Docstoc

Movement Summary - Great Lakes Council

Document Sample
Movement Summary - Great Lakes Council Powered By Docstoc
					                    1st TRG Meeting: Background Review

                                        - Summary-

Project:     Twin Towns Urban Design and Density Review

Location:    Great Lakes Council, Forster

Date:        26 October 2006

Required:   Paul Walter, CPS                  Alan Bawden, GLC, Dev. Assessment
            Scot Brown, CPS                   Bob Birse, Dept Lands
            Elek Pafka, CPS                   Chris Atchinson, Dept Lands
                                              David Bortfield, GLC, Parks &Recreation
            Glenn Handford, GLC               David McKellar, MidCoast Water
            Roger Busby, GLC                  Deb Tuckerman, GLC, Economic Development
            Alexandra Macvean, GLC            Geoff Dowling, GLC, Engeneering
            Alex Caras, GLC                   Gerard Tuckerman, GLC, Natural Systems
                                              Richard Old, GLC, Tourism
                                              Ron Hartley, GLC
                                              Wayne Burgess, GLC, Dev. Assessment
                                              Community Services


Topics for discussion: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

Introduction by RB
Introduction by PW

All participants:

1. General issues.

- Location of tourist vs. mixed vs. permanent resident occupation? Permanent possibly
Little St first area – not so much in HD area.
- Demand issue – tourist – only really full in peak/summer and Easter, otherwise 60-70%,
winter almost empty – developments in Tuncurry have stalled given real estate and
tourism fall – expect that this will turn around
- Visitors do not like Coffs, Port M or Port S – different feel, not as built up, better
environment
- Little St question – issue of demand has to be addressed early on – suggest permanent
residence still going to be minority in future – implications for amenity, infrastructure etc
- During peak season demand may treble on services and infrastructure
- Tall building zone currently predominantly holiday letting? – Yes given occupancy rate
info, option may be core mixed resident, outer areas do have restrictions on e.g. serviced
apartments
- TG – RFB approval – used as serviced apartments – complainant resulted in developer
having to apply to DP for approval as serviced apartment as in ‘sensitive coastal location’.
Approved with restrictions on number of visitors per unit – impossible to regulate
- Access to different housing to feel liveability of different styles and developments over
time
Economic Development
- Employment opportunities – 10-15% unemployment – S94 towards employment
generating activities? Incoming population employment
- Sydney projects – DA approvals dependent on generating ongoing employment not just
during construction e.g. employment agency – here, retirement aged care, community
services,
- Population growth predominant need for community – Employment Land Strategy –
services etc which are also dependent on geographic and other constraints
- Housing Strategy – recommendation for business support zones – integration of
residential and commercial land uses, current example is Dorsal – boutique hotel with
café and commercial type uses on ground level
- Wallis St development – 3 levels commercial/retail and 8 or 9 residential zones – these
are in 3a zones (mixed use) S94 predominantly for provision of commercial parking in
locality with resident parking provided on site
- Home office/business – internal design requirements – Eco Dev Strategy –
- Provision of telecommunications in new developments

Community Services:
Permanent residents only – no service able to be provided particularly in areas such as
TG or HD areas – how are services going to be provided when the residents arrive?
Different social group requirements – S94 provision of community facilities – almost at
critical point now and State Gov not providing input into system – LG need to step up

Natural Systems
- Offset option – increase population, increase expectation predominantly from tourists –
need to maintain resident focus of amenity of natural environment
- Balance between keeping real for residents vs. sole focus as a tourist destination
- Value of Forster Beach as local beach location – not reproduction of another beach
tourist destination – need to keep local focus
- Context – location and rational for MD & HD areas, core activities and land uses and
relationship to natural systems
- Water biodiversity – sustainability – elements to that – sustainable future for townships –
liveability, cycleways, and public amenity issues not just pure water quality and
biodiversity
- Water – catchment management plan for Wallis Lake, stormwater and estuary
management plans – sustainable management of these assets – calls for sustainable
management of catchments
- Dredging etc – increasing population increasing conflict with environmental management
- MD & HD – stormwater no net increase objective (2002) limit nutrient and pollutant
loading in the lakes – CCI - specific models to be produced
Feeds into on-site management – landscaping, water sensitive urban design – subdivision
or individual lot development scale
- MidCoast also potential limitations on future water availability reuse and collection of
rainwater, recycling systems, all areas integrated water cycle opportunities – DA
assessment role in introduction of these measures – not well advanced, really
engineering conditions really – flooding perspective and infiltration qualities
- No net increase – response from developers? Site dependent issues – building
coverage 60-70% impossible, can work to 80% capture last 20% difficult and expensive
- e.g. Forster Village modelling – 80% easily achieved, last 20% very expensive, apply
offset from old development to new additions/expansion
- Opens up options for off-set provisions to be used – look at where pollutants coming
from - hard surface automatic increasing 18% nutrient load – nitrogen
- Breckenridge no so much issue – high flush, other areas may have flush of 1-3 months
results in significant issues
- Space requirements – into any public space/domains considered? No, not even for new
subdivisions, only really being considered now for future developments
- Very wide streets – may be opportunities for this – Melbourne – Port Phillip Bay
demonstrates some initiatives
- If use off-set need to look beyond neutral impact, need to go further given possible
limitations of current technologies
- Key issue is having modelling in place so that know proposed systems/offsets work
-Offset – per unit of nitrogen – produced by development, captured elsewhere in the same
catchment to offset impact within the catchment – development on one site, contributions
to Council towards purchase of land elsewhere and for development of constructed
wetlands
- CCI – completed April 2008 – water sensitive element Dec 2007 – LEP and DCPs etc
- Biodiversity, species selection etc? scale of LGA for biodiversity – focusing on town
centres and quality of landscaping in public and private domains – species lists/palette
that achieve biodiversity – Greening Strategy – street tree planting programs – no strong
landscaping plan for development basis
- TGHN – palette of species for locality into private site development and used also in
public domain – broader LGA approach to biodiversity and cohesion within locality – feel,
amenity, appearance – full scale of species
- This could link into podium developments and achieving deep rooted landscaping
- Stormwater and landscaping – free area for landscaping needs to be linked into
detention requirements – coordination and awareness of appropriate planting in these
locations
- Brisbane – Private Certificate of landscaping requirements for Das – removes workload
from Council but achieves wider aims and objectives
- Current focus on aesthetics rather than biodiversity
- HN – koala – species selection and development friendly landscaping is major issue –
requiring input into DA assessment already – working with Koala Group in this locale –
endangered population – recovery plan
- Compensatory habitat? Small scale, movement corridor rather than individual foraging
trees. Offset with replacement and street tree planting – considering more fully on value of
overall environment, can you compensate for high value allotments
- Minister for DP refused application on large site in HN on basis of impact on koala
population – Council thought that if high value area could offset development value to
other portion of site, this did not occur – rezone high value to protection and maintained
front portion 2a


2. Design


3. Controls

- HN TG – medium density area is already defined; FT some potential for extension and
blurring of edges of MD and HD areas.
- TG discussions – articulation of amalgamation requirements – bonus if achieve
1500sqm current provision – may be argument for some sites that development not
possible without amalgamation on basis of inappropriate development and resulting
amenity and public domain issues
- Corner of Helen St and Little St site – 4 storeys in 3 storey area – variation considered
due to transition location – Councillors also approved a 4 storey development elsewhere
in this 3 storey area against recommendation
- Have recommended refusal for 3 storey in 10 storey area – underdevelopment –
Councillor approved – applicant argument that could not consolidate with other owner
- Isolated block issue – e.g. backpackers too small for 10 storeys despite two adjoining 10
storeys – developer now wanting to discuss 11 storeys on site with concessions – may
result in "Mooloolaba situation".
- List of issues identified from Res Code and TB Code – limitations and holes in current
codes and provisions (WB and AS list include here) – circulate list for consideration by
TRG for further input and consideration of specialist issues
- Provision of communal areas and open space areas also appear to be missing from TB
provisions
- Conditions of approval and enforcement of provision and survival of deep-rooted
landscaping? Require mature planting at the time of issue of the DA and combine with
appropriate length of time for bonding for performance of landscaping?
- Should we require deep-rooted landscaping in street setback/footpath instead – street
trees serving same function?
- Car parking landscaping also may be appropriate, communal open space landscaping,
amenity to street and other public areas
- Street planting conditions already being required – response is ok, some limitations if
overhead wires, LGA-wide street tree planning program; separate to median strip
landscaping
- Street tree planting limitations – and medians – limitations on area available, services,
infrastructure and land use requirements – Cabarita have implemented as S94 –
monetary input into landscaping of public domain areas
- Underground power current requirement
- Recommendations for strategies – images of controls more difficult, emphasis on
provision of clear controls
- Most applications for RFB – service apartments transfer later – but SEPP 65 usually
signed of by architect for project, similar to landscaping – option of Council or Minister as
determining authority – better access and higher yields is Council
- SEPP 65 panels elsewhere – current adjustment – Council perhaps needs to investigate
implementation of this panel
- Conversion of RFB to serviced apartments now require separate DA
- Energy use of permanent vs. temporary use - more intensive use over short periods of
time
- TGHN – more MD one issue is podium and finished floor of ground levels – 1.2m raise;
have to tank basements due to ground water levels; ground floor occupied by permanent
and rent out floors above
- Ground floor housing – full lifecycle housing discussed also with stakeholders – one
option is to require lift in 3 storeys to ensure permanent residence – adaptable accessible
housing – concessions elsewhere FSR, parking etc – aged care housing requirements –
hydraulic options are available for 3 storeys also
- Most in Forster even 3 storeys have lifts – those that don’t aren’t selling – cultural shift
for developers – saleability of developments – in TG streetscape and accommodation
liveability are major drivers for permanent vs. temporary residence
- Given existing subdivision pattern amalgamation may be a requirement but, existing
pattern maintains locality and ‘local’ environment feel – challenge would be strategy for
redevelopment for this area and need to ensure amalgamation does not necessarily mean
bigger and better
- Energy efficiency – have discussed in use of locality – down to lot scale? Already have
BASIX provisions, also have floor to ceiling height/internal design principles, indoor-
outdoor relationships, SEPP 65 does not address tourist based accommodation – issue
here is transfer or tourist accommodation to permanent accommodation
4. Public domain, services and infrastructure

Public Transport:
- Major issues particularly in TGHN – main services based in Newcastle and Raymond
Terrace
- FT – town centre not too bad but access to Taree (hospital) expensive
- are current parking requirements sufficient and relevant to use and occupancy of area
- Potential for improvement of pedestrian and cycleway links
- Little St Improvement program and improvement of cycleway connections. Particularly if
encouraging permanent residence in this location
- Increasing residential development on Little St – desire for boats in this location –
permanent moorings and appropriate access to water
- Two pedestrian ‘zones’ north and south-west of Head St – TB vs. commercial/Little St
- Even corner of Beach & Little St pedestrian un-friendly – need cultural shift towards
pedestrian friendly, also need commercial operators shift away from desire for more traffic
- As development and resident occupation increase patronage will increase – also as
more commercial franchises more patronage
- Concept for development of Head and Beach St incorporating some redevelopment over
parking area – may be legal issues to address building over ‘road’ and subdivision to
ensure appropriate ownership
- Future could see parking below ground with more amenable public space in this location
– issue would be staging of development here
- Other issue is that all properties adjoining Head St ripe for redevelopment – incentives
for appropriate development and parking/landscaping/amenity offsets for whole area – DP
also encouraging consolidation of commercial centres etc
Traffic
- Tuncurry – particular challenge – not pedestrian friendly – in particular roundabouts no
pedestrian friendly – creates significant viability issues
- Cities for Tomorrow publication – environmental vs. traffic capacity issues
- Political aspect of desire for the traffic to remain
- Recommendations need to include references and examples where recommendations
have worked
- RTA has until recently recommended roundabouts – no maintenance in comparison to
lights
- Traffic implications of increased heights increased populations – particular
locations/situations where this is a problem – bridge,
- Demand analysis also – capacity into future of MD & HD – understand that then traffic
implications become much clearer also – roads, parking and pedestrian requirements
- Also provides more clarity on transferable development rights within particular localities
to capture traffic implications to specific locations
- Ongoing review also required – cannot cap development – using infrastructure as
mechanism to limit growth
- Stormwater in TG – basement car parks – design with weir effect – FT also,
groundwater also – dewatering on site major issue
- Pump outs for basements? For area of driveway itself – mainstream flooding capacity
only, extreme flooding unable to cope – also need to have escape routes from basement
car parks also – BCA issues water effect on being able to open doors, grills remove this
problem but then fire issues
- Boat turning circles and parking provisions – designated location? S94?
- Parking for disabled persons – widen to at least 3.5m – ageing population and
wheelchairs off roof – height clearance and width
- Podiums and fill impact of flood movements – study indicates RL2.1m does not include
velocities or wave run – same issues at Point Rd Tuncurry – Point Rd more escape routes
than flood levels and runs – all goes under – so any MD/HD would need floodways
between developments
                    Forster/Tuncurry Stakeholders Meeting
                              Background Review

                                      - Summary -

Project:     Urban Design and Density Review

Location:    Mid Coast Water Boardroom, Forster

Date:        26 October 2006

Required:   Glen Handford, GLC         Gary Gersbach, LJ Hooker
            Roger Busby, GLC           Graeme Burns
            Alexandra Macvean, GLC     Jacqui Keats, Great Lakes Environment Association
            Alex Caras, GLC            John Fletcher, East Forster Progress & Preservation Association
                                       John Stephens, GLC Councillor
            Paul Walter, CPS           Kevin Culvert, Chamber of Commerce
            Scot Brown, CPS            Lorraine McBride, Great Lakes Environment Association
            Elek Pafka, CPS            Prue Tucker, GLC CCI Coordinator
                                       Greg Walken, GLC CCI Consultant
                                       Robert Caplice, LJ Hooker
                                       Simon Carroll, Coastplan Consulting
                                       Snr Constable John Mundy, Taree Police Station


Introduction RB
Introduction PW

All participants:

1. Vision: community and social issues.

- current zoning sets the extent of medium and high density areas
- Tall Buildings centre appears to be largely seasonal occupation, town centre/main street
occupied differently in off-season. Locals avoid during peaks.
-Residents avoid shopping centre and Wharf St due to tourist numbers
- Families with visitors act as tour guides and use areas but do shop early – parking and
access is the issue during peak period
- only minor numbers leave town but is clear avoidance of shopping areas and Wharf St
locations; locals used to parking next to shop, wont walk to shop – a large number of
elderly who cannot
- Seasonal fluctuations becoming less apparent: staggering of national school holidays,
more mobile retiree population, better access from highway.
- Current avoidance of Forster Village due to building works – temporary flux
- Nature of Wharf St has changed from CBD to tourist commercial traffic in that location;
through traffic and perceived lack of parking; attractions – boutique outlets, real estate,
banks, alfresco dining – Village more bread and butter shopping -
- FT still ‘unspoilt’ but more people coming here. Central Coast also over developed,
Newcastle different, Port Mac different tourism destination.
- Developing almost as isolated pocket – road access hasn’t changed from highway
- Underlying level of activity year round, in comparison to Taree where traditional centre
has become very secondary
- Taree lacks natural attributes of FT – major impact in Taree was relocation of Post
Office
- Port Mac comparison – people don’t like anymore – too busy; deteriorated with
overdevelopment – PM was FT 40yrs ago

- F unusual – environmentally beautiful but over last real estate boom – value much
higher than anywhere else; socio-demographic profile; land and unit price – dearer than
Port Mac and Port Stephens but lower socio-demographic profile than PM and PS – who
trying to attract, on cusp of which way FT go in future

- Must also keep clear that connection between F&T very important but objectives and
operation of two towns more connected than just by bridge – Council recognition that two
must be together not just Forster
- Perception of affordability etc T relative to F still relevant? Holiday leasing fill F then spill
over into T and want to stay in close proximity to bridge to access Wharf St; investments
also F then inner T; land seen as limited in F while T still has potential to grow and
expand; slight variation between F & T in socio-economic
- Forster has only surfing beach with SLSC – does this concentrate interest in F? No, T
has the rockpool but access to beach over Manning St difficult, not good location for
alfresco dining – traffic; access to beach also less direct – separation by Crown land and
caravan park
- Tendency has been – Forster over Tuncurry for investment and development. This has
clear implications for potential building form and density in the localities
- Forster CBD always busy in comparison Tuncurry quiet on Saturday and closed on a
Sunday
- Environment will only be retained if maintain biodiversity – relates to catchment
management as well
- Tall Buildings Study did limit expansion of these areas
- State govt – no density requirements in MD and HD, in low 12 dwellings/hectare which
we are achieving, do guide increasing densities around focal points; Lower Hunter and
North Coast are tending to dictate
- State government concentration moving away from central cities into more regional
areas
- Indication from state that Taree is still regional centre
- Anecdotal opinion also that people no longer need to do shopping or medical trips to
Taree – except for hospital
- Infrastructure – no public hospital – demand goes to Taree, only talk of expansion of
Cape Hawke Hospital being expanded to incorporate some public – this is major failing of
FT
- Port Mac – retiree destination due to new hospital facility – this may be primary issue
regarding permanent residence in FT
- Health Minster has given ok for hospital to purchase adjoining land for development of
public hospital
- Commercial to retail floor space figures – Deb Tuckerman – recognised shortage
- Taree vocally promoting as commercial hub of region, in comparison FT – CBD of F
moving to post office, Wallis St commercial component (3 storeys) is very desirable and in
demand at this time
- Concept of location of Wallis St – moving town centre further towards post office
- Bellevue Hotel site – approved development on this site could be catalyst for further
development and improvement of Tuncurry (check that this DA was included in info sent
to CPS; that and Blackies restaurant site) – viability unclear – problems of achieving
minimum pre-sales
2. Design

- Safety by design issues. Police: No official opinion on redesign of centres, more input
into DAs and crime prevention at this stage – common problem – little information on
urban design impact on crime prevention
- Current crime rates in FT increasing with population increase – particularly in HD/TB as
holiday makers more lax in personal security
- Passive surveillance, street access etc public domain – reducing areas whit visibility;
encourage more pedestrian traffic in T to reduce crime
- Off-season in tourist areas? Easter and Christmas crime spikes –main offenders in
locality are residents
- Criminal access into balconies and carparks – design providing pseudo ladders etc into
areas
- Assaults in basements: No issue but stolen vehicles and access into units
- F vs. T crime rates – Forster higher than Tuncurry – target older people, break in while
occupied, tourist leave balcony doors open and tend to have more cash
- Boredom issue; thieves – minimise potential to break in vs. Friday and Saturday nights –
young people with alcohol in public areas; activate public surveillance in Tuncurry;
- More night activities for young people and minority groups to reduce boredom factor
- North St spotlights on rooves – possible tactic that has previously been employed
- Forster Beach carpark/North St area – amenity issue but also has previously been group
loitering issue – has moved to Tuncurry rockpool – if look to activate this area? Dorsal
evening uses of ground floor increases passive surveillance, ground floor uses ok – Wharf
St problems dropped off with close of nightclub, problems increasing with bakery opening
at 2am – alley has major issues
- Have to look at land uses also to ensure appropriate attraction to ensure unattractive for
loitering and crime activity

