested we provide the following as a response to the various issues raised within the submissions.

Attached are responses from our planner and traffic consultants.

We hope that the information provided enables our application to proceed. Should you require any further

information or clarifications please don’t hesitate to contact the undersigned on (08) 8223 3123.

Yours Faithfully, Ben Hewitson pruszinski architects Pty Ltd

64026‐002

13 February 2015

Connie Parisi

Case Manager

Development Division

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Level 6, Roma Mitchell House,

136 North Terrace

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Via email: [email protected]

Dear Connie,

RESPONSE TO REPREESENTATIONS (DA/155/M053/14)

254‐256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD

We write in response to representations received during category 2 public notification.

We have been provided with two representations received from:

Manresa Society Inc (Lot 50 Portrush Road, Norwood – former Water Tower); and,

R. Richards (252 The Parade, Norwood – Windmill Toys).

First, we respond to the issues raised by Manresa Society Inc (‘MSI’) followed by those of Mr

Richards.

Manresa Society Inc

Free and Unrestricted Right of Way

MSI seek confirmation that the Right of Way will not contain any temporary or permanent

structures/materials during the construction process or post construction.

We can confirm that will be the case and accept an appropriate condition to formalise such an

arrangement.

Car parking Assessment (including Retail Parking and Reserved Parking)

MSI through its traffic consultant, Frank Siow and Associates, raise concern in relation to the car

parking assessment undertaken by GTA Consultants. GTA Consultants has provided a specific

response enclosed and need not be repeated here.

The residential component of the development requires 46 car spaces (residents and visitors).

PAGE | 2

There appears to be disagreement between the traffic consultants in relation to which retail car

parking rate is to be applied (i.e. 1 space per employee for each shop; or, 5 spaces per 100sqm

GLA). The car parking required could vary between 2 spaces and 18.5 spaces).

Therefore the overall car parking demand could vary between 48 spaces and 64.5 spaces. The

proposed development provides a total of 44 car spaces. The proposal also retains the four parallel

parking spaces along the southern side of the access road providing an overall total of 48 car

spaces.

The proposal therefore achieves the car parking rates (if the lower retail car parking rate is applied)

or falls short by some 20 car spaces (if the higher retail car parking rate is applied).

If the commonly referenced NSW standard were to be applied, then the parking required for the

development would be 57 spaces. The proposal would therefore represent a shortfall of 9 car

spaces.

Recognising that the site satisfies criteria for discounted car parking, we do not consider the

shortfall significant.

In our opinion, there is a strong argument to apply the 1 space per employee rate given the small

floor area of each shop however when using the neutral NSW standard it is reasonable to conclude

that the shortfall is not significant.

It is also important to note that the shortfall in car parking has not been raised a concern during the

Pre‐Lodgement Panel meetings.

Parking Layout and Access

MSI through its traffic consultant, Frank Siow and Associates, raise concern in relation to the

proposed car parking layout and access arrangement. GTA Consultants has provided a specific

response enclosed and need not be repeated here.

Waste Management Service Vehicles

MSI through its traffic consultant, Frank Siow and Associates, raise concern in relation to the ability

of the site to be serviced by waste trucks. GTA Consultants has provided a specific response with

turn circles to demonstrate that a smaller waste truck can service the development, access the car

park area and leave the site in a forward direction.

Traffic Impact


potential traffic impact of the development. GTA Consultants has provided a specific response

enclosed and need not be repeated here.

Commentary on the GTA Preliminary Access Options Review Report

MSI through its traffic consultant, Frank Siow and Associates, raise concern in relation to the status

of the report accompanying the application. GTA Consultants has provided specific responses to all

concerns raised to update information and their opinions.

PAGE | 3

Loading and Unloading for Retail Tenancies


loading/unloading area for the retail tenancies. GTA Consultants confirms that due to the nature of

the retail shops, any loading/unloading could only on The Parade. Therefore, there is no need to

use the Right of Way for such activity.

Balconies

MSI through its planning consultant, Urban and Regional Planning Solutions, raise concern in regard

to the potential use of balconies for storage.

Upon our review of the proposal plans, we note that each apartment is provided with both internal

storage and storage cages in each of the car park levels.

