Clause 56 Walkability Toolkit - City of Greater Geelong

Clause 56 Walkability Toolkit
Creating the circumstances that allow more people to walk more often

Contents
Contents
Introduction 1
How to use the toolkit 3
The Toolkit 4
Positive Factors
P1. Visual Stimuli 7
P2. Comfort 9
P3. Choice of routes 11
P4. Positive walking bias 12
P5. Articulation of opportunities 14
Negative Factors
N1. Intrusion/friction 16
N2. Exposure 18
N3. Excessive distance or time 20
N4. Negative walking bias 22
N5. Risk 24
Walking balance sheet 26

Introduction
What is Walkability?
Walkability is a quality of the built environment that invites people to get around on foot, not
because they have to but because they will feel like they are missing out if they don’t.
A walkable neighbourhood is one where people want to walk and their environment facilitates
walking. This requires two conditions to be met; people having the motivation to walk and an
environment that provides the facilities to walk.
Desire
Facilities
These two dimensions are inter-related. A walkable community is far more than just a
neighbourhood that makes walking possible. It needs to offer experiences to the walker that
makes them want to walk. To do this the physical infrastructure needs to have characteristics
that make people not just realise walking is possible but also that it is preferable to other
modes of transport for at least some of their journeys. This does not mean making other
modes of transport impossible but giving people real choice.
The importance of Walkability
Walkable
Community
The act of walking has several characteristics that equip it to address some significant issues
affecting the wellbeing of urban populations. It requires relatively few resources to either
construct the infrastructure or to participate in walking. It is the most accessible form of
moving around. More people can walk than can drive, such as those who cannot drive a car
such as the old, the young and the visually impaired and those economically disadvantaged
who cannot afford to buy or run a car. Walking is also the most accessible form of exercise,
requiring no specialized equipment apart from shoes. Walking exposes the walker to a wider
range of social interactions and stimuli than would occur if cocooned in a car.
Walking can therefore help in;
• Minimising consumption of resources generally and addressing our dependence on oil
specifically.
• Addressing the “urban epidemic” of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 Diabetes and cancer
related to being overweight or obese. The impacts of which are compounded by the
fact that the people most likely to be victim to these diseases are also most likely to be
disadvantaged in other ways.
• Providing people with surroundings that enhance the opportunities to interact with the other
people they share their neighbourhood with. This provides them with the best chance of
forging the bonds of community.
The challenge of creating more walkable places
People make many choices every day about how they get to and from the places they
need to go to meet their needs. The essence of the challenge to make places walkable
is to make walking the preferable mode of transport for these journeys. To achieve this it
needs at the very least to be an attractive option and the advantages need to outweigh
the disadvantages. Whilst the process of weighing up the pro’s and con’s of travel mode
is subjective and often subconscious it does happen at some level and informs how we
choose to get around. Consequently an environment that invites people to walk is one
in which the overall influence of those features of the environment that support walking is
greater than those effects that deter people.
To create more walkable places the changes need to happen not just on the ground but in
people’s heads. This relates not just to the recipients of our plans “the community” but also
to those people charged with implementing plans, the engineers, planners and other service
providers. This toolkit stresses the importance of creative yet realistic planning and design
solutions that are convincing, inspiring and reflect best practice as well as inclusive processes
to galvanise all the participants in their work towards creating more liveable and walkable places.
The limitations of Clause 56
The planning tool that aims to ensure that new subdivisions are created as walkable places
is Clause 56. Clause 56 of the Victorian Planning Provisions requires planners to guide
developments to ensure they create “liveable and sustainable communities”. Within this there
is an objective to create compact and walkable neighbourhoods and allow easy movement
through and between neighbourhoods for all people (56.03-1).
A Walking and Cycling network that meets the objectives of Clause 56.06-2 is suggested as
a possible way of achieving a compact and walkable place. Meeting the objectives of Clause
56.06-2 will require a development to be possible to walk around but mentions nothing about
creating a development in which it is preferable to walk. It is to address this shortfall that this
toolkit has been developed.

