81ABELL STREET AND 2-24RODDA STREET,COBURG ...

81A BELL STREET AND 2-24 RODDA STREET, COBURG 

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW 

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FOR PANEL HEARING 

PREPARED BY CHARMAINE DUNSTAN, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT ENGINEER 

PREPARED FOR 

HAMTON JV (COBURG) PTY LTD 

PREPARED BY 

TraffixGroup 

5 TH OCTOBER, 2009 

11336R#1

81A Bell Street and 2-24 Rodda Street, Coburg 

Proposed Mixed Use Development 

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW 

81A BELL STREET AND 2-24 RODDA STREET, COBURG 

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 

Study Team 

• Charmaine Dunstan, Director 

B.E.(Civil) Hons., Masters of Traffic, M.I.E.Aust., M.V.P.E.L.A. 

• Chris Arnott, Traffic Engineer 

B.E.(Civil) Hons., M.V.P.E.L.A. 

Our Reference: 11336R#1 

11336R#1.doc Page 2



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................6 

2. STATEMENT OF WITNESS.........................................................................................................................................6 

2.1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE...................................................................................................................6 

2.2. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................................................................7 

2.3. EXPERIMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................7 

2.4. SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................................7 

2.5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.................................................................................................................................8 

3. THE PROPOSAL..........................................................................................................................................................8 

4. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL .........................................................................................................................10 

5. EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................11 

5.1. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE................................................................................................................................11 

5.2. ROAD NETWORK.............................................................................................................................................14 

5.2.1. Traffic Conditions..........................................................................................................................................18 

5.2.2. Road Safety Review .....................................................................................................................................20 

5.3. CAR PARKING CONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................21 

5.4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES ......................................................................................................................29 

5.5. BICYCLE FACILITIES........................................................................................................................................32 

6. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................33 

6.1. STATUTORY CAR PARKING PROVISION REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................33 

6.1.1. Sustainable Transport Policy Considerations ..............................................................................................34 

6.1.1.1. State Policy – Melbourne 2030 ....................................................................................................................34 

6.1.1.2. Council Policies ............................................................................................................................................35 

6.1.2. Sustainable Transport Options.....................................................................................................................37 

6.1.2.1. Green Travel Plan.........................................................................................................................................37 

6.1.2.2. Car Share Schemes .....................................................................................................................................37 

6.1.2.3. Bicycle Parking .............................................................................................................................................38 

6.1.2.4. Pedestrian Facilities .....................................................................................................................................39 

6.1.3. Sharing of Parking Spaces and Trips...........................................................................................................39 

6.1.4. Availability of Public Transport within the Locality .......................................................................................39 

6.1.5. Availability of Parking within the Locality .....................................................................................................41 

6.1.6. Empirical Assessment of Car Parking Demands .........................................................................................42 

6.1.6.1. Residential Dwellings ...................................................................................................................................42 

6.1.6.2. Restricted Retail ...........................................................................................................................................45 

6.1.6.3. Office.............................................................................................................................................................45 

6.1.6.4. Restaurant/Café............................................................................................................................................46 

6.1.6.5. Summary.......................................................................................................................................................47 

11336R#1.doc Page 3



6.2. RECOMMENDED PARKING ALLOCATION...........................................................................................................48 

6.3. BICYCLE PARKING ..........................................................................................................................................50 

6.4. PARKING LAYOUT AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS............................................................................................51 

6.5. TRAFFIC GENERATION....................................................................................................................................52 

6.6. WASTE COLLECTION AND LOADING.................................................................................................................55 

7. RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY OBJECTORS.........................................................................................................57 

8. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................................59 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Locality Plan..........................................................................................................................................................12 

Figure 2. Subject Site looking south-east from Bell Street ..................................................................................................12 

Figure 3. Subject Site looking south-west from Bell Street..................................................................................................13 

Figure 4. Planning Scheme Zoning Map..............................................................................................................................13 

Figure 5. Bell Street – Westbound Carriageway (looking west from Rodda Street) ...........................................................16 

Figure 6. Bell Street – Westbound Carriageway (looking east from Rodda Street)............................................................16 

Figure 7. Bell Street – Eastbound Carriageway (looking west from Rodda Street) ............................................................16 

Figure 8. Bell Street – Eastbound Carriageway (looking east from Rodda Street).............................................................16 

Figure 9. Bell Street (looking east towards U-turn location at Alva Grove).........................................................................16 

Figure 10. Bell Street (looking west towards U-turn location at Elm Grove) ......................................................................16 

Figure 11. Rodda Street (looking north towards Bell Street)...............................................................................................17 

Figure 12. Rodda Street (looking south) ..............................................................................................................................17 

Figure 13. Road connection between Rodda Street and Budds Street (looking east) .......................................................17 

Figure 14. Road connection between Rodda Street and Budds Street (looking west).......................................................17 

Figure 15. Budds Street (looking south) ..............................................................................................................................17 

Figure 16. Budds Street (looking north) ...............................................................................................................................17 

Figure 17. Bell Street/Elm Grove and Bell Street/Alva Grove – 16 th September, 2009 (AM Peak Hour)...........................19 

Figure 18. Bell Street/Elm Grove and Bell Street/Alva Grove – 16 th September, 2009 (PM Peak Hour)...........................19 

Figure 19. Crash History Investigation Area ........................................................................................................................20 

Figure 20. Parking Survey Area ...........................................................................................................................................23 

Figure 21. Demands in local streets – Thursday 10 th September, 2009.............................................................................24 

Figure 22. Russell Street Carpark – Thursday 10 th September, 2009 ................................................................................25 

Figure 23. Demands in local streets – Saturday 12 th September, 2009..............................................................................26 

Figure 24. Russell Street Carpark – Saturday 12 th September, 2009.................................................................................27 

Figure 25. Russell Street Carpark – Comparison of Saturday Survey Results...................................................................28 

Figure 26. Public Transport Map..........................................................................................................................................31 

Figure 27. Moreland Principal Bicycle Network ...................................................................................................................32 

Figure 28. Moreland City Council – Coburg (Statistical Local Area), ABS..........................................................................40 

11336R#1.doc Page 4



Figure 29. Coburg (State Suburb), ABS ..............................................................................................................................40 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Proposed Development Summary...........................................................................................................................8 

Table 2. On-Site Parking Provisions ......................................................................................................................................9 

Table 3. Proposed Carparking Allocation ..............................................................................................................................9 

Table 4. Nearby local streets – Comparison of Saturday Survey Results ..........................................................................27 

Table 5. Development Carparking Requirement: Clause 52.06..........................................................................................33 

Table 6. Journey to Work Data (based on place of residence): 2006 Census, ABS ..........................................................40 

Table 7. Car Ownership Data: 2006 Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics ....................................................................43 

Table 8. Empirical Assessment of Parking Demands..........................................................................................................47 

Table 9. Recommended Parking Allocation.........................................................................................................................48 

Table 10. Statutory Bicycle Parking Requirement ...............................................................................................................50 

Table 11. Peak Hour Traffic Generation ..............................................................................................................................53 

Table 12. Response to Third Party Objections ....................................................................................................................57 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: CV 

APPENDIX B: DEVELOPMENT PLANS 

APPENDIX C: PARKING SURVEY RESULTS 

11336R#1.doc Page 5



1. INTRODUCTION 

This report sets out the expert evidence of Charmaine Chalmers Dunstan, Traffic Engineer, who has been 

engaged by Hamton JV (Coburg) Pty Ltd to provide traffic engineering advice in a peer review role in relation to 

the proposed mixed use development for the site located at 81A Bell Street and 2-24 Rodda Street Coburg. 

The application includes a Planning Scheme Amendment (C97), which proposes to rezone the land from 

Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) to a Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and an application for the development and use of the 

land for residential, retail, restaurant/café and office uses. 

The proposed mixed use development includes the construction of buildings that range from 2 to 13 storeys in 

height on the subject land. The proposed uses include: 

• 520 residential apartments (including 77 studio apartments, 320 one-bedroom apartments and 123 twobedroom 

apartments), 

• 192 seat restaurant/café, 

• 1,176m2 of restricted retail tenancies, and 

• 1,122m2 of offices. 

A total of 563 car spaces will be provided for this development over two levels of basement carparking. Vehicle 

access will be provided via Bell Street and Rodda Street. 

This report provides a detailed traffic engineering assessment of parking and traffic issues associated with the 

proposed development. 

I have visited the site, made various assessments, perused relevant documentation and plans, and report as 

follows. 

2. STATEMENT OF WITNESS 

2.1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 

My name is Charmaine Chalmers Dunstan. I am a Director of Traffix Group Pty Ltd practicing from 

Suite 8, 431 Burke Road, Glen Iris. 

My qualifications and membership of professional associations are as follows:- 

• Bachelor of Civil Engineering (honours), Monash University, Clayton 

• Masters of Traffic, Monash University 

• Masters of Transport (50% complete), Monash University 

• Member, Engineers Australia (IEAUST) 

• Member, Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association 

I have over 14 years experience as a Traffic Engineering and Transport Planning consultant with 

Traffix Group Pty Ltd and formerly Turnbull Fenner Pty Ltd. My experience also includes a number of 

local government appointments which involved acting in the role of Council’s Transport Co-ordinator or 

Senior Traffic Engineer. These appointments include the City of Moreland, City of Whittlesea and the 

City of Darebin. 

I have experience and expertise in traffic management, road safety planning and engineering, parking 

management and strategy development, and development impact assessment of a range of land-use 

developments. 

A copy of my CV is attached at Appendix A. 

11336R#1.doc Page 6



2.2. PROJECT TEAM 

Other members of Traffix Group who assisted with the preparation of this report include Chris Arnott 

(Traffic Engineer), who assisted with site inspections, conduct/supervision of traffic and parking 

surveys and the preparation of this report. Martin O’Shea and Leigh Furness (Traffic Engineers) also 

assisted with the conduct of traffic surveys. Experienced survey staff employed by Traffix Group 

undertook the parking surveys. 

2.3. EXPERIMENTS 

I have undertaken a site inspection of the subject land and nearby area to review existing conditions. 

2.4. SCOPE OF WORK 

I was retained by Hamton JV (Coburg) Pty Ltd in September, 2009 to provide advice in relation to the 

traffic engineering issues associated with the Planning Scheme Amendment (C97) and proposed 

mixed use development for the land at 81A Bell Street and 2-24 Rodda Street, Coburg. I was engaged 

in a peer review role to assess the application and previous traffic engineering assessment undertaken 

by GTA Consultants at the application stage. 

The scope of my engagement in relation to this review has included the following tasks: 

• site inspections of the subject land and nearby area to review existing conditions, 

• conduct of parking surveys of the surrounding area at various times, 

• conduct of AM and PM peak hour traffic surveys at the intersections of Bell Street/Elm Grove and 

Bell Street/Alva Grove, 

• review of the parking and traffic impact assessments previously undertaken by GTA Consultants at 

the application stage (including sections of the Expert Evidence Statement prepared by Mr 

Christian Griffith in response to VicRoads’ letter request, dated 4th August, 2009, for further Sidra 

analysis of U-turn opportunities in Bell Street), 

• review of Council policies and other relevant documents, 

• design review of parking layout and access arrangements, 

• review of parking and traffic generation impacts of the proposal, 

• preparation of Expert Evidence in accordance with Expert Witness guidelines prepared by Planning 

Panels Victoria. 

11336R#1.doc Page 7



2.5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 

I have reviewed the following documents as part of my assessment: 

• Traffic Engineering Assessment, prepared by GTA Consultants, dated 13th February, 2009 (‘GTA 

Traffic Report’), 

• Advertised development plans prepared by Jackson Clement Burrows, dated 17th February, 2009, 

• Amended development plans (including an alternate waste collection/loading area and the loss of 

one dwelling) prepared by Jackson Clement Burrows, 

• Streetscape concept plans, prepared by Tract, dated May, 2009, 

• Planning submission prepared by SJB Planning Pty Ltd, dated 16th February, 2009, 

• Travel Plan prepared by Scape, dated February, 2009, 

• Council Meeting Report (including Council Planning Report on Amendment C97 and Application 

MPS/2009/73), dated 9th September, 2009, 

• Various correspondence between the applicant and Moreland City Council (including internal 

traffic engineering comments), 

• VicRoads’ letter request for further information, dated 4th August, 2009, 

• Objections to the proposal submitted by Third Party Objectors, and 

• Relevant sections of the Moreland Planning Scheme. 

3. THE PROPOSAL 

This application seeks a rezoning of the subject land under Amendment C97 from Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) to a 

Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and an application for the development and use of the land for residential, retail, 

restaurant/café and office uses. 

The proposed development includes the construction of building/s varying in height from 2 to 13 storeys across 

the site for the purposes of residential, retail, restaurant/café and office uses. A breakdown of the proposed 

uses included as part of the development is provided in Table 1. 

Table 1. Proposed Development Summary 

Use Number / Area 

RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT 

Bedsit/Studio Apartment 77 

1 Bedroom Apartment 320 

2 Bedroom Apartment 123 

Residential Total 520 apartments 

COMMERCIAL COMPONENT 

Restricted Retail 1,176m2 Office 1,122m2 Restaurant/Café 192 seats (782m2) 11336R#1.doc Page 8



It is understood that a proportion of the development may be used to provide affordable housing through one of 

the affordable housing agencies in Victoria. This housing would generally be expected to accommodate those 

members of the community in most need of affordable housing including those on government Centrelink 

benefits, low income earners and key workers. My assessment of the development does not rely on the 

development accommodating an ‘affordable housing’ component. 

I note that two community facilities (artist studio and historical society) are proposed to be provided within two of 

the dwellings on the ground floor. For the purposes of this assessment and carparking requirements, these 

uses have been included as ‘dwellings’. 

A total of 563 car spaces are proposed on-site within two levels of basement carparking accessed via Bell 

Street and Rodda Street. The carpark is proposed to be internally gated to limit access to the carparking areas 

allocated to the commercial uses of the building via the Bell Street access only. Residential access to the 

carpark will be permitted via the Rodda Street and Bell Street accesses. 

Two on-site car spaces will be allocated to a ‘car share’ scheme for this development. 

I understand that loading activities will occur on-street within Rodda Street (Loading Zone restrictions are 

proposed within Rodda Street). Waste collection will be accommodated towards the southern boundary of the 

site, with vehicle access via Rodda Street. 

A total of 520 bicycle parking spaces are also proposed on-site within the basement carpark. Visitor bicycle 

parking will also be provided at ground level. 

A summary of the on-site parking provisions is set out in Table 2. 

The proposed carparking allocation (as set out in the GTA Traffic Report, 13th February, 2009) is presented at 

Table 3, which does not allocate any on-site parking to visitors or customers. My recommended allocation of 

parking for this development is set out in Section 6.2 of this report, which includes the provision of some on-site 

to residential visitors in this development that can also be used by customers if desired. This is achieved by 

reducing the allocation of parking to the smaller dwellings, which is supported on sustainable transport grounds. 

Table 2. On-Site Parking Provisions 

Level Carparking Provision Other Parking Provisions 

Ground level - 

Basement Level 1 

330 car spaces including 2 car share 

spaces 

Waste Collection area accessed via Rodda 

Street 

Bicycle rails for visitors/customers 

306 bicycle spaces 

Basement Level 2 233 single spaces 214 bicycle spaces 

TOTAL 

(563 car spaces) 

561 single spaces 

2 single car share spaces 

Table 3. Proposed Carparking Allocation 

On-site Loading Bay 

520 bicycle parking spaces + ground level 

provision 

Use Carparking Allocation 

Residential (Residents) 520 on-site spaces 

Other Uses (Staff Parking) 43 car spaces including 2 ‘car share’ spaces 

TOTAL 563 car spaces 

11336R#1.doc Page 9



Vehicle access to the on-site parking is provided via two locations, including: 

• a 6.1m wide access ramp (measured between kerbs) to Bell Street, approximately 40m west of Rodda 

Street. This access provides for left-in/left-out movements only, and 

• an 8.4m wide access ramp (6.1m wide access ramp with adjacent pedestrian access provided) to Rodda 

Street, approximately 25m from the southern boundary of the site. 

Any disused crossovers along the site’s frontages to Bell Street and Rodda Street will be removed to the 

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 

The applicant also proposes to provide improvement works along the site’s frontage in Rodda Street, which will 

provide a reconstructed kerb on each side of the road, kerb outstands and indented parallel parking. The 

proposed cross-section of Rodda Street will provide a 2.1m wide parking lane on each side of the road and a 

6.2m wide travel lane to accommodate two-way traffic. 

The development includes a number of openings and a network of pedestrian paths to provide good pedestrian 

linkages between Rodda Street and Bridges Reserve (as well as connecting to the Sydney Road precinct 

further west). These pedestrian linkages will provide access for residents/staff of the development, as well as 

the general public. 

A copy of the advertised development plans prepared by Jackson Clements Burrows (dated 17th February, 

2009), which displays the proposed parking and access layout, is attached at Appendix B to this statement. 

4. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL 

I understand that a total of 37 objections were received by Council in relation to the proposed Planning Scheme 

Amendment and Planning Permit Application. 

A summary of the objections relating to traffic engineering issues are summarised as follows: 

• Excessive traffic onto Rodda Street and Budds Street, 

• Safety concerns from increase in traffic on Rodda Street and Budds Street, 

• Traffic congestion is already an issue in the area. This development will only make the problem worse, 

• Insufficient carparking provided on-site, 

• Insufficient carparking available in the nearby area, 

• Insufficient carparking available in Rodda Street and Budds Street., 

• Vehicle access is provided directly to Bell Street, however, there is no guarantee that traffic will not use the 

Rodda Street access instead, 

• Vehicle access between Rodda Street and Budds Street will not cope with increase in traffic at this location. 

All traffic should exit the site either directly to Bell Street or onto Bell Street via Rodda Street, 

• Lack of carparking availability in the area will cause vehicles to park illegally, causing safety concerns, 

• The intersection of Rodda Street and Bell Street is not safe. Increase in traffic will make the problem worse, 

• The reliance on public transport use is not appropriate as the existing demands exceed capacity in peak 

hours, 

• Concerns over waste collection, 

• Budds Street currently allows parking on both sides of the street along the southern section, reducing traffic 

flow to one lane. The increase in traffic along Budds Street is too significant for this arrangement, 

• Safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the area as a result of increase in traffic, and 

• Existing residents should be given permits to park in Rodda Street. Vehicles from the development should 

not be included in such schemes. 

11336R#1.doc Page 10



This report addresses the concerns raised by objectors throughout the body of this evidence. A summary of my 

response to objections raised within the submissions is provided in Section 7 of this report. 

5. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

5.1. THE DEVELOPMENT SITE 

The development site is located on the south-west corner of Bell Street and Rodda Street in Coburg. A 

locality plan and photographs of the site are presented at Figure 1 to Figure 3, respectively. 