It is also not uncommon for scheme descriptions to control the use of the balconies when a

community title is created.

Noise Emissions


to the potential noise that may emanate from a variety of mechanical services.

The Aurecon acoustic report outlines a number of options that could be implemented to achieve

the relevant Environment Protection (Noise) Policy criteria. These options will be investigated

further during detailed design.

We have been involved in many proposals considered by the Development Assessment

Commission where an appropriate condition of consent formalises such an arrangement.

Overshadowing


to the level of overshadowing created by the proposed development.

The overshadowing diagrams provided clearly demonstrate that the proposal achieves all relevant

provisions of the Development Plan.

Overlooking


to the potential for overlooking.

It is our opinion that due to the orientation of the balconies (east or west outlook), the distance

between the proposed development and the water tower (xm) and the fact that the water tower

has very small windows and no balconies, the potential for overlooking would be minimal.

PAGE | 4

Electricity Supply and SAPN Transformer


to whether a transformer may be required for the development as this may result in changes to the

design that may also affect the amenity of the MSI site.

We can confirm that discussions with SAPN will be held during the detailed design stage as is typical

with projects of similar scale.

Construction Process


to whether the construction process may impact on the Right of Way and ultimately access for MSI.

The applicant will be required to undertake a Construction Environment Management Plan which

can deal with traffic and access related matters amongst other issues.

We have been involved in many proposals considered by the Development Assessment

Commission where an appropriate condition of consent formalises such an arrangement.

Manresa Society Inc

Impact on Building

Mr Richards raises a concern in relation to the impact of the proposal on his building.

We can confirm that as part of the construction process a dilapidation report will be prepared to

protect the structural integrity of the Mr Richard’s building.

Excessive Height

Mr Richards forms the view that the proposal is excessive in height.

In response to Mr Richards we note that the proposal achieves the maximum height envisaged for

the District Centre Zone. The design also achieves an appropriate human scale by providing a

distinct podium element which incorporates the retail tenancies and the level 2 apartments

representing a street wall height of approximately 8m (within the 2 or 3 storey height envisaged

along The Parade).

In our opinion, the height of the proposal could not be considered excessive when such height and

the podium design strikes a chord with the desired character of the District Centre Zone and The

Parade East Policy Area.

Loss of Sunlight to Solar Panels

Mr Richards raises a concern in relation to the loss of sunlight to his solar panels.

PAGE | 5

We note that Mr Richards has provided solar panels on the east and west sections of the roof. The

orientation of the solar panels does not maximise the amount of sunlight available. If the solar

panels were to more appropriately face north (in between the two roof ridges of Mr Richard’s

building) then there would be no loss of sunlight to the solar panels. Further, in our opinion, due to

the low angle of east and west sun a two storey development (either side of Mr Richards property)

would have the same impact on the solar panels.

It is also important to recognise that PDC 74 encourages development to maintain solar access for a

minimum of three hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June to any existing solar panels on

adjoining properties.

The overshadowing diagrams prepared by Pruszinski Architects with respect to the solar panels

demonstrate that both solar panels will receive full sunlight between 11am and 2pm on 21 June

therefore achieving PDC 74.

Interruption to Business Trading

Mr Richards is concerned that his business will experience interruptions such as noise during the

construction process.

We can confirm that the applicant will prepare a Construction Environment Management Plan and

has a general duty under Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act, 1993 to ensure no

environmental harm is caused to neighbouring properties.

Interference to Foot Traffic and Parking

Mr Richards is concerned that the proposal will interfere with foot traffic and parking along The

Parade.

We do not consider the proposal to interfere with foot traffic and/or parking along The Parade.

First, pedestrian access to the east (which would be limited compared to the west) will still be

maintained along the frontage of the site during construction (note: an issue to be considered in

the Construction Environment Management Plan). Secondly, we note that Mr Richards has

customer car parking to the rear of his business (appropriately identified at The Parade frontage).

We note that a bus stop exists directly in front of his property. We therefore do not believe that

the proposal will have any impact upon Mr Richards on‐site car parking provision or any on‐street

car parking directly in front of his property (as it doesn’t exist) during construction.