The scope and limitations of the walkability toolkit
The toolkit seeks to identify the physical characteristics of a subdivision that make walking a
realistic and attractive option, whether it be to get to a place to meet needs- such as shops,
schools, transport or just as an end in itself, such as recreational walks.
The toolkit allows Council and developers to fulfil their responsibilities in this respect by
providing planners with a measuring stick against which they can assess walkability in
proposed developments. The toolkit is promotional in nature and seeks to provide an agenda
for discussion between planners and applicants about how places can not just meet but also
exceed basic standards of “walkability” and so reflect best practise.
The toolkit allows applicants to identify the reasons why their plans do not embody the qualities
described above and how these qualities might be achieved. This recognises that sometimes
good design can be achieved in ways unforeseen by these guidelines and allows some
scope for exceptional design. The guidelines clearly point out that if this is the case it must be
demonstrated to the planners satisfaction and not just claimed.
Given the subjective nature of human cognition and the different responses that people will
have to their surroundings, influenced as it is by age, gender, personal values and experiences,
etc, it is clear that some places will be walkable for some people but not walkable for others.
For example, a young adult male will feel comfortable walking in places at night that may deter
women, children and older people and a kerb is as much a barrier to a person in a gopher as
a tall wall is to an able bodied person. This toolkit reflects the belief that a place is only walkable
when as few people as possible are excluded from enjoying its benefits. Thus a place is only
walkable when it invites people to walk from every section of society, men, women, old, young,
the able bodied and infirm.
A result of this methodology is that it excludes some key walking infrastructure such as riverside
trails where they are not overlooked and lit. Although these have obvious appeal and are to be
encouraged they may be shunned by many at night and so present a “weak link in the chain”
if walking trips require people to use them at night.
It is recognised that by providing a ‘one size fits all’ assessment criteria the toolkit may be
poorly ‘calibrated’ for all circumstances but is considered to be generally useful for assessing
the walkability of most proposed residential developments.
It is also recognized that the need for a simple and easy to use tool may be at odds with a tool
that considers all the variables and gives them the correct emphasis. This toolkit seeks to strike
a balance that picks up on the key variables that effect walkability without adding unduly to the
assessment process by trying to assess all the variables. To reduce the considerations to fewer
than described here would severely compromise the quality of conclusions drawn from it and to
add to the considerations would make it unwieldy.
Finally, note the assessment criteria place a relatively low emphasis on distance compared
to the quality of the experience of walking than many walkability assessment criteria. This is
because the distance that people are willing to walk varies significantly with the quality of the
experience of walking and it is envisaged that the distance that people are typically willing to
walk will extend in the future as the cost of alternative modes of transport become prohibitive.
Consequently the toolkit seeks to ensure residential environments are built to facilitate walking
so when people want to walk further they can.

How to use the toolkit
The toolkit is a three step process;
Part 1 -
Assess the extents of
the walkable catchment.
The first step is to identify the extent of the area
that can be walked to from within the proposed
development before coming to a barrier or
environmental characteristic that may reasonably
be expected to deter some or all people from
walking any further in that direction. This area is
the walkable catchment of the development.
The walkable catchment is defined by starting at a
lot in the centre of the development and working
outwards following every footpath or shareway until
it becomes unwalkable.
Part 2 -
Assess the contents of
the walkable catchment.
The second step is to identify the key destinations
within the walkable catchment in order to assess
if there are places that are typically important
settings for people to meet their needs (shops,
schools, public transport, etc) within the area
that can be walked to from the development.
If these key destinations cannot be found within
the walkable catchment then even if the walkable
catchment is large the place is unlikely to be
walkable as it is not possible to get to these
important destinations on foot.
Consequently if a place has many of these
destinations then it may be walkable, depending
on the qualities within that walkable catchment.
Proceed to Part 3 to assess the quality of the
walking experience.
Part 3 -
Assess the quality of
the walking experience.
The third step looks in more detail at the quality of
walking experience within the walkable catchment
to make sure it is likely to be interpreted by the
people who will live there as inviting them to walk.
It asks “does the development have characteristics
that will, on balance make walking an attractive,
convenient way of moving within and around the
area?” The toolkit provides a methodology that
identifies if a place has characteristics that will
typically be seen as deterring or inviting walking.
This allows the positive and negative factors to
be weighed up and allow decisions to be made;
If the development has more negative
characteristics than positive then the
development should be considered unwalkable.
If the development has more positive
characteristics than negative then the
development should be considered walkable.

