Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community

Traffic Engineer's report to reduce on site parking

Discussion in 'Development' started by Skilled_Migrant, 24th Mar, 2016.

  1. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Victoria has a requirement for 2 parking spaces for 3 BR or more and 1 parking space for 2BR or less. Some councils do away with this requirement via parking overlays and some via amendments to Local Planning schemes wherein reduced parking is permitted within say x metres of station or y metres of Activity centers.

    In course of some feasibility discussions with the council to establish if there are any parking overlays or Planning scheme exemptions for reduced parking, I was told that no such exemption in that particular council. However the planning officer mentioned that they would support a reduction in on site parking if on street parking is available and taking into consideration a Traffic Engineer's report.

    Question: Has anyone used a traffic engineer's report to reduce on site parking ? If yes what was the process and any recommendations of traffic engineers in Victoria
     
  2. Haas kaplan

    Haas kaplan New Member

    Joined:
    17th Oct, 2015
    Posts:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne
    We have used traffic engineers to achieve a reduction. However this is usually in conjunction with the council planning officer's support. That is, they support the application but have the hurdle of parking to get over. In that situation they may ask for a traffic engineer'sengineer's report to justify their support for the development. We use O'Brien Traffic Engineers in Hawthorn Melbourne.
     
    Skilled_Migrant likes this.
  3. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    @Haas kaplan Thanks a lot. .
    That was exactly what was advised by the council but the other way around. They asked to include the traffic engineer's report along with the Town planning application.
    Are you happy to share the gist of the report or what does the traffic engineer look for before recommending a reduction of parking space ?
    Much appreciated.
     
  4. Be Developer

    Be Developer Property Developer Business Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,080
    Location:
    Australia
    @Skilled_Migrant

    Traffic engineering report may be required for various reasons.

    Turning circle
    Slope of ramp
    Available Street curb side parking on street
    Traffic pattern and volume
    Visibility angle

    If parking arrangment looks tight, best to get TTM to do a report, cost may be around $1100 but lot of issues can be iorned out prior to town planning application.

    P.s. generally, council won't grant reduction of parking space, unless development site is in proximity of major public transport.
     
    MTR, Skilled_Migrant and SOULFLY3 like this.
  5. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    @Be Developer you are right about the proximity to public transport. In this case the council wants the traffic density report to allow on street parking in lieu of undercover parking. If it is only $1100 it is worth a shot.
    Thanks
     
  6. Paul@PFI

    Paul@PFI Tax Accounting + SMSF Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,400
    Location:
    Sydney
    A dev near my home recently went to Council under the minimums for parking. Hills Council instructed them to revise it as non-compliant for council. They did - Still just under but with proximity to new NW Metro state govt gets to approve the dev and are likely to allow it now if council accepts it is just non-compliant on that issue.

    The visitor / offstreet failed dismally and developer has had to add an extra story (4 levels not 3) underneath for visitors to get approval. Also moved access road from one street to another to avoid traffic issues. Streetscape changed to removed rolled gutters and introduce landscape hazards so footpath parking cant happen and any ability to park on curved street (hazard). Either that or acquire land and widen the road.

    Traffic eng report was slammed by council as very outdated data. Seems thats normal and Council can critique traffic reports against the DA if they want to. In this case the dev incurred own costs of surveys to get current data and it confirmed council views. So they modified the streetscape and access to avoid issue. Sign of a good TP I guess ?
     
    Skilled_Migrant likes this.
  7. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Looks like a good compromise. Developer getting the traffic report is the norm (I am guessing here) otherwise the council might have a conflict of interest.
     
  8. albanga

    albanga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,118
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was told I could not have a second crossover due to removing a space for on-street parking. It was ridiculous as I live in a U street not close enough to the shops to warrant people parking there.

    Lucky for me when they built my property in 1950 they did a 6m cross-over into a 3m driveway. So I confirmed with them what they classify as a car length (5.4 for anyone wanting to know). I then measured the length from the T intersection and worked out that I could get a second crossover and keep on-street parking.

    I high fived myself moonwalked into council and then got told "umm ahhh ooooo ok but now let's try we don't want it because of neigborhood character". That is another storey all together.
     
    Skilled_Migrant likes this.
  9. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Second crossover is a joke:
    1. No definitions. How many crossovers per metre of property frontage ? Just some vague sentence in an information sheet "Council encourages minimizing the no of crossovers" not even in the planning scheme.
    2. No requirement specification of on-street parking. Why do the council's want on-street parking when the undercover Rescode parking requirements are met ? Have the cake and eat it too.
    3. No mention in neighborhood character.
     
  10. Be Developer

    Be Developer Property Developer Business Member

    Joined:
    19th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,080
    Location:
    Australia
    Welcome to grey area of Town Planning.

    1. No mention of cross over. But rescode and council policies talks abt allowed frontage to use for garages. So council can argu on frontage/ neighborhood character/ pedestrians' safety/ visibility angle/forward direction exit, etc.

    2. A good Town planner can twist words for you.

    3. Neighbourhood character is a joke...
    Developer argument; when are we going to have modern facade?

    Residents argument; proposed development stick out like a sort thumb on street.

    Council's answer; neighborhood character.

    Few council protects area with design overlay and rest of them don't. Leaves a field open for battle at VCAT at Developer's expense.
     
  11. Paul@PFI

    Paul@PFI Tax Accounting + SMSF Business Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,400
    Location:
    Sydney
    Modern facade ?? One mans art is anothers canvas for vandalism.
     
  12. Skilled_Migrant

    Skilled_Migrant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    21st Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    688
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Therein lies the dilemma. When buying the block, Town planner is (usually )not there.
    How many units can the developer put 3 or 4 ? If 1 extra crossover or 1 less car-space, the deal numbers change a lot. Regrettably the vague terminology of council requirements eliminates a lot of viable blocks