We trust the above satisfactorily responds to the key issues raised by the representors. We wish to

confirm our attendance at the Development Assessment Commission hearing on 26 February 2015

to respond to any third party submissions made.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Chris Vounasis

Principal

melbourne

sydney

brisbane

canberra

adelaide

gold coast

townsville

perth

Suite 4, Level 1,

136 The Parade

NORWOOD SA 5067

PO Box 3421

NORWOOD SA 5067

t// +618 8334 3600

www.gta.com.au

Reference: #14A1182000

12 February 2015


Level 6, 149 Flinders Street

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Attention: Mr. Ben Hewitson

Dear Ben

RE: 254-256 THE PARADE, NORWOOD – RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATION

I refer to your email dated 2 February 2015 requesting a response to a representation

made in relation to parking and traffic for the proposed development at 254-256 The

Parade, Norwood. This letter provides a response to the representation received.

Manresa Society Inc.

Comments in response to the letter dated 16 January 2015 from URPS on behalf of

Manresa Society Inc. (MSI) which included the following:

3.1 Free and Unrestricted Right of Way

As noted in the attached Certificate of Title and Identification Survey plan, the MSI site

(allotment 50) enjoys “free and unrestricted right of way” over part of allotment 50 and

allotment 210 (portion of the subject site). The right of way essentially provides free

and unrestricted access rights for the owners/occupiers of allotment 50 (MSI) and the

subject land (the Applicants) to portion of allotment 50 and allotment 210 Portrush

Road.

MSI invites the Applicant to confirm that the right of way will not contain any temporary

or permanent structures/material such as (but not limited to) waste bins, waste trucks

associated with loading and unloading, car parking spaces or loading and unloading

of materials during the construction process or post construction.

Once this confirmation is provided, MSI desires this outcome is reconfirmed in any

planning condition.

Based on information provided to GTA Consultants, it is understood that the right of

way will not contain any temporary or permanent structures/material during the

construction process or post construction.

3.2 Retail Parking and Reserved Parking

The following information is extracted from the advice provided by Frank Siow and

Associates. The Frank Siow and Associates’ report also contains additional issues of

concern which are discussed later.

Inappropriately, the proposed development does not cater for any customer parking

of the retail tenancies. There are several critical issues regarding the provision of car

150212ltr-14A1182000 - Response to Representation (Final ).docx Page 2 of 10

parking that have not been addressed by the Applicant. As discussed in Section 2.0,

the GTA report does not address the provision of car parking for the development.

Given the shortfall of car parking and the ‘private’ nature of the proposed car parking,

significant parking overflow would result onto The Parade, where on-street parking is

already regularly used to capacity.

This matter has been responded to as part of the response to item 3.3 below.

3.3 Car Parking Assessment


Associates.

Based on the Council’s Development Plan, the car parking required would be 46

spaces for the apartments and 19 spaces for the retail tenancies, (i.e. total of 65

spaces). Even allowing for some discounting of the parking requirement, due to

proximity of public transport and provision of bicycle parking facilities, the provision of

44 spaces would still be well below the requirements. The parking shortfall would

therefore be very significant.

The Guide to Traffic Generating Development RMS NSW is a commonly referenced

parking standard by traffic engineers. Based on the parking rate specified in the NSW

standard for the residential apartments, and using the Development Plan parking rate

for retail tenancies, the parking required for the development would be approximately

57 spaces. Even allowing for some discounting, due to the proximity of public transport

and provision of bicycle parking facilities, there would still be a parking shortfall of

approximately 7 spaces.

However, this assessment assumes that parking generated by the retail tenancies

would be able to use the proposed car park. As this does not appear to be the case,

a significant parking shortfall for the retail tenancies would be created. This also

assumes that the car park would be shared between apartment residents and visitors.

This would not be the case if apartments are sold with a parking spaces attached to

the title and visitors are also not able to access a “secured” car park.

GTA has reviewed the Frank Siow and Associates report and notes that an incorrect

car parking rate from the Development Plan has been applied for the proposed retail

use.