Part 1 –
Assessment of the extents of the walkable
catchment. (to be mapped by applicant)
This will require the applicant to map;
• Footpaths,
• Street lighting (conforming to AS 1158),
• Slopes greater or less than 1:14 (AS 1428.1),
The walkable catchment as mapped is the extent of the area that can be safely reached on
foot in and around the subdivision whilst walking on lit, overlooked continuous footpaths or
dedicated shared spaces and without having to cross a barrier or pass through an area that
will make people will feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
• VicRoads roads and their pedestrian crossing points,
• Adjacent land uses,
• Orientation of adjoining residential development (front doors and windows of habitable
rooms), active or inactive edges,
• Proposed or existing seats, public art features in the area or landmarks visible from it,
Railway line
No Crossing Points
Main Road
No footpaths
• The nearest shops, schools, public transport and park equipped with play equipment for a
range of ages,
Industrial
Zone
• The most direct routes from the centre of the development to the above key destinations
where these things are outside the walkable catchment,
• Strategic walking routes within and outside the development that link the development with
the key destinations described above, and
• Street trees with typical planting intervals and expected canopy sizes.
River
Steep with No
Crossing Points
Park
No Surveillance
Low Density Residential
No Streetlights
By starting at a lot in the centre of the development and working outwards the
walkable catchment extends until one of the following characteristics is reached;
• Path ends or is narrower than 1.5m,
• Path is unlit,
• Slope is greater than 1:14
• Path passes through an adjoining land use other than residential (R1Z), retail, commercial
development or public open space.
• Path is not overlooked, i.e. where it is adjoined by a boundary wall of greater than 1.8m in
height on both sides or the rear of uses described above
• Path reaches a barrier that can’t be crossed, e.g. steep valley, river, highway, railway line
• Path reaches a barrier that can’t be crossed without exposing the walker to elevated
risk and discomfort, e.g. requiring the walker to depart from their desire line and walk
alongside a busy road to reach a crossing, or, the crossing can only be completed in
two or more stages.
Park
No Lighting
‘Grand Estates’
Private Property
Freeway
No Crossing Points
Proposed
subdivision
Nominal
centre point
One possible example of a walkable catchment. Leaving this area on foot would be difficult
for many of the people living there, making other modes of transport relatively more attractive.
This would deter people from walking when choosing how to access the places they will
need to enjoy a good quality of life.

The Toolkit
Part 2 –
Assessment of the contents of the walkable
catchment. (to be supplied by applicant)
Does the walkable catchment include (or is planned to include as part of this development);
Y/N
A all of the lots within the planned development
B a majority of the following key destinations;
• Public primary or secondary school
• Café or other recreational or social establishment
• Shops selling fresh food
• Parks equipped with working play equipment
• Playing fields
• Public transport stop providing shelter, timetable
information and a seven days a week service.
TOTAL /6
Shops and Cafes
within catchment
Bus Stop
within catchment
Public Primary School
outside catchment
If the answer is yes to both A and B then it may be walkable,
depending on the qualities within that walkable catchment.
Proceed to Part 3 to assess the qualities.
If it is no to either A or B it will not be walkable.
Social Club
outside catchment
Playing Field
outside catchment
Park and playground
outside catchment
Walkable
catchment
Proposed
subdivision
Nominal
centre point

Part 3 –
Assessment of the quality of the walking experience
An assessment of the walkable catchment of the application against the following positive
and negative factors will result in a measure of walkability of the subdivision.
The choice assessment criteria/factors has sought to find a balance between the aim of creating
a simple and easy to use tool and one that considers all the variables and gives them the correct
emphasis. The guidelines do this by only considering the main factors that typically affect walking
rather than attempting to consider all factors.
Positive Factors
P1. Visual Stimuli
P2. Comfort
P3. Choice of routes
P4. Positive walking bias
P5. Articulation of opportunities
Negative Factors
N1. Intrusion/friction
N2. Exposure
N3. Excessive distance or time
N4. Negative walking bias
N5. Risk