The subject site was previously occupied by Coburg High School. All buildings have been demolished 

and the site is currently vacant. The site covers a total area of approximately 12,000m2 and 

incorporates 18 separate titles as well as various carriageway easements. The site has frontages to 

Bell Street and Rodda Street of approximately 82.4m and 154.8m, respectively. 

An on-site carparking area is currently provided towards the southern end of the site’s frontage to 

Rodda Street. This carparking area currently provides a total of 5 spaces and is accessed via a 5.7m 

wide crossover to Rodda Street (this crossover is shown as being retained on the application plans). 

This crossover also provides vehicle access to a ROW that spans south from the site. Other existing 

vehicle crossovers to the site include a 5.6m wide crossover towards the northern end of the site’s 

frontage to Rodda Street and a 3.5m wide crossover along the site’s Bell Street frontage. 

A total of 20 car spaces are located along the site’s frontage to Rodda Street, where parking is 

currently unrestricted. No Stopping restrictions apply along the site’s frontage to Bell Street. VicRoads 

currently has a proposal to implement extended Clearway restrictions along Bell Street in vicinity of the 

site (6.30am-10am and 3pm-7pm Mon-Fri) and introduce part-time bus lanes during peak times along 

a section of Bell Street which includes the site’s frontage. 

The site is currently located in a Residential 1 Zone under the Planning Scheme as presented in Figure 

4, which is proposed to be rezoned to Mixed Use Zone under Amendment C97. The subject site is 

located on the periphery of the Coburg Activity Centre, which is identified as a Principal Activity Centre 

under Melbourne 2030. This Activity Centre provides a range of everyday needs for residents, 

employees, customers, etc including supermarkets, banks, pharmacies, post offices, shops, cafes, 

restaurants and community facilities. 

Land-use in the vicinity of the site includes a variety of retail, commercial and community uses within 

the Activity Centre to the north, south and west. Land-use to the east of the site is predominately 

residential. Other specific land-uses in the surrounding area include: 

• Moreland City Council Town Hall and Municipal Offices located on the north side of Bell Street 

directly opposite the site, 

• Coburg Leisure Centre & Bridges Reserve located immediately to the west of the site, 

• City Oval (located within Bridges Reserve) located immediately to the south-west of the site, 

• Coburg Primary School located on Bell Street, approximately 100m walking distance west of the 

site, 

• Coburg Senior High School is located approximately 550m walking distance north-east of the site, 

and 

• Coburg Railway Station is located off Victoria Street, approximately 550m walking distance west of 

the subject site. 




Figure 1. Locality Plan 

Subject Site 

Figure 2. Subject Site looking south-east from Bell Street 

Reproduced with permission of Melways Publishing Pty Ltd 




Figure 3. Subject Site looking south-west from Bell Street 

Subject Site 

Figure 4. Planning Scheme Zoning Map 




5.2. ROAD NETWORK 

Bell Street is a VicRoads declared State Highway and located within a Category 1 Road Zone under 

the Planning Scheme. Bell Street is generally aligned in an east-west direction and extends between 

Heidelberg Road (Heidelberg Heights) in the east (where the road continues further east as Banksia 

Street) and Pascoe Vale Road (Strathmore) in the west. 

In the vicinity of the subject site, Bell Street is a dual carriageway road providing two marked traffic 

lanes in the eastbound direction (as well as a parking lane on the north side) and 3 traffic lanes in the 

westbound direction (No Stopping restrictions apply on the south side along the site’s frontage, with 

unrestricted carparking available to the east of Rodda Street). I note that VicRoads has a current 

proposal for extended Clearway times along Bell Street in vicinity of the site (between 6.30am-10am 

and 3pm-7pm Mon-Fri). Part-time bus lanes are also proposed along this section of Bell Street (during 

peak times). 

A median opening was historically provided at the intersection of Rodda Street and Bell Street. This 

opening included a right-turn deceleration lane on the eastbound carriageway for vehicles entering 

Rodda Street. Right-turn movements from Rodda Street onto Bell Street were also permitted. In 

response to safety concerns at this intersection and other improvement works being undertaken along 

Bell Street at nearby intersections, this median opening was recently closed (works conducted in 

September, 2009). This has resulted in a left-in/left-out only arrangement at the Rodda Street/Bell 

Street intersection. 

Accordingly, eastbound vehicles travelling along Bell Street are required to perform a U-turn at the 

signalised intersection with Alva Grove (approximately 380m east of Rodda Street) to access the site. 

A U-turn signal phase is provided at this intersection. Vehicles exiting the site and wishing to travel 

east along Bell Street are required to perform a U-turn at the signalised intersection at Elm Grove 

(approximately 120m west of Rodda Street). 

I also note that as part of works to close the Rodda Street median opening, the right turn lane provided 

for Elm Grove was extended back to opposite Rodda Street (to accommodate the high level of rightturn 

movements for vehicles wishing to access Sydney Road). 

A posted speed limit of 60km/h applies to Bell Street in vicinity of the subject site. A 40km/h School 

Zone applies along Bell Street (west of Rodda Street) in vicinity of the site between 8am-9:30am and 

2:30pm-4pm. 

Rodda Street is classified as a local street and generally spans in a north-south direction between Bell 

Street in the north and then curves around to provide a connection to Budds Street (to the east) in the 

south. Rodda Street typically provides a pavement width of 8.4m, however, 1.0m wide bluestone 

spoon drains are also provided on each side which provides an effective carriageway width of 

approximately 10.4m (along the north-south section). This arrangement allows for unrestricted parking 

on both sides of Rodda Street and a through traffic lane in each direction. 

Many of the residential properties along Rodda Street do not provide off-street carparking and rely on 

on-street carparking resources to meet resident and visitor parking demands. 

The east-west section of Rodda Street extends from the southern end of Rodda Street and provides a 

connection to Budds Street. This road is approximately 4.9m wide (kerb to kerb), with a footpath 

provided on each side. Stop signs are provided at the each end of this section. 




Budds Street is classified as a local street and generally spans in a north-south direction between Bell 

Street in the north and Harding Street in the south. At the mid-point of Budds Street the road curves 

around to provide an east-west section for approximately 30m, before continuing in a north-south 

direction. Budds street has the following pavement widths and traffic/parking configuration along the 

different sections of the road: 

• North-south section to the north (from Bell Street) – 6.4m wide. No Stopping restrictions on the 

east side and unrestricted parking on the west side. 

• East-west section – 6.6m wide. Unrestricted parking (although parking can only be 

accommodated on one side of the street at any one time due to road width). 

• North-south section to the south (towards Harding Street) – 7.7m wide. Unrestricted parking on 

both sides of the road. 

The default urban speed limit of 50km/h applies to Rodda Street and Budds Street. 

Photographs depicting the surrounding road network are presented in Figure 5 to Figure 16 below. 




Figure 5. Bell Street – Westbound Carriageway 

(looking west from Rodda Street) 

Figure 8. Bell Street – Eastbound Carriageway 

(looking east from Rodda Street) 

Figure 6. Bell Street – Westbound Carriageway 

(looking east from Rodda Street) 

Figure 9. Bell Street 

(looking east towards U-turn location at Alva Grove) 

Figure 7. Bell Street – Eastbound Carriageway 

(looking west from Rodda Street) 

Figure 10. Bell Street 

(looking west towards U-turn location at Elm Grove) 




Figure 11. Rodda Street 

(looking north towards Bell Street) 

Figure 14. Road connection between Rodda Street and 

Budds Street (looking west) 

Figure 12. Rodda Street 

(looking south) 

Figure 15. Budds Street 

(looking south) 

Figure 13. Road connection between Rodda Street and 

Budds Street (looking east) 

Figure 16. Budds Street 

(looking north) 




5.2.1. Traffic Conditions 

GTA Consultants conducted a series of peak hour turning movement counts at the following 

intersections at the application stage: 

• Bell Street and Rodda Street (prior to median closure), and 

• Budds Street, Harding Street and Fowler Street. 

The surveys were conducted between 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm on Thursday, 5th June, 2008. 

Adopting the general rule of thumb that peak hour traffic volumes represent approximately 10% of the 

daily volumes, the following two-way volumes are estimated for these streets: 

• Rodda Street (at Bell Street): 100-110 vehicles per day, and 

• Budds Street (at Harding Street): 340-400 vehicles per day. 

As part of this assessment, I have arranged for turning movement counts to be conducted during the AM 

and PM peak hours at the signalised intersections of Bell Street/Elm Grove and Bell Street/Alva Grove. 

The peak hour turning movement counts were undertaken on Wednesday 16th September, 2009 

between the hours of 8am-9am and 5pm-6pm. The survey times are considered to represent the peak 

commuter period for traffic in the area surrounding the site and correspond with the peak hours 

previously surveyed by GTA consultants. 

Figure 17 and Figure 18 provide a summary of the AM and PM Peak hour traffic volumes, respectively. 

At the time of these surveys, the median break at Rodda Street was closed and accordingly, these 

volumes include any displaced right-turn movements from the Rodda Street intersection at these U-turn 

opportunities. 

Adopting the general rule of thumb that peak hour traffic volumes represent approximately 10% of the 

daily volumes, the following two-way volumes are estimated: 

• Bell Street (at Elm Grove): 30,000-34,000 vehicles per day, and 

• Bell Street (at Alva Grove): 36,000-40,000 vehicles per day. 




North 

Figure 17. Bell Street/Elm Grove and Bell Street/Alva Grove – 16 th September, 2009 (AM Peak Hour) 

North 

ELM GROVE 

ELM GROVE 

BELL STREET 


Legend 

All Vehicles 

(Commercial Veh.) 

AM Peak Hour: 8am-9am 

Legend 

All Vehicles 

(Commercial Veh.) 

PM Peak Hour: 5pm-6pm 

Figure 18. Bell Street/Elm Grove and Bell Street/Alva Grove – 16 th September, 2009 (PM Peak Hour) 

11336R#1.doc Page 19 

ALVA GROVE 

ALVA GROVE



5.2.2. Road Safety Review 

A review of the State Road Accident Records (CrashStats) has been undertaken in vicinity of the subject 

site for the past 5 years of available data (January 2004-December 2008) 1 . The area reviewed is 

detailed at Figure 19 below. The area included the following locations: 

• Intersection of Elm Grove and Bell Street, 

• Intersection of Rodda Street and Bell Street, 

• Intersection of Budds Street and Bell Street, 

• Intersection of Alva Grove and Bell Street, 

• Entire length of Rodda Street and Budds Street, 

• Intersection of Budds Street and Harding Street, and 

• Mid-block locations along Bell Street, between Russell Street and Alva Grove. 

Reproduced with Permission of Melway Publishing Pty Ltd 

Figure 19. Crash History Investigation Area 

A total of 24 casualty crashes were recorded in the past 5 years of available data, including 5 serious 

injury crashes. A summary of these crashes is provided as follows: 

• 10 casualty crashes (including 1 serious injury crash) at the intersection of Bell Street and Elm 

Grove (including approaches) including: 

o 4 ‘rear end’ crashes (DCA Code 130), 

o 3 ‘right through’ crashes (DCA Code 121), 

o 1 ‘ U-turn’ serious injury crash (DCA Code 140), 

o 1 ‘right rear’ crash (DCA Code 132), and 

o 1 ‘out of control on carriageway’ crash (DCA Code 174). 

1 Casualty crash data is contained in the VicRoads’ CrashStats Internet Database and includes all reported casualty crashes (i.e. injury crashes), 

which are classified into Fatal Injury, Serious Injury and Other Injury (i.e. minor injury) crashes. Property damage only or non-injury crashes are not 

included in the database. 




• 5 casualty crashes (including 1 serious injury crash) at the intersection of Bell Street and Rodda 

Street including: 

o 4 ‘right through’ crashes, including 1 serious injury crash (DCA Code 121), and 

o 1 ‘right near’ crash (DCA Code 113). 

• 3 casualty crashes (including 1 serious injury crash) at the intersection of Bell Street and Alva 

Grove including: 

o 2 ‘rear end’ crashes (DCA Code 130), and 

o 1 ‘left off carriageway’ serious injury crash (DCA Code 171). 

• 2 casualty crashes (including 1 serious injury crash) at the intersection of Budds Street and 

Harding Street including: 

o 1 ‘right near’ serious injury crash (DCA Code 113), and 

o 1 ‘left off carriageway’ serious injury crash (DCA Code 171). 

• 4 casualty crashes (including 1 serious injury crash) at mid-block locations along Bell Street 

(between Russell Street and Alva Grove) including: 

o 2 ‘rear end’ crashes, including 1 serious injury crash (DCA Code 130), 

o 1 ‘vehicle strikes another vehicle while emerging from driveway’ crash (DCA Code 147), 

and 

o 1 ‘right off carriageway’ crash (DCA Code 173). 

The above review identifies a high number of crashes along Bell Street including at many of the 

intersections in vicinity of the subject site. As identified in Section 5.2.1, Bell Street carries high volumes 

of through traffic in this area. 

It is noted that 5 casualty crashes have occurred over this period at the intersection of Rodda Street and 

Bell Street. Each crash involved a vehicle either turning right into Rodda Street, or right out of Rodda 

Street. As noted previously this median opening has been recently closed which has addressed the 

high incidence of right-turn crashes at this location, particularly given the relatively low traffic volumes 

using Rodda Street. 

Accordingly, traffic accessing Rodda Street via Bell Street is now required to utilise the U-turn facilities 

provided at the signalised intersections of Bell Street/Elm Grove to the west and Bell Street/Alva Grove 

to the east. The availability of signalised intersections to perform these manoeuvres presents a 

significantly improved arrangement from a road safety perspective than uncontrolled right-turn 

movements across multiple traffic lanes. 

Based on the above, and recent works undertaken along Bell Street to improve the safety and operation 

of nearby intersections, I am satisfied that the proposed level of traffic generated by the development 

and the proposed access locations will not contribute to any significant road safety concerns in the 

area. 

5.3. CAR PARKING CONDITIONS 

The subject site is located within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre and is surrounded by business, 

public use and residential zoning which contain a mixture of commercial, community and residential 

uses. Accordingly, parking in the surrounding area is in demand from a variety of uses. 

Carparking in vicinity of the site comprises a mixture of short-term parking (1P, 2P and 3P) and 

unrestricted all-day parking, both on-street and also within large publically available off-street carparking 

areas. 

A total of 20 car spaces (unrestricted) are currently available along the site’s frontage to Rodda Street. 

No Stopping restrictions currently apply along the site’s frontage to Bell Street. 

As part of this assessment, Traffix Group has undertaken parking occupancy surveys in the nearby area 

at the following times: 




• 11am, 12pm, 1pm, 2pm, 7pm and 8pm – Thursday 10th September, 2009, 

• 11am, 12pm, 1pm, 2pm, 6pm, 7pm, 8pm and 9pm – Saturday 12th September, 2009 (1) , and 

• 11am, 1pm and 2pm – Saturday 26th September, 2009, during the school holiday period (2) . 

The parking surveys recorded all cars parked on-street and within public off-street carparking located 

within convenient walking distance of the site. The survey area is identified in Figure 20. The survey 

area included: 

• 418 on-street car spaces, including a mixture of unrestricted and short-term restrictions. 

On-street carparking within the nearby local streets included: 

o 67 car spaces along Rodda Street (all unrestricted), 

o 56 car spaces along Budds Street (55 unrestricted and 1 ‘P Disabled’ space), and 

o 86 car spaces within Richards Street (all unrestricted). 

The capacity of the remaining on-street locations includes: 

o 162 car spaces along Urquhart Street (unrestricted 90 o parking on the north side (124 spaces) 

and short-term parallel parking on the south side(38 spaces)), 

o 40 car spaces along Bell Street (including 33 spaces with a mixture of short-term restrictions on 

the north side and 7 unrestricted spaces on the south side, east of Rodda Street), and 

o 7 car spaces along Elm Grove (mixture of short-term and permit zone restrictions). 

• 519 car spaces within a large off-street carpark on the east side of Russell Street, with first spaces 

approximately 200m walking distance west of the site. This carpark comprises: 

o 347 spaces x ‘3P 7am-7pm Mon-Sat’ restrictions, and 

o 172 spaces x unrestricted (i.e. all day parking) 

• 107 car spaces located within a Council carpark located south of Urquhart Street with first spaces 

approximately 250m walking distance from the site. This carpark comprises short-term spaces and 

a large number of permit restricted spaces for Council vehicles and staff parking. Permit restrictions 

generally only apply between 8am-5pm Monday-Friday, allowing unrestricted parking outside of 

these times. 

In the following analysis, all loading zones, bus zones, permit zones and other restrictions not deemed 

appropriate for customer/visitor carparking have been excluded from the analysis during relevant 

enforcement times as these spaces are generally not suitable for staff and visitor/customer carparking 

for this development. 

1 EDFL Grand Finals were held at City Oval on Saturday 12 th September, 2009 over the day, with a seniors match commencing at 

2:30pm. 

2 Supplementary surveys were conducted on this day over the lunchtime period due to the impact of the football finals in the previous 

surveys on ‘normal’ parking conditions. 




RUSSELL STREET 

CARPARK 

Legend 

Subject Site 

On-Street Survey Area 

Off-Street Parking Areas 

Figure 20. Parking Survey Area 

COUNCIL 

CARPARK 

Source: Google Earth Pro 

The detailed results of the parking surveys are attached at Appendix C to this report. A summary of the 

parking survey results for all suitable parking spaces is provided as follows: 

Thursday 10th September, 2009 – Results Summary 

• The peak on-street parking demand for the Thursday occurred at 1pm, when a total of 230 

occupied parking spaces were observed in the survey area (representing a percentage occupancy 

of 55% and 185 vacant spaces). 

• Peak demands along nearby local streets (Rodda Street, Budds Street and Richards Street) were 

recorded as follows: 

o Peak demand of 38 cars parked in Rodda Street at 11am (percentage occupancy of 57% and 29 

vacant spaces). The average occupancy for the 6 survey times on the Thursday was 47%. A 

peak demand of 14 vehicles was observed within the 20 spaces available along the site’s 

frontage to Rodda Street. 

o Peak demand of 28 cars parked in Budds Street at 7pm (percentage occupancy of 50% and 28 

vacant spaces). The average occupancy for the 6 survey times on the Thursday was 32%. 




Percentage Occupancy 

o Peak demand of 28 cars parked in Richards Street at 7pm (percentage occupancy of 33% and 

58 vacant spaces). The average occupancy for the 6 survey times on the Thursday was 30%. 

o Demands for Rodda Street, Budds Street and Richards Street for the Thursday are presented at 

Figure 21. 

• Carparking demands on the remaining on-street areas (Urquhart Street, Elm Grove and Bell 

Street) experienced moderate demands, with higher demands observed for 90o unrestricted parking 

along the north side of Urquhart Street during the day. 

