Contact:Direct Line:Direct Email:Principal:Our Ref:Your Ref:

Tania Cincotta9691 O2t0tcincotta@besthooper. com. auTania CincottaTLC:MF:10277534

11 October 2011

Allan Harris on behalf of Save Dimmeys

Dear Sir/Madam,

re: 140-160 Swan Street, RichmondPlanning Permit Application No. PLN10/0734VCAT Reference No. P623l2011

We enclose, by way of service, a copy of our facsimile to the Tribunal oftoday's date with enclosures.

Yours faithfully

B&l{ooper

BESTHooPERSOLICITORS

MELBOURNE OFFICE

563 Little Lonsda{e Street

Melbourne 3000

PO Box 13312

Law Courts 8010

DX 38215 Flagstaff

Tel 03 9670 8951

Fax 03 9670 2954

www. besthooper.com.au

BEST HOOPER PTY LTDACN 137 307 692

F:\Margaret\Tania Cincotta\Richmond Icon PL re 140-1 60 Swm St, Richmond\Parties - let 02.doc

BesrHooPERsCIr*te [T0R5

To

Fax NoYour Ref

Copy To

Fax No

Copy To

Fax No

FromFax NoDirect LineDirect Email

PrincipalOur RefSubject

Pages sent

Date

563 Little Lonsdale StreetMELBOURNE VIC 3OOO

Tel 9670 8951

DX 38215 Flagstaff

Senior RegistrarPlanning & Environment ListMajor Cases ListVictorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal9628 9789P623/2001

Mimi MarcusMaddocksLawyers9288 0666

Simon Lar:.caTeam Leader Planning North CentralMetro North West RegionVicRoads9313 1 198

Tania Cincotta9670 2954969t 02t0tctncotta@be stho o p er. co m. au

Tania CincottaTLC:MF:10271534140-160 Swan Street, RichmondPlanning Permit Application No. PLN10/0734VCAT Reference No. P623l2011

. 8 (including this page). The information in this fax is confidentiat If you are not theIntended recipient, you must not disclose or use the information contained in ii. ff you havereceived this fax in error, please telephone us immediately.

1l October 2011

Pursuant to the Tribunal Order dated 6 October 2}ll, please find attached an outline ofsubmission on behalf.of the applicant for review togeih'er with letter prepared bt a"rd;;dated 4 October 2011 in response to VicRoads recomriended mitigation works.

4 "opy of this facsimile together with attachments has also been posted to the Tribunal this

day.

cc by post A-llan Harris on behalf of Save DimmeysDepartment of TransponRon Pinnell

Yours faithfullyBESEqooP

>"{>ffii"X

F:\lvlargarer\Tania Cincoua\Richmond Icon PL re 140-160 Swan St, RichmondWCAT (cc Maddocks & VicRoads) - fax02.doc

IN THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTMTIVE TRIBUNAL

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT LIST

APPEAL NO:

SITE:

P923t2011

140-160 Swan Street Richmond

APPLICANT FOR REVIEW: Richmond lcon Pty Ltd

RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY: Yana City Council

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR REVIEW

lntroduction

1. These submissions are made on behalf of Richmond lcon Pty Ltd ("the

Applicant") in response to the material contained in the letter from Vic Roadsdated 30 August 2011 ("the VicRoads lette/') which was filed with the Tribunal in

accordance with its orders of 5 August2011.

2. The VicRoads letter recommends what the author describes as "mitigating works"

,, being:

(i) The removal of on-street parking along both sides of Green Street for a totaldistance of 40 Metres south of Swan Street; and

(ii) The installation of electronic parking signage.

3. The Applicant opposes any condition which would require it to cany out such"mitigating works". lt says that such conditions are not necessary.

4. Further, a requirement that on-street parking along both sides of Green Street be

removed is not a proper condition to impose in a permit for the proposed

development. The Applicant cannot compel the Council to take this action and

has no authority to perform these mitigating works.

It is understood that the Council also do not support the works, and do not

consider them necessary.

The Evidence

VicRoads have failed to produce any expert evidence in support of its position.

The author of the VicRoads letter is Mr Lanza. My Lanza does not claim any

expertise to analyse SIDRA material, or identify himself as possessing anyparticular qualifications. The identity of the person who carried out the analysis

referred to in the VicRoads letter is not identified, and the Tribunal has no basis

upon which to assess the qualifications and/or experience of this unidentified

individual.

At the hearing, both Ms Dunstan (on behalf of the Council) and Mr Walsh (on

behalf of the Applicant) gave evidence that the mitigating works now proposed

were not necessary. VicRoads have not produced anything that would call into

question that evidence. On the contrary, it appears that VicRoads now concede

that, having regard to the main point upon which Ms Dunstan and Mr Walsh's

evidence was challenged by VicRoads (being the impact of right tum movements

into Green Street) that they were wrong and the two experts were right.

The Applicant also relies upon a further peer review of the model results canied

out by Mr Steven Hunt of Cardno and detailed in the attached letter dated 4

October 2011 from Mr Hunt to Best Hooper. Mr Hunt's qualifications and

expertise are well known to the Tribunal.