- Podiums impact on community and appeal from street – should require all carparks
underground and ideal would be visual aspect through ground floor levels; also balcony
finishes to be clear not solid
- SEPTEP – passive street edges, integration of public and private areas at street level
- Promote public areas on street levels, in particular school site
- Sustainability – environment, economic and social – must examine all three to achieve
overall
- Have to maintain community areas and provide public domains that are usable – attract
people to other areas than just the beach – economic and social synergies within the
community
- Need to have mixed uses along the beach fronts to ensure vitality of areas – Terrigal
currently going through transition – in F need to ensure that mixed use near beach does
not detract from viability of Wharf St
- Caravan park – potential utilisation of these areas – Dept Lands and Foreshore Plan
aspirations as well
- Sustainable communities – economically viable often comes down to level of profit
development wants to make; bottom line is reality of development; decentralised power,
water tanks, solar panels, etc.
- Looking at environmental design issues – water sensitivity, sustainable design and
materials, BASIX, BCA etc – ability for housing stock to enable lifecycle living in the
communities of FT and TGHN – support networks, community networks, adaptable
housing – all in policy mix and aimed for outcomes
- Range of social mix within communities also desirable – identified in Housing Strategy in
affordable housing
3. Controls: LEP and DCPs
- Commercial land shortage – ability to look at areas as mixed use zones could achieve
liveability, crime prevention etc – new LEP does have more flexible zoning provisions
which may be incorporated.
- Input also sought regarding MD areas, 3 and 4 storey walk-ups; current conflicts in
current codes and policies – dual occupancy vs. duplex, open space and landscaping
requirements, overshadowing, privacy, landscaping, parking requirements, landscaping
concept plans – amenity of locality, coordinated approach for precincts, guidelines for
applications for Res Dev Code
- Propensity for lower scale development being approved in HD areas due to economic
pressures – land banking, amalgamation,
- Access into these HD and MD also difficult/impossible and must be reviewed
- Code promoted separation between buildings and variations do not achieve objective,
incongruous with Res Dev code, SEPP 65
- Street edge issues, carpark height controls


4. Public domain: traffic services and infrastructure (incl. drainage)
- parking impossible during peaks – even in off season is becoming difficult
- Water management approach more achievable for larger sites but integrated initiatives
required
- Quality of lake essential – oyster producers – 30 litres/hour per oyster
- Tuncurry golf course – Council and Dept Lands – discussed option of using expansion of
golf course for stormwater detention purposes
- WA did have requirement that all stormwater contained on-site, Tuncurry obvious area
where on-site should be required for replenishment of ground water supplies
- Existing drainage easements/structures in Tuncurry – do not potentially have land area
for constructed wetland type management
- Transferable development rights must be considered if on-site management not possible
– S94, PVA – identifiable early on in development process – nitrogen off-set programs –
reality of 100% catchment and management of on-site impacts – must demonstrate nexus
within same catchment
- Financial planning for Council must consider this – how much land is required, cost of
private lands to achieve off-sets – and legal issues in establishing and management
- Point Rd (Tuncurry) for example could be potential site where issues of off-set could be
explored, particularly given flood-prone nature of location also
- Vacant area in Point Road – significant area has already been filled but unclear as to
what height while there are also other surrounding areas which are still low-lying
- Traffic, water and sewer from Forster goes through Tuncurry – cannot divorce one from
other in any respect – but do have to recognise different strategies required for
sustainable growth for both localities.
- MidCoast put in $80 mill into infrastructure to Pacific Palms which is only being used to
capacity of 25% given limitations placed on development of that area by state government
initiatives – SEPPs
                           Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest
                    Stakeholders Meeting: Background Review

                                          - Summary -

Project:       Urban Design and Density Review
Location:      GLC District Office Conference Room, Tea Gardens
Date:          25 October 2006
Required: Glen Handford, GLC       Andrew Wiesener, Crownland Developments
          Roger Busby, GLC         Christian Patteson, Myall Koala & Environment Support Group
          Alexandra Macvean, GLC   Dawn Engel, Historical Society
          Alex Caras, GLC          Helen Jones, Hawks Nest & Tea Gardens Progress Association
                                   John Stephens, GLC Councillor
           Paul Walter, CPS        Kirsten Page, Tea Gardens Real Estate
           Scot Brown, CPS         Margaret Stevenson-meere, Myall Koala & Environment Support Group
           Elek Pafka, CPS         Mick Rundell, Hawks Nest First National Real Estate
                                   Patricia Michell
                                   Peter Childs, Crighton Properties
                                   Roger Seymour, Hawks Nest & Tea Gardens Progress Association
                                   Snr Constable Brian Coffey, Maitland Police Station
                                   Trevor Cook


Welcome by Clr Stephens

Intro by RB
Intro by PW

All participants:

1. Vision: community and social issues
• Extent of MD has been defined under TGHN Housing Strategy
• Community does not want broad scale MD in what is traditional coastal town – unlike
    FT and Central Coast – character to be maintained
• Restriction of MD footprint reflects desire of community to retain this character
• HN and TG Urban centre is at different stage of maturity
• Housing Strategy focus on community ‘focal points’ – dilution of these land uses can
    detract from character
• Designs that attract permanent residents in HN – need to focus on encouraging
    permanent housing to achieve vitality
• importance on attracting non-seasonal population – infrastructure in place to attract
    people out-of-season
• Diversity of housing choice to allow for full-lifecycle living – diversity in population –
    need for maturing residential settlement
• HN – not just commercial provision of housing– need livable environment
• Community vision expressed in the “Hawks Nest/Tea Gardens Community Plan May
    2006”– Crownlands Dev funded
• No-one between 20-30 want to live here – no resident workforce/residents in this age
    group
• Topographical attraction of river has not been capitalised – beach is seasonal – MD
    does attract S94 and attract funding for improvement on such features such as
    riverfront – level of amenity year-round
•   What is selling? Real Estate Agent: Landscaping/streetscape – not garages on front
•   present dwellings/hectare appropriate
•   Community – protection of the waterfront (TG) and “quaint” housing on the waterfront
•   Money into improving waterfront
•   Waterfront meeting – protection of “informal” character of locality – user friendly
    without looking like Darling Harbour
•   Berry, Kiama – coastal towns where heritage protected but appropriate infrastructure
    – hotel/restaurants will attract the people
•   Community want vision statement/big picture – idea/picture where we are
    heading/working towards
•   Safe, community, quiet quaint coastal community, all necessary infrastructure and
    services to live independent of outside world
•   TGHN CDS did elicit vision for this area – now have to work down to unique elements
    and reflect these in future development of the medium and commercial areas


         2. Design
•   Fundamental issue– road widths and frontages, driveway access and gun-barrel
    design approach
•   No good design – single lot over development – must look at amalgamation –
    constraints are roads and lot depths
•   Built form in height and density will only work if physical constraints of lots are
    examined
•   HN – every lot larger than 600sqm redevelop from single to dual occpancies which
    become unliveable
•   Roof-pitch vs flat roof – flat roof wall seems to be higher
•   Materials used – weatherboards on Marine Dr – community want to have same feel –
    proportion of façade to window;
•   Respect character of existing/heritage buildings – proportions, built form, materials etc
•   Verandahs on dwellings – liveability as outdoor area
•   SEPTEP – visual opportunity onto street; 20 units or more (BC involvement)
    amalgamation – no gun-barrel; more people – will want cycleways, shopfronts, vacant
    premises in HN broken into over holidays; fences – transparent/pool/slats/ not
    garages;
•   Figtree Place in Newcastle – design piece on water usage; removing run-off; behind
    Hamilton bus depot; water sufficient and actually provide water to adjoining bus depot
    – how safe is this development as not visible from street but high internal visibility
•   Large portion of TGHN – redevelopment requires “ground” to be lifted significantly
    which results in dramatic change to streetscape
•   Start at ideal, don’t compromise outcome
•   Examples of good MD:
         - Corner Hough & Marine – entrance from Myall
         - Riverside Gardens
•   Amenity also created via relationship between internal and external living areas
•   Soft landscaping and street presentation of larger developments – need for MD
    housing while sympathetic to character
•   Plan a development on a big site, not necessarily have a big development on a big
    site
•   Also need to look at clear issues with regards to net densities – dwellings/hectare
         3. Controls: LEP and DCP
•   Certainty via numbers by graphic/typology to achieve character – also must ensure
    equity which performance based controls do not necessarily provide this – must be
    balance and there are mandatory requirements in standard LEP so important to also
    achieve qualitative outcomes
•   Highlight that 2b zone and usage may change to more flexible zoning
•   Council also interested in architectural controls in 2a areas – replacement of single
    dwellings replaced with Dual occupancies or large brick mansions – mini 2b zones in
    look and feel
•   Council has decided as priority DCP for single dwellings – LGA wide – but with
    precinct basis
•   Lack of site amalgamation; addressing street; landscaping; driveways/access
•   Council does have power to consolidate but Councillors do not follow through
•   Numerical requirement – minimum site area (amalgamation) to achieve high quality
    design outcome
•   Process of renewal do get change in pattern of subdivision – coastal village street
    rhythm must be considered – modulation of housing in relation to street – must be
    articulated in the controls
•   Amalgamation – development often falls through; property values blow-out; design
    and on-site outcomes are sacrificed
•   Heritage items – transferable development rights – must be reasonable outcome for
    both sites
•   EIS? With review – not part of brief – CDS effectively did this review
•   Heritage Strategy - 50% of lots in 2b – street structure etc not just buildings – will be
    specific items and area – objective to reflect and respect character of locality
•   Setbacks in relation to heritage – rule of thumb of 20% of adjoining site setback to
    reflect and complementary to achieve street rhythm
•   MD in heritage conservation area will inevitably change character of dwelling – can
    have compatible character
•   Cartilage would relate to individual heritage items


        4. Public domain: services and infrastructure

•   Percentage of landscaping is important for visually pleasing landscaping and swales
    in TGHN – only place with flooding are those with gutters – sandy soils effective
    drainage
•   Gutter and table drains – over-engineering in this location – no formal drainage in this
    location is accepted as being effective (no pipes)
•   Swales instead of gutters – engineering maintenance issues
•   Cost via headwork charges – if less costly infrastructure funds could go to other public
    domain items previously discussed
•   Council are always reviewing S94 and this could be an issue – also planning
    agreements could adjunct to this – trade-offs
•   S94 in TGHN are not dear enough
•   MD more active, more people may need footpath; elsewhere do not need – walk
    down road – not an excessive concern
•   Kuringia – no more than 60% hardsurface – should have this requirement
•   this provision has been considered by Council, particularly for 2a but principle is
    applicable across but should still have qualitative measures – detention system with
    slow out-flow; dual use of public open spaces as flood detention
•   S94 – failed with Bilo development out-of-town – no footpath connecting commercial
    centre of this size to town
•   Boardwalks over swales
•   If S94 setup correctly then money can come in and use funds for appropriate and
    required infrastructure; PVA – only effective with large developer
•   Townhouses – see footpath only in street front of particular site – agreement that
    Council plan for coordinated footpaths
•   Concept – do we want formal drainage and footpath at all? No.
•   Engineering get $40,000 for footpaths for this year for entire LGA
•   Do not spend piecemeal – keep funds and construct in one go in area as required –
    MD areas and commercial centres only
•   Minimal pavement, informal drainage, soft edges
•   Reality of MD – have to have kerb & gutter and footpaths & Myall Way
•   Uniform landscape strategy – individual themes on adjoining allotments
•   Preferred landscaping/planting species – Council does have greening strategy –
    height and width of trees, also street tree planting plans
•   Landscaping – integrated approach to the design issue – define and create character
    of a locality e.g. Noosa very effective, define public and private
•   Informal character; coordinated between public and private
                                     Forster / Tuncurry
                                    Community Workshop


                                            - Summary -

Project:       Urban Design and Density Review
Location:      GLC, Forster
Date:          13 November 2006
Present:   Roger Busby, GLC               Attendees:
           Alexandra Macvean, GLC
                                          Trevor McBride
           Carolyn Michele Stone, P/P/M   Laurie Hugan
           Paul Walter, CPS               George Fiebig
           Scot Brown, CPS                Bruce Thompson
           Elek Pafka, CPS                John Chadban
           Guneet Kaur, CPS               Jan McWilliams




Welcome by Councillor John Chadban (Mayor)

Introduction by Carolyn Stone

Introduction by Paul Walter

Following is a summary of the main points raised by the community in the meeting.

1. Vision:
    • Long term vision is necessary. Look at Forster in 40 yrs. Focus on
        uniqueness of the area through eyes of a Forsterite, look at living Forster,
        not dead Forster. Work as a community
    • Try to preserve village character of Tuncurry. Forster has already lost it.
    • Maintain local identity
    • Address ageing of high rise: new buildings may look good now, but what
        after 20 years
    • Preserve views - smaller buildings should be along foreshore
    • High rise is too high. Few levels less (3-4 stories) is preferred
    • Are high/ tall buildings necessary? considerations to tourists, developers,
        investors (rather than residents)
    • Forster identity is not being capitalized – village character is missing –
        Tuncurry- History “working harbour’.
    • Tuncurry- what is main thoroughfare
    • Tuncurry- what is the identity for people to say "this is our Tuncurry" –
        people would like to identify it as their little shopping village
    • Improve linkages- Amenity, Character, Experience
    • Traffic impacts – we make ourselves slave of traffic- more traffic with high
        rise – how to deal with it.
2. Design:
    • Design of buildings is not respectful of visually sensitive area – “The
       Horse has bolted”
    • Lack of design - People behind do not get a view – design to achieve
       shared view
    • Visual quality of buildings is poor – blank wall impacts on street – ramps/
       stairs access is dominant features in front elevation.
    • Beaches International - a good example
    • The location of Tourist/ residential delineation should be maintained
    • Relationship between permanent and tourist accommodation – mixing
       avoids the “Ghetto effect”
    • Area of tall buildings is well defined – should be maintained


3. Controls: LEP and DCP
    • Site coverage ratio is out of keeping. Site cover/ footprint of building needs
       to be reviewed
    • Increased density in defined area will encourage local business in main
       street
    • Zoning issues – why is high density residential not compatible with
       commercial uses? (perhaps it should be)
    • Expansion of CBD into residential zones is already happening- expand in
       Wallis St – east. Expand in Tuncurry by one block
    • Type of business in CBD not supportive of village character of Wharf
       street - business/ offices out of CBD- Business support zone – amenity
       issues - fragmented ownership issues
    • Mixed use zones encouraged.


4. Public Domain: services and infrastructure
    • Distance from services encourages car dependence. Provisions should be
       made locally
    • Cost issues for road works
    • Bridge duplication – s94 contributions collected by council. Be conscious
       of cost and who is paying
    • loss of link between Breckenridge channel and Forster Beach –
       landscaping is inadequate
    • Avoid visual impacts of car parking along waterfront/ channel – Tuncurry
       and Little Street, Memorial Drive, Forster
    • Public domain should not be dominated by ever growing car parking.
       Educate people that they are their own enemies by excessive use of cars
    • Issues relating to traffic impacts – in peak holiday periods
    • Roundabouts are an issue.
    • Tuncurry Main Street- Linkages should be improved with public reserve
       and channel
    • Pedestrian movement/ cyclist movement – mid-block through site access
       to break down the size of street blocks in Forster
    • Active uses are desirable at ground level of tall buildings – commercial,
       common uses, other uses
    • Car parking - lack of space in CBD
•   Traffic management is important. Separation of parking station from
    pedestrian walkways is important
•   Diversion of main street through Tuncurry – Bent Street option has issues
    regarding width
•   Traffic – Southern link from Forster to Highway is not realistic
•   New shopping area in Forster requires truck access through Tuncurry and
    Bridge
                                 Hawks Nest / Tea Garden
                                  Community Workshop

                                            - Summary -


Project:       Urban Design and Density Review
Location:      Community Hall, Hawks Nest
Date:          13 November 2006
Present:   Alexandra Macvean, GLC         Attendees:
           Alex Caras, GLC
                                          Peter Economos
           Carolyn Michele Stone, P/P/M   Jessie & Mervyn Mote
           Paul Walter, CPS               Ian Curdie
           Scot Brown, CPS                Matt Crozier
           Guneet Kaur, CPS               Robert McShane
                                          Elain & Gordon Bartlett
                                          Roger Sales
                                          Ian Morphett
                                          Helen Jones
                                          Ross Taylor
                                          Margaret Stephens-Meere
                                          Bob & Jan Kiddey
                                          Rosemary & Michael Bright
                                          Rick Wraight
                                          Vivienne & Colin Wood
                                          Lee Anderson
                                          Anne & Kevin Haskew
                                          C Humphreys
                                          Hal Wootten


Welcome by Alex Caras, GLC

Introduction by Carolyn Michele Stone

Introduction by Paul Walter


Following is a summary of the main points raised by the community in the meeting.


1. Vision:
    • Create a vision for medium and low density with both being separated
        from each other.
    • Preserve low key town character and waterfront.
    • Enforce re vegetation.
    • Retain trees (Booner St).
    • Retain heritage character of Tea Gardens.
    • Buildings should be sympathetic to character of the town (good example:
        Mariner’s Mark in HN).
   •   Retain character of HN and TG. Character draws people to this area.
       Ensure they do not end up as clones of Nelson Bay or Noosa.
   •   Hawks Nest is within a forest and below the tree line. This feature needs
       to be retained.
   •   Enable enough development to ensure sustainable business.
   •   Define the criteria used to define the study area.
   •   Vision to have lower buildings along the waterfront and higher apartments
       away to maintain views.
   •   Give due consideration to road and traffic issues.



2. Design:
    • Separated levels (Mariners Mark HN), roof variations (Riverside Gardens
       TG) are appreciated.
    • Buildings should be designed to reduce the bulk and size impacts.
       building elevations should be articulated to avoid presentation of flat
       frontage to the streets.
    • Residents appreciate presence of undeveloped lots (Tea Gardens).
    • Increasing density and heights are disliked.
    • Avoid dominating structures.
    • Block type design of the Boathouse (TG) is disliked. Town house type
       development rather than blocks is preferred.
    • Focus on streetscape.
    • Improve presentation of buildings to street frontage.
    • Encourage buildings in harmony with the existing streetscape and
       character of the area.