• The peak demand for the Russell Street carpark occurred at 11am when a total of 356 occupied 

parking spaces were observed, representing a percentage occupancy of 69% and 163 vacant 

spaces. It is noted that parking demands within the Russell Street carpark were significantly lower 

during the evening surveys, with no less than 364 vacant spaces recorded at 7pm. Demands for 

the Russell Street carpark on the Thursday are presented at Figure 22. 

• Demands for the Council carpark during the day were high however, these demands are generally 

associated with Council staff (parking within Permit Zone areas during enforcement times). It is 

noted that during the evening surveys, carparking demands within the carpark were significantly 

lower in this carpark, with no less than 60 vacant car spaces recorded at 7pm. 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Rodda Street, Budds Street & Richards Street 

On-Street Carparking Demands - Thursday 10th September, 2009 

11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 7pm 8pm 

Rodda Street 57% 51% 48% 48% 39% 42% 

Budds Street 21% 23% 23% 27% 50% 46% 

Richards Street 29% 28% 31% 28% 33% 31% 

Total (all 3 streets) 36% 34% 34% 34% 39% 39% 

Time of Day 

Figure 21. Demands in local streets – Thursday 10 th September, 2009 




No. of Car Spaces 

600 

570 

540 

510 

480 

450 

420 

390 

360 

330 

300 

270 

240 

210 

180 

150 

120 

90 

60 

30 

0 

Russell Street Carpark - Parking Surveys 

Thursday 10th September, 2009 


No. Vacant Spaces 163 176 188 195 364 426 

No. Occupied Spaces 356 343 331 324 155 93 

Percentage Occupancy 69% 66% 64% 62% 30% 18% 

Survey Time 

Figure 22. Russell Street Carpark – Thursday 10 th September, 2009 

Saturday 12th September, 2009 & Saturday 26th September, 2009 – Results Summary 

The EDFL Grand Finals were held at City Oval on Saturday 12th September, 2009 over the day. The 

seniors match commenced at approximately 2.30pm. These finals resulted in a sharp rise in demands 

within the Russell Street carpark and nearby local streets, particularly for the 2pm survey, which can be 

attributed to the large crowd that attended the football Grand Final and does not represent ‘normal’ 

parking conditions for this area. This demand had declined by the 6pm survey time. 

Supplementary parking surveys were undertaken on Saturday 26th September, 2009 at over the 

lunchtime period at 11am, 1pm and 2pm to provide a comparison to the results on 12th September, 

2009. The results of the supplementary surveys show much lower demands. These supplementary 

surveys were undertaken during the September school holiday period. While it is acknowledged that 

surveys during school holiday periods would usually be avoided (due to the potential for changed 

traffic/parking conditions), this was unavoidable due to the timing of my engagement, observations made 

during previous surveys which fell on the football finals and timing of evidence. 

A summary of the results is provided as follows: 

• The peak on-street parking demand for the 12th September, 2009 occurred at 2pm, when a total of 

199 occupied parking spaces were observed in the survey area (representing a percentage 

occupancy of 48% and 219 vacant spaces). 

• Demands along nearby local streets (Rodda Street, Budds Street and Richards Street) were as 

follows: 

11336R#1.doc Page 25 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Percentage Occupancy




o Peak demand of 64 cars parked in Rodda Street at 2pm (percentage occupancy of 96% and 3 

vacant spaces). The average occupancy for the 8 survey times on the Saturday (12 th 

September, 2009) was 53%. A peak demand of 18 vehicles was observed within the 20 spaces 

provided along the site’s frontage to Rodda Street at 2pm. 

o Peak demand of 60 cars parked in Budds Street at 2pm (percentage occupancy of 107% and -4 

vacant spaces (demand exceeded supply due to vehicles parking closely together and also 

parking too close to intersections). The average occupancy for the 8 survey times on the 

Saturday (12 th September, 2009) was 57%. 

o Peak demand of 32 cars parked in Richards Street at 2pm (percentage occupancy of 37% and 

54 vacant spaces). The average occupancy for the 8 survey times on the Saturday (12 th 

September, 2009) was 38%. 

o Demands for Rodda Street, Budds Street and Richards Street for Saturday 12 th September are 

presented at Figure 21. 

• Carparking demands on the remaining on-street areas (Urquhart Street, Elm Grove and Bell 

Street) experienced generally low demands at all times, including at 2pm on Saturday 12th September, 2009, when higher demands were experienced within other streets in the immediate 

proximity to City Oval. 

• The peak demand for the Russell Street carpark occurred at 2pm when a total of 515 occupied 

parking spaces were observed, representing a percentage occupancy of 99% and 4 vacant spaces. 

It is noted that parking demands within the Russell Street carpark were significantly lower during the 

evening surveys, with no less than 474 vacant spaces recorded at 6pm. Demands for the Russell 

Street carpark on the Saturday are presented at Figure 24. 

• Demands for the Council carpark for the Saturday were low at all times, with a peak occupancy of 

33% observed at 9pm. 

• A comparison of the survey results between Saturday 12th September, 2009 and Saturday 26th September, 2009 is presented at Table 4 (nearby local streets) and Figure 25 (Russell Street 

carpark). 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Rodda Street, Budds Street & Richards Street 

On-Street Carparking Demands - Saturday 12th September, 2009 

11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 

Rodda Street 52% 54% 58% 96% 42% 43% 42% 39% 

Budds Street 36% 46% 61% 107% 46% 48% 66% 45% 

Richards Street 34% 33% 30% 37% 43% 47% 40% 40% 

Total (all 3 streets) 40% 43% 47% 75% 44% 46% 47% 41% 

Time of Day 

Figure 23. Demands in local streets – Saturday 12 th September, 2009 




No. of Car Spaces 

600 

570 

540 

510 

480 

450 

420 

390 

360 

330 

300 

270 

240 

210 

180 

150 

120 

90 

60 

30 

0 



No. Vacant Spaces 33 12 6 4 474 480 484 492 

No. Occupied Spaces 486 507 513 515 45 39 35 27 

Percentage Occupancy 94% 98% 99% 99% 9% 8% 7% 5% 

Survey Time 

Figure 24. Russell Street Carpark – Saturday 12 th September, 2009 

Table 4. Nearby local streets – Comparison of Saturday Survey Results 

Survey Time Location Capacity 

11am 


1pm 2pm 

Rodda Street 67 52% 58% 96% 

Budds Street 56 36% 61% 107% (1) 

Saturday 

12 Richards Street 86 34% 30% 37% 

th September, 2009 

Total (all 3 streets) 209 40% 47% 75% 

Rodda Street 67 36% 25% 46% 

Saturday 

Budds Street 56 30% 41% 48% 

26 Richards Street 86 28% 17% 23% 

th September, 2009 

Total (all 3 streets) 209 31% 26% 37% 

Note (1): The demand exceeded the capacity along Budds Street at 2pm on Saturday 12 th September, 2009. This was due to cars parking close 

to each other and also parking too close to intersections 

11336R#1.doc Page 27 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Percentage Occupancy




Comparison of Results - Saturday 12th & Saturday 26th, September, 2009 


100% 

95% 

90% 

85% 

80% 

75% 

70% 

65% 

60% 

55% 

50% 

45% 

40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

11am 1pm 2pm 

Saturday 12th September, 2009 94% 99% 99% 

Saturday 26th September, 2009 59% 39% 32% 

Survey Time 

Figure 25. Russell Street Carpark – Comparison of Saturday Survey Results 




5.4. PUBLIC TRANSPORT FACILITIES 

The site has excellent access to efficient and convenient public transport services with train, tram and 

bus services all located within convenient walking distance1 of the site. Figure 26 details the public 

transport routes in the surrounding area, with a summary of public transport services available within 

vicinity of the site as follows: 

Rail Services 

• Coburg Railway Station is located west of Victoria Street, approximately 550m walking distance to 

the west of the subject site. Coburg Railway Station is a Premium Station, located on the Upfield 

Railway Line, which provides a connection between Upfield and the Melbourne CBD. 

This service operates approximately between 5am and 1am on Monday-Saturday at approximately 

20-30 minute intervals. It operates on Sundays approximately between 7.30am-12.30am at 20-30 

minute intervals. 

Tram Services 

• Tram Route 19 operates along Sydney Road approximately 300m walking distance to the west of 

the site, with tram stops located at the intersection of Bell Street and Sydney Road. Tram Route 19 

provides a service between North Coburg and the City, via Coburg, Brunswick, Parkville (Melbourne 

University) and Elizabeth Street. 

This service operates approximately between 5.30am and 1am on weekdays (Monday-Thursday) at 

approximately 5-10 minute intervals during the peak periods and 10-25 minute intervals during offpeak 

periods. It operates on Fridays and Saturdays approximately between 5.30am-2am at 5-20 

minute intervals and on Sundays between 7am and 12.30am at approximately 10-30 minute 

intervals. 

• Tram Route 1 operates along Nicholson Street approximately 750m walking distance to the west of 

the site, with the tram terminus located at the intersection of Bell Street and Nicholson Street. Tram 

Route 1 provides a service between East Coburg and South Melbourne Beach, via East Brunswick, 

Carlton, Swanston Street, Sturt Street and Albert Park. 

This service operates approximately between 5.30am and 1am on weekdays (Monday-Thursday) at 

approximately 5-12 minute intervals during the peak periods and 10-25 minute intervals during offpeak 

periods. It operates on Fridays and Saturdays approximately between 5.30am-1.30am at 5-20 

minute intervals and on Sundays between 7am and 12.30am at approximately 10-30 minute 

intervals. 

Bus Services 

• Bus Route 903 operates along Bell Street directly past the subject site (bus stop located within 

200m walking distance). Bus Route 903 is a SMARTBUS service linking Mordialloc and Altona via 

an orbital route which provides connections to train stations, major shopping centres, and other 

community facilities. 

As a SMARTBUS service, Bus Route 903 provides a significantly higher quality of service compared 

to a normal bus route, including a high frequency service running seven days a week and access to 

bus priority along its route (including bus lanes at some key intersections etc.). 2 

1 Maximum walking distances to public transport services which are considered acceptable to public transport users vary accordingly to the type of 

service (i.e. bus or light and heavy rail) and road conditions (i.e. footpath grades, the number of road crossings and whether pedestrian facilities are 

provided to facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movements). 

As a general rule of thumb, reasonable maximum walking distances to public transport services are: 

• 400m for bus services, and 

• 1 to 1.2km for rail services. 

2 Part time bus lanes are currently proposed to be provided along the site’s frontage to Bell Street during peak times to help improve public transport 

efficiency and reliability. 




This service operates approximately between 5am and midnight on weekdays at approximately 10- 

30 minute intervals. It operates on Saturdays approximately between 6am and midnight at 15-30 

minute intervals and on Sundays between approximately 7am-9pm at 30 minute intervals. 

• Bus Route 513 operates along Bell Street directly past the subject site (bus stops are located within 

200m walking distance) and provides a service between Eltham Railway Station and Glenroy 

Railway Station, via Lower Plenty or Greensborough (alternating service), Rosanna Road, Burgundy 

Street and Bell Street. 

This service operates approximately between 6am and 10pm on weekdays at approximately 10-30 

minute intervals. It operates on Saturdays approximately between 6am-9pm at 30-40 minute 

intervals and on Sundays between approximately 8am-9pm at 30-40 minute intervals. 


200m walking distance) and provides a service between Coburg and West Reservoir, via Newlands 

Road. 

This service only operates Monday-Friday during the AM and PM peak hour periods. 


200m walking distance) and provides a service between Coburg and West Preston, via Murray Road 

and Elizabeth Street. 

This service operates approximately between 6.30am and 7.30pm on weekdays at 30 minute 

intervals. It also operates on Saturdays approximately between 7.30am-5.30pm at 30 minute 

intervals. There are no Sunday services. 

• Bus Route 526 operates along Bell Street and Sydney Road approximately 300m walking distance 

to the west of the site and provides a service between Coburg and West Preston, via Murray Road 

and Elizabeth Street. 

This service operates approximately between 6.30am and 7.30pm on weekdays at 30 minute 

intervals. It also operates on Saturdays approximately between 7.30am-5.30pm at 30 minute 

intervals. There are no Sunday services. 

• Bus Route 530 operates along Sydney Road approximately 300m walking distance to the west of 

the site and provides a service between Campbellfield and Coburg via Fawkner. 

This service operates approximately between 6am and 9pm on weekdays at 30 minute intervals. It 

also operates on Saturdays and Sundays between approximately 8am-9pm at 45 minute intervals. 

• Bus Route 534 operates along Sydney Road approximately 300m walking distance to the west of 

the site and provides a service between Coburg and Glenroy via Sydney Road and Boundary Road. 

This service operates approximately between 6.30am and 9pm on weekdays at 30 minute intervals. 

It also operates on Saturdays between 7am-9pm and Sundays between 8:30am-9pm at 40 minute 

intervals. 

• Bus Route 512 operates along Harding Street approximately 350m walking distance south of the 

site and provides a service between Strathmore and East Coburg, via Pascoe Vale South, Coburg 

and West Coburg. 

This service operates approximately between 7am and 6:30pm on weekdays at 20-30 minute 

intervals. It also operates on Saturdays approximately between 8am-12:30pm at 40-50 minute 

intervals. No Sunday services are provided. 

Accordingly, the development site is well located to an extensive network of public transport services, 

which are available within convenient walking distance of this site. 

Given the high level of frequent and efficient public transport services available to the site, parking 

demands and traffic generation associated with any development on this site would be expected to be 

less than for a similar development in a less centralised area. 




Further, the site is located within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre, which provides convenient access 

to various commercial and community uses. This combined with excellent access to public transport to 

cater for trips further afield, provides an environment where non-car based travel should be activity 

encouraged. 

Figure 26. Public Transport Map 

Subject Site 

Source: Metlink, www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au 




5.5. BICYCLE FACILITIES 

SUBJECT SITE 

The City of Moreland is well serviced by the Principal Bicycle Network (PBN) with on-road and off-road 

bicycle paths directly linking the City of Moreland with the surrounding municipalities of Darebin, Moonee 

Valley, Melbourne, Yarra, Whittlesea and Hume. 

The subject site has excellent access to bicycle infrastructure with existing or proposed bicycle lanes on 

many major roads in vicinity of the site. Figure 27 below outlines the bicycle infrastructure under 

VicRoads’ Principal Bicycle Network. Dedicated bicycle lanes are also provided along Harding Street to 

the south of the site. 

Figure 27. Moreland Principal Bicycle Network 

Source: VicRoads, www.vicroads.vic.gov.au 




6. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 

6.1. STATUTORY CAR PARKING PROVISION REQUIREMENTS 

The proposed development is up to 13 storeys high and situated in land proposed to be rezoned to a 

Mixed Use Zone (Amendment C97) under the Moreland Planning Scheme (currently a Residential 1 

Zone). 

The proposed uses of the site fall within the land-use categories of ‘dwelling’, ‘office’, ‘restricted retail’ 

and ‘restaurant’ under Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme. 

The Planning Scheme sets out the parking requirements for new developments under Clause 52.06. 

The purpose of Clause 52.06, amongst other things, is: 

• to promote the efficient use of car spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities, 

• to ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on 

the land and the nature of the locality. 

The carparking requirements for the proposed uses are set out under Clause 52.06 of Planning 

Scheme. It is noted that a car parking rate for ‘restricted retail’ is not specified under Clause 52.06 and 

is most appropriately nested within a ‘shop’ use. The relevant rates under this clause are set out in the 

carparking table at Clause 52.06-5 as follows: 

• Dwelling: 2 car spaces per dwelling. 

• Office: 3.5 car spaces to each 100 sq m of net floor area. 

• Restaurant: 0.6 car spaces to each seat available to the public. 

• Shop: 8 car spaces to each 100 sp m of leasable floor area. 

Table 5 presents the statutory carparking requirement for the proposed development. 

Table 5. Development Carparking Requirement: Clause 52.06 

Proposed Use Size/Number Statutory Park Rate 

Parking 

Requirement 

Studio/Bedsit 77 2 spaces per dwelling 154 

One-Bedroom Dwelling 320 2 spaces per dwelling 640 

Two-Bedroom Dwelling 123 2 spaces per dwelling 246 

Office 1,122m 2 3.5 car spaces per 100m 2 NFA 39 

Restaurant/Café 

192 seats 

(782m 2 ) 

0.6 spaces per seat available to 

the public 

Restricted Retail Premises 1,176m² 8 car spaces per 100m 2 LFA 94 

TOTAL 1,288 spaces 

Based on a Clause 52.06 assessment, the parking requirement for the overall development is 1,288 car 

spaces. A total of 563 car spaces will be provided for this development. Accordingly, this development 

has a statutory shortfall of 725 car spaces and a dispensation is sought under Clause 52.06. 

11336R#1.doc Page 33 

115



Where the required number of parking spaces is not provided on the land, a permit may be granted 

under Clause 52.06-1 to reduce the number of car spaces required or to waive the requirement. 

Decision guidelines in this regard are set out as follows (note, relevant guidelines are highlighted): 

Decision guidelines (Clause 52.06) 

Before a requirement for car spaces is reduced or waived, the applicant must satisfy the responsible 

authority that the reduced provision is justified due to: 

• Any relevant parking precinct plan. 

• The availability of car parking in the locality. 

• The availability of public transport in the locality. 

• Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, 

either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies 

gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. 

• Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land. 

• Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in 

association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement. 

• Local traffic management. 

• Local amenity including pedestrian amenity. 

• An empirical assessment of car parking demand. 

• Any other relevant consideration. 

An assessment against the relevant decision guidelines is provided as follows. 

6.1.1. Sustainable Transport Policy Considerations 

6.1.1.1. State Policy – Melbourne 2030 

Melbourne 2030 is a state-wide strategy aimed at planning for sustainable growth with metropolitan 

Melbourne, with the following vision: 

"In the next 30 years, Melbourne will grow by up to one million people and will consolidate its 

reputation as one of the most livable, attractive and prosperous areas in the world for residents, 

business and visitors". 

An essential goal in providing for sustainable growth is reducing the reliance on car use. The state 

government has set a target of 20% of travel occurring by public transport by the year 2020. 

Travel demand management and behavioural change will be important tools in achieving this goal, but 

these changes will not occur without intervention to deter the use of the private car. 

One such disincentive to use the private car is parking management, where the level of parking 

provision is purposely limited to force residents of the development (and to an extent staff of the offices 

and restricted retail tenancies) to consider other travel modes. This has other benefits such as reduced 

traffic generation/congestion, increased health and reduced environmental impacts associated with 

private car use. 

I note that alternative modes of transport should be competitive with the single-occupant motor vehicle 

and recognise that the associated cost of travel is a significant contributing factor in mode choice. 