Positive Factors - P1. Visual stimuli
The walkability of an environment will be influenced by the ability of that environment to provide
the walker with things to look at that are attractive, interesting, inspiring, educational and have
positive associations for the walker. Places that allow people to experience a range of qualities
typically contribute positively to the experience of walking.
Places that meet the following standards are
considered to provide adequate visual stimuli:
P1.1. Opportunities to interact with other people
Other people represent one of the most interesting things that people can see on their journey. For this
reason the presence of features within the walkable catchment that allow people to linger and “people
watch” without getting in the way will support walkability.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Do footpaths through shopping parades incorporate a “shoulder” zone of at least 1.5m in width
adjacent to a movement zone of at least 1.5m in width immediately adjacent the shop front?
(The shoulder zone should incorporate seats and opportunities for café tables and chairs). Yes No N/A
Do strategic footpaths incorporate pause places at gaps of no more than 400metres? Yes No N/A
P1.1 Result: Yes No
P1.2. Opportunities to experience nature
Trees and indigenous trees in particular are not just attractive features in their own right they
also attract native birds that contribute visually as well as providing birdsong. The presence
of characteristics that demonstrate seasonal change also contribute greatly to the experience
of a journey.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Do the walking routes take the walker past areas of natural habitat? Yes No N/A
Does the development incorporate predominantly native trees? Yes No N/A
Does the development incorporate a component of trees that have colourful
displays of blossom and/or autumnal leaf fall? Yes No N/A
P1.2 Result: Yes No

P1.3. Opportunities to experience landmarks
The opportunity to see a feature that distracts the walker or tells them they have reached a certain
point in the journey can contribute greatly to the visual interest of the journey.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development incorporate landmarks such as public art features, pause places, interpretive
material, milestones, pocket parks or adjacent buildings of architectural distinctiveness at key
intersections or at points of significance, such as river crossings, hilltops or historically interesting points? Yes No N/A
P1.3 Result: Yes No
P1.4. Opportunities to enjoy distant views
Compliance
The opportunity to see features that distracts the walker and makes them aware of the surrounding
landscape and townscape can also contribute greatly to the visual interest of the journey.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development provide view corridors to the sea, surrounding areas of varied
topography or the city centre if any of these are visible from the site before development? Yes No N/A
Does the development identify key viewpoints from the public realm and identify
how they are to be protected? Yes No N/A
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived
as visually stimulating.
Indicative design techniques.
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Larger trees of distinctive form, colour and height can provide landmarks.
• Pause places can facilitate people to enjoy views and facilitate social interaction.
• Seats can be landmarks.
P1.4 Result: Yes No
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
A major pause place may provide shelter, seating,
public art, signage and opportunities for play
A minor pause place may provide shelter,
seating and signage
Landmarks aid in legibility and make a walk more interesting

Positive Factors - P2. Comfort
The walkability of an environment will be influenced by the ability of that environment
to provide the walker with comfortable surroundings. Comfortable places are places that
allow people to take breaks and rest and that minimise the physiological ill-effects of
exposure to too much glare, rain or wind.
Places that meet the following standards are considered to provide
adequate comfort:
P2.1. Partial solar access and climatic mitigation
The area under or near tree canopies is significantly protected from extremes of weather.
For this reason a significant component of tree canopy will assist in achieving climatic
mitigation and enhancing comfort.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Will the paths or shareways within a development have more than 10% of their length protected
under the canopies of mature trees or other man made protection? Yes No N/A
Will the gaps between the canopies of mature trees be less than 100m across the
footpaths and shareways of the development? Yes No N/A
P2.1 Result: Yes No
P2.2. Opportunities to break journeys
The opportunity to break the journey adds greatly to the comfort of the user and allows longer
trips to be made.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development provide opportunities at key intersections, view points and at gaps of no more
than 400metres along strategic footpaths that allow users to rest and take shelter from the elements? Yes No N/A
Are seats provided? They can be formal or informal and may be incorporated into compositions
with public art and landscaping etc. Yes No N/A
P2.2 Result: Yes No

Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as comfortable.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Pause places can be designed to not only provide places to rest but also minor
landmarks on the journey.
• Informal seating can be integrated with planter boxes and other landscape features.
• Commercial uses such as cafes can provide opportunities to break journeys however
these can only usually be used by paying customers and so should not be seen as contributing to
the walkability of a place for everyone.
• Deciduous trees can provide solar access in winter and shade in summer.
• Compositions of trees and understorey planting provide shelter from wind.
• A path positioned to the south of the tree line will provide more shelter from the sun.
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Pause places provide places to rest Trees and understorey planting provide shelter from wind Trees located to the north of paths provide greater shelter
from the sun