3. Controls: LEP and DCP
    • Current controls restrict maximum height of buildings to 3 stories which is
       appreciated by the community.
    • Car parking is currently an essential part of development guidelines, which
       is good.
    • Increase soft landscape ratio.
    • Low open space ratio is disliked (Majestic Views HN and The Pier TG).
    • Flexibility in approval process – stretching of rules.
    • Fewer dwellings per site is preferred as opposed to having several units
       on a site for the purpose of holiday letting (Boat House).
    • Reduce FSR, increase balcony size, increase soft landscaping.
    • Set guidelines for colour of the roof so that they blend in with the character
       of the area.
    • Bulk and scale of development are out of character, inappropriate
       setback, too much site coverage, lack of designated parking spaces
       (Majestic Views).
    • Define built form and vegetation to retain and enhance character of the
       area.
4. Public Domain: services and infrastructure

   •   Traffic impacts need consideration, avoid roundabouts in narrow streets,
       roundabouts are out of date.
   •   Lack of curb and gutter is good. Are they actually needed- wherever they
       exist there is inconsistency.
   •   Community should have more involvement in the planning process and
       residents should have an opportunity to object.
   •   Infrastructure is not in keeping pace with the development.
   •   Poor control of landscaping supervision after completion of building.
   •   Increase street tree planting – there should be a tree planting program
       particularly for key traffic streets like Myall Street.
   •   There is a need to maintain a significant tree register.
   •   Plant more trees -Encourage native planting, retain coral trees.
   •   Lack of appropriate landscaping, not enough green. Lack of open space-
       site coverage too much.
   •   Integrate street lighting with the city. It needs to be looked at for the whole
       city, not just isolated developments. However, care needs to be taken that
       there is no light pollution.
   •   Facilitate pedestrian movements- pedestrian crossings.
   •   Streets are too narrow (Myall St).
   •   Lack of footpath between Town Centre and Shopping Centre (TG) is a
       serious risk and impediment to pedestrians.
                                                 2nd TRG Meeting
                                                   - Summary -

Project:       Twin Towns Urban Design and Density Review (UDDR)
Location:      Great Lakes Council, Forster

Date/Time:     18 January 2007 - 9.00am to 12 noon

Required:        Alexandra Macvean, GLC Alan Bawden          Senior Development Assessment Planner
                 Alex Caras, GLC        Bob Birse            Team Leader, Land Management MNC, Dept Lands
                                          Chloe Beevers      Community Development Coordinator
                 Paul Walter, CPS
                                          Chris Atchison     Program Manager Commercial, Dept Lands
                 Scot Brown, CPS
                 Elek Pafka, CPS          David McKellar     Development Engineer, MidCoast Water
                                          Deb Tuckerman      Manager Economic Development
                                          Geoff Dowling      Engineering Development Officer
                                          Gerard Tuckerman   Manager, Natural Systems
                                          Kerry McDean       Community Housing MNC Inc
                                          Liz Green          Acting Mngr Community Services, HACC Services S.C.
                                          Max Haste          Manager, Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park
                                          Prue Tucker        Coastal Catchments Initiative Coordinator
                                          Richard Old        Manager, Tourism & Marketing
                                          Ron Hartley        Director, Transport Assets


             1. Introduction

             2. Review Land Requirement:
                CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
                    - Densities (population / built / traffic)
                    - Population projections (residents / tourists)

             Raised Issues (all participants):
             - Mid-North Coast Strategy released yesterday: 15,000 dwellings between Great Lakes &
             Taree LGA.
             - Numbers could be slightly lower than those projected within Great Lakes Council (GLC)
             projections
             - Forster/Tuncurry together are approaching ‘city’ status and need to reinvent and revisit
             facilities and structures to accommodate city requirements
             - Is the traffic capacity unknown? Need to implement strategies to facilitate known
             capacity bottlenecks, particularly in peak periods.
             - Greater population (peak) in proximity to core CBD increases walking and reduces
             bottleneck traffic trends
             - Unfortunately Forster main shopping centre is out of High Density (HD) area and
             requires major shopping to be reliant on vehicle use, this will be the same with new
             shopping centre in North Tuncurry – important question for future of Tuncurry
             - Other question is whether GLC wants a major shopping mall/centre in the middle of the
             HD areas or maintenance of boutique shopping in CBD and GLC does accept ‘vacant’
             centres/premises/restaurants outside of peak time
             - Future Populations figures are projections, not estimates
             - Also need to take into account that in peak period the bridge is at capacity
             - Scenario of ‘keys in the corner’ appears to be true, particularly within the high density
             zones adjoining the shopping/beaches/other attractions – increase in population is not
             reflected in traffic volumes over the bridge
             - Cycleway/walkways to other shopping centres need to be strengthened
3. Urban Design, Building Height and Form Review
       CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
       - Forster / Tuncurry
       - Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest

Raised issues (all participants):
- Varied parking arrangements in HD/CBD need to be considered – permit system outside
of shopping district for residents and long term visitors
- Parking storage outside of CBD may also be an option
- Coastal Guidelines recommend consolidation of existing centres before release of
additional areas – not reflected in demand from GLC population and does also not always
reflect the objective of diversity in the housing range
- Roundabouts – consultant prefers not to use them, community focus group (TG/HN) did
not want traffic lights
- Tuncurry town centre – currently in process of rezoning properties to east – within
identified triangle of potential
- Point Rd vacant site still a very important potential masterplan site – pedestrian link to
CBD and as consolidation of Point Rd Peninsula
- Town Hall of Tuncurry seen as too far away from action/CBD – therefore underutilised
RTA Guideline – Sharing the Main Street – principles for design for traffic and pedestrian
sharing – funding avenue also
- Taree - positive example: completely changed the design of Victoria Street – no
roundabouts, landscaping and pavement treatments
- Potential diversion through Wharf Street Tuncurry, Bent Street also considered but is
established residential street, with schools etc in close proximity, Wharf St would further
alienate use of foreshore

4. Review of Planning Framework
        CPS Presentation of UDDR findings:
        - Shortcomings of present framework
        - Benchmarking of best practice planning instruments

Raised issues (all participants):
- Residential Flat Buildings (RFB) – Council consent authority; Services apartment –
Minister – policing of overlapping use of RFB as SA is not consistent
- If living needs of occupant – irrespective of short/long-term or permanent – are the
same/similar – then are separately defined uses required? Design objectives should be
consistent
- Adaptable housing objectives are logical part of these design objectives – looking at
lifecycle of the building itself and the occupants over that period of time
- Mix of unit sizes – floor areas and bedroom numbers within any given development
- Groundwater issue with basement parking, also damming effect on ground water and
impact on adjoining allotments – clearly defined deep planting zones – would they assist?
– understand variations have occurred after approval
- Deep planting zones don’t have significant effect, geotech report must be undertaken
with applications – this must be a requirement in new DCP
- I site constraints remove basement option – other design options should be investigated;
these need to be addressed in much more detail within future DCP
- Gradient – site size and number of spaces requirements cause issues
- Number and size of crossings and access into narrow laneways – also consider safety
of pedestrian movements near these driveways
- Reducing wide driveways more for medium density developments where this can occur
- Tea Gardens – river is main thoroughfare for people access into town – no attractive
destination, no environmental protection consideration, economic feasibility also priority,
needs of vessels, public open space, pedestrian movements
- Reference group meetings did discuss use and future of waterways, public space and
pedestrian/commercial interface – investment requirements must be considered as big
picture concept for these areas
- CPS is planning on producing this as part of the project – completing community
consultation work into vision and master planning for towns
- Water sensitive design? Yes will be considered as part of design guidelines – medium
and high density issues – Hyder Consulting focussing on this issue – environmentally
sensitive design
- DCP should encourage good design, not checklist to tick off
- Social impact assessment needs – currently services are insufficient – opportunities to
improve and provide for current and future population needs via S94 etc – possibly
accommodating community services within the developments as well
Storage of boats etc as well – dry storage or lake mooring for these vessels
Boat and trailer access into basements is very difficult and there are opportunities
elsewhere, in close proximity to the HD and MD areas to provide these facilities
- Dep. of Lands seeking any data on boat storage requirements for people using HD and
MD accommodation
- Tea Gardens – flood levels must be considered for driveways and floor levels etc

5. Town Vision and Objectives
       CPS Presentation of UDDR findings

Raised issues (all participants):
- Public domain: public art masterplan and walking path should be included; street
furnishings: currently majority are memorial benches, not attractive and deteriorate
quickly, link into public art/landscaping plan perhaps
- Key places being identified as part of project and could be linked to this – could be very
dynamic art using the environmental features – tidal, lake, ocean waves, landscaping etc
- Sustainability: achieve and maintain vision over time – how would you like to achieve
this?
- Structural town scale – cycleways, energy use – fossil fuels/vehicle dependence; focus
on best practice design guidelines of project – other recommendations for public domain
plans, S94 plans – recommendations for investigation into bigger picture, rather than fixed
recommendations within final documents


6. Open feedback
                            2nd Stakeholders Meeting
                                   - Summary -


Project:        Forster/Tuncurry - Urban Design and Density Review (UDDR)
Location:       Large Committee Room, GLC Forster
Date/Time:      19 January 2007 2.00pm to 5.00pm
Required:Glenn Handford, GLC    George Fiebig
         Alexandra Macvean, GLC Grahame Burns
         Alex Caras, GLC        Jacqui Keats                 Great Lakes Environment Association
                                Kevin Calvert                FTChamber of Commerce
         Paul Walter, CPS
         Scot Brown, CPS        Laurie Hagan
         Elek Pafka, CPS        Robert Caplice               LJ Hooker
         Albert Becerra, BKA    Simon Carroll                Coastplan Consulting
                                Trevor McBride
                                Aleksander Jelicic
                                David Bell                   Wallis Lake Fisherman's Co-op
                                Craig Mason                  East Coast Photography
                                Robert Stovold
                                Graeme Dixon
                                Jan Armstrong
                                Darryl Jennings
                                Luke Felsch                  Professionals
                                Ron Hunter
                                Noel Gogerly
                                Digby Dunn
                                John Abbo                    Century 21
                                Dave Keating
                                Denise Morgan
                                Bruce Parsons

1. Introduction


2. Review Land Requirement:
        CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
        - Densities (population / built / traffic)
        - Population projections (residents / tourists)


Issues raised (all participants):
- What does statement of ‘town function better’ with less peak and trough – “better”
observation that businesses may function better, be more active, Forster CBD now tourist
activity focus – Stockland serves locals – peak for one month and financial viability
throughout the rest of the year. Recognition that residents may have different view –
prefer the remainder of the year when less tourist activity.
- Spending on infrastructure – if planning and paying for peak periods then more money
could be spent more equally through the town.
- Stocklands documentation with DA indicated that centre would capture money currently
being spent in eg Taree, larger regional centre rather than two smaller centres of FT
CBDs.
- Healthy main street serves locals and tourists – diversified retail businesses operating
throughout the year. Increasing attraction to centre for locals outside of peak. Increase in
viable “daily shopping” from within CBD would reduce reliance on vehicles by residents
who live within the HD and MD areas.
- Concern within community about increasing antisocial behaviour and question as to
possible link to large number of single parent families within study area. Orientation of
vision for family tourism and need for balance with resident statistics and concern of
increasing destination as a party-town.
- Strong correlation between multi-unit with large number of holiday lettings – true for tall
buildings. Challenge is to change this pattern with future development – good livable
design can achieve this, along with amenity and attraction of location for services in close
proximity eg retirees/aged population. Anecdotal data that current owners of holiday
letting apartments are approaching retirement age and may in near future become
permanent residents. On other hand, Little St MD areas may become area for higher
rates of permanent residents.
- Balance between short-medium-long term occupancy is sought through improving
overall urban design of locations – buildings/living spaces and public domain.
- Improving design may increase costs – wouldn’t this have detrimental impact upon
diversity of users and affordability for holiday makers, renters and owners.
- Misconception that good design equals expensive development. Good design may
increase diversity and adaptable range and therefore diversity – spreading
accommodation forms within urban area.
- Little St full of permanent rentals and anecdotal fact is that older demographic will not
purchase or hire accommodation without a lift – do not want steps.
- Patterns of holiday rentals also changing from 2wk to 1 wk rental pattern – reflecting
increasing costs etc. These need to be examined also.
- Trough is an opportunity not a problem. Single parent families follow retired
grandparents who help parent.
- Rental market doesn’t change – fills at beach then spills away from there. Same pattern
with purchasing. Social issues can deter permanent residents away from HD and MD
areas.
- Attraction of Forster/Tuncurry is still the village atmosphere, in preference to Port, Gold
Coast. Attracting families is more difficult given cost of accommodation within highrise
development, trend away from families staying in homes who would stay for 2-3 weeks.


3. Urban Design, Building Height and Form Review


Issues raised (all participants):
- Tuncurry – main problem is main road is primary thoroughfare into the area. Diversion
off Manning St ? Have considered and main benefit would be for Manning St but where
do you move it too?
- Current ribbon development along this street and standard of development is poor.
- Position generally is improvement of current environment despite traffic, shopping
frontages do not have to face that thoroughfare and could improve pedestrian
environment within the area. Eg between Manning St and waterfront.
- Not all residents will be supportive of ‘active street’ "European model". Also landscaping
is not ‘Australian’ and is generally poor.
- Approach is in fact to use NSW state government and universal guidelines for best
practice design. Landscaping is integral part of this process – private and public domain
component and provides cohesion between these arenas.
- Existing situation in Tuncurry is closed businesses after noon on Saturday and every
Sunday and increased incidents of vandalism during these time. Creating an active area –
not necessarily European or upmarket area, just more active and respected public area.
- Also need balance between permanent and holiday lettings to achieve same objectives
within residential areas. One mechanism is consistent level of development for both forms
of development – residential flat buildings and serviced apartments – will be discussed in
more detail.
- Roads – no problem with wide roads, but problem is narrowing roads and bringing
forward property boundaries. CPS discussing better use of existing road reserves –
reducing actual road widths and then increasing public/landscaping areas on these roads.
- SEPP 65 – in effect for at least 6 years. Operational panels – often several Councils will
use one panel. It will be a funding issue and part of the recommendation that CPS may
make is that panels be used for significant proposals – better use of Council officers time,
potential court costs reduced, developer cost benefit for processing time. It is a peer
review of a proposal.
- Quality of buildings one objective – quality of life more important for residents within the
area. Two are linked inherently.
4. Review of Planning Framework
        CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
        - Shortcomings of present framework
        - Benchmarking of best practice planning instruments


Issues raised (all participants):
- Note: commercial development areas Council encourage ground floor development to
property boundaries to provide consistent building façade within the precinct.
- Consistent feedback on older residential accommodation for rental and holiday lettings is
they are old, no second bathroom – this pushes up cost and demand for newer
development.
- Office space – limited in most areas, small amount of second storey office space in
Wharf Street. First impression of Forster is old existing commercial/retail premises and
buildings. How do you improve these situations.
- Head Street parking is relatively narrow and could be redeveloped for mixed use and
preservation of the parking sub-floor for example or in another location are being
considered. In addition, consolidation of the existing very wide Head Street.
- Office space is in great demand and this is recognised and is being considered in the
examination and review of the existing zonings within the study areas.
- SEPP 65 panel – is only significant or tall buildings, what other tools can be employed
for other buildings – 4-5 storeys for example? Council needs to focus resources and this
would be situation for Council consideration – what is the applicable level for a panel?
How does Council fund the panel? Can the cost be bourne by developers as a beneficial
and more time efficient method for preliminary assessment of an application.
- Council has considered and rejected panel previously, in early days. Review has come
out of work and expertise demands from assessment division. Expectation would be that
ongoing relationship with CPS may be part of the future panel and provide a significant
benefit to planners, Councillors and community through the ongoing future development.
- Long-term nature of proposals – question as to inclusion of recommendations for
existing zonings? Integration of zoning and quality design – CPS will be considering the
zonings as part of the brief, Council currently going through process of developing new
LEP (state government driven) and the outcomes of this review designed to feed into this
process.
- Success of implementation of design initiatives rely on effective decision-making – CPS
aiming to have Councillor buy-in into process and officer involvement in development
through Technical Reference Group.
5. Town Vision and Objectives
       CPS presentation of UDDR findings:


Issues raised (all participants):
- No mention of global warming, climate and potential reality of these impacts. Information
on such impacts still not available to local government to incorporate into future
provisions.
- Water consumption – Council for last 5yr has been investigating water sensitive design
options which were overtaken by BASIX requirements which apply state wide on a roll-out
program. Council now investing in a catchment management programs and often these
projects are being undertaken in conjunction with MidCoast Water. Projections are
sufficient water until 2030.
- MidCoast Water regulate water restrictions and control future programs on urban scale.
- Missing in identity – two small towns with historically village emphasis. Does study
include option of “stop” to further highrise development which is seen as only detracting
from the town/village environment.
- Emphasis is improving existing urban environment. Forster highrise area is well defined
and significantly developed already. Lower rise development in CBD and along lake front
areas would at this time be likely preferred option. Paradox with village image is that they
have reached threshold of CITY as combined area, but also have limitations to any further
significant expansion.
- Draft regional plan from State government – balance of consolidation of town centre with
urban expansion through release areas. Option of no further development until existing
buildings are full is not necessarily an option. Reality is best approach is for good quality
urban and building design which can improve redevelopment of town centre and not
detract from existing.
- Barriers to increasing permanent residents in HD areas include things such as
perception of living in a RFB, quality and livability of existing RFB and lack of year round
facilities/services/amenity in the adjoining CBD to service those permanent residents.
- Mixed land use within CBD and HD and surrounds need to be examined to revitalise
these areas also. Perception of study areas as not being permanent resident areas is
issue.
- Implications of additional and diverse land use developments on traffic, walkability,
cycleways etc are being examined as part of this process.