The subject site is situated in a prime development location to implement travel demand management 

strategies to reduce car dependence, increase public transport usage, and achieve the broader goals of 

Melbourne 2030. The key attributes of the site’s location are as follows: 

• the site is located within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre which provides a large variety of 

employment, shops and services for everyday needs, including supermarkets, banks, medical 




services, schools, etc. Most of these services are within convenient walking distance from the site 

or can be easily accessed by bicycle or a short public transport trip, 

• the site is located in close proximity to extensive public transport services, including a tram route 

and 8 bus routes within less than 400m walking distance of the site. Additionally, Coburg Railway 

Station is located within 550m walking distance and a second tram route within 750m walking 

distance of the site, 

• the proposed development will include a ‘car share’ scheme via a commercial car share operator 

for 2 vehicles for the use of residents/staff of the site (spaces to be allocated in the basement 

carpark), and 

• the proposed development provides a high level of bicycle parking, well above the Planning 

Scheme requirements, which will assist in encouraging alternate, more sustainable modes of travel. 

6.1.1.2. Council Policies 

Moreland City Council supports sustainable transport and design in new and existing developments 

through a number of policies and initiatives. These include: 

Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan (Clause 22.12 of the Planning Scheme) 

Moreland City Council adopted the Central Coburg 2020 Structure Plan on 9th August, 2006. This plan 

provides a long-term framework for the regeneration of the Coburg Activity Centre towards 2020. 

Along with Melbourne 2030, the Coburg Structure Plan identifies that Central Coburg is a key location for 

new housing to meet the needs of Melbourne’s growing population, including a significant proportion of 

affordable housing. 

A plan identifies a number of sustainable transport initiatives to be provided for the Activity Centre. 

Some of these include: 

Alternative transport options 

Improve access to, from and within the centre for all modes of transport, with a focus on 

alternatives to the car. 

Promote sustainable transport options for employers, residents and visitors to the centre. 

Maintain a strong mix of uses within the centre so that it serves a range of needs within walking 

and cycling distance for residents and workers and minimises the need for multiple car trips. 

This also encourages use of the centre for more than one use on a visit. 

Car parking 

Provide adequate parking for the activity centre, balanced with the sustainable transport 

objectives for the centre. 

Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement 

The high level of public transport services in the vicinity of the site provides an excellent opportunity for 

residents, employees and visitors of this development to utilise public transport to access the site and 

achieve broader sustainable transport goals for this municipality. Sustainable modes include cycling, 

train, tram, bus and walking. 

Clause 21.03-6 (Changing the pattern of transport) of the Moreland Planning Scheme identifies the 

following: 

Trip length 

Approximately half of all travel in Moreland is related to trips to work. Encouraging 

development that brings work and home closer together could reduce the need for travel and 

so enhance moves towards greater sustainability. 




Car ownership and alternatives 

Car ownership is relatively low in Moreland compared to the metropolitan average, but the 

proportion of people in Moreland who walk, cycle and use public transport to commute is 

higher. An extensive network of dedicated laneways and dual use pathways has been created 

throughout the municipality to facilitate pedestrian movements and encourage bicycle travel. 

Encouraging people to use alternatives to cars will have traffic and environmental benefits. 

Clause 21.03-9 (Reducing environmental impact) of the Moreland Planning Scheme identifies the 

following: 

Car travel 

There is a growing realisation that the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions means 

reducing car travel. Urban areas that can provide alternative transport choices will be more 

sustainable. 

This development proposes bicycle parking and associated end-of-trip facilities well in excess of the 

statutory requirements under Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme (and Moreland Bicycle Plan), 

providing residents with adequate facilities to encourage bicycle ownership and provides staff with a 

convenient alternative travel mode to and from work. The site also provides strong pedestrian linkages 

with surrounding land uses and is located within convenient walking distance of a variety of shops, 

commercial uses, community facilities and public transport routes. This creates an environment where 

car ownership is not essential and should not be encouraged. 

Reduced parking provision in this development takes advantage of the excellent public transport and 

pedestrian links and bicycle infrastructure that are available to the site. The development will also 

provide two ‘car share’ vehicles on-site within the basement carpark, which will be available for use by 

residents/staff of the development. 

These sustainable transport initiatives are consistent with the strategies/objectives of the Central Coburg 

Structure Plan and Municipal Strategic Statement. 




6.1.2. Sustainable Transport Options 

6.1.2.1. Green Travel Plan 

A Green Travel Plan has been prepared by Scape (dated February, 2009) for the proposed 

development. The objectives of this Travel Plan are: 

• Reduce car use, through facilitation of alternatives. 

• Facilitate access by public transport, walking and cycling. 

• Improve the awareness of non car transport options. 

• Ensure on-site parking provision is sufficient to meet the need of residents and commercial tenants 

taking into consideration expected car mode share and car ownership, without impacting upon the 

local traffic network. 

The Travel Plan also identifies that the target mode share for this development is 50% car as driver for 

the commercial and residential apartments, based on the location, target residential market and the 

current mode share in Coburg. 

A variety of sustainable transport initiatives have been included within the Green Travel Plan. These 

include an on-site car share scheme, welcome packs for residents, bicycle parking (including a possible 

bicycle share scheme) and extensive travel information for residents/staff. The implementation of the 

Green Travel Plan will assist in reducing the use of non car-based transport options for future residents 

and staff of the development. 

Appropriate conditions should be included in any permit issued for this development which covers the 

further refinement of a concise plan for this development, including the on-going implementation, 

monitoring and review of the plan to Council’s satisfaction. 

6.1.2.2. Car Share Schemes 

Car sharing schemes have operated been operating in Melbourne since 2003 with a number of inner 

metropolitan Councils (including Port Phillip, Yarra, Melbourne, Moreland and Darebin) actively 

supporting their use by allocating on-street spaces throughout their municipalities for the purposes of 

accommodating ‘car share’ cars. 1 Other municipalities are also considering these schemes. 

Moreland City Council supports ‘car sharing’ schemes by allocating on-street spaces within the 

municipality for the purposes of accommodating ‘car share’ cars operated by Flexicar and Go Get, two 

Council supported schemes. At the current time, there no publically available car share vehicles 

provided within the Coburg area, with the majority of Council supported car share vehicles located in the 

Brunswick region. 

The permit applicant proposes to provide 2 car share vehicles within the basement carpark for the use of 

residents/staff of this development. It is expected that the car share scheme will be provided via a one 

of the commercial car share scheme operators (i.e. Flexicar or Go Get) or via a private arrangement 

established by the managers of the Owners Corporation. 

The objective of car share schemes is to give members access to cars on-demand for rent by the hour 

or by the day. The rental cost covers all expenses, including petrol, insurance, cleaning, registration, 

and maintenance. Members are required to pay a small joining fee and fully refundable deposit. 

Members book a car online or by phone and pay for the use of the car on an hourly or daily basis, each 

time they use a share car. Access to share car is via a smart card which unlocks doors and logs user 

time and kilometres. 

These schemes are particularly cost effective for people who drive less that 10,000km per year. It gives 

users access to a car when required, however, eliminates the cost of owning, maintaining and parking a 

car. 

1 The main two schemes supported by these Councils are Flexicar (www.flexicar.com.au) and Go Get Car Share (www.goget.com.au). 




Car sharing schemes not only provide an alternative to car ownership for residents but actively 

encourage the use of alternate transport modes by making people think before using a car. That is, 

residents within this development can be actively discouraged from owning a car (by parking limitation) 

as they will have access to public transport and are within convenient walking and cycling distance of 

many facilities in the nearby area. If required, a car can be available to these residents utilising the car 

share vehicles provided within this development, which will cater for the limited number of times that 

they may require a car for longer-distance travel and other trips or when they need to transport larger 

goods. 

The car share scheme provides a safety net (or mobility gap) for residents by providing convenient 

access to a car to cater for the limited number of times that they may require a car. This car access is 

both convenient and cost-effective as they can hire the car on an hourly or daily basis. This relates to 

not only households without cars, but equally to single car households in reducing the need for a second 

car. 

Following a presentation by Flexi-car to the Metropolitan Transport Forum (MTF), the MTF distributed a 

letter to members indicating that: 

“That the MTF give in principle support to the concept of car sharing as a form of sustainable 

transport, and encourage member councils to explore the opportunity where possible.” 

The following benefits of car sharing schemes were recognised by MTF forum: 

Environmental: Car share users tend to use other means of transport and generate less 

emissions per capita, thus contributing to reduced greenhouse gases and 

improved air quality and street amenity. 

Reduced car use: One car share vehicle typically replaces 6-10 privately owned vehicles. 

A City of Melbourne survey of car share users reported increased use of 

public transport and reduced car ownership by members of car share 

schemes. 

Cost saving: It is cheaper to car share if doing less than 10,000km per year. 

Studies undertaken in the United Kingdom have indicated that the optimal parking ratio to ensure the 

viability and effectiveness of a car sharing scheme is 0.8 spaces per unit or less in residential 

developments1 . 

Given the high level of public transport access available to this site, small size of many of the dwellings 

and inclusion of ample bicycle parking, an on-site ‘car share’ scheme and other initiatives set out in the 

Green Travel Plan, I consider that it is appropriate to reduce the on-site parking provision for residents in 

this development. 

6.1.2.3. Bicycle Parking 

To encourage bicycles as a primary mode of travel, the proposed development will provide bicycle 

parking at levels which significantly exceed the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme. 

The development requires 185 spaces (120 staff/residents and 65 visitors/customers) under this Clause 

(see Section 6.3). 

A total of 520 secure bicycle parking spaces are proposed on-site, which equates to one bicycle space 

for each dwelling. I recommend that staff of the retail, offices and restaurant uses also be provided 

access to the secure bicycle parking, and that all bicycle parking be allocated to residents/staff on an ‘as 

needs’ basis. 

The GTA Traffic Report states that visitor/customer bicycle demands will be catered for with the 

provision of a number of bicycle racks on the ground level. The plans do not currently detail the location 

of visitor bicycle parking on the ground floor. Accordingly, I recommend that in the order of 20-30 

bicycle racks (i.e. 40-60 bicycle spaces) are provided at convenient locations on the ground level (i.e. 

1 Car Clubs in Property Developments, An information pack for developers and local authorities (Dec 2007). 




close to the residential entrances and also to the retail/commercial uses) to cater for all visitor/customer 

bicycle parking demands in accordance with the Clause 52.34 requirements. 

6.1.2.4. Pedestrian Facilities 

Pedestrian linkages will be provided from the site to the adjacent Bridges Reserve, which will ensure 

strong pedestrian connectivity to the Coburg Activity Centre, including the Sydney Road Precinct, 

Russell Street carpark and the Coburg Leisure Centre. I have inspected Bridges Reserve at night and 

am generally satisfied that sufficient lighting is available within this area to provide a safe and convenient 

pedestrian route to the Russel Street carpark and other major uses with the Activity Centre. 

Where appropriate and subject to approval, Council may require the applicant to undertaken some 

works within the reserve to enhance linkages between the site and existing pathway network. 

6.1.3. Sharing of Parking Spaces and Trips 

The site is located within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre, which includes a variety of retail shops, 

restaurants, offices and community uses. 

The site is well located to these areas such that the linking of trips and sharing of parking demands may 

occur, particularly by customers who use the Russell Street carpark, or in some cases, users of the 

municipal offices (e.g. restaurant/cafe use). In these cases, the linking of additional trips to the 

retail/restaurant uses within this development with a shopping trip to other shops in the area is more 

likely to have the impact of extending the duration of parking stay of these customers or visitors and will 

not necessarily generate additional demands for parking in the area. 

The site will also benefit from a sharing of carparking resources particularly by residential visitors and 

retail customers within this centre. The peak parking demand for retail customers (and any office 

visitors) would generally occur during the day (although some evening and weekend demands could be 

expected depending on trading hours of the end retail users). The peak demand for residential visitors 

and restaurant customers will typically occur on weekday evenings and weekends (outside of peak 

demand times for the office and retail uses). 

Some of the retail uses (depending on the end use) and the proposed restaurant contained on-site will 

attract some customers from within the proposed development, which will provide a significant 

residential catchment of some 520 dwellings in itself. 

Accordingly, a sharing of the available carparking resources for the on-site uses can be achieved. 

6.1.4. Availability of Public Transport within the Locality 

The site is located within close proximity to efficient public transport services, with bus, tram and rail 

services all located within convenient walking distance of the site, as detailed previously in Section 5.4. 

These include multiple bus services operating along Bell Street and Sydney Road and tram routes 

operating along Sydney Road. Coburg Railway Station is also located within 550m walking distance of 

the site. 

Given the high level of public transport access in this locality, the proposed development is expected to 

generate parking at a lower rate than for a similar site in other less accessible suburban locations. 

A review of the ABS ‘journey to work’ data for the 2006 Census identifies that public transport represents 

a significant travel mode for persons either residing within the City of Moreland - Coburg Statistical Local 

Area (the area included is shown in Figure 28) and the Coburg State Suburb (the area included is shown 

in Figure 29) in comparison to the Melbourne metropolitan average. This data is summarised in Table 6 

below. Notably, the maps show that these areas include parts of Coburg/Pascoe Vale South that are 

less accessible by public transport compared to the subject site, particularly given its proximity to trams 

in Sydney Road. This is also reflected in the higher level of public transport use between the larger SLA 

area and Coburg suburb data. 




Table 6. Journey to Work Data (based on place of residence): 2006 Census, ABS 

% mode of travel for 

‘journey to work’ trip 

Live Within Coburg 

SLA 

Live Within Coburg State 

Suburb 

Live Within Melbourne 

Metropolitan Division 

Car as driver 67% 62% 74% 

Public Transport 20% 23% 14% 

Walking 3% 3% 4% 

Cycling 3% 4% 1% 

Other (car passenger, 

motorcycle, taxi etc) 

7% 8% 7% 

The above data highlights a lower reliance on private cars by local residents than the average for 

metropolitan Melbourne, which is supported by the high level of public transport access in this location. 

The above data confirms that the use of private cars in the Coburg area is lower than the metropolitan 

average and that public transport and other alternative transport modes (walking/cycling, etc) represent 

a significant proportion of trips to and from work for residents in this area. 

Given the availability of nearby public transport services, I am satisfied that suitable alternatives to car 

based travel exist for this development to support a reduction in the on-site parking provisions for 

residents. 

Subject Site 

Figure 28. Moreland City Council – Coburg (Statistical 

Local Area), ABS 

Subject Site 

Figure 29. Coburg (State Suburb), ABS 

Similarly, office and retail staff have ample opportunity to arrive to work by alternative means. This 

should be actively encouraged in any development within this Principal Activity Centre, which has ample 

access to alternative travel modes. This approach is supported under the relevant Council policies set 

out in Section 6.1.1.2, which support sustainable transport options in preference to private car travel. 




6.1.5. Availability of Parking within the Locality 

As presented in Section 5.3, parking surveys were undertaken at the following times to determine 

existing carparking conditions in the nearby area: 

• 11am, 12pm, 1pm, 2pm, 7pm and 8pm – Thursday 10th September, 2009, 

• 11am, 12pm, 1pm, 2pm, 6pm, 7pm, 8pm and 9pm – Saturday 12th September, 2009, and 

• 11am, 1pm and 2pm – Saturday 26th September, 2009. 

The parking surveys encompassed a large area of approximately 1,054 car spaces, including 418 onstreet 

spaces, 519 spaces within the Russell Street off-street carpark and 117 spaces within off-street 

carparks to the rear of the Moreland City Council Offices. 

The results of the Thursday parking surveys (10th September, 2009), showed a moderate parking 

demand. During the Thursday surveys, there were no less than 163 vacant spaces within the Russell 

Street carpark, with the majority of the spaces within ‘3P’ restriction area. Parking demands within 

Rodda Street, Budds Street and Richards Street were generally moderate-low during the surveys, with 

no less than 127 vacant spaces (including 41 spaces in Rodda Street, 28 spaces in Budds Street and 58 

spaces in Richards Street) located in these streets during the survey times. 

Surveys on Saturday 12th September, 2009 also showed moderate demands in the area, however high 

demands were experienced at 2pm. This sharp rise in demands between 1pm and 2pm on the 

Saturday was associated with the EDFL Grand Finals held at City Oval on this day which attracted large 

crowds. The Russell Street Carpark also experienced high demands throughout the morning on this 

day, which is the most proximate parking area to City Oval. I note that at the 6pm survey on the 

Saturday (after the completion of the matches), demands had significantly declined in the survey area. 

Further surveys were undertaken on Saturday 26th September, 2009 at 11am, 12pm and 2pm to provide 

supplementary surveys for ‘normal’ parking demands on the Saturday. Although these surveys were 

conducted during the middle of the school holiday period, the surveys showed a significantly lower 

parking demand in the area, particularly for the Russell Street Carpark and the nearby local streets 

(especially Rodda and Budds Streets). 

The above surveys indicate that there is generally ample parking available in the surrounding areas to 

cater for customer and visitor demands to this site when considered on a ‘centre-based’ approach. 

However, it needs to be recognised that a reliance on on-street parking for this development is a 

sensitive issue given the scale of the development, as the most proximate parking to the development is 

located within Rodda and Budds Streets, which are local streets with abutting residential development 

that already relies on these areas to meet resident and visitor demands. These areas currently provide 

unrestricted parking, which is used by staff of the nearby Council offices during the day as well as 

abutting residents at most times. 

The GTA Traffic Report recommends the introduction of short-term parking restrictions (2P) along both 

sides of Rodda Street, with existing residents being exempt from these restrictions under Council’s 

Resident Parking Permit Scheme1 . The report also recommends changes to Council’s Resident Parking 

Permit Scheme to exclude new developments (including the subject site) from being eligible for resident 

permits under this scheme. This is similar to Resident Parking Permit Schemes that now apply in the 

majority of inner city Councils, including Yarra, Darebin, Moreland, Melbourne, etc. 

This approach is supported as a means of minimising impacts along these existing residential frontages. 

Given the scale of the development, potential level of overflow parking by residential visitors and level of 

parking resources proposed on-site, I consider that there is an opportunity to review the proposed 

allocation of on-site parking to better reflect the expected profile of parking demands for this 

development and minimise the level of overflow parking generated by the site. This assessment is set 

out in the following. 

1 It is expected that the resident exemption would not apply to the proposed 2P restriction along the site’s frontage. 




6.1.6. Empirical Assessment of Car Parking Demands 

An empirical assessment of the parking demands for the various components of the development is set 

out below. 