The Norwood Payneham and St Peters (City) Development Plan (consolidated 31

October 2013) includes the following off-street vehicle parking requirements for retail

land uses:

Retail – shop or group of shops >250sq.m 5 spaces per 100sq.m GLA

Retail – shop <250sq.m in the 1 space per employee

District Centre (Norwood) Zone

As the subject site is located within the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and each retail

tenancy will be less than 250sq.m in area, the correct car parking rate is 1 space per

employee.


The Development Plan also includes the following off-street vehicle parking

requirements for residential land uses:

District Centre (Norwood Zone) 1 space per studio, 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling

1.25 spaces per 3 + bedroom dwelling

0.25 on-site visitor parking spaces per dwelling

(rounded up to the nearest whole number)

Based on the above rates and assuming that each retail shop would have one

employee, the proposed development would generate a statutory car parking

requirement of 48 spaces.

The proposed development will provide 44 car parking spaces. There are also 4

existing parallel parking spaces located along the southern side of the access

driveway that would be retained as part of the proposed development. When

considering these 4 existing parking spaces the overall parking provision would be 48

spaces which would satisfy the requirements of the Development Plan.

GTA also notes that two disabled parking spaces and an associated shared space are

proposed within the car park. The Development Plan and Building Code of Australia

does not require formal disabled parking for a development of this type. If further

parking was desired these formal disabled spaces could be removed and the shared

space returned to a parking space.

Based on the above discussions and analysis, GTA considers that the proposed on-site

car parking provisions will adequately accommodate the typical residential and

employee parking demands and visitor parking requirements.

South Australian Planning Policy Library

Parking rates are also provided by the ‘South Australian Planning Policy Library Version

6’ (DPTI, September 2011, henceforth referred to as the SA Planning Policy Library).

For development of medium and high density residential land uses oriented towards a

high frequency public transport corridor, such as the proposed development, the SA

Planning Policy indicates the following rates applicable to the proposed development:

Core Area/Whole of the

Urban Corridor Zone

0.25 spaces/studio (no separate bedroom)

0.75 spaces/1 bedroom dwelling

1 space/2 bedroom dwelling

1.25 spaces/3+ bedroom dwelling

Plus 0.25 spaces per dwelling for visitors

Based on the above parking rates, an assessment of the car parking requirements for

the proposed development is set out in Table 1.


Table 1: SA Planning Policy Library Car Parking Requirements

Use Number Parking Rate Parking

Requirement

1 bedroom

dwelling 12 dwellings 0.75 spaces/dwelling 9 spaces

2 bedroom

dwelling 21 dwellings 1 space/dwelling 21 spaces

3 bedroom

dwelling 3 dwellings 1.25 spaces/dwelling 4 spaces

Visitor Parking 36 dwellings 0.25 spaces/dwelling 9 spaces

Total 43 spaces

The above assessment indicates that the development proposal would generate a car

parking requirement of 43 spaces for the residential use. Assuming that each retail

shop would have one employee and the Development Plan rates are applied for the

retail uses, the proposed development would generate a statutory car parking

requirement of 45 spaces.

The total car parking provision of 48 spaces would therefore exceed the requirements

of the SA Planning Policy Library.

3.4 Parking layout and Access


Associates.

No documentation has been provided indicating that the proposed car parking will

satisfy the requirements of the parking standard, AS/NZS 2890.1-2004. There are a

number of design issues that have not been addressed.

The ramps to and from the basement car parking should have a width of 6.1m

measured from wall to wall. It is currently unclear whether this has been

satisfied as the ramp measures approximately 5.5m wide but appears to have

solid walls immediately adjacent to it and therefore would not comply with the

parking standard (applies to all three ramps).

The car park entrance must also have a width of 6.1m to allow two way

access. It is currently only 5.8m wide and does not comply with the parking

standard.

There are also insufficient sight lines for vehicles exiting the car park to view an

approaching vehicle using the right of way due to the solid walls on both sides

of the entrance and therefore the design does not comply with the parking

standard.

It is unclear if the motorised roller door is part of the secured access

arrangement, (i.e. if the door opening is only activated by remote control).

This would have impacts on the use of the car park by others (e.g. retail

customers or apartment visitors) and potentially delay other right of way users

while the door is in the process of being opened. Usually the roller door is set

back by at least one car length within the subject site to minimise obstruction

to others.

