Contact: Direct Line: Direct Email: Principal:

Tania Cincotta 9691 O2t0

tcincotta@besthooper. com. au

Tania Cincotta

Our Ref: Your Ref:

TLC:MF:10277534

BESTHooPER
SOLICITORS

11 October 2011
MELBOURNE OFFICE

Allan Harris on behalf of Save Dimmeys

563 Little Lonsda{e Street Melbourne 3000 PO Box 13312 Law Courts 8010

Dear Sir/Madam,
DX 38215 Flagstaff Tel 03 9670 8951

re:

140-160 Swan Street, Richmond Planning Permit Application No. PLN10/0734 VCAT Reference No. P623l2011

Fax 03 9670 2954

www. besthooper.com.au

BEST HOOPER PTY LTD

ACN 137 307 692

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

of

Yours faithfully

B&l{ooper

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

BesrHooPER
sCIr*te [T0R5

563 Little Lonsdale Street MELBOURNE VIC

3OOO

Tel 9670 8951

DX 38215 Flagstaff

To

Fax No

Senior Registrar Planning & Environment List Major Cases List Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal 9628 9789

Your Ref
Copy To
Fax No

P623/2001

Mimi Marcus Maddocks Lawyers

9288 0666 Simon Lar:.ca Team Leader Planning North Central Metro North West Region VicRoads 9313 1 198 Tania Cincotta 9670 2954

Copy To

Fax No

From Fax No Direct Line Direct Email

969t 02t0
tctncotta@be stho o p er. co m. au

Principal Our Ref

Subject

Tania Cincotta

TLC:MF:10271534
140-160 Swan Street, Richmond Planning Permit Application No. PLN10/0734 VCAT Reference No. P623l2011

Pages sent

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

ii.

Date

1l October 2011

Pursuant to the Tribunal Order dated 6 October 2}ll, please find attached an outline of submission 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.
Yours faithfully

BESEqooP

>"{>ffii"X
cc by

post A-llan Harris

Department of Transpon Ron Pinnell

on behalf of Save Dimmeys

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
RESPONSIBLE

REVIEW:

Richmond lcon Pty Ltd

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 Roads
dated 30 August 2011 ("the VicRoads lette/') which was filed with the Tribunal
accordance with its orders of 5 August2011.
in

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 total

distance 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.
5.

It is understood that the Council also do not support the works, and do not
consider them necessary.

The Evidence
6. 7.

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 any
particular 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.
8.

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.
9.

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.
10.

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.

11.

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 this

development.
12.

VicRoads had the option to produce expert evidence to support its position at the hearing. lt chose not to do so. lt still has not done so. lt now concedes that the submissions

it made at the hearing, and the main point upon which it cross-

examined the experts called to give evidence was without substance.

13.

The same can be said about the new point it now seeks to raise. lt is based upon

the proposition that one must apply the "defaulUrecommended gap acceptance values" in the SIDRA model". This is not the case. Rather, a proper use of the
model requires the person using it to rnake an informed, educated choice as to the appropriate values to input into the model. Those values must be appropriate

to the circumstances of the case. The experts called by the Council and
Applicant chose appropriate values. 14.

the

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

in

Other Matters
15.

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

16.

Tffi

proposed development will not alter access to a Road Zone category 1, and

no permit is required.
17.

VicRoads contention in its written sqbmission at the hearing that the impact of an increase 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 by this Tribunal in Mount Eliza Action Group lnc v Mornington Peninsula SC [2010] VCAT 699.

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

problem that is contributed to by every user of the local road network.
19.

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

It would be trite fo suggest that traffic volumes in the local streets will not
increase, nor that such increases
unl/

pass unnoticed. However, as Mr Pitt

pointed out, increases of this kind are an inevitable concomitant of urban consolidation. The policy direction is being implemented by government in
the knowledge that it carries certain implications for residential streets, and

fhose implications musf of necessity be borne by the population that restUes therein. As Mr Pitt put it, it is part of the price to be paid by the
community in order to curtail the outward spread of Melbourne.

20.

Development in activity centres to provide for increased activity inevitably impacts

upon the road network.

lt is neither

reasonable nor desirable

for

individual

developments to be required to address such impacts, unless they can be shown

to arise solely as a consequence of the approval of an individual development, or

where the impact of the approval would othenrvise result in the road system being
u

nacceptab ly compromised.