6.1.6.1. Residential Dwellings 

It is recognised that car ownership is influenced by a number of factors and that in inner areas many 

households do not own a car for a range of reasons. While the reasons may vary from household to 

household, they are likely to include one or more of the following: 

• affordability issues – some residents may not be able to afford to own, insure, register and maintain 

a car, or may not travel sufficient distances over the year that makes car ownership worthwhile, 

• public transport and service access – residents may live within close proximity to daily services such 

as shops, banks, activity centre etc, and can conveniently access these by public transport or via 

non car-based modes (walking, cycling, etc), 

• public transport and employment/study access – residents may have convenient access (via public 

transport, bicycle, or walking) to their place of work, study, recreation, etc, 

• disability or unlicensed – some residents may be unable to drive due to disability, age or being 

unlicensed, and therefore are more reliant on alternative transport modes, and 

• environmental concerns – some residents may actively minimise their car usage for environmental 

reasons, preferring to use more sustainable transport modes to meet their daily travel needs. 

Resident Demands - ABS Car Ownership Data 

A review of car ownership statistics for ‘flats units and apartments’ within the City of Moreland, and 

the 3058 Postcode (includes Batman, Coburg, Coburg North, Merlynston and Moreland) recorded by the 

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in the 2006 Census, highlights the following statistics as presented 

in Table 7. 




Table 7. Car Ownership Data: 2006 Census, Australian Bureau of Statistics 

Type of Dwelling Number of Cars 

Bed-sits 

1 bedroom 

Flat/Unit/Apartment 

in one or more 

storey block 

2 bedroom 

Flat/Unit/Apartment 

in one or more 

storey block 

Average no. of cars 

per dwelling 

City of Moreland Postcode 3058 (2) 

Respondents Percentage Respondents Percentage 

0.3 0.3 

Sample Size (1) 160 35 

0 cars 122 76% 23 66% 

1 car 35 22% 12 34% 

2+ cars 3 2% 0 0% 


per dwelling 

0.7 0.7 

Sample Size (1) 2,854 300 

0 cars 1,229 43% 141 47% 

1 car 1,391 49% 134 45% 

2+ cars 234 8% 25 8% 


per dwelling 

1.0 0.9 

Sample Size (1) 9,283 1,425 

0 cars 2,258 24% 395 28% 

1 car 5,048 54% 793 56% 

2+ cars 

Note 1: Excludes results where number of cars was not stated. 

1,977 22% 237 16% 

Note 2: Postcode 3121 includes the suburbs of Batman, Coburg, Coburg North, Merlynston and Moreland 

The above statistics also show that low car ownership levels are common within both Coburg and 

Moreland overall, particularly in smaller household sizes. 

The above table indicates that within the City of Moreland, 45% of all respondents occupying a bed-sit or 

1 bedroom apartments did not own a car (with 76% of those occupying bed-sits not owning a car). 

The above statistics relate to the whole of the municipality or Postcode and includes areas with a lower 

level of access to public transport and services compared with the subject site. These also include 

owner occupied dwellings in addition to rental properties. 

The above information clearly highlights that there is a considerable demand for dwellings in Coburg and 

the City of Moreland (particularly in locations within activity centres) where limited parking is required by 

residents, particularly in apartment-style developments. 

Overall, the above statistics confirm that a reduced level of resident car parking is appropriate for this 

area. Accordingly, I believe that the proposed allocation of one car space per dwelling (as specified in 

the GTA Traffic Report) is excessive and is above the expected resident carparking demands for this 

development, particularly in the context of the site’s proximity to public transport and the level of 

sustainable transport initiatives offered in this development (car share scheme and ample bicycle 

parking provision, supported by a Green Travel Plan). 

A further reduction in parking is particularly relevant for the bedsits and 1 bedroom apartments which are 

relatively small in size and are more likely to accommodate smaller households. The proposed 

development includes 520 dwellings, of which, 77 (15%) are bedsits/studio apartments and 320 (62%) 

are 1-bedroom apartments. The proposed size of these dwellings and the site’s convenient proximity to 




public transport and location within the Coburg Activity Centre means that resident of the proposed 

development can be expected to have a low demand for car parking, consistent with the results of the 

ABS car ownership data for this area. 

Based on the above data and my experience with similar projects, I consider that the resident demands 

for this development will be as follows: 

• 0.7 spaces per bedsit/studio and one bedroom dwelling (278 spaces for 397 dwellings), and 

• 1 space per two bedroom dwelling (123 spaces for 123 dwellings. 

Therefore, the minimum allocation of parking for residents in this development should be 401 spaces. 

This offers the opportunity to allocate some of this surplus parking in practice to visitors of the 

development to minimise the potential level of overflow parking in the evenings. 

Visitor parking demands 

In addition to the resident parking demands, the development is likely to generate a demand for visitor 

parking in the order of 0.12 spaces per dwelling, which is based on empirical surveys of apartment 

developments and the generally accepted rate for similar developments by VCAT. This equates to a 

total of 62 visitor car spaces for 520 dwellings. 

As is the case with many residential developments within Activity Centres, the visitor parking component 

does not necessarily need to be provided on-site. These demands can be catered for by on-street and 

off-street parking surrounding the subject site. This is consistent with the recommendations of the 

Advisory Committee Report for the Review of Clause 52.06 for the treatment of visitor parking in Activity 

Centres and also with current practice for similar developments. 1 

This approach recognises that a reduced level of visitor parking can occur in and near Activity Centres 

as these locations generally have good access to public transport, have the opportunity to share parking 

resources due to variations in the timing of peak demands between commercial and residential uses and 

that developments in these areas are likely to accommodate smaller households (attracting fewer 

visitors). 

The peak demands for residential visitor parking will be in the evenings and on weekends, when the 

demands associated with the retail and commercial uses within this development (and in the nearby 

area) are at their lowest. During normal business hours, residential visitor demands are much lower and 

typically less than 30% of the peak demand (i.e. 19 spaces). 

In the context of this development, the surveys of on-street and off-street parking within convenient 

walking distance of the site (refer Section 5.3) reveal that adequate parking is available to accommodate 

the visitor parking demands generated by the proposed development. With the exception of parking 

located along the site’s frontage to Rodda Street, where approximately 12 spaces will be retained, the 

most suitable spaces are located 250m to 300m away in the Russell Street Carpark and Urquhart 

Street. Limited parking is available in Bell Street due to No Stopping restrictions. 

Whilst the Russell Street carpark can be accessed via pedestrian paths provided through Bridges 

Reserve or alternatively via Russell Street, residential visitors to this development in the evenings are 

likely to seek parking closer to the development. Consequently, the most proximate carparking in 

vicinity of the site is located within Rodda and Budds Streets, which are local streets with abutting 

residential development that already relies on these areas to meet resident and visitor demands. 

Although short-term 2P restrictions are proposed in these streets, these restrictions are also suitable for 

residential visitors and are unlikely to dissuade residential visitors from parking in these locations. In this 

context, it may also be appropriate for Council to consider the introduction Permit Zone restrictions in the 

evenings. 

On this basis, given the site’s location on the periphery of the Activity Centre, the scale of the 

development and ample supply of on-site parking for residents, I recommend that 50 of the on-site 

1 The Advisory Committee Report (dated August, 2007) for the Review of Parking Provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions has recommended 

that no visitor parking requirement apply to residential developments of four or more storeys in Activity Centres. 




resident spaces be re-allocated to visitors in this development to minimise the potential level of overflow 

parking onto nearby local streets in the evenings. 

6.1.6.2. Restricted Retail 

6.1.6.3. Office 

The Advisory Committee Report for the review of Clause 52.06 has recommended that a reduced 

carparking rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area be provided for shop uses located within 

Activity Centres and 4.0 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area as a standard rate for other areas. 

This recommendation seeks to address the issue with the current shop rate of 8 spaces per 100m2 under Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme, which is widely accepted as being excessive and not 

reflective of actual demands. 

I also note that the Advisory Committee Report includes a recommendation of carparking rates for 

restricted retail premises of 2.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area in Activity Centres and 3.0 

spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area as a standard rate. 

The reduced rate for Activity Centres recognises that a reduced level of staff and customer parking can 

occur in Activity Centres as they generally have good access to public transport. The Coburg Activity 

Centre is identified as a Principal Activity Centre under Melbourne 2030 and accordingly, it is expected 

that the requirements of this clause for Activity Centres (if adopted in the scheme) would appropriately 

apply to this locality. 

The retail parking demands will comprise a combination of short-term (customer) and long-term (staff) 

parking demands. Staff carparking demands generally comprise approximately 30% of retail parking 

demands. Restricted retail uses could be expected to generate higher proportion of parking demands 

from staff (i.e. 40%). 

Adopting the rate of 2.5 spaces per 100m2 for the restricted retail uses equates to a total carparking 

demand of 29 spaces for this use, including 12 spaces for staff (40%) and the balance of 17 spaces for 

customers. 

Based on the level of public transport services available in the immediate proximity of the site, the 

sustainable transport initiatives included within the development (ample bicycle parking, access to car 

share scheme for work-based trips during the day, etc.) and the site’s proximity to a variety of services 

within the Coburg Activity Centre, I am satisfied that the adopted office parking rate of 2.5 cars per 

100m2 of net floor area is appropriate for this development. 

This approach is generally consistent with the Advisory Committee Report ‘Review of Parking Provisions 

in Planning Schemes’ (August 2007) which has recommended that the existing parking rate for office 

use be reduced to 3.0 spaces per 100m2 within Activity Centres, which are typically areas supported by 

good access to public transport. 

In the case of Coburg Activity Centre, this centre is located within an inner area, which is particularly well 

located with respect to public transport services in comparison to other Activity Centres across 

metropolitan Melbourne. 

Further, I am of the view that ‘office’ is one land use that is particularly conducive (and important to 

target) in achieving a mode shift away from private cars to public transport, cycling, walking, etc. This is 

particularly the case as journey to work trips for office uses are typically made during the commuter peak 

hours and predominantly involve single occupant vehicles. The timing of these trips has the greatest 

impact on traffic congestion on the road network and occurs when public transport services operate at 

high frequencies (and offer express services in some cases). This is in contrast to an industrial use, for 

example, where staff may work shifts, travel outside of peak periods and have more limited access to 

public transport, making it more difficult to achieve a mode shift. 

Adopting a rate of 2.5 spaces per 100m 2 generates a carparking requirement of 28 car spaces for the 

proposed 1,122m 2 of office space. 




The majority of carparking demands associated with the office use will be long-term staff demands, 

which should be provided on-site. The peak time for the office demands will be during the day, with 

negligible demands expected after-hours on weekdays and on weekends. 

6.1.6.4. Restaurant/Café 

It is generally accepted that the statutory requirement of 0.6 car spaces per seat for a restaurant use is 

excessive and that a parking rate in the order of 0.3 is more appropriate. A peak rate in the order of 0.3 

car spaces per seat for a restaurant use is supported by extensive surveys undertaken by Traffix Group 

and other traffic engineering consultants and is regularly accepted by Councils and VCAT. 

A further reduced rate generally applies for a restaurant use during the day, which reflects the 

significantly lower level of activity at this time and the influence of a local catchment by nearby 

businesses and residents. During the day, restaurants/cafés are typically not fully occupied and tend to 

serve existing employees or shoppers within the local area who will not necessarily generate a demand 

for additional parking spaces (i.e. walk to the restaurant from nearby businesses). During the daytime 

on weekends, the restaurant can also be expected to function as a café serving local residents and 

people working in the local area. 

Based on my experience, I consider that an appropriate parking rate for the restaurant/café use is 

(inclusive of staff parking demands): 

• daytime - 0.15 car spaces per seat, and 

• evening - 0.3 car spaces per seat. 

Accordingly, the 192 seat restaurant/café is expected to generate a peak parking demand of 29 cars 

during the day and 58 cars in the evening, which includes staff and customer parking demands. 

The Advisory Committee Report (dated August, 2007) for the Review of Parking Provisions in the 

Victoria Planning Provisions has recommended the adoption of a parking rate of ‘3.5 spaces per 100m2 of leasable floor area’ for restaurants in an Activity Centre. Adopting this rate, equates to a peak parking 

demand of 27 parking spaces for this use, which is equivalent to the assessed day time demand. 

I note that the GTA Traffic Report has adopted a staff carparking rate for the restaurant/café of 0.05 staff 

carparking spaces per seat. This equates to a staff carparking demand of 10 spaces. I agree with this 

rate and am satisfied that the provision of 10 staff parking spaces is appropriate for a restaurant/café of 

this size. The balance of the parking will be associated with customers. A proportion of these 

customers may be residents of the proposed development. 

The peak evening activity will generally occur on a Friday and Saturday between 6pm and 9pm, while 

the peak level of daytime demand is expected to occur at lunchtime on a Friday between 12 noon and 

2pm. 




6.1.6.5. Summary 

The following table (Table 8) summarises my empirical assessment of parking demands. 

Table 8. Empirical Assessment of Parking Demands 

Component 

Size / 

Quantity 

Empirical Parking Rate 

Assessed 

Parking Demand 

Bedsit/Studio Apartment 77 0.7 spaces per dwelling 54 spaces 

1 Bedroom Apartment 320 0.7 spaces per dwelling 224 spaces 

2 Bedroom Apartment 123 1 space per dwelling 123 spaces 

Residential Visitors 

520 

(dwellings) 

Restricted Retail 1,176m 2 

0.12 visitor spaces per dwelling 62 spaces 

2.5 spaces per 100m² 

(40% staff, 60% customers) 

Office 1,122m 2 2.5 spaces per 100m² 


TOTAL 

192 seats 

(782m²) 

0.15 spaces per seat (daytime) 

0.3 spaces per seat (evening) 

(0.05 for staff, balance for customers) 

29 spaces 

(12 staff, 17 customers) 

28 spaces 

(long-term staff parking) 

29-58 spaces 

(10 staff, 19-48 customers) 

549-578 spaces, 

including: 

• 451 long-term spaces 

(401 residents spaces and 

50 staff spaces), and 

• 98-127 short-term spaces 

(62 residential visitor 

spaces and 36-65 

customer spaces) 

Subject to the reallocation of 50 resident spaces to visitor parking, I am satisfied that the statutory 

reduction in parking demands and proposed level of parking overflow is supported for the following 

reasons: 

• the site is located within the Coburg Principal Activity Centre which provides a large variety of 

employment, shops and services for everyday needs, including supermarkets, banks, medical 

services, schools, etc. Most of these services are within convenient walking distance from the site 

or can be easily accessed by bicycle or a short public transport trip, 

• the site is located in close proximity to extensive public transport services, including a tram route 

and 8 bus routes within less than 400m walking distance of the site. Additionally, Coburg Railway 

Station is located within 550m walking distance and a second tram route within 750m walking 

distance of the site, 

• the development aims to provide a more affordable housing product, including a large number of 

studio apartments and 1-bedroom apartments, which are likely to attract smaller household sizes 

and lower car ownership rates, 

• the proposed development will include a ‘car share’ scheme via a commercial car share operator 

for 2 vehicles for the use of residents/staff of the development, and 

• the proposed development provides a high level of bicycle parking, well above the Planning 

Scheme requirements, which will assist in encouraging alternate, more sustainable modes of travel, 

and 

• sufficient on-street and off-street parking is available in the nearby area to accommodate parking 

demands associated with overflow visitors/customers of the proposed development. 




The proposed sustainable transport initiatives, and key attributes of the site’s location, combine to 

provide residents, staff, customers and visitors with ample opportunities to use alternative transport 

modes on a daily basis. I am satisfied that private car usage can be substantially reduced in this 

development and should be actively discouraged by a limitation of parking. 

Subject to the above, I am satisfied that the proposed parking provision is appropriate and accords with 

the objectives of Council’s policies in terms of encouraging sustainable transport and the broader goals 

of Melbourne 2030. 

6.2. RECOMMENDED PARKING ALLOCATION 

A summary of my recommended allocation of on-site parking is set out in Table 9. 

Table 9. Recommended Parking Allocation 

Component 

Number / 

Area 

Parking Requirement 

(empirical assessment) 

Parking Allocation 

Studio Apartment/Bedsit 77 54 spaces 54 spaces 

1 bedroom dwelling 

320 224 spaces 

224 spaces 

(plus any surplus spaces 

as required) 

2 bedroom dwelling 123 123 spaces 123 spaces 

Residential Visitor Carparking 520 dwellings 

Restricted Retail 1,176m 2 

Office 1,122m 2 


192 seats 

(782m 2 ) 

62 spaces 

(evening peak, 19 spaces during daytime) 

29 spaces (daytime only) 

(12 staff, 17 customers) 

28 spaces 

(long-term staff parking) 

29-58 spaces 

(10 staff, 19 (daytime) to 48 (evening) 

customers) 

Car Share Scheme - 2 spaces 

TOTAL 

551-580 spaces 

(451 resident/staff, 98-127 visitor/customer, 

2 car share spaces) 

Carparking Surplus 563 spaces provided on-site 

Potential overflow demand 

50 spaces (1) 

12 spaces for staff 

(customer parking within 

shared visitor area) (1) 

28 spaces 

10 spaces for staff 

(customer parking off-site) 

2 spaces within 

basement 

503 spaces allocated 

on-site 

60 spaces 

(allocate as additional 

spaces to residential 

apartments) 

Day-time: 55 customer/visitor cars - 50 spaces met on-site, 

5 spaces met off-site 

Evening: 110 customer/visitor cars - 50 spaces met on-site, 

60 spaces met off-site (within off-street council 

carparks) 

Note 1: 50 shared car spaces to be provided on-site for all visitors and customers. These uses will benefit from a sharing of 

visitor/customer carparking due to varying times for peak demands. 




Based on the table above, the following carparking allocation of the 563 spaces should be provided: 

• 461 car spaces for residents (includes allocation of additional spaces), 

• 50 car spaces provided for staff of the offices, retail and restaurant/café, 

• 50 car spaces provided for visitors/customers (shared car parking), and 

• 2 car spaces for ‘car share’ vehicles. 

I note that the above allocation of parking results in an excess of 61 parking spaces. I recommend that 

these spaces be allocated to the apartments (i.e. within the secure resident parking area) at a later 

stage subject to demand. 

This recommended carparking allocation will enable all long-term carparking demands to be 

accommodated on-site and provides 50 car spaces for short-term visitor/customer parking demands to 

assist in meeting the visitor/customer demands of the various uses. 

The peak overflow associated with peak demand times for the restaurant and residential visitors could 

be in the order of 60 car spaces in the evening (total demand of 110 spaces less 50 visitor/customer 

spaces provided on-site). In my view, this is acceptable within the context on an Activity Centre given 

the availability of parking in nearby carparks at these times. 

If this level of overflow demand remains a concern to the Panel, the office and retail staff parking spaces 

could be made available to restaurant customers outside of their normal operation times to further 

reduce the carparking overflow at these times (note, office demands will generally occur during normal 

business hours on weekdays). 




6.3. BICYCLE PARKING 

Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme specifies bicycle parking requirements for new developments and 

changes in use. 

Table 10 outlines the relevant statutory bicycle parking rates and requirement for the proposed uses. 

Table 10. Statutory Bicycle Parking Requirement 

Component 

Floor Area / 

No. 