6. Open feedback
                              2nd Stakeholders Meeting
                                     - Summary -

Project:        Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest - Urban Design & Density Review (UDDR)
Location:       Hawks Nest Community Hall, Hawks Nest
Date/Time:      18 January 2007 2.00pm – 5.00pm
Required:       Alexandra Macvean, GLC
                Alex Caras, GLC

                Paul Walter, CPS
                Scot Brown, CPS
                Elek Pafka, CPS




1. Introduction


2. Review Land Requirement:
        CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
                   - Densities (population / built / traffic)
                   - Population projections (residents / tourists)


Issues raised (all participants):
- Decline in freestanding houses in 2b in TGHN may indicate land being used at higher
potential – more appropriate use of land within the zone
- Most sites are also not vacant do have an existing single dwelling if have not been
recently redeveloped
- Statistics are 4-5yrs old – best current data available, acknowledging 2006 Census data
not available until end 2007
- Additional dwellings convert to additional residents, How? – to come
Permanent residents – new developments should have permanent resident requirements
– to come
- No information on infrastructure – to come


- Council position on – short term lettings? No segregation of “occupation” areas planned.
Opportunity to do so with second Housing Strategy exhibition – Council did not support
this segregation
3. Urban Design, Building Height and Form Review


- is S94 for street tree planting program a possibility? Possibly within footpath/cycleway
program if undertaken concurrently?
- Design review panel will form part of the project recommendations – cannot mandate a
panel review, only satisfaction of SEPP 65 where applicable, trigger may be RFB or
significant building. Port Stephens has just established a review panel – not a SEPP 65
panel just on design issues, a broader expert panel.
- GLC would require additional fee to cover sitting fees for experts on a review panel for
applicable developments.
- Panel must consist of people outside of area and with no conflict of interest within the
area.
- What is being looked at with regards to existing and future impacts of out-of-town
development impacts? Urban Release area plans (Housing Strategies, Rural Living
Strategies, Employment Land Study) look at long term development in a locality, this
project focus on getting design issues right so that final development is cohesive and is of
high quality.
- New development, particularly Nth Hawks Nest must encourage less-season orientated
population – more year-round attractions and facilities, smooth out the annual population
peaks and troughs – do not increase permanent housing as will add to current skew of
aged population.
- Previous community consultation – 2b areas already too big, restrict even more and
thereby consolidating village, low density character.
- Project focus on design is a remote population control – liveability and adaptability of
housing through design would effect balance of population within a locality.
- Critical point for Bilo was population numbers and land costs.
- Seasonality is a business issue for market forces not Council.
- HN population trends – individual decision not Council.
- Design is Council area of concern – blackbutt forest and protection of this area, making
development design fit into this environment is Council concern, as well as wishes of
existing/permanent community.
- Good design should achieve a lot of these objectives – deep planting improves
environment; good development design improves amenity and liveability of development
and therefore locality.
- How will consultant rank importance of each group and their wishes for their
environment, development and community.
- TGHN will grow irrespective of desires of existing community; location of shopping
centre is now fixed and will obviously be new town centre for new development.
- New area does not have 2b areas, opportunity and challenge for TGHN – must
endeavour to develop diversity of land uses within this locality – vital town centres –
visitors within TGHN not in new release areas.


4. Review of Planning Framework
          CPS presentation of UDDR findings:
          - Shortcomings of present framework
          - Benchmarking of best practice planning instruments


Issues raised (all participants):
- Objective of project is development of new DCP and LEP provisions for MD areas within
TGHN within framework of state and regional provisions and regulations.
- Building line setbacks should be fixed – not varied (sorry, missed some of this
discussion re 20% variations?).
– all development should have landscaping bond – re-evaluate susses of planting at 6mth
and 12mth intervals – 25% bond returned at 6mth and remaining 75% at 12mth is all
planting, particularly mature planting has established successfully – this should be
evaluated by planner or environment officer, not engineer as part of release of linen or
strata.
- How do you control façade and make it reflect character of locality – in combination –
window treatments, setback, materials, roof pitch, landscaping, building materials etc –
examples would be provided within documents – is subjective and this is acknowledged
Issue of aged population being accommodated within 3 storey developments needs to be
considered.
- Vegetation strategies – landscape design and site cover; deep rooted and large tree
planting and public domain plans – replacement planting must be a requirement
Support enforcement of SEPP 65 and panel requirement; but no detail at this stage on
character of TGHN – that information is to be included within final stage draft documents
SEPP 65 is generic document however, forms a basis for accepted/required best practice
design guidelines, and with identification of shortcomings from current DCP etc and
establishment of community visions will go towards achieving these requirements within
the final documents.
- Considered maximising number of units within the buildings? Discussed design and
amalgamation but not maximising number of units within FSR – limit the number of
apartments within any single building eg. No building has more than eg 12 units if want
more, start new building.
5. Town Vision and Objectives

- Overarching objective is what each centre is wanting to achieve – Bilo is not coming
back into town centres and these facilities will not be replicated – TG focus would be on
boutique tourism predominantly orientated to the waterfront; HN commercial centre needs
more destination based focus that bring people to the shopping centre itself eg
backpacker group has bought portion of town centre – this will change focus of HN centre
to perhaps more youth orientated activities. Cannot compete, do not want to be the same,
cannot relocate HN town centre.
- Example of making a place a destination – new owners of TG hotel have reactivated that
business and made that a location to go to for itself.
- Hawks Nest – new marina/pontoon/wharf would increase patronage in that location and
refocus use.
- Council car park in Hawks Nest if reorientated – Council encourage double frontage
shops and convert to town square that would increase amenity and ‘destination’
orientation of the HN centre as a location.
- Another step in process – narrative of future character of village/centre – bushwalks,
canoeing, pristine beaches, river, national park, low impact enjoyment, inexpensive,
isolated/compact settlement, boardwalks through wetlands, designated cycleways – no
highrise, heavy duty entertainment and activities etc.
- No mention of public transport – particularly important for HN – no system – beach,
wharf, shopping centre, golf course – wharf for HN as well as exiting wharf in TG
Is existing ferry service within PS Bay, not established service – appointment only
- Coordinate existing range of bus services into bus route service
Independent bus trip/service required – mini bus only required – can be a
recommendation out of project.
- Narrative – a nature experience – experience with nature in HN
- Tourists do want other activities and services and more infrastructure. Residents do
want some more services – health and hospital in particular.
- Document needs to articulate what we do want and include pictorials within these
documents.
- CPS Cabarita Beach draft DCP about to go on exhibition and could be looked at as an
example of a working document.


6. Open feedback
- discussion regarding S94 for Masterplan/streetscape work; bonds for provision of
landscaping and certification at 12mths by qualified architect prior to release of
compulsory landscaping bond – mature planting, successful establishment of landscaping
12mths after completion of development ‘construction’ certification).
Great Lakes Council




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report


                        Urban Design & Density
                                       Review
                                        Friday, 1 June 2007
                            Report no: 0001-NS03584-NSR-04
Great Lakes Council




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report


                                                   Urban Design & Density Review

Author:        K J Hollyoak


Checker:       J K Dumont


Approver:      J K Dumont

Report no:     0001-NS03584-NSR-04                                             Date:     1 June 2007

This report has been prepared for Great Lakes Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment
for Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report dated August 2006. Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 76 104 485 289) cannot
accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.




Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 76 104 485 289
Level 5, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney NSW 2060, Australia
Tel: +61 2 8907 9000 Fax: +61 2 8907 9001 www.hyderconsulting.com
Contents
         1          Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

                    1.1       Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................... 1
                    1.2       Traffic Characteristics................................................................................................... 1
                    1.3       Previous GHD Study .................................................................................................... 2
                    1.4       Planning Policy Documents.......................................................................................... 3
                    1.5       Summary of the issues raised in GHD Report ............................................................. 4
         2          Sustainable Movement ............................................................................................. 5

                    2.1       Pedestrian / Cycleway Desire Lines............................................................................. 5
                    2.2       Great Lakes Bicycle / Walkway Plan............................................................................ 6
                    2.3       Cycle Lanes.................................................................................................................. 7
                    2.4       Location of Key Facilities.............................................................................................. 7
         3          Parking Policy ........................................................................................................... 9

                    3.1       Car Parking Standards ................................................................................................. 9
                    3.2       Driveway Policy .......................................................................................................... 10
                    3.3       Bicycle Parking Policy ................................................................................................ 11
         4          Development Growth .............................................................................................. 15

                    4.1       Growth in Forster Tuncurry Study Area...................................................................... 15
                    4.2       Growth in Forster Tuncurry as a Whole...................................................................... 15
         5          Traffic Movements - Existing & Proposed ............................................................ 16

                    5.1       Intersection Analysis .................................................................................................. 16
                    5.2       Possible Derivation of turning data at Beach Street / Head Street............................. 19
                    5.3       Proposed Years for Intersection Analysis .................................................................. 19
                    5.4       Development Traffic ................................................................................................... 20
                    5.5       Trip Generation Rates ................................................................................................ 20
                    5.6       Development Traffic being considered....................................................................... 21
                    5.7       Traffic Analysis of Modelling Scenarios...................................................................... 24
         6          Conclusions............................................................................................................. 27



                    Appendix A                       Traffic Flow Characteristics

                    Appendix B                       Proposed Footway Improvements

                    Appendix C                       SIDRA Results




                                                                                                                                                                Page i
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                                                     Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                                                             ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                                             Page ii
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                  ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
1                   Introduction

1.1                 Purpose of the Study
                    Hyder’s brief for the study is to
                    1.          Examine the identified pedestrian and cyclist routes
                    2.          Examine the road network and identify where there are
                                deficiencies in the network or locations where intersections or
                                roadways are nearing capacity
                    3.          Identify opportunities to increase capacity at key intersections
                                to increase the development potential of particular blocks.
                                This data will be used to inform the assessment of precincts
                                for density.

                    To do this, Hyder examined the current levels of service at key
                    intersections and determine the additional traffic that could use the
                    intersection, while maintaining an acceptable level of service. Hyder
                    made this examination in the light of the Council’s plans to change
                    the form of a number of intersections which are being funded by the
                    Council’s Section 94 development contribution plans. Hyder has also
                    advised on other transportation aspects which might affect the study
                    such as parking and initiatives to promote cycling and walking.

                    To prepare this assessment, Hyder has examined the characteristics
                    of traffic in both towns and, in particular, has reviewed the GHD
                    Forster / Tuncurry traffic study, which was produced in April 2005.



1.2                 Traffic Characteristics
                    There are a number of characteristics which have emerged during the
                    study

                   1.        Traffic in the area is obviously seasonal – Traffic flows in the
                             holiday periods can be considerably greater than during the rest
                             of the year. Notwithstanding this, holidaymakers may use their
                             car less often than typical residents and they are less likely to
                             travel in the generally accepted peak hours. Their trip length
                             may also be shorter as they may be more likely to travel to
                             destinations within the Forster / Tuncurry town centres, these
                             destinations are also potentially within walking / cycling distance.

                   2.        It is likely that retirees will play a significant part in the population
                             increase and again the travel patterns of this group indicates
                             that most travel will be outside of generally accepted peak
                             hours.
                    A daily profile of traffic together with a profile throughout the year is
                    contained at Appendix A
                                                                                                          Page 1
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                       Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                               ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    There is evidence that the Forster Tuncurry Bridge is at capacity and
                    causes significant traffic queuing in the peak periods. It is anticipated
                    that this bridge is duplicated at some time in the future and the cost of
                    this will be probably met by S94 contributions.


1.3                 Previous GHD Study
                    We have reviewed the GHD study and it is apparent that there are a
                    number of fundamental issues which arise from it.

                    The GHD report assessed the roads in Forster Tuncurry for the
                    existing flows, and projected traffic growth, using an assessment of
                    the traffic generated by the anticipated development in the area.
                    Based upon all of this data, a list of proposed road works was
                    compiled comprising link and intersection improvements.

                    The report then suggested a funding mechanism for these works as
                    Section 94 contributions, whereby each developer will pay a
                    contribution towards the road improvements.

                    Obviously, the timing of these improvements would influence the
                    ability of the roads in the town centre to accommodate higher levels
                    of development. If the improvements are undertaken, it will make it
                    much easier for the roads to accommodate the projected traffic levels.
                    If they are not undertaken, there will be a finite ‘environmental’
                    capacity of the roads which should not be exceeded.

                    The GHD report considered the following committed development in
                    the whole of the Forster Tuncurry area
                              North Tuncurry                -   2200 lots
                              Banksia Estate                -   297 lots
                              Pipers Creek                  -   275 units
                              South Forster                 -   1335 lots
                              Green Point                   -   69 units
                              Chapman Road -                    3 lots
                    In addition, it included development in the Forster high density area
                    (Zone 2c) which was assumed to include 1418 additional units prior to
                    2014 and 2423 prior to 2024. In addition, in Tuncurry, it included an
                    additional 478 units by 2014 and 670 before 2024. Furthermore, the
                    North Tuncurry Precinct will have an additional 525 high density units
                    in addition to the 2200 lots identified above.

                    The report concluded that a number of road capacity improvements
                    should be made along with intersection improvements which would
                    include the provision of a number of Austroads ‘Type C’, roundabouts
                    and traffic signalized intersections.


                                                                                                  Page 2
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                       ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    The recommendations within the GHD report have not been adopted
                    as council policy, but it has been noted that Great Lakes Council
                    intend to implement a number of road improvements. These are
                    identified in the Forster District Section 94 Plan (which was adopted
                    in 2006) and are listed below:
                      Location and Scope                                                    Start date
                      Tuncurry
                      Manning Street / Wallis Street Roundabout (Complete)                      2007
                      Manning Street / Kent Street Roundabout                                   2008
                      Manning St / Point Road Traffic Signals                                   2012
                      Forster
                      Beach Street / Wallis Street / Memorial Drive Roundabout                  2010
                      Macintosh Road / South Street Roundabout                                  2009
                      Head Street / Beach Street Traffic Signals                                2025



1.4                 Planning Policy Documents
                    There are a number of documents which make reference to road and
                    traffic issues in the area.

                    Little Street

                    Much of the proposed 2(c) high density residential zone allocation in
                    Forster would be accessed via Little Street. The access will need to
                    be carefully considered so as not to contradict the Development
                    Control Plan No. 17 - Little Street Foreshore, Forster. The aims of
                    the DCP include the need to prevent Little Street becoming a through
                    corridor. The policies of the DCP include the need to:-

                    (a)         Maintain two-way traffic flow in Little Street with parallel
                                parking and angle parking as shown on the Development
                                Control Plan Map (now constructed);

                    (b)         Provide for parking in streets intersecting with Little Street as
                                shown on the Development Control Plan Map (now
                                constructed);

                    (c)         Maintain a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit in Little Street
                                and in Wharf Street between the tidal creek bridge and
                                Memorial Drive (now constructed);

                    (d)         Provide for on-road bicycle movements pending a review of
                                traffic conditions on completion of road works proposed under
                                this plan (now force);

                    (e)         Following the review of traffic movements at (d) above, if
                                justified construct a pedestrian/cycleway route on the
                                recreation reserve.


                                                                                                      Page 3
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    (f)         Maintain vehicular access to existing buildings fronting Little
                                Street and provide for rear access where possible for new
                                developments.
                    (g)         Provide areas for pedestrians to cross Little Street and Wharf
                                Street as required by pedestrian travel desire lines at shops,
                                boatsheds and baths, etc, in conjunction with traffic measures
                                such as carriageway narrowing (now constructed);

                    (h)         Provide for continuous pedestrian paths on the western and
                                eastern sides of Little Street and Wharf Street;

                    (i)         Provide for pedestrian only access to the recreation reserve
                                between Little Street and B Channel with the exception of
                                essential service traffic and the boat ramp area, where
                                pedestrian movement along the foreshore should be
                                channelled to minimise pedestrian/vehicle conflict; and

                    (j)         Provide for the safe pedestrian crossings across Lake Street,
                                South Street and Mark Street as indicated in traffic proposals
                                shown on Development Control Plan Map.

                    There will be difficulty achieving a balance between providing for
                    development whilst not changing the character of Little Street to
                    become a through-traffic corridor.

                    Similarly, the character of Manning Street and Beach Street in
                    Tuncurry may be adversely affected by a significant increase in the
                    level of development traffic on the road.


1.5                 Summary of the issues raised in GHD Report
                    Assuming that thigh density development is undertaken in Forster in
                    the short term, the documents studied above suggest that a number
                    of road improvements would be needed.

                    The GHD report identified that immediate improvements would be
                    required in Forster at

                           Macintosh Street / Lake Street (traffic signals)
                           Macintosh Street / Head Street (left turn only)
                    These improvements were installed and constructed in 2006 - 2007.




                                                                                                     Page 4
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                  Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                          ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
2                   Sustainable Movement

2.1                 Pedestrian / Cycleway Desire Lines
                    The main pedestrian desire lines, as also identified in the GHD report,
                    are:-
                              Across Wallis Lake Bridge
                              Between Reserve Road and Beach Street (Forster) – although
                              it is identified that this conflicts with heavy traffic movements
                              Across Manning Street (Tuncurry)
                    It also identified that Memorial Drive could be provided with priority for
                    pedestrians and cyclists. It is likely that this could then link into Little
                    Street which has been constructed with traffic calming measures
                    calmed and where other improvements favouring pedestrians and
                    cyclists could be made, in accordance with DCP 17 relating to Little
                    Street Foreshore, Forster.




                                                                                                      Page 5
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    Other desire lines revealed during this study include
                              Wharf Street (Tuncurry)
                              Beach and Rockpool Streets (Tuncurry)
                              Kent St (Tuncurry)
                              Memorial Drive (Forster)




2.2                 Great Lakes Bicycle / Walkway Plan
                    Great Lakes Council has a bicycle plan that was prepared in 1989 but
                    since that time the plan has been revised at various times and now
                    includes walkways. The current cycleway/walkway plan includes the
                    proposed and constructed cycle ways/walkways for each town and
                    each has a priority list for proposed works. There is a three year
                    (2006 – 2009) rolling program and these improvements are
                    constructed when funds become available.

                    A recent council committee discussed the cycleway / walkway
                    construction program for the whole Great Lakes Council area. This
                    included a significant amount of improvements in Foster Tuncurry
                    including the proposed foreshore walk. A summary of these
                    improvements is included at Appendix B.

                                                                                              Page 6
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                           Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                   ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
2.3                 Cycle Lanes
                    Cycle lanes are generally provided on road although there are off-
                    street sections at a number of the roundabouts in the town centre.
                    This is an acceptable arrangement for competent and confident
                    cyclists but it is not suitable for young and inexperienced cyclists who
                    generally prefer off-street routes. For example, if children are being
                    encouraged to cycle to school, they should do so on dedicated ‘off-
                    street’ routes or along ‘quiet streets’ rather than along busy roads.
                    There have been concerns about this on Wallis Lake Bridge where
                    there has been a cyclist fatality in recent years. As a direct result,
                    protection barriers were installed on the bridge in 2005/2006.