GTA has reviewed the car parking layout and found the following:


o The ramps to and from the basement car parking have a minimum

width of 6.1m measured wall to wall consisting of a 5.5m wide ramp and

300mm clearances on either side of the ramp to any adjacent walls.

o For a Class 1 or 1A parking facility that fronts a local road and has less

than 100 parking spaces (such as the one proposed) the Australian

Standards recommend an entry width of between 3.0m and 5.5m. The

proposed car park entrance meets these requirements.

o Vehicle speeds along the right of way are expected to be low. Based

on a 10km/h operating speed a sight distance of 6.6m is required for

vehicles exiting the car park to view an approaching vehicle along the

right of way. Based on the anticipated positioning of vehicles there will

be clear sight distance available to the west to achieve this

requirement. To the east there will be sufficient sight distance available

between the wall on the eastern side of the car park entrance and the

SAPN transformer. In addition, the presence of a motorised door will

alert drivers on the right of way that a vehicle will be exiting from the car

park and when combined with the low traffic volumes and low traffic

speeds the risk of conflict is considered to be minor.

o It is understood that remote controls will be issued to residents,

employees and regular resident visitors to operate the car park door. It

should be noted that there will be no retail customer parking provided

within the car park. Based on the anticipated number of peak hour

entry movements to the car park there would be no notable queues or

delays to other users of the right of way. Visitors who do not have

access to a remote control would make prior arrangements to have the

door opened on arrival. GTA therefore does not anticipate any

significant obstruction to other users of the right of way.

3.5 Waste Management Service Vehicles

Based on a typical ‘rear lift’ refuse truck (Cleanaway), servicing of the bins cannot

occur within the proposed car park due to the head height constraint. A head height

requirements of 3.4m is required for this type of truck, whereas the proposed head

height of the development is less than 2.8m.

If refuse collection would were to occur within the right of way, the truck would need

to park within this right of way for a length of time, given that the driver would then

need to pull out individual bins on collection day from the other end of the building

and wheel them out for the pick-up. Depending on the number of bins being

collected at one time, this may cause delay and obstruction within the right of way,

where unrestricted rights of way exist for neighbouring properties. The parking of the

refuse truck on an unrestricted right of way may create a legal issue between property

owners.

There is no space for a refuse truck to turn around and exit to Portrush Road in a

forward direction. If the refuse truck were to use the car park entrance as a ‘turn

around’ area, it would need to reverse ‘blindly’ out of the car park as there are no

sightlines at the car park entrance.


The service access issue has therefore not been adequately addressed.

GTA has been advised that a refuse vehicle similar to an Isuzu NPR 400 Garbage

Compactor vehicle will be used for refuse collection. This vehicle is of suitable height

for the vertical clearance in the ground level of the car park and has a length of 6-8m

depending on the actual vehicle used.

An image of an Isuzu NPR 400 Garbage Compactor is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Isuzu NPR 400 Garbage Compactor

On the above basis, GTA has undertaken a swept path assessment to check the ability

for an 8.8m long MRV to enter and exit the site in a forward motion as a worst case

scenario for refuse vehicle access. The results of the swept path assessment are shown

in Figures 2 and 3 below.


Figure 2: Results of swept path assessment for an 8.8m MRV entering the site

Figure 3: Results of swept path assessment for an 8.8m MRV exiting the site


The assessment confirms that an 8.8m MRV will be capable of entering the site from

Portrush Road in a forward motion, reversing into the car park where bin collection

would take place, then exit the site in a forward movement. The refuse contractor

would be issued with a remote control to operate the car park door as required and

would therefore not impact on the right of way access to the adjacent site.

3.6 Traffic Impact

The proposed development has not had regard to the potential development of the

adjoining site (Lot 50) which relies on the right of way for access. The traffic impact

assessment on Portrush Road has not taken this additional development into account.

Due to the proximity of the traffic signals to the right of way access, the right of way

may need to be upgraded to provide a larger entry radius to enable entering vehicle

to leave the Portrush Road carriageway quickly.