Seats 

Statutory Bicycle Parking Rate 

Statutory Bicycle 

Parking 

Requirement 

Residential Use 

Residents 

Visitors 

520 dwellings 

1 space per 5 dwellings 

1 space per 10 dwellings 

104 spaces 

52 spaces 

Retail Use (1) 

Employee 1 to each 300m² of leasable floor area 4 spaces 

1,176m² 

Customer 

1 to each 500m² of leasable floor area 2 spaces 

Office Use 

Employee 1 to each 300m 2 of NFA if NFA exceeds 1,000m 2 4 spaces 

Visitor 

Restaurant/Café Use (2) 

1,122m 2 

1 to each 1,000m 2 of NFA if NFA exceeds 1,000m 2 1 spaces 

Employee 1 to each 100m 2 of floor area available to the public 8 spaces 

Customer 

TOTAL 

192 seats 

(782m 2) 

2 plus 1 to each 100m 2 of floor area available to the 

public if the floor area exceeds 400m 2 

10 spaces 

185 spaces 

(120 resident/staff & 

65 visitor/customer) 

Note 1: Assessment conservatively adopts bicycle parking rate for ‘Retail’ use. The requirement for ‘Retail’ is higher than the 

‘Shop’ rate under this clause, particularly as there is no requirement to provide bicycle parking for a shop of less than 

1,000m². 

Note 2: The floor area used to assess the bicycle parking requirement for the restaurant/café has conservatively adopted the 

total floor area of 782m 2 

Accordingly, the statutory requirement for the provision of on-site bicycle parking is 185 bicycle spaces, 

of which, 104 are associated with residents, 16 associated with staff and 65 are associated with 

visitors/customers of the development. 

The Moreland Bicycle Plan (dated June, 2000), also provides recommended bicycle parking rates for 

new developments within the City of Moreland. The relevant bicycle parking rates are provided as 

follows: 

• Dwelling: 1 per 4 habitable rooms for residents and 1 per 16 habitable rooms for 

visitors 

• Office: 1 per 200m2 GFA for employees and 1 per 750m2 over 1000m2 for visitors 

• Shop: 1 per 300m2 GFA for employees and 1 per 500m2 over 1000m2 for customers 

• Restaurant: 1 per 100m2 of public area for employees and 2 spaces plus 1 per 100m2 GFA for customers 

Based on the above rates, the development would require a total 194 bicycle spaces, of which, 130 are 

associated with residents, 18 associated with staff, and 46 are associated with visitors and customers of 

the development. 




A total of 520 secure bicycle spaces are proposed to be provided within the basement carparking levels 

for this development. The GTA Traffic Report specifies that these bicycle spaces will be allocated to 

residents of the development (1 space per dwelling). I recommend that staff of the retail, offices and 

restaurant uses should also have access to the secure bicycle parking and that bicycle parking be 

allocated to residents/staff on an ‘as needs’ basis. I am satisfied that the provision of 520 bicycle 

spaces for shared use between residents and staff will be more than adequate for this development and 

will help contribute to the broader sustainable transport goals of the development and area. 

The GTA Traffic Report states that visitor/customer bicycle demands will be catered for with the 

provision of a number of bicycle racks on the ground level, however no specific requirement is specified. 

I recommend that in the order of 20-30 bicycle racks (i.e. 40-60 bicycle spaces) are provided at 

convenient locations on the ground level (i.e. close to the residential entrances and also to the 

retail/commercial uses) to cater for all visitor/customer bicycle parking demands. 

Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme also states that shower/change room facilities should be provided 

for employees if: 

Showers 

If 5 or more employee bicycle spaces are required, 1 shower for the first 5 employee bicycle 

spaces, plus 1 to each 10 employee bicycle spaces thereafter. 

Change rooms 

1 change room or direct access to a communal change room to each shower. The change 

room may be a combined shower and change room. 

The GTA Traffic Report specifies that showers and change room facilities will be included as part of the 

commercial uses. This is not currently shown on the development plans. I recommend that shower and 

change room facilities be provided for the commercial tenancies in accordance with the requirements of 

Clause 52.34. 

To ensure that appropriate provision is made for bicycle parking for visitors/customers of this 

development and appropriate end of trip facilities for staff, I recommend that the following be included as 

conditions of permit: 

• a minimum of 20 bicycle rails (accommodating 40 bicycles) be provided on the ground level to cater 

for customers and residential visitors of the development and the area generally, and 

• Showers and change rooms be provided for staff of the commercial tenancies in accordance with the 

requirements of Clause 52.34. 

Overall, I am satisfied that sufficient bicycle parking facilities can be provided for this development in 

accordance with the statutory requirements. 

6.4. PARKING LAYOUT AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS 

The parking layout, ramp grades, headroom clearance and access arrangements have been generally 

designed to the requirements of Clause 52.06-3 of the Planning Scheme and the relevant Clauses of the 

Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1-2004 ‘Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off-Street Car 

Parking’). I am satisfied that the carparking layout and vehicle access arrangements for this 

development are generally acceptable and are consistent with current practice. 

To ensure compliance with the relevant standards, I recommend that the following minor modifications 

be made to the development plans, which can be included as conditions of permit: 

• The car spaces are generally denoted as 2.5m wide, by 4.9m long with a 6.4m wide access aisle 

within the basement parking areas. The Planning Scheme requires a car space width of 2.6m wide, 

where the arrangement includes a 6.4m wide access aisle and 4.9m long spaces. My review of the 

plans indicates that sufficient width is available between columns to achieve the required 2.6m wide 

spacing and accordingly, the spaces should be correctly dimensioned on the plans. 




• The rollerdoor provided at the vehicle access from Bell Street must be setback a minimum of 6m 

(currently setback approximately 4.1m) from the property boundary to allow sufficient length for a 

vehicle to be propped on-site, clear of the footpath while waiting for the door to open. This will 

satisfy VicRoads’ requirements. 

• Based on the car parking allocation recommended within Section 6.2, the internal gates within the 

basement carpark will need to be relocated to ensure a sufficient number of car spaces are 

provided for visitors/customers of the development (50 car spaces) in addition to the allocated staff 

spaces for the commercial uses and ‘car share’ spaces (102 spaces in total). 

• No disabled carparking spaces are currently shown on the development plans. This development 

will be required to provide some level of disabled parking for the commercial and visitor components 

of this development to meet the BCA requirements. All disabled carparking spaces should be a 

minimum 3.2m wide and appropriately located to lifts. 

• An intercom system will be required at the Bell Street access to enable visitor access to the shared 

car spaces, particularly after-hours if this area is to remain open during the daytime for shared 

visitor and customer use. 

• Landscaping provided adjacent to the Bell Street access should be provided at a height no greater 

than 1.0m to ensure pedestrian sight lines are achieved in accordance with AS2890.1, 

• VicRoads have specified that the vehicle access from Bell Street must provide a gradient of 1:20 

and a minimum driveway width of 6.5m. I note that a 1:20 grade is achieved at the vehicle entry 

point, in accordance with AS2890.1:2004. A 6.1m wide ramp is provided for this Bell Street access. 

This width complies with AS2890.1:2004 for a two-way ramp and will ensure that simultaneous twoway 

traffic movements can occur along the ramp at all times. I am satisfied that a 6.1m wide ramp 

is acceptable for this development and further widening is not required. 

• VicRoads have recommended that on-street parking on Bell Street (immediately east of Rodda 

Street)be banned to improve visibility for vehicles exiting at the Rodda Street/Bell Street 

intersection. I note that extended Clearway restrictions are currently proposed to be provided along 

this section of Bell Street. This matter would need to be considered further by VicRoads and 

Council. 

Overall, I am satisfied that the layout of the proposed parking spaces, ramp grades and access 

arrangements for the site will satisfy the objectives of the relevant standards and current practices and 

will provide for safe and efficient movements to and from the external road network (subject to minor 

changes recommended above). 

6.5. TRAFFIC GENERATION 

A detailed assessment of the traffic generation associated with the proposed development and 

associated traffic impacts was undertaken by GTA Consultants at the application Traffic Report (dated 

13th , February, 2009). 

I have reviewed this information and consider the assessment and associated assumptions to be 

appropriate. A summary of the predicted traffic generation and distribution is presented as follows. 

VicRoads has requested further Sidra1 analysis be undertaken of the U-turn opportunities in Bell Street 

given that the access arrangements for the Bell Street access and Rodda Street will be restricted to leftin/left-out 

movements only. This further analysis has been undertaken by GTA Consultants using the 

existing conditions traffic data collected by Traffix Group (as presented in Section 5.2.1). I have 

reviewed this assessment and associated Sidra files as part of the preparation of my evidence. 

A summary of the traffic generation, distribution, and any impacts is presented as follows. 

1 Sidra is a computer based modelling program used to assess the operating performance of signalised and unsignalised intersections. 




Traffic Generation 

I am generally satisfied that the traffic generation rates adopted by GTA Consultants accurately 

represent the likely traffic volumes which would be generated by the residential component of proposed 

development, particularly given the small size of the majority of the dwellings. 

The traffic generation rate for staff parking adopted by GTA Consultants is highly conservative (adopted 

a rate of 1.2 vehicle trip ends per car space in the peak hour), and I would generally expect a lower rate 

to be generated in practice. 

I note that the residential traffic generation rates would only apply to dwellings that are allocated an onsite 

car space (461 spaces as recommended in Section 6.2). The traffic generation rates adopted in my 

assessment are summarised as follows: 

• Residential dwellings: 0.4 vehicle trip ends per dwelling in each of the peak hours 

(as adopted by GTA) 4 vehicle trip ends per dwelling per day 

• Staff parking: 0.8 vehicle trip ends per space in each of the peak hours 

(i.e. 80% of spaces experience an arrival or departure) 

6 vehicle trip ends per car space per day (daily rate same as GTA) 

I note that my recommended carparking allocation (with the inclusion of 50 visitor/customer car spaces 

on-site) will slightly alter the amount of traffic generated by this development as well as the nature of the 

trips generated. The traffic generation rate for the visitor/customer car spaces is conservatively 

assumed as follows: 

• Visitor/customer parking: 1 vehicle trip end per space in each of the peak hours 

(i.e. each space experiences an arrival or departure) 

8 vehicle trip ends per car space per day 

(i.e. each space turns over 4 times) 

Based on my traffic generation assumptions, the daily traffic volume generated by the development in 

association with the on-site parking areas is unlikely to exceed 2,552 vehicle trip ends per day and the 

peak hour volume is expected to be 275 vehicles per hour. 

The relevant consideration in this assessment is the peak hour traffic volumes to be generated from the 

site. A comparison of the predicted peak hour traffic generation for the proposed development by GTA 

and Traffix Group is provided in Table 11. 

Table 11. Peak Hour Traffic Generation 

Use 

No. of Spaces 

TG GTA 

Traffic Generation Rate 

(per hour) 

TG 

Assessment 

GTA 

Assessment 

Residential 463 (1) 520 TG & GTA - 0.4 trips per space 185 208 

Staff 50 43 

Visitors / 

Customers 

TG – 0.8 trips per space 

GTA – 1.2 trips per space (0.6 per 

direction) 

50 - TG – 1 trip per space 

GTA – N/A 

11336R#1.doc Page 53 

40 

52 

(26 in each 

direction) 

50 - 

TOTAL 563 563 - 275 vte/hr 260 vte/hr 

Notes: 

(1) The residential assessment also includes the 2 car share spaces that will be available for resident/staff use. 

Based on the above, the proposed development would be expected to generate between 260 and 275 

vehicle trip ends during each of the commuter peak periods (depending on the carparking allocation and 

adopted rates). In the context of this development, the difference in peak hour traffic is inconsequential 

and accordingly, I accept that the traffic generation assessment adopted by GTA Consultants in the 

Sidra analysis for nearby intersections is appropriate.



Traffic generated within any hour outside of the peak periods is expected to be significantly lower than 

the peak hour figures as the majority of on-site parking is allocated to the residential uses of this 

development as opposed to short-term customer parking. 

Traffic Distribution 

GTA Consultants adopted the following traffic distribution assumptions for this development: 

• 40% of traffic would travel south, i.e. entering and exiting the site via Rodda Street, and 

• All other traffic (60%) will enter and exit the site via Bell Street. 

I have reviewed the distribution assumptions presented by GTA Consultants and agree that the adopted 

distribution reflects a conservative assessment of the likely traffic distribution. 

In particular, I do not consider that the volume of development traffic using the Rodda Street/Budds 

Street link to the south is likely to exceed approximately 1,000 vehicles per day or 110 vehicles in the 

AM or PM peak hour. 

Traffic Impacts 

Bell Street Impacts 

An assessment of the post development operating conditions of the nearby intersections of Rodda 

Street/Bell Street and Budds Street/Harding Street has been undertaken by GTA Consultants (dated 

13th , February, 2009). 

Additional analysis requested by VicRoads of the U-turn opportunities at the signalised intersections of 

Bell Street/Elm Grove (U-turn location to the west of the site) and Bell Street/Alva Grove (U-turn location 

to the east of the site) has also been undertaken by GTA Consultants as part of Mr Griffith’s evidence 

statement. 

The results of this analysis were provided to me for review prior to the distribution of Mr Griffith’s 

evidence statement. Based on the Sidra results, I am satisfied that the proposed development traffic 

can be appropriately accommodated at the nearby intersections and will not significantly impact on the 

operation or safety of these intersections. The assessment shows that the additional U-turn movements 

at these intersections can comfortably be accommodated and that the intersections will continue to 

operate under ‘good’ operating conditions (Intersection Degree of Saturation between 0.75-0.90). 1 

I note that my traffic generation assessment included an additional 15 vehicle trip ends in each 

commuter peak hour. Based on the traffic distribution of 60% of traffic to/from Bell Street, this additional 

level of traffic is neglible and is unlikely to significantly change the Sidra analysis conducted by GTA 

Consultants. 

Rodda Street/Budds Street Impacts 

The GTA assessment estimates that 40% of all traffic generated to/from the site will arrive/depart from 

the south via Rodda Street and Budds Street. This equates to approximately 1,000 vehicles per day 

and 110 vehicles in the AM or PM peak hour. 

1 Sidra Intersection 3.2 specifies DOS and Level of Service as follows. 

Intersection Degree of Saturation 

of Service 

Unsignalised Intersection Signalised Intersection 

Excellent = 1.0 




The east-west section of this link is approximately 4.9m wide kerb to kerb. The current width of this road 

connection does not comfortably accommodate simultaneous two-way traffic movements (generally a 

minimum of 5m is required for two-way traffic and desirably 5.5m wide should be provided). 1 

Based on the traffic surveys presented in Section 5.2.1, it is expected that this link carries in the order of 

100 vehicles per day at the current time. Accordingly, it is accepted that the additional traffic generated 

by this development on this link represents a significant increase in the context of the existing volumes. 

I understand that the applicant is prepared to make a contribution to widen this road section to achieve a 

5.5m wide pavement and that GTA Consultants has developed an appropriate concept plan for this 

purpose, whilst still maintaining appropriate footpath provisions for pedestrians. This option is supported 

and would increase the capacity of this section of road to more comfortably accommodate the 

development traffic. 

With respect to the additional traffic expected to use the southern section of Budds Street (which has a 

7.7m wide pavement) and at its intersection with Harding Street, I am satisfied that this street can 

accommodate the additional development traffic and will operate within the accepted environmental 

capacity of this local street (typically taken as 2,000 vehicles per day). Budds Street, at Harding Street, 

currently carries in the order of 340-400 vehicles per day (refer to Section 5.2.1) and accordingly, the 

post development traffic volumes will be in the order of 1,400 vehicles per day. 

I understand that the local community has mixed views on the benefits of widening the east-west section 

of this street and the potential for increased traffic volumes if these works are undertaken. Accordingly, 

it may be more appropriate for Council to monitor traffic flows through this area following completion of 

the development stages in consultation with the local community. At this time, Council may consider 

widening the pavement to 5.5m, if deemed necessary, or consider alternative treatments for this road 

section. 

The balance of development traffic is expected to use Rodda Street to the north or via the direct Bell 

Street access. This additional traffic can be comfortably accommodated by Rodda Street, which 

currently carries negligible traffic volumes. 

It is noted that an increase in traffic volumes needs to be reasonably expected with any redevelopment 

of this significant site. The nature of the development (being predominantly residential) is such that the 

development traffic volumes are considerably lower than would be expected if a development of this size 

were to include predominantly office or retail uses. Further, it is VicRoads’ practice to limit direct access 

to declared roads, such as Bell Street as a State Highway, and accordingly, vehicle access to Rodda 

Street is also expected with any redevelopment of this land. 

6.6. WASTE COLLECTION AND LOADING 

Loading Arrangements 

Clause 52.07 of the Planning Scheme specifies that: 

No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or 

materials unless: 

• Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specified in the table below. 

• The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a driveway changes direction or 

intersects another driveway, the internal radius at the change of direction or intersection must be 

at least 6 metres. 

• The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. 

1 A pavement width of 5.5m is the recommended minimum width of an Access Street, Level 1 under Clause 56.06 of the Planning Scheme. 




FLOOR AREA OF BUILDING MINIMUM LOADING BAY DIMENSIONS 

2,600 sq m or less in single occupation Area 

Length 

Width 

Height Clearance 

For every additional 1,800 sq m or part Additional 18 sq m 

27.4 sq m 

7.6 m 

3.6 m 

4.0 m 

The combined floor area of the proposed retail and restaurant tenancies is 1,958m², and accordingly, a 

loading bay satisfying the minimum requirements is required. 

To ensure that appropriate provision is made of smaller deliveries, courier vehicles, etc to the 

commercial uses in this development, it is recommended that the two northernmost on-street spaces 

located in Rodda Street along the site’s frontage be signed as a ‘Loading Zone’ during normal business 

hours. The provision of two adjacent spaces with ‘Loading Zone’ restrictions will ensure that larger 

delivery vehicles (i.e. 8.8m long truck) can be accommodated within these on-street loading areas. 

Based on the above, I am satisfied that sufficient loading areas can be provided for this development. 

Waste Collection 

A number of waste storage areas have been provided on-site within the basement parking areas. As 

part of the Town Planning submission a Waste Management Plan was prepared by Leigh Design (dated 

11 February, 2009). This plan identifies that waste collection will occur towards the southern boundary 

of the site, with vehicle access via Rodda Street. 

From a traffic perspective, I am satisfied that the proposed waste collection arrangements are 

acceptable. 




7. RESPONSE TO THIRD PARTY OBJECTORS 

The following table outlines my response to traffic and parking concerns raised within the various submissions 

from third party objectors. 