                    Improvements to the bridge are proposed and the Forster District
                    Section 94 Contributions Plan identifies that the total funding raised in
                    this plan includes an allowance of $10 million to fund half the cost of
                    the of the Wallis Lake bridge duplication. It is the Council’s
                    expectation that the balance will be funded by Government grants.
                    The timing of the improvements is currently unknown.
                    The proposed road improvements suggested by GHD, which promote
                    the use of traffic signals at key intersections, are likely to make the
                    situation better for pedestrians. This will not only facilitate
                    pedestrians crossing the road but could also act as a catalyst for
                    improving pedestrian thoroughfares elsewhere. Such layouts are
                    also likely to facilitate cyclists.
                    A number of intersections were considered as a result of the GHD
                    reports:
                              Manning Street / Wallis Street roundabout is complete
                              Kent Street roundabout has been put on hold
                              A seagull type intersection is currently the preferred intersection
                              solution at the Macintosh Street / Strand Street intersection.
                    However, roundabout intersections are not advantageous for either
                    cyclists or pedestrians and they are likely to result in greater
                    separation between the two sides of the main thoroughfares.


2.4                 Location of Key Facilities
                    The GHD report recommends that major trip generating activities
                    such as shopping centres and schools should be located near
                    primary transport routes.

                     Hyder would go a stage further than this and recommend that some
                    types of high traffic generating development (e.g. schools / local
                    retail) should be located as close to the origin of the trip as is
                    reasonably possible so as to encourage walking and cycling.

                                                                                                      Page 7
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    The travel time walking and cycling from origin to destination should
                    not be significantly increased in comparison to the same trip by car as
                    generally people will take the quickest form of transport available to
                    them.

                    Whilst walk distances from residential properties of 400m to 500m to
                    public transport routes are recommended by GHD, it is suggested
                    that if this was reduced to 300m, and pedestrian routes to bus stops
                    were direct, it would further encourage public transport use.
                    Consequently, any development urban plan layouts should provide
                    direct pedestrian links both to local services and public transport
                    routes.
                    It would also be beneficial to assess access in terms of the ‘Safe
                    Routes to School” initiative to make journeys for children and parents
                    easier more direct and safer.




                                                                                                 Page 8
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                              Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                      ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
3                   Parking Policy

3.1                 Car Parking Standards
                    We have also looked at the Car Parking Policy document which
                    proposed the following levels of parking within the study areas

                                                            Great Lakes       RTA Guide to Traffic
                                                                              Generating Developments –
                                                                              High Density Residential
                                                                              Flats
                                                                              Sub-Regional Standards
                    Dwelling House                          1 covered space   -
                    1 bedroom unit                          1 space           0.6 spaces
                    2 bedroom unit                          1.2 spaces        0.9 spaces
                    3 or more bedroom                       1.5 spaces        1.4 spaces
                    unit
                    visitor spaces                          0.2 spaces        0.2 spaces
                    trailer space                           1 space per 8     -
                                                            units


                    The RTA parking rates can be compared to the Council figures but
                    the low parking levels suggested by the RTA assume that such
                    developments are in close proximity to public transport services.

                    The Great Lakes rates assume shared parking but in individual
                    properties, the provision of 1.5 spaces per dwelling within a RFB is
                    not possible to achieve within the property curtilage so it may be
                    necessary to consider shared areas if this is to be pursued. In certain
                    instances, particularly for large detached properties on the edges of
                    the town centre; it may be preferable to consider the provision of 2
                    parking spaces per unit where the spaces are to be privately owned.
                    However, this is unlikely to be appropriate or achievable in the town
                    centres.

                    It is clear that public transport in Forster Tuncurry is generally not of a
                    good standard so the higher standards suggested by Great Lakes
                    Council are considerable to be appropriate.
                    Whilst the provision of low levels of car parking is proposed at the trip
                    origin, there are also plans to provide additional parking in the likely
                    destinations (i.e. Great Lakes commercial areas).

                    The Council recognises that additional parking spaces in the town
                    centres would benefit businesses and customers, and the demand for

                                                                                                            Page 9
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                         Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                 ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    these facilities is directly related to development of new shops and
                    offices. The provision of these additional spaces is to be funded by
                    Section 94 contributions, when not constructed on site with the new
                    premises.

                    Residential development in comparison to commercial / retail
                    development is generally expected to provide the correct level of
                    parking within the confines of the development site. There are S94
                    Contributions Plans for Forster / Tuncurry all of which make reference
                    to the provision of parking. Each new commercial development will
                    either provide all off street parking in accordance with Council’s car
                    parking policy or make a financial contribution in accordance with the
                    plan for the portion of parking that cannot be accommodated on site.
                    However, it is interesting to note that the requirement for the provision
                    of parking introduces a dichotomy. At the Community Workshop, it
                    was apparent that stakeholders regarded “the public domain to be
                    dominated by ever-growing car parking” yet commented that there
                    was a “lack of parking spaces in the CBD”.


3.1.1               Commercial Development
                    Although it is beyond the scope of the current study, it is noted that
                    the parking requirements for commercial developments is at present
                    1 car space per 20m2 (ground floor) and 1 car space per 30 sqm
                    (upper floors). This roughly equates to 1 car space per employee.
                    This may be considered high for an urban environment & is likely to
                    encourage car use. It is recommended that Council to reconsider the
                    parking requirements for commercial development, as part of a future
                    study.


3.2                 Driveway Policy
                    Driveways and kerb crossings can represent a significant proportion
                    of footpaths and potential kerbside parking. The Council may
                    consider a policy that reduces driveway widths and hence increases
                    the availability of both landscaping opportunities and on street
                    parking.

                    The Australian Standard AS/NZS2890.1:2004 Parking Facilities Part
                    1: Off-street car parking indicates minimum widths for driveways, and
                    access ways serving fewer than 25 parking spaces should have
                    minimum width of 3.0m.

                    However the Regional Cities Taskforce DCPs for Regional Cities
                    recommended a minimum width of 2.7m for single lane driveways
                    and 5.4m for two way driveways. These dimensions will be adequate
                    to provide access to the majority of properties within the study areas.


                                                                                                Page 10
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                       ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    A developer should however be required to demonstrate on the plans
                    submitted for Development Approval that the vehicles likely to access
                    the development site can turn into or out of the driveway without
                    encroaching onto the adjacent footpath or kerb. If this encroachment
                    occurs, the driveway should be widened as necessary to
                    accommodate the vehicle turn path. The minimum vehicle that
                    should be used for the assessment is the B99 vehicle defined in
                    AS/NZS2890.1:2004. For driveways serving more than 25 parking
                    spaces, the provisions of AS/NZS2890.1:2004 or replacement
                    documents should apply.
                    It should be mandatory that rear access lanes are the sole vehicle
                    access to new developments where they are available, and where
                    they are wide enough to allow access. The minimum width for
                    vehicle access is 3m. The ideal width is 6m to allow vehicles to turn
                    into or exit a driveway or garage. This could be achieved by requiring
                    the developer to dedicate a strip along the frontage sufficient to
                    provide a 3m width to the existing lane centreline. In addition the
                    developer should be required to show that the entrance is wide
                    enough to allow a vehicle to turn into or out of a driveway in a forward
                    direction or parking space and that as a minimum, pedestrian visibility
                    splays are provided for exiting vehicles. This demonstration should
                    assume that if there are adjacent parking spaces, there is a vehicle
                    occupying the adjacent space.

3.3                 Bicycle Parking Policy
                    One of the ways that will help promote the use of bicycles is to
                    provide cycle parking at both the origin and the destination locations.
                    There is no official cycle parking policy at Great Lakes Council and it
                    is recommended that Council investigate this issue.

                    A number of councils are now introducing guidance for the provision
                    of cycle parking, particularly in those areas where cycle use is
                    significant or where cycling could replace car trips, particularly at
                    retail centres, schools, leisure facilities and medium to high density
                    residential development. It could also become a recreational feature
                    of the locality.


3.3.1               Residential
                    A typical policy is that in place in the Australian Capital Territory
                    (ACT) which has the following standards for residential
                    developments.




                                                                                                   Page 11
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                  Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                          ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    Source: http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/tplan/planning_register/register_docs/bike_guidelines.pdf

                    It would not be unreasonable for Forster Tuncurry to promote similar
                    rates of cycle parking.


3.3.2               Destination / End of Trip facilities
                    In addition to cycle parking being provided at trip origins, it is
                    important to provide adequate cycle parking facilities at the trip
                    destinations.
                    Again, Government bodies are currently promoting the provision of
                    End of Trip Facilities in Government Buildings. These include:

                              Cycle parking facilities (U Bars)
                              Changing rooms
                              Personal Lockers
                              Showers
                    Typical rates for the provision of facilities are shown in the table
                    below




                                                                                                                      Page 12
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                           Source: http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/cycling_end_of_trip.pdf

                    Other recommendations which will help promote the use of cycling
                    include:
                              Providing cycle visitor parking in a visible area close to the
                              major pedestrian entrance to the development. The parking
                              facility should allow for safe movement of other vehicles and
                              pedestrians within and to the site.
                              Provide cycle parking and end-of-trip facilities for staff of major
                              employment centres
                    Cycle parking rates provided in other Councils are
                              Office: 1 visitor's space per 750 square metres
                              Shop: 1 visitor's space per 500 square metres, with a maximum
                              of 10 spaces.
                              1 bicycle parking space per 500 square metres of gross floor
                              area commercial / retail
                                                                                                                Page 13
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                       ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                              1 locker per 2 bicycle parking spaces.
                              1 shower cubicle with ancillary change rooms per 10 bicycle
                              spaces (minimum 1 shower) allowing adequate provision for
                              both men and women.
                    The GHD report identifies that there limited cycle parking in the
                    centres of Forster and Tuncurry.

                    Hyder agree that a number of aesthetically pleasing cycle parking
                    facilities could be provided and that they should be dispersed
                    throughout the commercial areas rather than collected at a single
                    point (which in many instances is often remote from where the cyclist
                    wants to park). Such parking spaces should be located so that
                    natural surveillance occurs thereby minimising the potential for
                    damage or theft.




                                                                                                 Page 14
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
4                   Development Growth

4.1                 Growth in Forster Tuncurry Study Area
                    City Plan Services has made estimates about the likely populations in
                    2006, 2016 and 2026 in the study area. This assumption is based
                    upon the fact that the Forster Tuncurry centres will not reach their
                    maximum potential even under proposed development controls.

                    Based upon these figures, it is estimated that whilst the summer peak
                    visitor population will increase by some 31% over the next 20 years;
                    the total resident population in the winter will increase by 48%.




                    Furthermore, City Plan Services’ projections for employment growth
                    show that the number of employees would rise by some 44% over the
                    next twenty years.
                                                                                              max
                                                            2006    2016    2026
                                                                                            capacity
                Forster/Tuncurry                            3,230   3,880   4,510                -
                Forster - Study Area                         866    1,080   1,290            1,860
                Tuncurry - Study Area                        900    1,330   1,755            3,360


                    This would indicate a general compound traffic growth in the study
                    areas of 2% per annum.


4.2                 Growth in Forster Tuncurry as a Whole
                    However, the previous study by GHD identified that based upon the
                    likely development in Forster / Tuncurry; the population would rise
                    from 23,587 to 48,763 over the period of the study.
                    This equates to an annual increase of 3.7% per annum. As this is
                    higher than the 2% likely to occur in the study area and as the traffic
                    growth would need to consider the assessment through the whole
                    study area, the 3.7% growth has been used for this report.




                                                                                                     Page 15
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                         ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
5                   Traffic Movements - Existing & Proposed

5.1                 Intersection Analysis
                    The development in Forster Tuncurry will inevitably lead to an
                    increase in traffic. Much of this traffic will feed along Manning Street,
                    Wallis Lakes Bridge, Head Street, Macintosh Street corridor so it
                    would be prudent to consider this as the primary route that will be
                    affected by the additional traffic.

                    The traffic might spill into residential streets if this primary route
                    experiences excessive delay and/or congestion.

                    As stated earlier, there are a number of intersection improvements
                    proposed along the route so the performance of a number of the key
                    intersections has been assessed to ensure that there is sufficient
                    capacity. The intersections chosen for analysis are described below.
                    The current flows shown on the diagrams are the key morning peak
                    hours.
                    Tuncurry

                          •     Manning Street / Kent Street - This is a planned roundabout at
                                this location but one of the recommendations from this study
                                is that the intersection is signalised. The study of this
                                intersection has been informed by recent turning counts at this
                                intersection.




                                                                                                    Page 16
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                          •     Manning Street / South Street – This is an existing roundabout
                                and the study of this intersection has been informed by recent
                                turning counts at this intersection.




                          •     Manning Street / Wallis Street - It is proposed that this
                                intersection will take the form of a roundabout. As no design
                                for this roundabout is available, we have assumed that a 30m
                                diameter roundabout will be provided at this location. The
                                study of this intersection has been informed by having recent
                                turning counts at this intersection.




                                                                                                  Page 17
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                         ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    Following completion of the study, a roundabout has been
                    constructed but this is smaller than the roundabout modelled – it has
                    a diameter of approximately 15m


5.1.1               Forster
                          •     Beach Street / Head Street – There is a roundabout at this
                                location but one of the recommendations from this study is
                                that the intersection is signalised. It is a key intersection in
                                Forster but again there is no detailed turning count (only a two
                                way traffic flow on Head Street and a daily traffic count on the
                                bridge) so it will be necessary to consider whether there is
                                enough existing available information to estimate the turning
                                movements at the roundabout. The methodology of trying to
                                establish an existing traffic count at this intersection is given
                                below.

                          •     Lake Street / Macintosh Street – This junction is currently a
                                traffic signal intersection and the analysis has been informed
                                by recent turning counts at this Intersection.




                          •     Beach Street / Wallis Street / Memorial Drive – This junction is
                                currently a signed intersection and the Council is planning to
                                change it to a roundabout. It would have been advantageous
                                to undertake a model of this intersection but no suitable traffic
                                count data is available to put together a model of the
                                intersection.



                                                                                                     Page 18
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                    Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                            ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
5.2                 Possible Derivation of turning data at Beach Street /
                    Head Street
                    As explained above, there are two way hourly flows on Head Street to
                    the east of the proposed intersection and there are also Average
                    Daily Flows on the Wallis Lakes Bridge. Even though there are traffic
                    counts on Reserve Road, Wharf Street and Memorial Drive, there is
                    no turning information to suggest how much traffic leaves Head Street
                    to travel either to the town centre or to the Foreshore.




                    Flows on Manning Street suggest that the peak hour flows are 785
                    westbound and 862 eastbound across the bridge.

                    The peak hourly flows on Head Street on the other side of Beach
                    Street / Head Street intersection are 655 east and 854 west.

                    However, the critical factor in whether a traffic signal intersection, or
                    any other intersection would work, would be the volume of right
                    turning traffic at the intersection. There is no way to estimate this
                    traffic volume from available data so it is not possible to model this
                    key intersection.

5.3                 Proposed Years for Intersection Analysis
                    The intersection analyses will be estimated for the year 2026 which is
                    the design year considered throughout this study.

                    The general growth used throughout the Forster Tuncurry area will be
                    3.7%. Whilst it may be the case that the actual traffic growth is only
                    2% we have assumed that traffic growth of 3.7% (from the GHD
                    Traffic Study 2005), which is expected to provide a worst case
                    scenario.




                                                                                                  Page 19
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                         ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    However, in addition to general traffic growth, there will be intensified
                    traffic levels at a number of the intersections resulting from the
                    surrounding residential development traffic entering the road network
                    at specific intersections. These means that some allowance has to
                    be made for the traffic from additional development which will have a
                    direct impact on specific intersections.


5.4                 Development Traffic
                    A number of intersections will experience additional turning traffic as
                    a result of traffic from adjacent new developments discharging onto
                    them directly. These intersections have been the subject of traffic
                    models.


5.5                 Trip Generation Rates
                    The best way to estimate the volume of traffic generated is to
                    consider similar types of housing in similar types of location.

                    The most local source of ‘official’ traffic generation data for similar
                    types of development is that contained in the Tea Gardens / Hawks
                    Nest Section 94 plan where it suggests that the similar residential
                    development would generate approximately 5 trips per unit.

                    This accords with guidance given in the RTA document ‘Guide to
                    Traffic Generating Developments’ which states that the trip rate for

                              Smaller units & flats – 4 to 5 trips per dwelling
                              Larger units & townhouses – 5 to 6.5 trips per dwelling.
                    Based upon standard practice (i.e. peak hour traffic being 10% of the
                    daily total), a trip generation rate of 0.5 trips per dwelling in the peak
                    hour has been used.




                                                                                                   Page 20
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                  Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                          ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
5.6                 Development Traffic being considered

5.6.1               Forster
                    City Plan Services consider that the greatest area of residential traffic
                    generation will be in the areas shown in the plan below.




                    It is estimated that the number of units likely to be built will result in
                    population increases as described in the table below but they will be
                    completed within a shorter timeframe (i.e. 2016 not 2026)

                                                                        2006          2016

                              Head St / Wallis St block                    300          590
                              Wallis St / Lake St block                    300          590
                              Lake St / Middle St block                       0         310
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              TOTAL                                        600        1,490

                    Consequently, out of the population increase of 890, we have
                    assumed approximately 450 of these units will be in this location.
                    These will find their way to the main road network by means of Lake
                    Street, would find their way to the wider road network by means of
                    Lake Street, Middle Street, Wallis Street and Head Street.
                    Consequently, 225 peak hour trips (i.e. 0.5 peak hour trips per unit)
                    divided between these intersections will be added to these arms in
                    the traffic models.




                                                                                                                        Page 21
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                       Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                               ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    Tuncurry

                    City Plan Services has indicated that the highest areas of traffic
                    generation will occur in the areas shown in the plan below.




                    The area marked blue is the existing Fishermen’s Coop which
                    includes a very popular restaurant. It currently has about 20 outdoor
                    tables but in addition many people are using it for take away meals.
                    The blocks marked 1 to 9 below are expected to increase in
                    population as detailed below.

                   Block          population            population   employees       employees
                                    2006                   2026        2006             2026
                                  estimated              projected   estimated        projected
                      1                        60               90               -          150
                      2                           -            160         150              275
                      3                           -            140         140              250
                      4                           -             60         130              230
                      5                           -             70         150              275
                      6                      115               190               -           75
                      7                        90              100               -           40
                      8                        50               50               -           15
                      9                        30               15          30               50
                   Total                     345               775         600            1,285

                    Although the traffic generated by this development has been allowed
                    for within the general traffic growth, an additional allowance will be
                    made to address the turning manoeuvres from additional traffic
                    joining the road network at the junctions which are being analysed as
                    part of this report.


                                                                                                                 Page 22
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    An increase in population of 430 and an increase in employees of
                    685 have been equated to a morning peak hour traffic increase, as
                    described below.