21.

Here,

it is not suggested that, absent the proposed mitigating

works, the

operation of the road network would be unacceptably compromised.

unacceptably on the operation of the local road network.
22.

lt is not

suggested that, absent these mitigating works that the development would impact

The suggested works represent a means by which the surrounding road network might 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.

23.

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.
24.

The management of the local road network (including Green Street) and the
question 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.

25.

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.

26.

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.

Conclusion
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:

Contact:

CG111247:JL Stephen Hunt

(,,)
3OOO

*,?,H?.
Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd
ABN47 106 610 913

4 October 2011 Best Hooper Solicitors 563 Little Lonsdale Street

MELBOURNE VIC
Attention : Romy Davidov Dear Romy

150 Oxford Street

Collingwood VIC 3066 Australia

P.O.Box2712

DIMMEY'S REDEVELOPMENT. 140.160 SWAN STREET, RICHMOND (vcAT REF NO. P623t20111 RESPONSE TO VCAT ADDRESSING VICROADS COMMENTS Having reviewed McRoads comments to VCAT (dated

Fitzroy VIC 3065

Australia

Phone:

Dimmey's Redevelopment
following.

at 140-160 Swan Street, Richmond, we provide

3Grh

August 2011) relating to the

the

Fax:

+ 61

38/.1577n

+61 384157788

www.cardno. com/victoria

during the PM peak period.

McRoads reviewed Mr. Walsh's SIDRA assessment carried out in relation to the Dimmey's Redevelopment, and raised concerns regarding critical gap and follow-up headway values used for the Green Street and Swan Street intersection analysis

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

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

'SIDRA INTERSECTION relies on user-specified (constant) critical gap and follow-up headways for two-way sign control and signalised intersection cases. The capacity and performance of sign-controlled intersections are particularly sensitive to the values of fhese parameters. S/DRA INTERSECTION default values are appropriate for two-way sign-controlled intersections with four-lane two-way major roads ...'
ln this case, at the critical PM peak period, Swan Street effectively operates as a 3 lane major road with the fourth lane used for parking. To this end, it is appropriate to reduce the 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. Ms Dunstan (Traffix Group) used slightly different values which were equally as reasonable and 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 5 seconds and follow up headway of 3 seconds. These values are in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Design.

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

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

w
I'lloSo,

N:\WINDOWSUo'11\CGl

1247\Documents\Cc1 I 1247LETo01 D01 c.docx

CG'\11247:JL 4 October 201

c.Dffir#r-

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

Table

has been prepared to compare the SIDRA results tabled within Mr Walsh's evidence to the revised

SIDRA results.

Green Street Swan Street

(S) Left
Right

3.5
5.6 22.4

3.4 7.9
13

(W)

Right

14.4 22 17.9

14.1

28.3
12

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 revised analysis projects a g5tn percentile queue of 73 rnetres for the right tum frorn Green Street. Based on these
results the intersection performance, using a critical gap of 5 seconds and follow up headway of 3 seconds is still acceptable. The Traffix Group assessment predicts a queue of 18 metres for Green Street, largely due to modelling this approach as a single exit lane, whereas Cardno modelled the intersection with a short left tum lane and a

separate 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 c

On-street parking along both sides of Green Street shall be removed for a total distance of 40 metres south of Swan Street (i.e. existing 10 metre 'No Stopping" zone plus additional 30 metres) The installation of electronic parking signage as the intersection of Swan Sfreef and Green Street indicating the availability of parking spaces within the proposed supermarket car park. This will avoid unnecessary circulating movements within Green Sfreef which are likely to exacerbate the identified right 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 believe that the Vic Roads conditions are warranted and/or necessary. Nonetheless, whilst not essential, we agree that 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 to remove parking on the east side of Green Street which will provide for, in effect, a three lane cross section comprising a parking lane adjacent the western kerb, a single egress lane broadening to two lanes at the intersection (a short left turn lane) and a single entry lane.

We trust this is of assistance. Should you have any queries regarding this matter, or require any further
information please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely,

Stephen Hunt Consultant for Cardno Direct Line: 84157713 Email: stephen. hunt@cardno.com.au

NIwINDOWS\201'1\CGl

1247\Documents\Cc1

12471ET001 D01 c.docx