Table 12. Response to Third Party Objections 

Issue Comments / Response 

• Insufficient carparking provided on-site. As set out in empirical assessment of the parking demands associated 

with the development at Section 6.1.6, all long-term parking demands 

• Insufficient carparking available in the nearby associated with staff and residents of this development will be met on- 

area. 

site. Due to the scale of the development and its location on the 

periphery of the Coburg Activity Centre, I consider that it is appropriate 

• Insufficient parking available in Rodda Street 

to provide some level of visitor/customer carparking on-site to minimise 

and Budds Street. 

the impact of overflow carparking onto the surrounding local streets. 

• Lack of carparking availability in the area will My recommended allocation of carparking for this development is set 

cause vehicles to park illegally, causing out at Section 6.2. 

safety concerns. 

I am satisfied that any shortfall of parking demands can be 

• The reliance on public transport use is not accommodated within on-street and off-street parking resources 

appropriate as the existing demands exceed provided in vicinity of the site (including the Russell Street Carpark to 

capacity in peak hours. 

the east of the site, which contains 519 spaces). 

Carparking surveys conducted by Traffix Group have shown that 

• Existing residents should be given permits to 

sufficient parking is available in the area at all times. 

park in Rodda Street. Vehicles from the 

development should not be included in such I support the GTA recommendation to introduce short-term parking 

schemes. 

restrictions (2P) along both sides of Rodda Street, with existing 

residents being exempt from these restrictions under Council’s 

Resident Parking Permit Scheme. The GTA assessment also 

recommends changes to Council’s Resident Parking Permit Scheme to 

exclude new developments (including the subject site) from being 

eligible for resident permits under this scheme. This is similar to 

Resident Parking Permit Schemes that now apply in the majority of 

inner city Councils and is supported. 

This approach is supported as a means of minimising impacts along 

these existing residential frontages. I am also of the view that Council 

may wish to consider the inclusion of evening Permit Zones in these 

areas as opposed to relying on 2P restrictions during the critical 

evening period. This should be investigated further by Council. 

Overall, I am satisfied that the short-term demands associated with 

visitors and customers to the subject site can be accommodated partly 

on-site and also within publically available parking in the nearby area at 

peak times. 

• Excessive traffic onto Rodda Street and 

Budds Street. 

• Safety concerns from increase in traffic on 

Rodda Street and Budds Street. 

• Traffic congestion is already an issue in the 

area. This development will only make the 

problem worse. 

• Vehicle access is provided directly to Bell 

Street, however there is no guarantee that 

traffic will not use the Rodda Street access 

instead. 

• Vehicle access between Rodda Street and 

Budds Street will not cope with increase in 

traffic at this location. All traffic should exit 

The proposed development would be expected to generate between 

260-275 vehicle trip ends during each of the commuter peak periods 

(depending on the carparking allocation adopted). 

Access to the site is to be provided via Rodda Street and Bell Street. 

An analysis of the impacts associated with the traffic associated with 

the subject site has been undertaken by GTA Consultants, which 

concluded that the nearby intersections will operate satisfactorily for 

the post development case. 

I have reviewed of the assumptions and assessments undertaken by 

GTA and agree with these findings. 

I also agree that there is merit is widening the east-west section of the 

Rodda/Budds Street link from 4.9m to 5.5m wide to more comfortably 

accommodate the development traffic. 

I understand that the applicant is prepared to make a contribution to 




Issue Comments / Response 

the site either directly to Bell Street or onto 

Bell Street via Rodda Street. 

• Budds Street currently allows parking on 

both sides of the street along the southern 

section, reducing traffic flow to one lane. 

The increase in traffic along Budds Street is 

too significant for this scenario. 

• Safety for pedestrians and cyclists in the 

area as a result of increase in traffic. 

• The intersection of Rodda Street and Bell 

Street is not safe. Increase in traffic will 

make the problem worse. 

• Concerns over waste collection. 

widen this road section to achieve a 5.5m wide pavement, whilst still 

maintaining appropriate footpath provisions for pedestrians. 

Overall, I am satisfied that traffic generated by this development is 

within acceptable limits and will not cause any detrimental impacts to 

traffic flow or safety on the surrounding road network. 

I understand that the local community has mixed views on the benefits 

of widening this section of road and accordingly, it may be more 

appropriate for Council to monitor traffic flows through this area 

following completion of the development stages in consultation with the 

local community. At this time, Council may consider widening the 

pavement to 5.5m, if deemed necessary, or consider alternative 

treatments for this road section. 

I agree. The median opening that was provided at the Rodda Street 

and Bell Street intersection has recently been closed to improve road 

safety and allow for other improvements to be made at the Elm Grove 

intersection. Left-in/left-out traffic movements only are permitted at this 

intersection. 

Accordingly, traffic accessing Rodda Street via Bell Street is now 

required to utilise the U-turn facilities provided at the signalised 

intersections of Bell Street/Elm Grove (120m to the west) and Bell 

Street/Alva Grove (380m) to the east. 

Based on the above, and recent works undertaken along Bell Street to 

improve safety, I am satisfied that the proposed level of traffic 

generated by the development and the proposed access locations will 

not contribute to any safety concerns in the area. 

Waste collection will occur towards the southern boundary of the site, 

with vehicle access via Rodda Street. I am satisfied that the proposed 

waste collection arrangements are acceptable. 

I understand that an alternate ground floor plan has been prepared to 

provide a waste collection area/loading bay. This loading area satisfies 

the Clause 52.07 requirements and will accommodate waste collection 

and other loading requirements associated with the residential and 

commercial uses of this development. This loading bay is accessed 

via Rodda Street and is located adjacent to the proposed vehicle 

access to the residential parking area. If this loading area is adopted, 

this will result in the loss of a 2-bedroom dwelling (i.e. total number of 

dwellings reduced to 519). 

From a traffic perspective, I am satisfied that either of the proposed 

waste collection arrangements are acceptable. 

To ensure that appropriate provision is made of smaller deliveries, 

courier vehicles, etc to the commercial uses in this development, it is 

recommended that the two northernmost on-street spaces located in 

Rodda Street along the site’s frontage be signed as a Loading Zone 

during normal business hours. 




8. CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the above assessment, I am of the opinion that: 

1) the proposed development has a statutory car parking requirement of 1,287 car spaces under Clause 52.06 

of the Planning Scheme, which results in a statutory short-fall of 724 spaces, 

2) an empirical assessment of parking demands indicates that the proposed development will generate a peak 

parking requirement of 549-578 car spaces (including 401 resident spaces, 50 staff spaces, and 98-127 

visitor/customer spaces), 

3) the development will provide 563 car spaces on-site. I recommend that the following carparking allocation 

be adopted: 

• 461 car spaces for residents, 

• 50 car spaces for staff (office, retail and restaurant), 

• 50 shared car spaces for visitors/customers, and 

• 2 car spaces for a ‘car share’ scheme. 

4) the required level of parking dispensation is appropriate and justified on the following grounds: 

• the site is located adjacent on the periphery of the Coburg Principal Activity Centre, which provides a 

large variety of shops, services providing for everyday needs, including supermarkets, community 

facilities and locally accessible employment, 

• the site is located in close proximity to extensive public transport services, including 8 bus routes, 2 tram 

routes, and Coburg Railway Station, 

• 77 of the proposed dwellings are small studio style dwellings, 320 are one-bedroom dwellings and 123 

are two-bedroom dwellings. The proposed dwellings are generally small in size and marketed towards 

providing a more affordable housing for small households, which are likely to attract smaller household 

sizes and lower car ownership rates, 

• the development will provide 2 car spaces on-site allocated for use for a car sharing scheme, which will 

significantly benefit residents/staff of the proposed development, 

• the development provides a high level bicycle parking, well in excess of the requirements of Clause 

52.34, which will assist in encouraging alternate, more sustainable modes of travel, and 

• the development will provide safe and convenient pedestrian connections to other significant land uses 

with the Coburg Activity Centre, and 

• the proposed sustainable transport initiatives and key attributes of the site’s location, combine to provide 

residents with ample opportunities to use alternative transport modes on a daily basis such that I am 

satisfied that private car usage can be substantially reduced and should be actively discouraged for this 

development, and 

• sufficient on-street and off-street parking is available in the nearby area to accommodate parking 

demands associated with overflow visitors/customers of the proposed development. 

5) overflow parking generated by the proposed development (short-term parking demands associated with 

customers/visitors at peak times ) can be accommodated within the on-street and public off-street carparking 

areas in the nearby area, as demonstrated by the parking surveys undertaken by Traffix Group, 

6) I recommend that appropriate short-term parking restrictions (and possibly evening Permit Zones) with an 

associated Resident Parking Permit Scheme be introduced for residents of Rodda Street/Budds Street to 

discourage overflow parking demands from this development from impacting on this area, 

7) ample bicycle parking is proposed on-site for all users in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.34 

of the Planning Scheme. Visitor/customer bicycle rails should be provided at appropriate locations on the 

ground level. To ensure that appropriate provision is made for bicycle parking for visitors/customers of this 




development and appropriate end of trip facilities for staff, I recommend that the following be included as 

conditions of permit: 

• a minimum of 20 bicycle rails (accommodating 40 bicycles) be provided on the ground level to cater 

for customers and residential visitors of the development and the area generally, and 

• Showers and change rooms be provided for staff of the commercial tenancies in accordance with the 

requirements of Clause 52.34. 

8) the parking layout and access arrangements are and accord with the relevant standards (AS2890.1-2004 

and the Planning Scheme) and current practice (subject to minor design changes recommended in Section 

6.4. These include: 

• car spaces be shown on the plans as a minimum 2.6m wide, 

• the rollerdoor provided at the Bell Street access must be setback a minimum of 6.0m from the 

property boundary, 

• the internal gates within the basement carpark will need to be relocated to ensure a sufficient 

number of car spaces are provided for visitors/customers of the development (50 car spaces) in 

addition to the allocated staff spaces for the commercial uses and ‘car share’ spaces (102 spaces in 

total), 

• all disabled parking spaces required for this development must be a minimum 3.2m wide, 

• an intercom system will be required at the Bell Street access to enable visitor access to the shared 

car spaces, 

• landscaping adjacent to the Bell Street access must not exceed 1.0m in height to ensure adequate 

pedestrian sight lines are achieved, and 

• on-street parking on Bell Street to the east of Rodda Street should be monitored by VicRoads and 

Council. 

9) the proposed loading provisions will adequately accommodate loading and waste collection associated with 

the subject site. To ensure that appropriate provision is made of smaller deliveries, courier vehicles, etc to 

the commercial uses in this development, it is recommended that the two northernmost on-street spaces 

located in Rodda Street along the site’s frontage be signed as a Loading Zone during normal business 

hours, 

10) the proposed development will conservatively generate between 260-275 vehicle trip ends during the AM 

and PM commuter peak hours (depending on the carparking allocation adopted). This level of traffic is not 

expected to cause any adverse impacts on the operation and safety of surrounding roads and intersections 

(based on SIDRA analysis undertaken by GTA Consultants), and 

11) there are no traffic engineering reasons why a planning permit for the proposed mixed use development at 

81A Bell Street and 2-24 Rodda Street, Coburg, should be refused, subject to appropriate conditions. 

I have made all inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and there are no matters of significance which I 

regard as relevant which, to the best of my knowledge, have been withheld from the panel. 

CHARMAINE CHALMERS DUNSTAN 

B.E. (Civil) Hons., Masters of Traffic, M.IEAust., M.V.P.E.L.A. 



Planning Scheme Amendment C152 

11336R#1.doc 

APPENDIX A 

CV

CURRICULUM VITAE 

CHARMAINE DUNSTAN 

Position: Director 

Qualifications: Bachelor of Civil Engineering (Honours, 

1 st Class) Monash University, 1995 

Masters of Traffic, Monash University, 2002 

Masters of Transport (50% complete) 

Professional Affiliations: Member, Institution of Engineers, Australia 

Member, VPELA 

Member, ITS (Monash) Advisory Committee 

Awards: Young Professional Award, 2003 Victorian 

Planning and Environmental Law Association 

Professional History: 

Young Professional Engineer of the Year, 

Australian Engineering Excellence Awards 

2002, The Institution of Engineers, Australia 

VicRoads Young Professional Engineer Award, 

2002, The Institution of Engineers, Australia 

(Victoria Division) 

Richardson Transport Engineering Prize, 1995, 

Monash University 

First Prize, National Student Paper Prize, 1995, 

The Institution of Engineers, Australia 

(Transport Branch) 

Nov 1994 - Continuing: Traffix Group P/L / Turnbull Fenner 

P/L 

Traffic Engineers & Transport Planners 

Position: Company Director 

Role: 

� Appointed as a company Director in December 2000, having been 

an Associate and company shareholder since July 1997. 

� Project manager and principal consultant for wide range of major 

traffic and transport projects. Responsibilities include quotation, 

design, co-ordination, resourcing, quality control and completion 

of projects. 

� Manager of company’s core business areas of: 

- Traffic/Transport Engineering Projects (shared responsibility). 

- ‘Staff Placement Services’ to local and state government 

- Strategic Road Safety Planning/Road Safety Research 

Services. 

� Expert Witness before the Victorian Civil and Administrative 

Tribunal (formerly the AAT) for land-use developments.


CHARMAINE DUNSTAN (CONT.) 

Areas of Expertise: 

Development Impact Assessment 

� Preparation of Development Impact Assessments as Traffic 

Reports and Evidence Statements for a range of land-use 

developments including: 

- Medium and high density housing developments and residential 

subdivisions 

- Retail, shopping centre, office, restaurant/café, medical centre, 

aged care, child care, various industry and entertainment venue 

developments 

- Access issues, roadside advertising signs 

- Redevelopment of municipal town halls, community facilities 

- Police Stations, Court Houses, Hospitals 

� Presentation of Expert Witness Evidence before the Victorian Civil 

and Administrative Tribunal as engaged by private sector and local 

government clients. 

� Working within multi-disciplinary teams, providing traffic 

engineering design advice and negotiating on client’s behalf with 

Council, VicRoads and service providers. 

� Participation in community meetings at pre-application and 

objectors’ mediation stages of the development process. 

Parking & Access Strategies/Parking Precinct Plans 

Urban Design Framework Plans 

� Completed over 20 major parking studies for local government 

clients, ranging from major activity centres to Neighbourhood strip 

shopping centres. 

� Projects generally involve extensive data collection and the 

preparation of strategies for the provision and management of 

parking, and pedestrian and vehicular access improvements. 

� Large-scale projects often involve working in multi-disciplinary 

teams including town planners, urban designers, civil engineers, 

social planners, etc. 

� Projects involve extensive consultation with local traders and 

broader community consultation with nearby residents. 

Transport Studies 

� Functional Road Hierarchy Studies – Cities of Darebin, Greater 

Dandenong 

� Inland Container Port Development, Altona North – Traffic Impact 

Study. 

� HACC Target Group, Public Transport Study for Aged and Mobility 

Impaired – Bass Coast Shire



Areas of Expertise: 

Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Studies 

� Completed over 60 LATM studies for local government clients, 

encompassing a wide range of land-use and road network 

environments, study methodologies and approaches to community 

consultation. 

� Perform the role of project manager and act as the primary contact 

for the client and the community. 

� Study areas include residential as well as mixed use areas 

(industrial and commercial areas) within both new and established 

road networks. The local areas typically including 300 to 6,000 

properties. 

� Projects involve the identification of key issues and community 

concerns from a broad range of information and inputs and the 

development of appropriate engineering, enforcement and other 

strategy options. 

� Studies involve extensive community consultation in the form of 

public meetings, community and stakeholder workshops, reference 

committees and face to face community consultation with affected 

parties. 

� Studies often involve difficult negotiations with bus companies, 

trader associations, major businesses, emergency services and 

other stakeholders. 

Road Safety Studies 

� Prepared Municipal Road Safety Strategies for Local 

Government. These strategies involved: 

- Detailed review of road crash patterns 

- Identification of high-risk groups and behaviour based on 

available research and other factors (eg. demographics) 

- Facilitating Key Stakeholder Workshops involving Council 

officers, VicRoads, Victoria Police, Public Transport and 

Emergency Services, schools/early childhood services, aged 

care services, traders and road user groups 

� Road safety planning and evaluation studies for VicRoads, 

including: 

- Pedestrian Safety Projects Strip Shopping Centres: Crash 

Investigation and Issue Identification Studies of several centres 

as part of WalkSafe Program 

- Evaluation Study of “Speed Advisory Trailer” 

� Road safety engineering projects for Local Government and 

VicRoads, including: 

- Road Safety Audits and Reviews 

- Scoping of Blackspot & Potential Blackspot/length Projects



Areas of Expertise (cont.): 

Traffic Surveys 

Design, co-ordination, analysis and documentation of major traffic and 

parking surveys including: 

� Austroads Travel Time Surveys & Kerblane Management Surveys 

� Origin-Destination Surveys for Shopping Centres, Arterial Road 

Networks, Truck studies and LATM studies 

� Parking Occupancy and Duration of Stay Surveys 

� Wide range of Questionnaire and Interview Surveys 

Local Government Placements – Senior Traffic Engineer 

Completed short term appointments as a Senior Traffic 

Engineer/Transport Co-ordinator at the Cities of Moreland (6 months), 

Whittlesea (3 months) and Darebin (1 month). 

Appointments involved replacing the Council staff while on annual or 

long-service leave. The work generally involved: 

� Investigation and response to customer enquires 

� Development of traffic management and parking management 

proposals 

� Community consultation for traffic engineering proposals and 

studies 

� Traffic assessments of town planning applications 

� Liaising with various departments including planning, design, works 

depot parks and gardens, etc 

� Organisation and conduct of LATM studies 

� Preparation of reports to Council 

Technical Papers: 

� Rose, G. & Dunstan, C., Railway Level Crossing Operations, 17th 

CAITR Conference, 1995 

� Dunstan, C., Urban Railway Level Crossings, 4th Year Project, 

Monash University, 1995. 

� Dunstan, C., Urban Railway Level Crossings, Transport 

Engineering in Australia, IEAUST, 3(1), 1997. 

� Dunstan, C., An Evaluation of Speed Advisory Trailers, Saferoads 

Conference, 2002.