5.6.2               Residential Trips
                    The traffic generation calculation for the proposed population may be
                    derived by considering the following assumptions
                    (i) Car ownership level of 1.85 people per vehicle - 232 cars
                    (ii) 31384 people make 9334 journey to work trips (i.e. approximately
                    29.7%)
                    (iii) 232 cars x 29.7% = 69 car trips in the AM peak
                    The residential development would therefore probably generate
                    between 69 and 107 trips. 107 trips have been used as the worst
                    case scenario.


5.6.3               Employment Trips
                    Assumptions to calculate employment trips
                    (i) 71% of trips are in Great Lakes of which the majority will be in
                    Forster / Tuncurry (say 60%)
                    (ii) 78% will be car driver, 11% will be passenger and 11% walk or
                    use public transport
                    (iii) The majority of new employees will come from Forster or
                    Tuncurry and so the proportion of walking/cycling/ public transport will
                    be higher (say 20%) especially if development control guidance is
                    introduced to encourage this.
                    685 employees x 70% car driver = 480 trips. These are generally
                    spread over two hours with some 70% of the total being in the peak
                    hour. This would equate to 334 trips.
                    These trips have been distributed between the intersections being
                    analysed. It should be noted that this potentially double counts the
                    development traffic as it may also be included in the general traffic
                    growth.




                                                                                                 Page 23
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
5.7                 Traffic Analysis of Modelling Scenarios
                    Modelling has only been undertaken for the generally busier morning
                    peak hour.

                    Existing flows were increased to allow for traffic growth between 2005
                    and 2026 using the traffic growth factor described earlier and
                    development traffic has been compounded with this to establish the
                    total traffic at the intersection expected in 2026.

                    Geometric parameters for the intersection modelling have been
                    obtained from preliminary sketches of possible intersection layouts
                    and have been complemented by aerial photographs which have
                    given more detailed information upon existing layout / lane markings
                    etc.

                    As stated above, these models will represent a worst case scenario
                    as they use the highest available figures for traffic growth and have
                    applied them to ALL traffic flows. In addition, development traffic has
                    been applied which will inevitably lead to an element of double
                    counting, particularly on the minor roads at the intersections
                    modelled.

5.7.1               Tuncurry
                          •     Manning Street / Kent Street




                          This is expected to be a roundabout so it has been modelled as
                          such. In 2026, the intersection will work with an acceptable level
                          of service of B or better and with an acceptable degree of
                          saturation on all arms.

                          This has also been modelled as a simple two phase traffic signal
                          operation and this shows that the intersection will operate very
                          well (with an overall level of Service B), although the Manning
                          Street arms are approaching their operational capacity in 2026
                          with a Level of Service of C for some of its turning movements.
                                                                                                 Page 24
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                          Although the traffic signals would add a small amount of delay
                          when compared to the roundabout, the signalised intersection
                          would however be better for pedestrian movements.
                              Manning Street / South Street




                                The existing roundabout has been modelled and this shows
                                that it will work satisfactorily although it will be approaching its
                                operational traffic capacity on 3 of the arms by 2026.

                          •     Manning Street / Wallis Street




                                                                                                       Page 25
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                      Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                              ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    A traffic model shows that a roundabout intersection would work
                    satisfactorily with a Level of Service of A, with no arm experiencing a
                    Level of Service of worse than B.

5.7.2               Forster
                          •     Lake Street / Macintosh Street




                                The existing traffic signals at this intersection do, in theory,
                                lead to unacceptable queuing for right turning traffic from Lake
                                Street West to Macintosh Street South.

                                In reality, however, this may not produce a significant problem
                                as right turning vehicles may, if faced by a queue, may
                                change their route so that they reached Macintosh Street by
                                means of West Street / Middle Street.




                                                                                                    Page 26
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                   Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
6                   Conclusions
                    Hyder has worked with City Plan Services on the study and believes
                    that there is great potential to increase the number of pedestrians and
                    cyclist in the two town centres for short journey.

                    The provision of off road and on road facilities for cyclists both at the
                    origin and destination of their trip will encourage people to cycle.

                    Hyder has examined the road network in the light of likely traffic
                    growth and traffic distribution resulting from potential development
                    within the study areas.
                    Hyder has concluded that one of the key intersections which is
                    important in promoting pedestrian movements is Manning Street /
                    Kent Street which could be converted to traffic signals. The
                    intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service under
                    these conditions. One of the other key intersections Head Street /
                    Beach Street cannot be modelled due to a lack of traffic information at
                    this location. It may also be the case that this could be successfully
                    converted to a signalised intersection.
                    At other intersections, the Councils preference for providing
                    roundabouts at a number of crossroads is defensible in so far that it
                    maximises traffic capacity. However, it may be necessary to offset
                    provision of traffic capacity in order to provide good quality pedestrian
                    and cyclist facilities.

                    In any event, careful design of the roundabouts will be necessary to
                    ensure that cyclists can safely manoeuvre around them and that
                    pedestrians are not diverted too far away from the pedestrian desire
                    lines.

                    Future Studies
                    The Council should introduce a “Sustainable Transport Plan” for the
                    Forster / Tuncurry study areas. This would provide a direction for
                    future policy to promote non car based means of transport and a
                    more sustainable transport system.
                    Ultimately, this would allow the Council to achieve its wider
                    responsibilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting in
                    lower air pollution and lower health costs. This ultimately may lead to
                    lower overall transport costs, more transport options for the
                    community and a reduction in the number of accidents.

                    Such a strategy would help achieve a shift towards walking cycling
                    and public transport.




                                                                                                  Page 27
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                 Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                         ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                    However, prior to any study commencing, it is recommended that
                    additional traffic counts are undertaken at a number of the key
                    intersections, particularly those not recorded on the previous GHD
                    study, including:
                              Head Street / Beach Street
                              Beach Street / Wharf Street
                              Beach Street / Wallis Street / Memorial Drive
                    This would provide additional certainty to some of the traffic issues
                    likely to result from future development within the Forster town centre.




                                                                                               Page 28
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                              Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                      ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                                Appendix A
                                                            Traffic Flow Characteristics




Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                              Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                      ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                  ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                               Appendix B
                                                      Proposed Footway Improvements




Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                  ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
 Proposed Road Widening




Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                  ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Proposed Intersection Improvements




Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                  ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                            Appendix C
                                                               SIDRA Results




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                             Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                           ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                    Manning Street North




                                                    Manning Street South




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                              Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                            ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Movement Summary
Manning Street and Wallis Street Intersection – AM Peak
Roundabout



Vehicle Movements

                                                                             95%
            Dem                                 Deg of      Aver     Level   Back                           Aver
 Mov                                                                                 Prop.   Eff. Stop
     Turn   Flow  %HV                            Satn       Delay     of      of                           Speed
 ID                                                                                 Queued     Rate
          (veh/h)                               (v/c)       (sec)   Service Queue                         (km/h)
                                                                             (m)

Manning Street South
  1    L        34 0.0                            0.391       7.7   LOS A    22       0.14       0.60         48.9
  2    T      1092 0.0                            0.389       6.5   LOS A    22       0.14       0.51         50.1
  3    R        43 0.0                            0.387      11.0   LOS A    22       0.15       0.67         45.9
Approach     1169 0.0                             0.389       6.7   LOS A    22       0.14       0.52         49.9

Wallis Street East
  4      L        17               0.0            0.066      11.0   LOS A     2       0.61       0.83         46.0
  5      T         9               0.0            0.066      10.2   LOS A     2       0.61       0.80         46.8
  6      R        15               0.0            0.066      14.7   LOS B     2       0.61       0.81         43.1
Approach         41                0.0            0.066      12.2   LOS A     2       0.61       0.82         45.0

Manning Street North
  7    L        34 0.0                            0.430       7.9   LOS A    23       0.21       0.60         48.5
  8    T      1201 0.0                            0.433       6.7   LOS A    23       0.21       0.52         49.7
  9    R         2 0.0                            0.400      11.2   LOS A    23       0.22       0.67         45.6
Approach     1237 0.0                             0.433       6.7   LOS A    23       0.21       0.52         49.7

Wallis Street West
  10     L         6               0.0            0.032      10.7   LOS A     1       0.58       0.77         46.3
  11     T         4               0.0            0.032      10.0   LOS A     1       0.58       0.75         47.1
  12     R       11                0.0            0.032      14.5   LOS A     1       0.58       0.77         43.3
Approach         21                0.0            0.032      12.5   LOS A     1       0.58       0.77         44.8

All Vehicles           2468        0.0            0.433       6.9   LOS A    23       0.19       0.53         49.6




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                      Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                    ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
                                                    Manning Street North




                                                    Manning Street South




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                              Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                            ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Movement Summary
Manning Street and South Street Intersection – AM Peak
Roundabout



Vehicle Movements

                                                                             95%
            Dem                                 Deg of      Aver     Level   Back                           Aver
 Mov                                                                                 Prop.   Eff. Stop
     Turn   Flow  %HV                            Satn       Delay     of      of                           Speed
 ID                                                                                 Queued     Rate
          (veh/h)                               (v/c)       (sec)   Service Queue                         (km/h)
                                                                             (m)

Manning Street South
  1    L       306 0.0                            0.845      15.3   LOS   B   112     0.94       1.00         42.1
  2    T      1244 0.0                            0.846      14.4   LOS   A   112     0.94       1.00         43.0
  3    R       239 0.0                            0.845      19.2   LOS   B   111     0.95       1.03         39.7
Approach     1789 0.0                             0.846      15.2   LOS   B   112     0.94       1.01         42.4

South Street East
  4     L        90                0.0            0.265      14.4   LOS   A    11     0.82       0.94         42.9
  5     T       116                0.0            0.416      12.8   LOS   A    22     0.88       0.98         44.4
  6     R        81                0.0            0.415      17.3   LOS   B    22     0.88       1.00         41.1
Approach       287                 0.0            0.415      14.6   LOS   B    22     0.86       0.97         42.9

Manning Street North
  7    L        51 0.0                            0.810      19.0   LOS   B    93     0.98       1.19         39.3
  8    T      1079 0.0                            0.803      18.0   LOS   B    93     0.98       1.20         40.1
  9    R       160 0.0                            0.804      22.9   LOS   B    90     0.98       1.22         37.2
Approach     1290 0.0                             0.804      18.7   LOS   B    93     0.98       1.20         39.7

South Street West
  10    L      107                 0.0            0.398      17.8   LOS   B    17     0.86       0.99         40.2
  11    T      101                 0.0            0.856      28.4   LOS   B    70     0.99       1.29         33.7
  12    R      275                 0.0            0.854      32.9   LOS   C    70     0.99       1.29         31.9
Approach       483                 0.0            0.854      28.6   LOS   C    70     0.96       1.23         33.8

All Vehicles           3849        0.0            0.856      18.0   LOS B     112     0.95       1.10         40.2




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                      Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                    ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Existing Signed Intersection



Degree of Saturation
Demand Volume / Capacity (v/c) ratio

Manning Street and South Street Intersection – AM Peak

                                                             Intersection Type

                                                                 Roundabout




                                                            Colour code based on
                                                            Degree of Saturation



                                                                       < 0.6
                                                                      0.6-0.7
                                                                      0.7-0.8
                                                                      0.8-0.9
                                                                      0.9-1.0
                                                                       > 1.0




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Manning and Kent Street Intersection



                                                 Manning Street North


                                                            30




                                                            30




                                                 Manning Street South




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                           Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                         ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Planned Roundabout:




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                             ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Potential Signalised Intersection:




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                             ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
          Movement Summary

Manning Street and Kent Street Intersection – AM Peak
Signalised - Fixed time                      Cycle Time = 60 seconds



Vehicle Movements

                                                                             95%
                      Dem                       Deg of      Aver     Level   Back                               Aver
 Mov                                                                                    Prop.    Eff. Stop
     Turn             Flow  %HV                  Satn       Delay     of      of                               Speed
 ID                                                                                    Queued      Rate
                    (veh/h)                     (v/c)       (sec)   Service Queue                             (km/h)
                                                                             (m)

Manning Street South
  1    L        42 0.0                            0.874      32.1   LOS   C      208      0.95       1.09         31.8
  2    T      1722 0.0                            0.876      23.9   LOS   B      208      0.95       1.05         36.2
  3    R        44 0.0                            0.294      33.3   LOS   C       13      0.90       0.76         31.3
Approach     1808 0.0                             0.876      24.3   LOS   B      208      0.95       1.05         36.0

Kent Street East
  4      L       21                0.0            0.042      25.1   LOS   B       5       0.75       0.71         35.4
  5     T         1                0.0            0.042      16.9   LOS   B       5       0.75       0.54         40.9
  6     R        17                0.0            0.065      26.1   LOS   B       4       0.77       0.70         34.9
Approach         39                0.0            0.065      25.3   LOS   B       5       0.76       0.70         35.3

Manning Street North
  7    L        54 0.0                            0.804      24.7   LOS   B      158      0.89       0.95         35.7
  8    T      1563 0.0                            0.804      16.5   LOS   B      159      0.89       0.88         41.3
  9    R        36 0.0                            0.260      36.8   LOS   C       11      0.95       0.74         29.8
Approach     1653 0.0                             0.804      17.2   LOS   B      159      0.89       0.88         40.7

Kent Street West
  10     L       66                0.0            0.127      25.7   LOS   B       16      0.78       0.75         35.1
  11    T         1                0.0            0.126      17.5   LOS   B       16      0.78       0.60         40.5
  12    R        15                0.0            0.034      25.2   LOS   B        4      0.75       0.70         35.4
Approach         82                0.0            0.127      25.5   LOS   B       16      0.77       0.74         35.2

All Vehicles           3582        0.0            0.876      21.1   LOS B        208      0.92       0.96         38.0


Pedestrian Movements


                                     95%
       Dem Flow Aver Delay Level of Back of
Mov ID                                      Prop. Queued Eff. Stop Rate
        (ped/h)   (sec)    Service Queue
                                     (m)


     P1               50             24.3         LOS C      0            0.90          0.90
     P3               50             10.2          LOS B     0            0.58          0.58
     P5               50             24.3         LOS C      0            0.90          0.90
     P7               50             10.2          LOS B     0            0.58          0.58
All Peds            200              17.3         LOS B      0            0.74          0.74




Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                                                                          Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                                                                        ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
Forster/Tuncurry Town Centres                               Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
Pedestrian, Cycle & Traffic Report                             ABN 76 104 485 289
F:\NS03584\Final Issue\0001-NS03584-NSR-04 Traffic FT.doc
*UHDW /DNHV &RXQFLO




7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH     7UDIILF 5HSRUW


                          8UEDQ 'HVLJQ 'HQVLW\
                                       5HYLHZ
                                         )ULGD\  -XQH 
                             5HSRUW QR 16165
*UHDW /DNHV &RXQFLO




7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH                                      7UDIILF 5HSRUW


                                                   8UEDQ 'HVLJQ 'HQVLW\ 5HYLHZ

$XWKRU        . - +ROO\RDN


&KHFNHU       - . 'XPRQW


$SSURYHU      - . 'XPRQW

5HSRUW QR     16165                                             'DWH        )ULGD\  -XQH 

7KLV UHSRUW KDV EHHQ SUHSDUHG IRU *UHDW /DNHV &RXQFLO LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH WHUPV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI DSSRLQWPHQW
IRU 3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW GDWHG $XJXVW  +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG $%1     FDQQRW
DFFHSW DQ\ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU DQ\ XVH RI RU UHOLDQFH RQ WKH FRQWHQWV RI WKLV UHSRUW E\ DQ\ WKLUG SDUW\




Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 76 104 485 289
Level 5, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney NSW 2060, Australia
Tel: +61 2 8907 9000 Fax: +61 2 8907 9001 www.hyderconsulting.com
&RQWHQWV
                  ,QWURGXFWLRQ  

                          6FRSH RI 6WXG\  
                          3UHYLRXV 6WXGLHV  
                          &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI 7UDIILF 3RSXODWLRQ  
                  3URPRWLQJ 6XVWDLQDEOH 0RYHPHQW  

                          ([LVWLQJ 3HGHVWULDQ 'HVLUH /LQHV 
                          3URSRVHG &\FOHZD\                )RRWZD\ ,PSURYHPHQWV 
                          2WKHU 6HFWLRQV 
                  3DUNLQJ 3ROLF\  

                          &DU 3DUNLQJ 6WDQGDUGV  
                          %LF\FOH 3DUNLQJ 3ROLF\  
                  .RDOD ,VVXHV  

                          ,QWURGXFWLRQ 
                  3URSRVHG 'HYHORSPHQW 6FHQDULRV 

                          ([LVWLQJ  3URSRVHG 'HYHORSPHQW  
                          'HYHORSPHQWV 6SHFLILF WR WKH 6WXG\ $UHD  
                  7UDIILF 0RYHPHQWV  

                          /LNHO\ 7UDIILF (IIHFWV RI 'HYHORSPHQW  
                          ([LVWLQJ 7UDIILF &RXQWV  
                          7ULS JHQHUDWLRQ 5DWHV  
                          *HQHUDWHG 7UDIILF 'LVWULEXWLRQ  
                          7UDIILF 0RGHOOLQJ  
                  7UDIILF $QDO\VLV RI 0RGHOOLQJ 6FHQDULRV  

                          $0 3HDN 
                          30 3HDN 
                  &RQFOXVLRQV 




                                                                                                                                                                3DJH L
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                                                                                 +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                                                                          $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  ,QWURGXFWLRQ

                6FRSH RI 6WXG\
                   Hyder’s brief for the study is to
                   1.           Examine the identified pedestrian and cyclist routes
                   2.           Examine the road network and identify where there are deficiencies
                                in the network or locations where intersections or roadways are
                                nearing capacity
                   3.           Identify opportunities to increase capacity at key intersections to
                                increase the development potential of particular blocks. This data
                                will be used to inform the assessment of zones for high density use.

                   To do this, Hyder examined the current levels of service at key
                   intersections and determined the additional traffic that could use the
                   intersection, while maintaining an acceptable level of service. Hyder made
                   this examination in the light of the Council’s Section 94 plan. Hyder has
                   also given advice on other transportation aspects which might affect the
                   study such as parking and initiatives to promote cycling and walking.

                3UHYLRXV 6WXGLHV
                   Tea Gardens & Hawks Nest Section 94 Contributions Plan (2006)
                   Previous Studies in the area are reported in the Tea Gardens & Hawks
                   Nest Section 94 Contributions Plan (2006). These studies have concluded
                   that

                   ƒ         Myall Street and Mungo Brush Road should be retained as the major
                             access roads for the area in the long term.
                   ƒ         Duplication of the Singing Bridge is a long term option beyond the
                             scope of current planning;
                   ƒ         The Hawks Nest commercial area has traffic management problems;
                   ƒ         The Myall Quays development will involve a major new intersection,
                             incorporating a roundabout on Myall Street. This development also
                             has consequences for Myall Street, between the development site
                             and the Tea Gardens commercial area;
                   ƒ         The Myall Quays roundabout could also serve new developments
                             west of Myall Street;
                   ƒ         Myall Quays may be required to contribute to upgrading of Marine
                             Drive and undertake traffic management works at the Tea Gardens
                             commercial area.