Mr Hunt has carried out a "sensitivity test" of the model results using different gap

acceptance values. The results of that analysis confirm the evidence of Ms

Dunstan and Mr Walsh that the VicRoads mitigating are not warranted.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

13.

11.

12.

16.

17.

They may be desirable as a means to regulate traffic movement in the precinct,

but cannot be said to be necessary as a consequence of the approval of thisdevelopment.

VicRoads had the option to produce expert evidence to support its position at thehearing. lt chose not to do so. lt still has not done so. lt now concedes that thesubmissions it made at the hearing, and the main point upon which it cross-examined the experts called to give evidence was without substance.

The same can be said about the new point it now seeks to raise. lt is based uponthe proposition that one must apply the "defaulUrecommended gap acceptancevalues" in the SIDRA model". This is not the case. Rather, a proper use of themodel requires the person using it to rnake an informed, educated choice as tothe appropriate values to input into the model. Those values must be appropriateto the circumstances of the case. The experts called by the Council and theApplicant chose appropriate values.

The Tribunal should accept their analysis (and the peer review of Mr Hunt) inpreference to the VicRoads analysis that simply adopts default values.

Other Matters

It should be firmly bom in mind that VicRoads is not a referral authority for thisapplication, other than with regard to the provisions of the Citylink ProjectOverlay.

Tffi proposed development will not alter access to a Road Zone category 1, andno permit is required.

VicRoads contention in its written sqbmission at the hearing that the impact of anincrease in traffic generation on a Road Zone category 1 should be regarded as

an "alteration" which requires a permit under clause 52.29 has been rejected bythis Tribunal in Mount Eliza Action Group lnc v Mornington Peninsula SC [2010]VCAT 699.

14.

15.

3

18. The fact that the development might impact on local roads is not a basis to either:

refuse the proposal, or require conditions requiring the applicant to remedy aproblem that is contributed to by every user of the local road network.

As the Tribunal observed in Rowcliffe Ptv Ltd v Stonninqton CC l2004lVCAT 46at 104:

It would be trite fo suggest that traffic volumes in the local streets will notincrease, nor that such increases unl/ pass unnoticed. However, as Mr Pittpointed out, increases of this kind are an inevitable concomitant of urbanconsolidation. The policy direction is being implemented by government inthe knowledge that it carries certain implications for residential streets, andfhose implications musf of necessity be borne by the population thatrestUes therein. As Mr Pitt put it, it is part of the price to be paid by thecommunity in order to curtail the outward spread of Melbourne.

Development in activity centres to provide for increased activity inevitably impactsupon the road network. lt is neither reasonable nor desirable for individualdevelopments to be required to address such impacts, unless they can be shownto arise solely as a consequence of the approval of an individual development, orwhere the impact of the approval would othenrvise result in the road system beingu nacceptab ly compromised.

Here, it is not suggested that, absent the proposed mitigating works, theoperation of the road network would be unacceptably compromised. lt is not

suggested that, absent these mitigating works that the development would impactunacceptably on the operation of the local road network.

The suggested works represent a means by which the surrounding road networkmight be managed after the development is completed in order to operate more

efficiently. lt cannot be said that other options to manage the road network.

19.

20.

21.

22.

4

24.

23.

Conclusion

Whether those benefits outweigh the potential detriments of the removal of those

spaces is a matter for the Council (perhaps in consultation with VicRoads) to

determine in the future if the development proceeds.

The management of the local road network (including Green Street) and thequestion of whether parking should or should not be allowed should be a matter

determined by the Council as part of a strategic plan for the whole activity centre,

and not as an ad-hoc series of conditions placed on individual planning permits.

The Council has plans to modify and improve Green Street (which are detailed in

the Draft Swan Structure Plan at pages 34-38), and part of its plans for the

redevelopment of the East Richmond Station Precinct. Whether or not there

should be car parking on Green Street can, will and should more appropriately be

considered as a part of that process and as a part of finalising the Swan Street

Structure Plan.

Once this is done, the costs of any necessary works (if any) can be apportioned

and shared equitably across all landowners in the activity centre.

25.

26.

27. For all the above reasons, the Tribunal should allow this appeal, and direct that a

permit issue without any condition requiring the mitigating works suggested by

VicRoads

Nick Tweedie

Counselfor the Applicant for Review

29 September 2011

Our Ref: CG111247:JLContact: Stephen Hunt

4 October 2011

Best Hooper Solicitors563 Little Lonsdale StreetMELBOURNE VIC 3OOO

Attention : Romy Davidov

Dear Romy

DIMMEY'S REDEVELOPMENT. 140.160 SWAN STREET, RICHMOND(vcAT REF NO. P623t20111RESPONSE TO VCAT ADDRESSING VICROADS COMMENTSHaving reviewed McRoads comments to VCAT (dated 3Grh August 2011) relating to theDimmey's Redevelopment at 140-160 Swan Street, Richmond, we provide thefollowing.

McRoads reviewed Mr. Walsh's SIDRA assessment carried out in relation to theDimmey's Redevelopment, and raised concerns regarding critical gap and follow-upheadway values used for the Green Street and Swan Street intersection analysisduring the PM peak period.