Conferences/courses: 

� Victorian State Planning Conference, 2008 

(Presenter Expert Witness workshop) 

� Victorian State Planning Conference, 2005-2007 

� ITE International Conference, Melbourne, 2005 

(Presider for Neighbourhood Traffic Management Session) 

� Victorian State Planning Conference, 2003 

� SafeRoads Conference, 2002 

� Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association Conference, 

2002 


� Accident Blackspot Treatments Workshop, LGPro, 2001 

� Mediating Public Disputes - Dispute Resolution & Mediation 

Workshop : School of Social Science, RMIT, 2001 

� Expert Evidence Workshop, 2000 



2000 

� ResCode Workshop, VPELA, 2000 

� What Works in Road Safety Workshop?, VicRoads, 2000 

� Road Safety Audit Workshop : Austroads/LGPro, 1998 


1998 

� Traffic Survey Methods Workshop, ITS: Monash University, 1998 

� Accident Investigation & Prevention Workshop, ITS: Monash 

University, 1997 

� Traffic Engineering & Management Workshop, ITS: Monash 

University, 1996 


1996 

� ITE Transport & Livable Cities, Regional Conference, 1996 

� Sidra 4.1, ARRB Transport Research, 1995 

� Various seminars on transport related topics



11336R#1.doc 

APPENDIX B 

DEVELOPMENT PLANS



11336R#1.doc 

APPENDIX C 

PARKING SURVEY RESULTS

Coburg Local Area 

Parking Occupancy Surveys 

Surveyed By: Allan Chin Yew Chung Survey Dates: See below 

Supervised By: Chris Arnott Survey Times: See below 

Location Restriction 

Capacity 

ON-STREET CARPARKING 

RODDA STREET 

Number of Cars Parked 

Thursday 

10th September, 2009 


West Side 

Bell Street to 10m south of Bell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10m south of Bell Street to SB of School Site (green fence) Unrestricted 20 14 14 13 14 7 6 

SB of School Site to end of street 

East Side 

Unrestricted 14 8 5 4 4 6 9 

End of Street to 10m north No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10m north of end of street to SB#17 Unrestricted 15 8 7 7 5 7 8 

SB#17 to ROW Unrestricted 16 6 6 7 7 5 4 

ROW to 10m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 

10m south of Bell Street to Bell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rodda Street - Number of Cars Parked 

67 38 34 32 32 26 28 

Rodda Street - Number of Spaces Available 

- 29 33 35 35 41 39 

Rodda Street - Percentage Occupancy 

BUDDS STREET 

East Side 

- 57% 51% 48% 48% 39% 42% 

Bell Street to bend in road No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Along east-west section of road Unrestricted 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

From bend in road to 10m north of Harding Street Unrestricted 13 0 1 1 0 9 8 

10m north of Harding Street to Harding Street 

West Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bell Street to 30m south of Bell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

30m south of Bell Street to SB#29 Unrestricted 12 3 3 3 4 4 5 

SB#29 to MB#27 P Disabled Only 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 

MB#27 to bend in road Unrestricted 8 2 2 2 2 1 1 

Along east-west section of road Unrestricted 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 

From bend in road to 10m north of Harding Street Unrestricted 16 5 6 6 7 13 12 

10m north of Harding Street to Harding Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Budds Street - Number of Cars Parked 

56 12 13 13 15 28 26 

Budds Street - Number of Spaces Available 

- 44 43 43 41 28 30 

Budds Street - Percentage Occupancy 

- 21% 23% 23% 27% 50% 46% 

Nb/Sb - Northern/Southern Property Boundary 

Eb/Wb - Eastern/Western Property Boundary 

Mb - Mid Block 

ROW - Right of Way Prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd Page 1 of 18






Capacity 

RICHARDS STREET 


Thursday 



West Side 

Harding Street to 20m north of Harding Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20m north of Harding Street to NB#26 Unrestricted 23 4 5 7 5 4 6 

NB#26 to 20m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 22 8 8 7 7 9 10 

20m south of Bell Street to Bell Street 

East Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Harding Street to 20m north of Harding Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20m north of Harding Street to NB#23 Unrestricted 23 6 5 6 7 7 5 

NB#23 to 20m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 18 7 6 7 5 8 6 

20m south of Bell Street to Bell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Richards Street - Number of Cars Parked 

86 25 24 27 24 28 27 

Richards Street - Number of Spaces Available 

- 61 62 59 62 58 59 

Richards Street - Percentage Occupancy 

ELM GROVE 

East Side 

- 29% 28% 31% 28% 33% 31% 

Bell Street to 20m north of Bell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 

1/4P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

20m north of Bell Street to Urquhart Street 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Permit Zone - Maternal & Child Health 

8am-5pm Mon-Fri 

3 0 2 1 2 0 0 

West Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bell Street to Urquhart Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Elm Grove - Number of Cars Parked 

Elm Grove - Number of Spaces Available 

Elm Grove - Percentage Occupancy 

*Note: The Permit Zone restrictions in Elm Grove were removed from the summaries during relevant enforcement times. These times are highlighted above. 

7 4 2 3 3 2 2 

- 0 2 1 1 5 5 

- 36% 18% 27% 27% 29% 29% 










Capacity 


Thursday 



URQUHART STREET 

South Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 14 7 8 12 8 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Drummond Street to Elm Grove 

P10min 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 4 2 2 2 3 1 2 

2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Elm Grove to 10m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10m west of Elm Grove to 50m east of Sydney Road 

2P 9am-3pm Mon-Fri 

1/4P 3pm-4pm Mon-Fri 

No Stopping 4pm-6pm Mon-Fri 

15 0 0 0 0 0 0 

50m east of Sydney Road to Sydney Road 

North Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sydney Road to 20m east of Sydney Road No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Unrestricted (90 o parking) 24 21 21 20 17 2 10 





Unrestricted (90 o parking) - spaces not marked 13 12 12 11 12 1 0 

Unrestricted (90 o 20m east of Sydney Road to Drummond Street 

parking) - spaces not marked 18 17 14 16 13 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Urquhart Street - Number of Cars Parked 

162 132 128 136 126 35 39 

Urquhart Street - Number of Spaces Available 

- 30 34 26 36 127 123 

Urquhart Street - Percentage Occupancy 

- 81% 79% 84% 78% 22% 24% 










Capacity 



Thursday 



North Side 

Drummond Street to 10m west of Drummond Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10m west of Drummond Street to 40m west of Drummond Street Bus Zone - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

40m west of Drummond Street to WB#82 2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 9 1 3 2 2 3 3 

WB#82 to WB of Coburg Children's Centre 1/2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Along City Council Frontage 

1/2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 5 1 3 4 5 0 0 

2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 7 7 5 4 7 0 0 

At Elm Grove to 30m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 10 2 7 7 2 0 0 

30m west of Elm Grove to Sydney Road 

Bus Zone - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Side 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Richards Street to Budds Street 

Bus Zone - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Budds Street to Rodda Street 

Unrestricted 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rodda Street to Russell Street No Stopping - 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bell Street - Number of Cars Parked 

40 11 18 19 16 3 3 

Bell Street - Number of Spaces Available 

- 29 22 21 24 37 37 

Bell Street - Percentage Occupancy 

- 28% 45% 48% 40% 8% 8% 

On-Street Total - Total Number of Cars Parked 

418 222 219 230 216 122 125 

On-Street Total - Total Number of Spaces Available 

193 196 185 199 296 293 

On-Street Total - Total Percentage Occupancy 

53% 53% 55% 52% 29% 30% 










Capacity 

OFF-STREET CARPARKING 


Thursday 



COUNCIL OFFICES CARPARK (URQUHART STREET) 

Cars Parked On Grass to the east of Council Carpark - - 7 8 8 7 1 0 

Separate Section to the east 

Permit Zone 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 

Council Staff 

11 10 8 9 11 1 0 

North Side 


Council Staff 

13 13 12 12 12 2 1 

Eastern Section 


Council Staff 

6 6 5 5 5 0 0 

Next section to the west 


Council Staff 

20 20 19 20 20 5 3 



Council Owned Vehicles 

9 7 9 7 8 2 2 

Next section to the west Unrestricted (not signed) 22 21 21 21 22 14 15 

Next section to the west Permit Zone - Carpool Permit Vehicles 5 3 4 4 2 5 4 

Next section to the west 2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 

Council Carpark - Number of Cars Parked 

94 95 94 94 95 38 32 

Council Carpark - Number of Spaces Available 

- 6 8 8 6 57 62 

Council Carpark - Percentage Occupancy 

COUNCIL CARPARK TO THE WEST 

- 94% 91% 91% 94% 39% 34% 

1P 9am-5pm Mon-Fri 19 17 15 18 14 19 19 

P Disabled Only 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 


23 21 19 22 18 20 20 


- 2 4 1 5 3 3 


- 91% 83% 96% 78% 87% 87% 










Capacity 


Thursday 



RUSSELL STREET OFF-STREET CARPARK 

On the east side of Russell Street 

3P Disabled 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Section 1 (south west corner) 

3P 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 65 26 19 23 25 11 1 

P (yellow bays only) 64 58 61 61 58 15 2 

Section 2 (south east corner) 

P Disabled (yellow bays) 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 


Section 3 (mid west side) 

3P 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 130 46 48 57 43 12 8 

Section 4 (mid east side) P (yellow bays only) 106 99 100 91 88 15 5 

Section 5 (northern section) 


3P 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 143 121 111 94 101 101 72 

Off-Street Carpark, East Side of Russell Street - Total Number of Spaces Occupied 

519 356 343 331 324 155 93 

Off-Street Carpark, East Side of Russell Street - Total Number of Spaces Available 

- 163 176 188 195 364 426 

Off-Street Carpark, East Side of Russell Street - Percentage Occupancy 

- 69% 66% 64% 62% 30% 18% 










Capacity 



West Side 

Bell Street to 10m south of Bell Street No Stopping - 

10m south of Bell Street to SB of School Site (green fence) Unrestricted 20 


East Side 

Unrestricted 14 

End of Street to 10m north No Stopping - 

10m north of end of street to SB#17 Unrestricted 15 

SB#17 to ROW Unrestricted 16 

ROW to 10m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 2 

10m south of Bell Street to Bell Street No Stopping - 


67 


- 



East Side 

- 

Bell Street to bend in road No Stopping - 

Along east-west section of road Unrestricted 3 

From bend in road to 10m north of Harding Street Unrestricted 13 


West Side 

No Stopping - 


30m south of Bell Street to SB#29 Unrestricted 12 

SB#29 to MB#27 P Disabled Only 1 

MB#27 to bend in road Unrestricted 8 



10m north of Harding Street to Harding Street No Stopping - 


56 


- 


- 


Saturday 



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

13 12 11 18 4 4 6 6 

7 10 13 15 10 8 8 7 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7 7 9 13 7 10 6 5 

6 5 5 16 5 5 6 6 

2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

35 36 39 64 28 29 28 26 

32 31 28 3 39 38 39 41 

52% 54% 58% 96% 42% 43% 42% 39% 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 3 9 14 5 6 5 5 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 3 2 2 3 2 

6 5 4 11 7 7 6 7 

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 

2 2 2 9 2 2 2 1 

2 2 3 5 0 1 1 1 

8 13 15 17 10 9 10 9 

0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 

20 26 34 60 26 27 37 25 

36 30 22 -4 30 29 19 31 

36% 46% 61% 107% 46% 48% 66% 45% 










Capacity 


West Side 

Harding Street to 20m north of Harding Street No Stopping - 

20m north of Harding Street to NB#26 Unrestricted 23 

NB#26 to 20m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 22 


East Side 

No Stopping - 






86 


- 


ELM GROVE 

East Side 

- 

Bell Street to 20m north of Bell Street No Stopping - 

2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 3 

1/4P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 1 


No Stopping - 



3 

West Side 

No Stopping - 

Bell Street to Urquhart Street No Stopping - 





7 

- 

- 


Saturday 



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

6 5 5 9 4 9 9 7 

9 10 8 10 12 14 9 10 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

8 8 8 8 6 3 9 8 

6 5 5 4 13 12 7 9 

0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 

29 28 26 32 37 40 34 34 

57 58 60 54 49 46 52 52 

34% 33% 30% 37% 43% 47% 40% 40% 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 

0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 1 1 5 0 0 4 4 

7 6 6 2 7 7 3 3 

0% 14% 14% 71% 0% 0% 57% 57% 










Capacity 


South Side 

No Stopping - 


No Stopping - 


P10min 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 4 


No Stopping - 

Elm Grove to 10m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 






North Side 

No Stopping - 

Sydney Road to 20m east of Sydney Road No Stopping - 

Unrestricted (90 o parking) 24 





Unrestricted (90 o parking) - spaces not marked 13 


parking) - spaces not marked 18 

No Stopping - 


162 


- 


- 

15 


Saturday 



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 

1 0 0 4 1 1 5 6 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 4 4 4 3 3 6 5 

5 3 4 9 0 0 1 8 

3 3 3 4 0 0 1 3 

2 1 1 1 0 0 7 16 

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15 12 13 23 4 4 22 44 

147 150 149 139 158 158 140 118 

9% 7% 8% 14% 2% 2% 14% 27% 










Capacity 


North Side 

Drummond Street to 10m west of Drummond Street No Stopping - 

10m west of Drummond Street to 40m west of Drummond Street Bus Zone - 

40m west of Drummond Street to WB#82 2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 9 

WB#82 to WB of Coburg Children's Centre 1/2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 2 

No Stopping - 




At Elm Grove to 30m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 



Bus Zone - 

South Side 

No Stopping - 

No Stopping - 


Bus Zone - 

No Stopping - 

No Stopping - 



No Stopping - 

Rodda Street to Russell Street No Stopping - 


40 


- 


- 




418 


Saturday 



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 4 4 2 0 0 6 7 

2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 2 0 0 5 6 

0 0 0 2 0 0 7 7 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 2 7 7 1 0 0 2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

7 6 11 15 1 0 20 24 

33 34 29 25 39 40 20 16 

18% 15% 28% 38% 3% 0% 50% 60% 

106 109 124 199 96 100 145 157 

312 309 294 219 322 318 273 261 

25% 26% 30% 48% 23% 24% 35% 38% 










Capacity 



Cars Parked On Grass to the east of Council Carpark - - 



Council Staff 

11 

North Side 


Council Staff 

13 



Council Staff 

6 



Council Staff 

20 




9 

Next section to the west Unrestricted (not signed) 22 

Next section to the west Permit Zone - Carpool Permit Vehicles 5 

Next section to the west 2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 8 


94 


- 



- 


P Disabled Only 4 


23 


- 


- 


Saturday 



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 

3 3 3 4 2 3 5 8 

5 5 5 5 4 5 11 20 

89 89 89 89 90 89 83 74 

5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5% 12% 21% 

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19 

23 23 23 23 23 23 15 4 

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 83% 










Capacity 



3P Disabled 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 2 


3P 7am-7pm Mon-Sat 65 

P (yellow bays only) 64 


P Disabled (yellow bays) 2 




Section 4 (mid east side) P (yellow bays only) 106 





519 


- 


- 


Saturday 



2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 

65 65 65 64 5 3 2 2 

64 63 64 64 3 3 2 2 

2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 

2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 

102 128 130 130 15 15 13 8 

101 101 101 105 10 6 2 3 

5 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 

143 141 143 143 12 12 16 12 

486 507 513 515 45 39 35 27 

33 12 6 4 474 480 484 492 

94% 98% 99% 99% 9% 8% 7% 5% 










Capacity 



West Side 


10m south of Bell Street to SB of School Site (green fence) Unrestricted 20 


East Side 


End of Street to 10m north No Stopping - 

10m north of end of street to SB#17 Unrestricted 15 

SB#17 to ROW Unrestricted 16 

ROW to 10m south of Bell Street Unrestricted 2 



67 


- 



East Side 

- 

Bell Street to bend in road No Stopping - 




West Side 

No Stopping - 


30m south of Bell Street to SB#29 Unrestricted 12 

SB#29 to MB#27 P Disabled Only 1 

MB#27 to bend in road Unrestricted 8 



10m north of Harding Street to Harding Street No Stopping - 


56 


- 


- 

11am 


Saturday 


1pm 2pm 

0 0 0 

5 6 6 

6 1 10 

0 0 0 

7 6 8 

5 3 6 

1 1 1 

0 0 0 

24 17 31 

43 50 36 

36% 25% 46% 

0 0 0 

0 0 1 

1 1 3 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

6 8 10 

0 0 1 

2 3 2 

0 1 1 

8 10 9 

0 0 0 

17 23 27 

39 33 29 

30% 41% 48% 










Capacity 


West Side 





East Side 

No Stopping - 






86 


- 


ELM GROVE 

East Side 

- 

Bell Street to 20m north of Bell Street No Stopping - 




No Stopping - 



3 

West Side 

No Stopping - 

Bell Street to Urquhart Street No Stopping - 





7 

- 

- 


Saturday 


11am 1pm 2pm 

0 0 0 

5 5 6 

7 6 6 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

6 2 5 

6 2 3 

0 0 0 

24 15 20 

62 71 66 

28% 17% 23% 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

7 7 7 

0% 0% 0% 










Capacity 


South Side 

No Stopping - 


No Stopping - 


P10min 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 4 


No Stopping - 

Elm Grove to 10m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 






North Side 

No Stopping - 

Sydney Road to 20m east of Sydney Road No Stopping - 






Unrestricted (90 o parking) - spaces not marked 13 


parking) - spaces not marked 18 

No Stopping - 


162 


- 


- 

15 

11am 


Saturday 


1pm 2pm 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

1 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

7 6 6 

4 3 1 

1 1 0 

0 1 3 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

13 11 10 

149 151 152 

8% 7% 6% 










Capacity 


North Side 

Drummond Street to 10m west of Drummond Street No Stopping - 

10m west of Drummond Street to 40m west of Drummond Street Bus Zone - 

40m west of Drummond Street to WB#82 2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 9 

WB#82 to WB of Coburg Children's Centre 1/2P 8am-6pm Mon-Fri 2 

No Stopping - 




At Elm Grove to 30m west of Elm Grove No Stopping - 



Bus Zone - 

South Side 

No Stopping - 

No Stopping - 


Bus Zone - 

No Stopping - 

No Stopping - 



No Stopping - 

Rodda Street to Russell Street No Stopping - 


40 


- 


- 




418 

11am 


Saturday 


1pm 2pm 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

40 40 40 

0% 0% 0% 

78 66 88 

340 352 330 

19% 16% 21% 










Capacity 



Cars Parked On Grass to the east of Council Carpark - - 



Council Staff 

11 

North Side 


Council Staff 

13 



Council Staff 

6 



Council Staff 

20 




9 

Next section to the west Unrestricted (not signed) 22 

Next section to the west Permit Zone - Carpool Permit Vehicles 5 

Next section to the west 2P 8am-5pm Mon-Fri 8 


94 


- 



- 


P Disabled Only 4 


23 


- 


- 


Saturday 


11am 1pm 2pm 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 1 1 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

1 0 0 

1 2 2 

2 3 3 

92 91 91 

2% 3% 3% 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 0 

23 23 23 

0% 0% 0% 










Capacity 






P (yellow bays only) 64 


P Disabled (yellow bays) 2 




Section 4 (mid east side) P (yellow bays only) 106 





519 


- 


- 


Saturday 


11am 1pm 2pm 

1 0 0 

32 21 22 

36 40 24 

2 2 0 

2 1 1 

60 30 27 

56 53 45 

3 1 0 

113 56 47 

305 204 166 

214 315 353 

59% 39% 32%

81ABELL STREET AND 2-24RODDA STREET,COBURG ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?