                                                                                                    3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                             +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                      $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   “Hawks Nest Business Zone Strategy”
                   The strategy which was produced in 2004 states that the shopping facilities
                   in Hawks Nest have good laneway access. Off street car parking locations
                   provide for easy access for servicing and for customers.
                   It also states that the 2850sq. local shopping facilities would require
                   between 95 and 140 spaces to satisfy council parking policy requirements.
                   Existing parking is split between on street angle parking (25 spaces),
                   parallel parking and off street parking (71 spaces) accessed from Yamba
                   Street. It reports that there are also significant on street parallel car parking
                   spaces in the vicinity of the existing shops so the report concludes that
                   “even for the maximum possible parking requirement of 140 spaces, the
                   additional supply from parallel on-street parking would be sufficient to meet
                   the standard requirements”.
                   It seems therefore that the parking provision in Hawks Nest’s adequate.


                &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI 7UDIILF 3RSXODWLRQ
                   During the Section 94 plans lifetime, the population is expected to increase
                   from about 2,400 in 1998 to 4,100 in 2011, an increase of about 1,700
                   people. Daily traffic volumes during non-peak periods are expected to
                   increase in proportion to the population increase during this period because
                   driving habits and car ownership should remain relatively constant during
                   the Plan’s lifetime. Traffic volumes on the Myall Way would be expected to
                   reach 3,400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and 6,000 AADT on
                   Myall Street by 2011.
                   Myall Way is a rural requirement for such a road with a sealed carriageway
                   width of approximately 6.0 m. Council’s standard is for a sealed
                   carriageway width between 6.4 and 7.0 m to meet future traffic remands up
                   to the year 2011. However, several sections of the road have substandard
                   horizontal and vertical alignments. Substandard alignments affect the
                   Level of Service provided by the road and in particular, road user safety.
                   The Section 94 Plan proposes upgrading the alignment of Myall Way to
                   improve those sections where substandard horizontal and vertical
                   alignment and road width, reduce design speed and road user safety.
                   Myall Street has a variable width of 6 and 11 m. The estimated traffic
                   performance of this road is that it operates with a Level of Service is A
                   during non-peak periods.
                   Council’s urban road standards would require that Myall Street be sealed,
                   with a roadway width of 13 m to service residential sites with a total of more
                   than 300 houses. There is sufficient development to warrant these road
                   standards now; and it would then have sufficient capacity and safety to
                   accommodate at least 10,000 AADT.

                                                                                                   3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                            +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                     $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   Myall Quays, Myall River Downs and Tea Gardens Estate will experience
                   substantial traffic growth from population increases, associated with
                   development of these areas. Accordingly, intersection upgrades will be
                   required in association with establishment of these release areas. Such
                   upgrades may include Type C intersection treatment or the construction of
                   roundabouts but the design of such facilities will be the responsibility of the
                   developers.

                   It is therefore necessary to estimate the levels of traffic from any proposed
                   development in the medium density area in order to assess whether any
                   intersection treatments are needed onto Myall Street. Such studies
                   suggest that the construction of Seagull intersections or roundabouts may
                   be necessary.
                   However, for upgrading the main access roads (e.g. Myall Way, Myall
                   Street and Kingfisher Avenue), residential developers will be required to
                   provide a financial contribution to upgrade the road network. Section 94
                   plans cannot levy residential developments for traffic increases caused by
                   tourism but assessments of the existing roads have been historically
                   undertaken using non-peak or non-holiday periods.
                   However, it is noted that there are plans to upgrade the Yalimbah Street
                   junction to a roundabout at some time in the future. Consequently, this has
                   been taken into account in this study.




                                                                                                  3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                           +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                    $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  3URPRWLQJ 6XVWDLQDEOH 0RYHPHQW

                ([LVWLQJ 3HGHVWULDQ 'HVLUH /LQHV
                   This study has identified that the main pedestrian desire lines are

                   ƒ         Booner St, Yamba St (West), Langi St and Moira Parade (Hawks
                             Nest)
                   ƒ         Myall Street, Marine Drive (Tea Gardens)
                   ƒ         Yalimbah St / Iluka St




                                                                                                3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                         +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                  $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                3URSRVHG &\FOHZD\ )RRWZD\ ,PSURYHPHQWV
                   With regard to cycling, reference must be made to the Great Lakes Council
                   - Tea Gardens & Hawks Nest Section 94 Contributions Plan (2006). This
                   document confirms that there are no existing cycle ways in the area but the
                   Council realises that the entire community will benefit from them.

                   It confirms that Tea Gardens and Hawks Nest offer good opportunities for
                   residents to use bicycles for recreation and local trips as the terrain is
                   predominantly flat, and traffic volumes are low except in peak holiday
                   periods.

                   In the document, Council has prepared a strategy to construct cycle ways
                   throughout the Plan Area. A plan showing the proposed cycle ways is
                   shown at Appendix C below.




                   Council has estimated the capital cost, less subsidies and grants, to
                   construct the 4,000 m of shared cycle way/pedestrian paths in its strategy.
                   This Plan will levy residential developments, both subdivision and new
                   dwellings or units, based on the expected number of residents.


                                                                                               3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                        +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                 $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   It estimated that the existing Population was 2,410 in 1998 and that by
                   2011 it will have risen to 4,123.
                   As the proposed cycle ways in both Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens are
                   adjacent to the density zoning, it should be the intention that any cycle
                   facilities in these developments connect to the proposed network.


                2WKHU 6HFWLRQV
                   At the moment, the width of the Singing Bridge is not conducive to either
                   cycle or pedestrian use.
                   The widening of the bridge is a medium / long term aspiration of the Council
                   but it may be worthwhile in the short term to introduce an adjacent structure
                   which could be constructed as per Forster / Tuncurry bridge adjacent to /
                   possibly cantilevered from the existing Forster / Tuncurry bridge which
                   could provide a footway and cycleway so the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens
                   are better connected for non-car travel.
                   In addition, the missing section of footpath between Myall Quays to Tea
                   Gardens is a key measure in ensuring that people are able to walk to the
                   Myall Quays shopping centre should they choose to.




                                                                                                 3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                          +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                   $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  3DUNLQJ 3ROLF\

                &DU 3DUNLQJ 6WDQGDUGV
                   We have also looked at the Car Parking Policy which requires the following
                   levels of parking for residential flat buildings in all of the study areas

                                                             Great Lakes      RTA Guide to Traffic
                                                                              Generating Developments –
                                                                              High Density residential Flats
                                                                              Sub-Regional Standards
                   1 bedroom unit                            1 space          0.6 spaces
                   2 bedroom unit                            1.2 spaces       0.9 spaces
                   3 or more bedroom                         1.5 spaces       1.4 spaces
                   unit
                   visitor spaces                            0.2 spaces       0.2 spaces
                   trailer space                             1 space per 8    -
                                                             units


                   The RTA parking rates can be compared to the Council figures but the low
                   parking levels suggested by the RTA consider that such developments are
                   in close proximity to public transport services.

                   The Great Lakes rates assume shared parking but in discrete properties,
                   the provision of 1.5 spaces per dwelling is obviously not possible to achieve
                   within the property curtilage so it may be necessary to consider shared
                   areas if this is to be pursued. In certain instances, particularly for large
                   detached properties on the edges of the town, it may be preferable to
                   consider the provision of 2 parking spaces where the spaces are to be
                   individually owned. However, this is unlikely to be appropriate in the town
                   centres.
                   It is clear that public transport in Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest is generally not
                   of a good standard so the higher standards suggested by Great Lakes
                   Council are probably appropriate.
                   Whilst the provision of low levels of car parking is proposed at the trip
                   origin, there are also plans to provide additional parking in the likely
                   destinations (i.e. the commercial areas). The Council recognises that
                   additional parking spaces in the central areas would benefit businesses and
                   customers, and the demand for these facilities is directly related to
                   development of new shops and offices. The provision of these additional
                   spaces is to be funded by Section 94 contributions.

                   Although, the S94 plan does not directly state it, such contributions do not
                   generally relate to residential development – residential development is
                                                                                                             3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                                      +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                               $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   generally expected to provide the correct level of parking within the
                   confines of the development site. There are S94 Contributions Plans for
                   Forster / Tuncurry and Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest all of which make
                   reference to the provision of parking. Each new commercial development
                   will either provide off street parking in accordance with Council’s car
                   parking policy or make a financial contribution in accordance with the plan.


              &RPPHUFLDO 'HYHORSPHQW
                   Although it is beyond the scope of the current study, it is noted that the parking
                   requirements for commercial developments is at present 1 car space per 30 sqm
                   (which roughly equates to 1 car space per employee).

                   This seems high for an urban environment & is likely to encourage car use.

                   It is recommended that parking requirements for commercial development
                   should be reconsidered particularly in the urban centre as part of a future
                   study.


                %LF\FOH 3DUNLQJ 3ROLF\
                   One of the ways that will help promote the use of bicycles is to provide
                   cycle parking at both the origin and the destination of their trip.
                   However, there is no official cycle parking policy at Great Lakes Council.

                   A number of councils are now introducing guidance for the provision of
                   cycle parking, particularly in those areas where cycle use is significant or
                   where cycling could replace car trips, particularly at retail centres, schools,
                   leisure facilities and medium to high density residential development.
                   It should be the intention in Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest to provide adequate
                   cycle parking at both the origin and destination of a trip.


              5HVLGHQWLDO
                   A typical policy is that in place in the ACT (which has the following
                   standards for residents and visitors is provided in residential developments




                                                                                                      3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                               +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                        $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   This table can be referenced at

                   Http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/tplan/planning_register/register_docs/bike_guidelines.pdf

                   It would not be unreasonable for Hawks Nest / Tea Gardens to promote
                   similar rates of cycle parking


              'HVWLQDWLRQ  (QG RI 7ULS IDFLOLWLHV
                   In addition to cycle parking being provided at trip origins, it is important to
                   provide adequate cycle parking facilities at the trip destinations as well.
                   Again, Government bodies are currently promoting the provision of End of
                   Trip Facilities in Government Buildings. These include

                   ƒ         Changing rooms
                   ƒ         Personal Lockers
                   ƒ         Showers
                   Typical rates are shown in the table below




                                    http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/cycling_end_of_trip.pdf

                   Other recommendations which will help promote the use of cycling. These
                   include


                                                                                                                   3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                                            +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                                     $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   ƒ         Providing cycle visitor parking in a visible area close to the major
                             pedestrian entrance to the development. The parking facility should
                             allow for safe movement of other vehicles and pedestrians within and
                             to the site.
                   ƒ         Provide cycle parking and end-of-trip facilities for staff of major
                             employment centres
                   Cycle parking rates provided elsewhere are
                   ƒ         Office: 1 visitor's space per 750 square metres
                   ƒ         Shop: 1 visitor's space per 500 square metres, with a maximum of 10
                             spaces.
                   ƒ         1 bicycle parking space per 500 square metres of gross floor area
                   ƒ         1 locker per 2 bicycle parking spaces.
                   ƒ         1 shower cubicle with ancillary change rooms per 10 bicycle spaces
                             (minimum 1 shower) allowing adequate provision for both men and
                             women.




                                                                                                     3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                                +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                         $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  .RDOD ,VVXHV

                ,QWURGXFWLRQ
                   The Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens Koala population is listed as an
                   Endangered Population under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation
                   Act (1995). In 1999, the NSW Scientific Committee found that population
                   numbers had been reduced to such a critical level and habitat so drastically
                   reduced that the population was at immediate risk of extinction.

                   A Recovery Plan for the Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens Endangered Koala
                   Population has been developed and includes a number of traffic based
                   responses to address the declining Koala population. These include:

                   ƒ         Establishment of a program of black spot identification to reduce the
                             rate of road fatalities and injury,
                   ƒ         Development and implementation of a program that integrates
                             strategic streetscaping and traffic calming
                   ƒ         Introduction of road signage which reinforce the prohibition of cats
                             and dogs on the estate.
                   It is recommended that a black spot identification report should be prepared
                   and a strategic traffic calming scheme introduced to reinforce the initiatives
                   of the Plan.




                                                                                                  3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                             +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                      $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  3URSRVHG 'HYHORSPHQW 6FHQDULRV

                ([LVWLQJ  3URSRVHG 'HYHORSPHQW
                   One of the largest regional developments is Myall Quays which is located
                   just over 2km northwest of the Singing Bridge and at the northernmost
                   extremity of Tea Gardens. This development currently comprises 220 home
                   sites and a shopping village which comprises:
                   ƒ         A 2000 square metre BI-LO supermarket. (Opened December 2002)
                   ƒ         15 specialty shops including a pie shop, butcher, electrical outlet,
                             video hire, real estate office, financial institution and newsagency.
                   ƒ         A Health and Medical Centre which accommodates 5 Doctors, a
                             Dentist, visiting Specialist and allied health care professionals, a
                             Pathology Department, an X-Ray/Ultrasound Centre and a Pharmacy.
                   However, there are other approved developments at the centre which
                   include
                   ƒ         a further 100 home sites - currently under construction
                   ƒ         a large commercial office building
                   ƒ         a service station and car wash
                   ƒ         a weekend produce market
                   Furthermore, a development application has been submitted for the
                   construction of a child care centre within the shopping village.
                   In addition, there are a number of potential development areas which would
                   gain access from Yalimbah Street. There are potential sites to the south
                   west of Yalimbah Street and there is likely to be some infill development to
                   the north of Yalimbah Street in the vicinity of Jacob Street.
                   A large residential release area is also proposed at North Hawks Nest and
                   between 6000 and 7000 dwellings are indicated on the concept plan.
                   Other development in Hawks Nest is expected to primarily consist of infill
                   development spread throughout the study area although there are specific
                   concentrated areas which will need to be given additional consideration.




                                                                                                   3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                              +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                       $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                'HYHORSPHQWV 6SHFLILF WR WKH 6WXG\ $UHD




                   It is likely that the precincts shown on the above plan will be developed
                   over the next 20 years for the purpose of medium density residential
                   accommodation. The populations are likely to increase as follows.

                                                                                 
                          Jacob St / Yalimbah St block                         15    118
                           Jacob St / Marine Dr block                          48    233
                             Iluka St / Myall St block                         98     85
                         Myall St / Yalimbah Street block                      2      56
                                      TOTAL                                   163    492


                   The Tea Gardens / Hawks Nest Section 94 plan suggests that this area will
                   be developed for about 300 units (excluding the Myall St / Yalimbah Street
                   block) and suggests that these trips will generate 1,500 vehicle trips (this is
                   assuming 5 trips per unit – see Section 6). City Plan Services has
                   estimated that 70% of this population would be permanent residential.




                                                                                                           3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                                      +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                               $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  7UDIILF 0RYHPHQWV

                /LNHO\ 7UDIILF (IIHFWV RI 'HYHORSPHQW
                   The development in Tea Gardens and Hawks Nest will inevitably lead to an
                   increase in traffic. Much of this will traffic will feed along the Mungo Bridge
                   Road, Singing Bridge and Myall Way corridor so this is the primary route
                   that will be affected.
                   As stated earlier, there is a roundabout proposed at Yalimbah Street so the
                   performance of the roundabout has been assessed to ensure that there is
                   sufficient capacity for the expected future traffic loads.
                   No plan of the proposed roundabout has been made available so a typical
                   30m diameter roundabout has been used for this assessment.
                   No similar intersection upgrade is proposed elsewhere in Hawks Nest
                   except for those specifically associated with North Hawks Nest release
                   area so no intersection modelling has been undertaken for the Hawks Nest
                   Study Area.


                ([LVWLQJ 7UDIILF &RXQWV
                   Traffic data is available within the Tea Gardens & Hawks Nest Section 94
                   Contributions Plan (2006) document, and supplementary information has
                   been provided by the Council for the purpose of this study.

                   This data estimates daily traffic volumes along Myall Street in 1997 varied
                   between 3400 and 6150 (Easter Weekend) with flows in January being
                   much higher. Average flows are expected to be 6000 by 2011 which
                   equates to about 3.9% growth per annum (when considering the lower
                   3400 figure).
                   Consequently, it has been considered that Myall Street flows will continue
                   to increase at this rate and that in 2026, the daily traffic volume would be
                   10,600.
                   It is traditionally accepted that the peak hour flow is 10% of the daily flow so
                   a peak hour traffic flow in 2026 would be about 1060.
                   However, traffic is likely to be ‘peaky’ with much traffic travelling north west
                   (possibly up to 75%) towards the Pacific Highway in the morning peak
                   period with the reverse happening in the evening peak period.
                   The flow will therefore be approximately 795 northwest and 275 southeast,
                   including existing turning traffic from existing houses joining Myall Street.

                   This future year traffic includes estimates of development growth but does
                   not include any information relating to the volume of turning traffic at these
                   intersections.

                                                                                                 3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                            +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                     $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                7ULS JHQHUDWLRQ 5DWHV
                   In Section 5 of this report, it is reported that the in the Tea Gardens / Hawks
                   Nest Section 94 plan that the development at Tea Gardens would generate
                   approximately 5 trips per unit per day. This is less than the usually
                   accepted value of 9 trips per dwelling for residential property. Since the 5
                   trips per unit value is a measured value, it is this value that will be used in
                   subsequent analysis.

                   This accords with guidance given in the RTA document ‘Guide to Traffic
                   Generating developments’ which states that the trip rate for

                   ƒ         Smaller units & flats – 4 to 5 trips per dwelling
                   ƒ         Larger units & townhouses – 5 to 6.5 trips per dwelling
                   Based upon standard practice (i.e. peak hour traffic being 10% of the daily
                   total), a trip generation rate of 0.5 trips per dwelling in the peak hour has
                   been used.


                *HQHUDWHG 7UDIILF 'LVWULEXWLRQ




                   Based upon the future development profile information provided by City
                   Plan Services in Section 4, it has been possible to estimate the traffic from
                   the assumed number of houses which are likely to use the Yalimbah Street
                   roundabout using the potential development areas highlighted above.
                   By applying the trip generation rate of 5 trips per dwelling and assuming
                   that the direction of flow in the morning and evening peaks is the same as
                   the main road traffic (i.e.75% / 25%), Hyder is able to estimate the volume
                   of traffic at the intersection.


                                                                                                 3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                            +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                     $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   It has also been assumed that in the morning peak 80% of traffic will leave
                   the residential development and 20% will enter whereas in the evening
                   peak the 65% will enter the site and 35% will leave – the evening peak hour
                   periods are generally not as tidal as in the morning peak.