GTA does not consider it reasonable to assess the possible future development of the

adjoining site (Lot 50) which relies on the right of way for access for which the future

use is undefined and unknown. It would be the responsibility of the adjacent site to

consider the impact of any future developments on the subject site if and when this

occurs.

A previous assessment of the access point operation undertaken by GTA found that

following full site development (based on a then 39 apartments instead of the 36

currently proposed) the proposed access point would have an insignificant impact on

Portrush Road traffic, and minor delays for vehicles existing to Portrush Road during

peak periods. It was also found that there would be minimal delay for left turns into the

site and no delays expected for through movements on Portrush Road, which confirms

that a left turn lane into the site is not required as a result of the proposed

development.

Although GTA does not consider it relevant for the purposes of assessing the current

application, a sensitivity analysis of the access point was undertaken assuming a similar

size development of the adjoining site (Lot 50) and that access is shared, there will be

no notable change to the operation of the access point.

On the above basis, the proposed access to the site is considered appropriate.

3.7 Commentary on the GTA Preliminary Access Options Review Report

Frank Siow and Associates notes that the GTA report is titled “Access Options Review”.

The GTA report on the first page advised that its report is a preliminary assessment of

access options for the development. It also referred to 39 apartments in the

development, whereas 36 apartments are proposed. There is therefore no formal

detailed traffic report prepared specifically for this major development. As parking

provision and traffic access are major issues for the proposed development, this

absence of a traffic report is of concern.

There is a significant parking shortfall issue that would arise the proposed development.

As the GTA report was for the preliminary assessment of access options, there is no

commentary made regarding the parking provision for the proposal.


The GTA report states that the removal of the existing driveway on The Parade to the

development site could gain a parking space. The existing bus zone commences on

the eastern side of the existing driveway. Therefore, the removal of the crossover on

The Parade does not gain any parking space on The Parade.

The GTA report does not give regard to the use of the right of way by other traffic in

assessing the operating conditions at the access point on Portrush Road. There are

also potential sight line issues that have not been considered at the proposed

entrance of the development car park, for users to view traffic using the right of way.

The site to the south of the proposed development (Lot 50) is part of the District Centre

Zone. Currently pedestrian access from Lot 50 to The Parade is possible, albeit

technically pedestrians would be using private land. However, in a general

accessibility context, the proposed development would remove the previously direct

pedestrian access link from the southern allotment (Lot 50) to The Parade.

As identified by the Frank Siow and Associates report, the pedestrian connection

between the Parade and the adjoining site (Lot 50) currently occurs over private land

and is not a public route. There is no legal requirement to provide this access when

footpaths around the site are available in close proximity on The Parade.

GTA notes that the closure of the existing access to The Parade may not gain a parking

space due to the location of the bus zone. As has been demonstrated the

development will provide a sufficient number of off-street parking spaces for the

anticipated demand. The return of this on-street space is therefore not a requirement

for the development and was rather seen as a potential benefit for the wider precinct.

The closure of the access however will still improve pedestrian safety by removing a

conflict point along a busy pedestrian thoroughfare.

The remaining matters raised in point 3.7 have been addressed above.

3.8 Loading and Unloading for Retail Tenancies

It is unclear where loading and unloading will be undertaken to service the retail

tenancies. Are these activities to occur on the right of way, in the car park or on The

Parade? These activities should not occur on the right of way.

Based on information provided to GTA Consultants, loading for the retail tenancies will

be infrequent and typically small in nature and would occur from existing on-street

loading zones or parking spaces along The Parade. GTA notes that 1 hour on-street

parking is available immediately in front of the building on The Parade from 9:00am-

4:00pm (Mon-Fri) and from 6:00pm-9:00pm (Thursdays). It is also understood that

loading would typically occur outside of peak retail periods along The Parade when a

higher number of on-street parking spaces are likely to be available. On this basis the

proposed loading arrangements are considered appropriate.

Naturally, should you have any questions or require any further information please do

not hesitate to contact me on (08) 8334 3600.


Yours sincerely

GTA CONSULTANTS

Paul Morris

Director

encl.

pruszinski architects - dac.sa.gov.au · the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and specifically The...

Documents

Transcript of pruszinski architects - dac.sa.gov.au · the District Centre (Norwood) Zone and specifically The...