Positive Factors - P3. Choice of routes
The walkability of an environment will be influenced by the ability of that environment to provide
the walker with choice of routes and a variety of experiences depending on their needs and values
(sometimes a direct walk will be needed, sometimes a longer, more circuitous walk may be desired).
This can be achieved by ensuring an inter-connected network of routes.
Places that meet the following standards are considered
to provide adequate choice of routes:
P3.1. Connectedness of the network
The connectedness of the network contributes to the choice of routes available to walkers.
The greater the choice of routes the more walkable an environment is.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development provide an interconnected network of pedestrian paths? Yes No N/A
Does the development provide parallel streets less than 100m apart? Yes No N/A
Does the development provide street blocks of maximum sizes between 120 metres
and 240 metres in length and 60 metres and 12 metres in width? Yes No N/A
Does the development avoid the use of cul-de-sacs? Yes No N/A
P3.1 Result: Yes No
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as offering a
choice of routes.
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check

Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Aligning paths along rivers and other linear landmark features as well as parallel routes between
residential areas and key destinations can ensure people can walk by the river but return by the
alternative route in case it gets dark or the weather turns.
A choice between direct routes and longer alternatives
will encourage walking

Positive Factors - P4. Positive walking bias
The walkability of an environment will be influenced by the ability of that environment
to be read by the walker as encouraging walking relative to other modes of transport.
Places that meet the following standards are considered to provide
adequate pro walking bias:
P4.1. Direct footpaths
Footpaths not diverted to facilitate vehicular convenience reflect that pedestrian movement is valued.
Compliance
Does the development typically ensure that pedestrian crossings are aligned exactly with the footpaths
on either side or that the deflection is gradual? Yes No N/A
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
P4.1 Result: Yes No
P4.2. Direct strategic paths
Strategic footpaths provide direct links to and between key destinations without making
unnecessary diversions.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development provide direct and convenient pedestrian links between key
destinations along strategic footpaths? Yes No N/A
How to measure: Compare the actual length from one end of the strategic footpath to the other with
the crow flies distance. If the actual length is less than twice the crow flies’ distance then the
strategic footpath is direct. Yes No N/A
P4.2 Result: Yes No

P4.3. Recreational and shared use paths
Recreational paths, often used by cyclists as well as walkers and located within local and regional
open spaces, can provide places for walking away from vehicles. These paths encourage walking as
a recreational activity.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development identify recreational paths in its design that are separate from the road network
and marked to allow walkers to complete a circuit or point to point walk? Yes No N/A
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as having a
positive walking bias.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Underground utilities installed under the nature strip, clear of the footpath and tree root zones, will
ensure that the footpath does not need to be repeatedly dug up and closed to pedestrians when
services need to be accessed.
• Specially designed lighting can favour walking while standard street lighting for cars illuminates the
footpath as a by-product and reflects a positive bias towards the motor vehicle.
P4.1 Result: Yes No
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Pedestrian crossings aligned directly between footpaths
demonstrate a positive bias towards walking
Strategic footpaths should be no longer than twice the ‘crow
flies’ distance

Positive Factors - P5. Articulation of opportunities
The walkability of an environment will be influenced by the ability of the walker to understand all
the opportunities open to them within that environment and the commitment in time and energy
needed to get to key destinations.
Places that meet the following standards are considered to
provide adequate awareness of opportunities:
P5.1. Clear, simple and attractive signage
Signage along pedestrian routes to key destinations will enhance people’s awareness of the
advantages and possibilities of walking. Signage may also include the estimated walking time
needed to reach the given destinations.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development incorporate signage at key intersections and changes in direction along
strategic footpaths that identifies direction and walking time to key destinations? Yes No N/A
Is a map of the local area showing street names and identifying landmarks displayed at the shopping parade? Yes No N/A
P5.1 Result: Yes No
P5.2. Legibility
Places that are legible can be better interpreted by the walker enabling the areas’ opportunities to be
better understood and taken advantage of. A legible urban environment of links, nodes and spaces will
allow walkers to easily navigate to their chosen destination with minimal need for signage.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Are strategic footpaths signified by a distinctive landscape treatment, with its significance reflected
by trees of distinctive form, height or colour? Yes No N/A
Are the footpaths and shareways aligned to frame views of key destinations such as the town
centres or recreational features? Yes No N/A
Do footpaths incorporate changes in texture at regular intervals that can assist visually impaired
people to interpret their surroundings? Yes No N/A
P5.2 Result: Yes No

Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived
as providing adequate awareness of the opportunities available to the walker.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Consistency of treatment will often enable the walker to interpret their surroundings.
• Distinctive landscape treatments such as trees of distinctive form, height or colour may be used to
help identify strategic footpaths.
• Signage at points where a shorter pedestrian route to key destinations is not visible will enhance
people’s awareness of the advantages of walking.
• Patterns in the pavement can assist visually impaired people to interpret their surroundings and add
visual interest
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
clear and simple signage should
be provided at key points on
strategic footpaths
Footpaths aligned to frame views at landmarks
help people find their way around
The consistent treatment of main
routes adds to the legibility of a place

Negative Factors - N1. Intrusion/friction
The walkability of an environment is influenced by the ability of a walker to easily and safely move
through it. Intrusions into the movement corridor will cause friction that will make walking more
difficult and add to the factors that deter people from walking.
Places that have the following characteristics are considered to increase
the chances of this happening:
N1.1. Car parking on the footpath
Compliance
Cars parked on footpaths provide a barrier to pedestrian movement.
Do footpaths allow cars to park on them and block pedestrian movements? Yes No N/A
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
N1.2. overhanging trees
Overhanging boughs of trees can cause accidents and inconvenience people.
Trees with branches at less than 2m above ground level when mature or with
pendulous habits will block the footpath.
N1.1 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Will low canopies of mature street trees overhang footpaths and shareways? Yes No N/A
N1.2 Result: Yes No
N1.3. Steps
Steps are not accessible to many people, particularly the elderly and infirm, the presence of steps
cause some areas to be out of the reach of and unable to be used by these groups.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Is there any part of the walkable catchment that can only be reached by walking up steps? Yes No N/A
Are landings provided on flights of steps to allow less able bodied people to rest? Yes No N/A
N1.3 Result: Yes No

N1.4. Intrusive street furniture
Street furniture such as lights, shop displays, seats and bicycle racks can inconvenience walkers and
pose a safety risk to some people if inappropriately placed.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Is there any point along strategic footpaths or outside shops where street furniture will be placed in
which a continuous, direct footpath of at least 1.5m is not capable of being accommodated? Yes No N/A
Is there any point on footpaths within shopping areas where a hard paved “shoulder area”
capable of accommodating street furniture cannot be accommodated? Yes No N/A
N1.1 Result: Yes No
N1.5 Absence of drop kerbs at crossings Compliance
The difficulty of crossing roads is compounded for the elderly, gopher users, people pushing strollers
or shopping jeeps and the visually impaired when drop kerbs are not provided.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Are there any points where footpaths intersect with road alignments that do not have drop kerbs? Yes No N/A
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived
as uncomfortable with intrusions and friction making walking less attractive.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Compositions of street furniture can provide a barrier between cars and pedestrians.
• Allow a minimum of 1.5m between the movement zone and the kerb for footpath trading in
shopping areas.
N1.1 Result: Yes No
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Overhanging trees with branches lower
than 2m create friction for walkers
Street furniture and outdoor dining areas can infringe
upon the movement zone of the footpath
The absence of drop kerbs at intersections limits walkability

Negative Factors - N2. Exposure
The walkability of an environment is limited where the walker is likely to
be buffeted or discomforted by climatic extremes or noise.
Developments with the following characteristics are considered
to increase the chances of this happening:
N2.1. No shelter at public transport stops
People waiting at stops are likely to cool down and have fewer distractions to take their mind
off the weather. Without shelter this can significantly add to the disadvantages of walking.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Do any public transport stops within the area lack a covered shelter adjacent to the stop? Yes No N/A
N2.2. Absence of shade in open spaces
The absence of shaded places to seek shelter from the sun at destinations such as parks
and playgrounds will discourage people from walking to these destinations.
N2.1 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Do any parks or open spaces lack shaded seating areas at noon or in the afternoon? Yes No N/A
N2.3. Walking alongside VicRoads Road
VicRoads roads tend to be busier and faster than local roads. This adds to the discomfort and
inconvenience of walking alongside them where there is no other choice. This is even more so
when there is no intervening landscape buffer.
N2.2 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Is the footpath edge within 5 metres of the edge of the VicRoads Road and within that 5 metres
are the gaps between the canopies of mature street trees more than 20m? Yes No N/A
N2.3 Result: Yes No

Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived
as uncomfortable with intrusions and friction making walking less attractive.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Different seats may be in shade at different part of the afternoon giving additional
choice to users.
• Shelter need not necessarily be provided only via buildings.
• Shelters can be sculptural as well as utilitarian.
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Paths close to arterial roads and unsheltered by vegetation
increase the perception of risk
Pause places can provide relief from exposure to
the elements

Negative Factors - N3. Excessive distance or time
The walkability of an environment is influenced by the time and energy the walker has
to commit to getting to where they need to go to meet their needs. The more energy that
is required to be expended and the greater the time allowed for to complete a trip the less
walkable the environment will be.
Developments with the following characteristics are considered to
increase the chances of this happening:
N3.1. multi purpose journeys are impractical
Being able to walk to an essential destination such as a school and meet other needs along the way
such as shopping or visiting the park minimises the share of the energy and time needed for each of
those destinations. Widely scattered key destinations make such multi purpose journeys impractical.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Are none of the following co-located or their entrances within 100m of each other? Public transport
stops, shops, school, doctors surgery or health care centre, public open space, library. Yes No N/A
N3.2. Crow flies v street distance.
Pedestrians are much more sensitive to distance than are passengers or drivers of cars.
Where walking is read as being an inconveniently long way to get to a destination then it
is more likely to be seen as unattractive.
N3.1 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Is the walking distance to the closest school from the nominated centre lot more than
400 metres (5 minutes walk) and twice the crow flies distance? Yes No N/A
Is the walking distance to the closest shop from the nominated centre lot more than
400 metres (5 minutes walk) and twice the crow flies distance? Yes No N/A
Is the walking distance to the closest park from the nominated centre lot more than
400 metres (5 minutes walk) and twice the crow flies distance? Yes No N/A
N3.2 Result: Yes No
Is the walking distance to the closest public transport stop from the nominated centre
lot more than 400 metres (5 minutes walk) and twice the crow flies distance? Yes No N/A

How to measure: Using the designated
lot at the centre of the subdivision chart
the course along footpaths or shared
ways to the nearest school, shops,
open space and public transport stop.
Compare this distance to the “crow flies”
distance for all four journeys. If this is
greater than 400m and more than
twice the crow flies distance then
walkability is discouraged.
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as
requiring excessive expenditure of energy and time to meet resident’s needs and making
walking less attractive.
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Co-located facilities provide greater opportunities to develop a sense of a “heart” for a community
and provide significant opportunities to enhance the character and identity of a place
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
If the walking distance is more than two times the crow flies
distance then walking is discouraged by excessive distances
Footpath layout mitigates distance

Negative Factors - N4. Negative walking bias
The walkability of an environment will be diminished by the sense that the design
of the place discourages walking relative to other modes of transport.
Places with the following characteristics are considered to
have a negative walking bias:
N4.1. Indirect footpaths
Footpaths diverted to facilitate vehicular convenience reflect that pedestrian movement is unvalued.
Compliance
Does the development divert pedestrian crossings so they are not aligned exactly with the
footpaths on either side? Yes No N/A
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development coral pedestrians into “cow pens” at crossings? Yes No N/A
Does the development divert footpaths around areas of car parking? Yes No N/A
N4.2. Indirect strategic paths
Strategic footpaths that make unnecessary diversions or take indirect routes between
key destinations discourage walking.
N4.1 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development fail to provide direct and convenient pedestrian links between
key destinations along strategic footpaths? Yes No N/A
How to measure: Compare the actual length from one end of the strategic footpath to the other with
the crow flies distance. If the actual length is more than twice the crow flies’ distance then the strategic
footpath is indirect.
N4.2 Result: Yes No

Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as
requiring excessive expenditure of energy and time to meet resident’s needs and making
walking less attractive.
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Underground utilities installed under the nature strip, clear of the footpath and tree root zones, will
ensure that the footpath does not need to be repeatedly dug up and closed to pedestrians when
the services need to be accessed.
• Specially designed lighting can favour walking while standard street lighting for cars illuminates the
footpath as a by-product and reflects a positive bias towards the motor vehicle.
Barriers to movement cause walking to be discouraged