                7UDIILF 0RGHOOLQJ
                   The traffic generated by the proposed housing is then added to the traffic
                   levels on Myall Street which are forecast for 2026 and a traffic model has
                   been built based upon a 30m diameter roundabout.
                   As stated above, these models will represent a worst case scenario as they
                   use the highest available figures for traffic growth and have applied them to
                   ALL traffic flows. In addition, development traffic has been applied which
                   will inevitably lead to an element of double counting, particularly on the
                   minor roads at the intersections modelled.

                   Furthermore, it has already been shown that the period at which
                   development traffic ‘peaks’ in this area is generally outside the peaks
                   experienced on the main road. However, this model has included the
                   “worst case” traffic on Myall Street compounded with the highest expected
                   development traffic load which represents a worst case scenario.




                                                                                              3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                         +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                  $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  7UDIILF $QDO\VLV RI 0RGHOOLQJ 6FHQDULRV

                $0 3HDN
                   The morning peak hour traffic flows in 2026 are estimated as below




A traffic model of the intersection in 2026 has been undertaken and this shows that in
the morning peak the intersection will work with an acceptable level of service (See
below).




                                                                                             3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                        +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                 $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                30 3HDN
                   The evening peak hour traffic flows in 2026 are estimated as below




                   A traffic model of the intersection in 2026 has been undertaken and this
                   shows that in the afternoon peak the intersection will work with an
                   acceptable level of service (see below).




                                                                                             3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                        +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                 $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                  &RQFOXVLRQV
                   Hyder has worked with City Plan Services on the study and believes that
                   there is great potential to increase the number of pedestrians and cyclist in
                   the two town centre study areas for short journey.
                   Both Tea Gardens & Hawks Nest are ideal locations for cycling to take
                   place. The provision of facilities for cyclists both at the origin and
                   destination of their trip will encourage people to cycle and this should be a
                   key driver in future urban development design.
                   Hyder has examined the road network in the light of likely traffic growth and
                   traffic distribution resulting from potential development and general traffic
                   growth.
                   Hyder has concluded that the key intersection of Yalimbah Street and Myall
                   Street in Tea Gardens will operate at an acceptable level of service up to
                   2026 and beyond. Whilst both Myall Street and Myall Way will need to be
                   upgraded to meet the Council’s requirements, the proposed intersection
                   improvements and road capacity improvements proposed should
                   accommodate traffic generated by development of the study areas as
                   defined by City Plan Services.

                   Specific intersections into areas, land release and areas in infill
                   development will still need to be considered carefully. Indeed, careful
                   design of any new intersections (especially roundabouts) will need to
                   ensure that cyclists can safely manoeuvre around them and that
                   pedestrians are not diverted too far away from the pedestrian desire lines.


              )XWXUH 6WXGLHV
                   It is recommended that Council undertake a “Sustainable Traffic / Transport
                   Plan” for the Hawks Nest / Tea Gardens study areas which would provide a
                   direction for future policy and to promote non car based means of transport
                   to achieve more sustainable transport system.
                   Ultimately, this would allow the Council to achieve its wider responsibilities
                   to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting in lower air pollution and
                   lower health costs. This ultimately may lead to lower overall transport
                   costs, more transport options for the community and a reduction in the
                   number of accidents.

                   Such a strategy would help achieve a shift towards walking and greater use
                   of cycling and public transport.

                   However, prior to any study commencing, turning counts should be
                   undertaken on Myall Street and Yalimbah Street and other key
                   intersections to ensure that an accurate basis for the study is established.



                                                                                                3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                           +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                    $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                   This study has relied on traffic data that is up to 10 years old and has had
                   to make assumptions about traffic volumes and turning proportions so it
                   has only given an indication of the likely traffic effects.




                                                                                               3DJH 
7HD *DUGHQV+DZNV 1HVW                                                          +\GHU &RQVXOWLQJ 3W\ /WG
3HGHVWULDQ &\FOH 7UDIILF 5HSRUW                                                   $%1    
)?16?)LQDO 5HSRUWV WR EH DPHQGHG?16165 7UDIILF +17*GRF
                               !

" #   $   %&' ( %)*+&' ( " &
                              ( ,


                     ,              1


                     ,              1


                               %&' ( %)*+&' ( " &                                                                                   !


    2    #   2        3             # #         4                                      2 2                        4 ##
4       ,            5-                                 ,       6 . ' !/   + +*) *07         #   #   3       4              4
                 2                        4 2       #       3       2 #      5




Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 76 104 485 289
Level 5, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney NSW 2060, Australia
Tel: +61 2 8907 9000 Fax: +61 2 8907 9001 www.hyderconsulting.com

                                                                                                                                ,
                          &                                                                              -                   ,
                                                                                                                 . ' !/   + +*) *0
Contents




                                   !

    "            #             $                                  "

    %            ! !                       &   '                  %

    (                                          ! !                )




           8 1         4   ,           2




                                                                      ,
             &                                       -               ,
                                                         . ' !/   + +*) *0
9
Hyder’s scope is to provide advice and guiding principles that will assist
Council in the control of drainage and flooding issues and particularly to the
problem of overcoming entrapped low points that are existing or may arise
as a consequence of development and may be resolved through
development planning controls.

Hyder’s advice and the guiding principles are based on accepted
ecologically sustainable practices that will assist Council in implementing a
Development Control Plan (DCP) for the medium density residential and
commercial areas within Forster / Tuncurry.




                                                                            ,
    &                                                        -               ,
                                                                 . ' !/   + +*) *0
8 3:      1
Hyder has reviewed existing planning documents, and provided advice to
ensure that no negative or adverse impacts result as a consequence of
land development and to ensure that the land is suited to the proposed
development. Development, and its consequences, can vary in their degree
of severity and can range from environmental impacts, damage to public
and private property and can potentially cause injury or death. The
management of developments through the implementation of proper
planning controls will assist in the avoidance and minimisation of these
risks.




                                                                       ,
 &                                                      -               ,
                                                            . ' !/   + +*) *0
%   ;<
    The following documents were identified as being relevant:
         Wallis Lake Catchment Management Plan (2003)
         Review of Stormwater Management Strategy for“L” Leg Catchment
         South Forster(WBM, 2006)
         Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (Department of Planning,
         2006)




                                                                                ,   %
     &                                                           -               ,
                                                                     . ' !/   + +*) *0
+   9         4           , 8 3:        1
    The following objectives should be considered in the formulation of the
    DCP’s.
    1       Future development is to be protected from natural hazards including
            sea level rise, coastal recession, rising water tables and flooding.
    2       The principles of ecological sustainability be incorporated in relation
            to stormwater.
    3       Natural and existing overland flow paths be reinstated where
            possible, and maintained to mitigate against flooding from trapped
            low points. All flowpaths should be in accordance with the
            minor/major design concept defined in Australian Rainfall and Runoff
            (Institute of Engineers Australia, 2001), and in accordance with the
            Floodplain Development Manual (Department of Natural Resources,
            2005) to cater for the 1 in 100 Year Average Recurrence Interval
            (ARI) design storm.
    4       Drainage, flooding and groundwater should not be impacted by
            development, either upstream or downstream of the site.




                                                                                  ,   +
        &                                                          -               ,
                                                                       . ' !/   + +*) *0
)   "
        Identified DCP   Guideline
        Objective

        1                The floor level of all proposed residential development shall
                         be a minimum of 500 mm above the adopted minimum
                         flood standard.

        2                Disposal of stormwater drainage on site should be
                         considered where ground conditions are favourable and it
                         can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse
                         downstream impacts.

        2                Natural watercourses and creeks shall be maintained
                         including provision of an appropriate buffer.

        2                Development shall incorporate Water Sensitive Urban
                         Design Principles where possible.

        2                Stormwater be retained on site for reuse in accordance with
                         BASIX requirements.

        3                Where development is occurring on the site of an overland
                         flow path or downstream of a trapped low point, the
                         development shall include an overland flowpath to cater for
                         the 1 in 100 year Average Recurrence Interval Storm. The
                         overland flowpath shall be designed to be free of
                         obstructions.

        4                Development shall be designed so as not to increase the
                         downstream peak discharge, for all storms up to and
                         including the 1 in 100 year ARI design storm. This can be
                         achieved by retention / detention of stormwater, on site
                         disposal where appropriate, and provision of adequate
                         open space for flood areas.

        4                Drainage of development should be by gravity means.
                         Where this requires conveyance through downstream
                         properties, then a stormwater system of adequate capacity
                         in addition to a drainage easement over the downstream
                         properties, in favour of the lot(s) being developed would be
                         required. Note: This does not apply to the drainage of
                         basement parking facilities where a dual pump system
                         will be required.




                                                                                    ,    )
        &                                                            -               ,
                                                                         . ' !/   + +*) *0
Identified DCP   Guideline
Objective

4.               Disruptions to the flow of natural groundwater as a result of
                 development must be avoided. Subsoil drainage provisions
                 to ensure subterranean works do not impose negative
                 impacts on upstream or downstream properties would be
                 required. This would apply to all underground construction
                 and some excavation activities.

3.               For development sites that are below road level, the
                 location of the driveway or access ramp must not coincide
                 with a localised depression or sag point in the road, if no
                 safe overland flow route through the property can provided.
                 Driveways (and adjacent retaining walls) shall be designed
                 to ensure no stormwater overflows into basements for up to
                 the 100 year ARI local, or mainstream flood event. An
                 emergency exit from the basement should be provided
                 emergency egress in the event of a probable maximum
                 flood.

4.               Open space should, where possible incorporate a large
                 percentage of previous surfaces to reduce runoff from sites,
                 and mitigate the effect of development on groundwater.

4.               Site filling must not cause significant disruption to the
                 natural flow of both surface and subsurface drainage from a
                 development site.

                 Where site filling is proposed consideration must be given
                 to the impacts on the existing surface and subsurface
                 drainage systems. This activity may result in a reduction of
                 on-site storage, changes to the flow of ground water and re-
                 alignment of over land flow paths and have subsequent
                 adverse effects on neighbouring properties and areas of
                 ecological significance.

                 Appropriate on-site stormwater management practices must
                 be implemented to either mitigate against or avoid negative
                 impacts associated with filling.




                                                                            ,    /
&                                                            -               ,
                                                                 . ' !/   + +*) *0
/                            "
    The Council could consider adoption of a flood standard that takes into
    account potential future sea level rise in addition to the 1 in 100 year flood
    levels. Any minimum levels for habitable dwellings should be set a
    minimum of 500mm above the adopted flood standard.

    The recommendations in relation to flooding within the draft Mid North
    Coast Regional Strategy (Department of Planning, 2006) should be
    incorporated into the DCP once this strategy is adopted.

    Overland flow path routes in the study area should be identified and
    documented. A map showing a preliminary analysis identifying these flow
    path routes for the Forster Tuncurry area has been included in Appendix A.
    This preliminary analysis was not comprehensive, as the contour
    information provided did not have sufficient detail to identify all potential
    flow paths. Catchment and hydraulic analysis would also be required to
    identify the full extent of these flow paths.




                                                                                 ,   !
     &                                                            -               ,
                                                                      . ' !/   + +*) *0
    ##            <
    8 1   4       , 2




                                 ,   *
&             -                   ,
                      . ' !/   + +*) *0
                   ,   0
&   -               ,
        . ' !/   + +*) *0
                !"#      $% % &
'   ( % % % )* + % ,-./* + *% ,
                           0


                  0


                  0


                  % % % )* + % ,-./* + *% ,                                           !"#            $% % &


    4    '   4         ' '         5                                4 4               5 ''
        6                      0       7 2 &) "% / /.- $.3 8   '          '   5        5
4                5 4   '                4 '    6




Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd
ABN 76 104 485 289
Level 5, 141 Walker Street, North Sydney NSW 2060, Australia
Tel: +61 2 8907 9000 Fax: +61 2 8907 9001 www.hyderconsulting.com


                                                                                                     0
             1                 *                                                                0
                                                                                  2    &) "% / /.- $.3
                                                                                             $,1% .1% & /(/. .
Contents




                          !

    "       #         $                          "

    %       ! !               &   '              %

    (                             ! !            )




                                                     0
        1         *                                  0
                                        2   &) "% / /.- $.3
                                                          .
"       9
        Hyder’s scope is to provide advice and guiding principles that will assist
        Council in the control of drainage and flooding issues and particularly to the
        problem of overcoming entrapped low points that are existing or may arise
        as a consequence of development and may be resolved through
        development planning controls.

        Hyder’s advice and the guiding principles are based on accepted
        ecologically sustainable practices that will assist Council in implementing a
        Development Control Plan (DCP) for the medium density residential and
        commercial areas within Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens.




                                                                                     0     "
    1          *                                                                      0
                                                                         2   &) "% / /.- $.3
$       : ;
        Hyder has reviewed existing planning documents, and provided advice to
        ensure that no negative or adverse impacts result as a consequence of
        land development and to ensure that the land is suited to the proposed
        development. Development, and its consequences, can vary in their degree
        of severity and can range from environmental impacts, damage to public
        and private property and can potentially cause injury or death. The
        management of developments through the implementation of proper
        planning controls will assist in the avoidance and minimisation of these
        risks.




                                                                               0     $
    1         *                                                                 0
                                                                   2   &) "% / /.- $.3
,       <=
        The following documents were identified as being relevant:
             Hawks Nest/Tea Gardens/Bulahdelah Stormwater Management Plan
             Draft Mid North Coast Regional Strategy (Department of Planning,
             2006)




                                                                                 0     ,
    1         *                                                                   0
                                                                     2   &) "% / /.- $.3
/       9          5       0: ;
        The following objectives should be considered in the formulation of the
        DCP’s.
        1    Future development is to be protected from natural hazards including
             sea level rise, coastal recession, rising water tables and flooding.
        2    The principles of ecological sustainability be incorporated in relation
             to stormwater.
        3    Natural and existing overland flow paths be reinstated where
             possible, and maintained to mitigate against flooding from trapped
             low points. All flowpaths should be in accordance with the
             minor/major design concept defined in Australian Rainfall and Runoff
             (Institute of Engineers Australia, 2001), and in accordance with the
             Floodplain Development Manual (Department of Natural Resources,
             2005) to cater for the 1 in 100 Year Average Recurrence Interval
             (ARI) design storm.
        4    Drainage, flooding and groundwater should not be impacted by
             development, either upstream or downstream of the site.




                                                                                    0     /
    1          *                                                                     0
                                                                        2   &) "% / /.- $.3
-
        Identified DCP   Guideline
        Objective

        1                The floor level of all proposed residential development shall
                         be a minimum of 500 mm above the adopted minimum
                         flood standard.

        2                Disposal of stormwater drainage on site should be
                         considered where ground conditions are favourable and it
                         can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse
                         downstream impacts.

                         Stormwater disposal by infiltration at Tea Gardens may be
                         difficult to achieve due to limited free board between ground
                         levels and fluctuations in the water table in the area.

                         In Hawks Nest stormwater infiltration is achievable due to
                         higher ground conditions however most of the village is
                         located on an original dune system. In this case the issue of
                         trapped low points is significant, particularly within road
                         reserves and must be addressed for safety and amenity.

        2                Natural watercourses and creeks shall be maintained
                         including provision of an appropriate buffer.

        2                Development shall incorporate Water Sensitive Urban
                         Design Principles where possible.

        2                Stormwater be retained on site for reuse in accordance with
                         BASIX requirements.

        3                Where development is occurring on the site of an overland
                         flow path or downstream of a trapped low point, the
                         development shall include an overland flowpath to cater for
                         the 1 in 100 year Average Recurrence Interval Storm. The
                         overland flowpath shall be designed to be free of
                         obstructions.

        3                For development sites that are below road level, the
                         location of the driveway or access ramp must not coincide
                         with a localised depression or sag point in the road, if no
                         safe overland flow route through the property can provided.
                         Driveways (and adjacent retaining walls) shall be designed
                         to ensure no stormwater overflows into basements for up to
                         the 100 year ARI local, or mainstream flood event. An
                         emergency exit from the basement should be provided
                         emergency egress in the event of a probable maximum
                         flood.



                                                                                     0     -
    1        *                                                                        0
                                                                         2   &) "% / /.- $.3
    Identified DCP   Guideline
    Objective

    4                Development shall be designed so as not to increase the
                     downstream peak discharge, for all storms up to and
                     including the 1 in 100 year ARI design storm. This can be
                     achieved by retention / detention of stormwater, on site
                     disposal where appropriate, and provision of adequate
                     open space for flood areas.

    4                Drainage of all development shall be by gravity means.
                     Where this requires conveyance through downstream
                     properties, then a stormwater system of adequate capacity
                     in addition to a drainage easement over the downstream
                     properties, in favour of the lot(s) being developed would be
                     required. Note: This does not apply to the drainage of
                     basement parking facilities where a dual pump system
                     will be required.

    4                Disruptions to the flow of natural groundwater as a result of
                     development must be avoided. Subsoil drainage provisions
                     to ensure subterranean works do not impose negative
                     impacts on upstream or downstream properties would be
                     required. This would apply to all underground construction
                     and some excavation activities.

    4                Site filling must not cause significant disruption to the
                     natural flow of both surface and subsurface drainage from a
                     development site.

                     Where site filling is proposed consideration must be given
                     to the impacts on the existing surface and subsurface
                     drainage systems. This activity may result in a reduction of
                     on-site storage, changes to the flow of ground water and re-
                     alignment of over land flow paths and have subsequent
                     adverse effects on neighbouring properties and areas of
                     ecological significance.

                     Appropriate on-site stormwater management practices must
                     be implemented to either mitigate against or avoid negative
                     impacts associated with filling.




                                                                                 0     )
1        *                                                                        0
                                                                     2   &) "% / /.- $.3
)
        The Council could consider adoption of a flood standard that takes into
        account potential future sea level rise in addition to 1 in 100 year flood
        levels. Any minimum levels for habitable dwellings should be set a
        minimum of 500mm above the adopted flood standard.

        The recommendations in relation to flooding within the draft Mid North
        Coast Regional Strategy (Department of Planning, 2006) should be
        incorporated into the DCP once the strategy is adopted.

        Overland flow path routes in the study area should be identified and
        documented. A preliminary analysis identifying these overland flow paths
        was not carried out as the contour information provided did not have
        sufficient detail, due to the low lying nature of the Hawks Nest and Tea
        Gardens area. Catchment and hydraulic analysis would also be required to
        identify the full extent of these flow paths.




                                                                                     0     &
    1          *                                                                      0
                                                                         2   &) "% / /.- $.3

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:1/16/2013
language:Unknown
pages:140