It is noted that Mr Walsh adopted a critical gap acceptance of 4.5 seconds and a follow-up headway of 2.5 seconds for the right turn out movement from Green Street to SwanStreet, whereas VicRoads outline that the SIDRA default values are 7 seconds and 4seconds.

ln relation to gap acceptance criteria, the user manual for SIDRA states:

'SIDRA INTERSECTION relies on user-specified (constant) critical gap andfollow-up headways for two-way sign control and signalised intersection cases.The capacity and performance of sign-controlled intersections are particularlysensitive to the values of fhese parameters. S/DRA INTERSECTION defaultvalues are appropriate for two-way sign-controlled intersections with four-lanetwo-way major roads ...'

ln this case, at the critical PM peak period, Swan Street effectively operates as a 3 lanemajor road with the fourth lane used for parking. To this end, it is appropriate to reducethe default SIDRA gap acceptance criteria, as contemplated within the user manual.

The values of the analysis presented by Mr. Walsh at the hearing are reasonable. MsDunstan (Traffix Group) used slightly different values which were equally as reasonableand hence it is up to one's judgement as to what values to adopt.

Notwithstanding, a sensitivity analysis was carried out adopting a critical gap of 5seconds and follow up headway of 3 seconds. These values are in accordance withAustroads Guide to Road Design.

Ms Dunstan tabled a report entitled 'East Richmond Railway Precinct TrafficEngineering Assessment'. lt is noted that this assessment outlines the adoption ofcritical gap criteria of 5 seconds and 3 seconds.

Australia . Belgium r lndonesia o Kenya . NewZealand . Papua NewGuineaUnited Kingdom . United Arab Emirates . United States o Operations in 60 countries

N:\WINDOWSUo'11\CGl 1 1247\Documents\Cc1 I 1247LETo01 D01 c.docx

(,,) *,?,H?.

Cardno Victoria Pty LtdABN47 106 610 913

150 Oxford StreetCollingwood VIC 3066Australia

P.O.Box2712Fitzroy VIC 3065Australia

Phone: + 61 38/.1577nFax: +61 384157788

www.cardno. com/victoria

wI'lloSo,

CG'\11247:JL4 October 201 1

c.Dffir#r-Based on the above, and adjusting the right turn in (Swan Street to Green Street) gap criteria to a critical gapacceptance of 4 seconds and follow-up headway of 2 seconds (previously a gap acceptance of 7 secondsand a follow-up headway of 4 seconds was adopted) , the intersection of Swan Street and Green Street hasbeen remodelled.

Table t has been prepared to compare the SIDRA results tabled within Mr Walsh's evidence to the revisedSIDRA results.

Green Street (S) Left 3.5 3.4

RightSwan Street (W) Right

The comparison table illustrates that the revision of the critical gap criteria to 5 seconds (gap acceptance)and 3 seconds (follow--up headway) results in only minor increases to the projected queues. The revisedanalysis projects a g5tn percentile queue of 73 rnetres for the right tum frorn Green Street. Based on theseresults the intersection performance, using a critical gap of 5 seconds and follow up headway of 3 seconds isstill acceptable.

The Traffix Group assessment predicts a queue of 18 metres for Green Street, largely due to modelling thisapproach as a single exit lane, whereas Cardno modelled the intersection with a short left tum lane and aseparate right turn lane. We further note that Ms Dunstan in her evidence statement, in effect,recommended the removal of parking on one side of Green Street.

ln its correspondence, Vic Roads recommends the following conditions.

c On-street parking along both sides of Green Street shall be removed for a total distance of 40 metressouth of Swan Street (i.e. existing 10 metre 'No Stopping" zone plus additional 30 metres)c The installation of electronic parking signage as the intersection of Swan Sfreef and Green Streetindicating the availability of parking spaces within the proposed supermarket car park. This will avoidunnecessary circulating movements within Green Sfreef which are likely to exacerbate the identifiedright turn out delays/queues and force drivers to unnecessarily join the right turn out delay/queues.

ln view of the foregoing assessment and given Green Street is under Gouncil's jurisdiction, we do not believethat the Vic Roads conditions are warranted and/or necessary. Nonetheless, whilst not essential, we agreethat the removal of parking on one side of Green Street would provide for easier traffic flow. ln this regard,subject to Council approval given that they are the road authority for Green Street, Council has the option toremove parking on the east side of Green Street which will provide for, in effect, a three lane cross sectioncomprising a parking lane adjacent the western kerb, a single egress lane broadening to two lanes at theintersection (a short left turn lane) and a single entry lane.

We trust this is of assistance. Should you have any queriesinformation please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours sincerely,

regarding this matter, or require any further

Stephen HuntConsultantfor CardnoDirect Line: 84157713Email: stephen. hunt@cardno.com.au

5.6 7.9

22.4 13

14.4 14.1

22 28.3

17.9 12

NIwINDOWS\201'1\CGl 1 1247\Documents\Cc1 1 12471ET001 D01 c.docx