Negative Factors - N5. Risk
The walkability of an environment will be diminished where the walker feels
that they are exposing themselves to elevated risks when they walk.
Places with the following characteristics are likely to
be perceived as risky by some or all people:
N5.1. Busy roads
Busy roads with speeding cars and associated noise impacts feel much less safe to walkers.
Cars leaving the roadway in this situation are much more likely to cause significant damage than
those leaving a local road.
Compliance
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Are there gaps of more than 20m between trees and native strips at less than 5m in width?
Together this is likely to cause walkers to feel left to risk alongside main roads. Yes No N/A
Are intersection radii anything else than the engineering minimal? Yes No N/A
N5.1 Result: Yes No
N5.2. Roots pulling up footpaths
The roots of trees planted close to footpaths can cause the pavement to become uneven,
broken and for walkers to trip.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Are footpaths built entirly within the dropline of trees? Without mitigating measures these are likely to
cause the footpaths of the development to become uneven. Yes No N/A
N5.3. Hidden nooks
Areas of footpaths and shareways can become hidden or can run alongside secluded “nooks”
where persons may loiter unseen. The perceived safety risks associated with these areas result in
environments where walking is considered unattractive.
N5.2 Result: Yes No
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development contain areas of footpath or shareway alongside nooks where persons may loiter unseen? Yes No N/A
Do the footpaths and shareways of the development pass through areas where there will be no
surveillance from streets or neighbouring properties? Yes No N/A
N5.3 Result: Yes No

N5.4. Doorways not visible from the street
The doorways of dwellings and businesses provide surveillance of footpaths and shareways.
When these doorways are not visible from the street there is less casual surveillance possible from
them with the result that footpaths feel unsafe and walking becomes discouraged.
If not applicable, why?
Or explain if achieved in another way.
Does the development result in doorways into buldings being not visible from the street?
N1.1 Result: Yes No
Total.
If the total “yes” is more than the total “no” then the development is likely to be perceived as
requiring excessive expenditure of energy and time to meet resident’s needs and making
walking less attractive.
Check if total for “Y” is greater
than or equal to total for “N”
Check
Indicative design techniques
These do not form part of the assessment but will help to inform a better design.
• Landscaped buffers, increased distance of paths from main roads or parallel parking along kerbs
can decrease the perception of risk to the
• Consideration should be givin to selecting trees.
• Trees placed within root gaurds can diminish intrusion at roads.
Ensuring kerbs are close together reduces the percieved
risks of crossing and encourages walking
Paths close to arterial roads and unsheltered by
vegetation increase the perception of risk
tree roots commonly extend under the
drip line of trees and may cause paths
to become uneven

Walkability balance sheet
Part 4 –
Walkability balance sheet
Positive
Negative
The balance sheet allows the good and bad characteristics of the walkable
catchment of a development application to be summarised and weighed up
against one another. Each factor relates to a page in the previous section and
the text reflects the impact this factor will have on a development’s walkability.
P1. Visual stimuli
The application will provide a visually
rich and interesting environment
providing distractions that will make
walking more appealing.
Check
N1. Intrusion/friction
The application will expose the
walker to events and experiences
that make the journey more difficult
and less pleasant.
Check
P2. Comfort
N2. Exposure
The application will provide a
comfortable walking environment
including shelter and opportunities
to rest.
Check
The application will result in a
walking environment that leaves
users exposed to the elements.
Check
3. Choice of routes
N3. Excesive distance or time
The application will provide a well
connected network of paths giving
users a choice of alternate routes.
Check
The application will not provide a
number of core destinations that
are generally of significance to the
wider community within a ten minute
walking distance.
Check
P4. Positive walking bias
N4. Negative walking bias
The application will provide an
environment where pedestrians
are aware that walking is not just
possible but favoured ahead of
other transport modes.
Check
The application will result in
a walking environment that
feels like it is favouring other
transport modes.
Check
P5. Articulation of opportunities
N5. Risk
The application will result in a clearly
legible pedestrian environment
which enables users to make
informed decisions about the
walking opportunities open to them.
Check
The application will result in a
walking environment where users
feel they are exposing themselves
to elevated levels of risk.
Check
If the development results in more possitive factors than negative
factors then the development should be considered walkable.
Total
P /5 N /5

Glossary
• Strategic footpaths
• Pause place
• Amenity
• etc...