amendment c118 to the greater shepparton planning scheme ... · g25445r-01a.docx page 3 i...

Amendment C118 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme – Shepparton North East Growth

Corridor

Planning Panels Victoria

Committee Hearing Date: Tuesday 21st August, 2018

Report Date: 14th August, 2018

Prepared For: Margaret & Paul Bennett Instructed By: 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd

STATEMENT TO THE PLANNING PANEL BY HENRY TURNBULL, TRAFFIC ENGINEER

Amendment C118 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Shepparton North East Growth Corridor (Bennetts Property)

G25445R-01A.docx

Traffic Engineering Assessment

Amendment C118 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Shepparton North East Growth Corridor (Bennett Property)

Document Control

Issue No. Type Date Prepared By Approved By

A For Panel 15/08/2018 J. Place/H. Turnbull H. Turnbull

Traffix Template Version 1.0 – May, 2015

Our Reference: G25445R-01A


G25445R-01A.docx Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 Qualifications and Experience .............................................................................................. 1

3 Summary of Opinions .......................................................................................................... 1

4 Background ......................................................................................................................... 2

5 The Subject Site .................................................................................................................. 4

5.1 Site Locality ................................................................................................................................... 4

5.2 Existing Road Network .................................................................................................................. 5

6 Amendment C118 ............................................................................................................... 6

7 Shepparton North East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) ............................................................ 7

8 Shepparton North East DCP ............................................................................................... 11

9 Opinions ........................................................................................................................... 13

9.1 Need for “Level 2” Connector Street .......................................................................................... 13

9.2 Access to Grahamvale Road ........................................................................................................ 16

9.3 Access C Potential Closure .......................................................................................................... 16

9.4 Suitability of 5-Leg Roundabout .................................................................................................. 17

9.5 RD-02 Road Reservation Width & Alignment ............................................................................. 18

9.6 Interface Street – Verney Road ................................................................................................... 21

9.7 Interface Street – School ............................................................................................................. 21

9.8 DCP Compensation ..................................................................................................................... 22

10 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 24

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Practice Note – PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence

Appendix B: CV – Henry Turnbull


G25445R-01A.docx Page 1

1 Introduction

I have been retained by Margaret and Paul Bennett of 145 Verney Road, Shepparton, to undertake

traffic engineering assessments and to prepare an evidence statement in relation to the planning

scheme changes proposed under Planning Scheme Amendment C118 affecting the Bennett property.

In preparing this report, I have relied upon the facts, matters and assumptions detailed in Appendix A.

2 Qualifications and Experience

Appendix A contains a statement setting out my qualifications and experience, and the other matters

raised by “Planning Panels Victoria – Planning Panels – Expert Evidence”.

Appendix B contains my CV.

3 Summary of Opinions

Having perused relevant documents and plans and undertaken traffic engineering assessments, I am

of the opinion that:

a) development of the Bennett property in isolation and in the absence of a PSP would require a

single local access street connection to Verney Road (likely to the north of Pine Road so as to avoid

a cross-intersection),

b) “Access C” to Grahamvale Road should be shifted south adjacent to Grahamvale Primary School,

consistent with the earlier 2010/2011 development plan,

c) subject to b) above (or retaining Access C in its current location shown in the July 2018 PSP), RD-

01 and RD-02 will be level 1 connector streets carrying less than 6,000 vpd and requiring a 24m

reservation,

d) the DCP should fund the difference between a 7.3m carriageway and an 11.6m carriageway for

all connector streets and should fund the purchase of 8m of land to increase the cross-section

from a 16m local access street reservation to a 24m level 1 connector reservation,

e) RD-02 should be realigned to provide a straighter alignment, including a straighter cross-

intersection at Verney Road/Pine Road,

f) item e) will require some land take from Parcel 16 for the intersection and this can occur (via DCP

and a PAO to ensure timely delivery of the intersection) without impacting on the existing

dwelling,

g) having regard to the locality and key traffic generators, VicRoads’ proposed connection to the PSP

from the Grahamvale Road/Ford Road intersection is not necessary for the precinct but Access C

(preferably in a more southerly location than shown on the PSP) is necessary,

h) in the absence of Access C (regardless of the proposed connection to the PSP from the Grahamvale

Road/Ford Road intersection), traffic volumes on Access D (IN-02 – Verney Road/Pine Road) will



exceed 6,000 vpd and will require trunk collector construction (30m reservation, with 14m

reimbursed by the DCP),

i) in the absence of Access C (regardless of the proposed connection to the PSP from the Grahamvale

Road/Ford Road intersection), SIDRA assessments indicate that there is insufficient capacity at IN-

02 and revised assessments and a re-design will be necessary, likely requiring additional land for

north-south stand-up lanes on Verney Road,

j) frontage roads to the southern boundary of the PSP are unnecessary,

k) if frontage roads are to be provided adjacent to Verney Road, Ford Road and Grahamvale Road,

they would be one-sided (in terms of services, footpath and parking requirements, etc.) and need

only be 12m wide,

l) the PSP does not need to be prescriptive about the provision of frontage roads and should allow

development to provide either a frontage road or landscape strip,

m) frontage roads to the non-government school (Shepparton Christian College) are unnecessary,

provide no meaningful service to the school, give a poor design outcome for the development of

the Bennett land and should be removed, and

n) the above-mentioned items require resolution prior to incorporating the PSP and DCP into the

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme.

4 Background

The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA), in consultation with Greater Shepparton City Council and

Government agencies, is preparing the Shepparton North East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) to guide

new urban development in Shepparton.

Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) and Development Contribution Plan (DCP) documents dated February

2018 were subject to community engagement and public exhibition from 8th March 2018 to Friday 13th

April 2013.

A number of background documents were also exhibited for public comment, including a Traffic Impact

Assessment Report prepared by Trafficworks (Ref: 113040) dated 22nd August 20141.

At the conclusion of the exhibition period, further investigations were undertaken and updated draft

PSP and DCP documents were prepared, dated July 2018.

An addendum to the Traffic Impact Assessment Report was also prepared by Trafficworks (Ref:

170769) dated 13th July 2018.

1 The traffic engineering background studies on the VPA website (https://vpa.vic.gov.au/project/shepparton-north-east/)

include a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, November 2008), a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (AECOM Pty Ltd, December 2009) and a TIAR Traffix Group Peer Review (March 2011) in addition to the Trafficworks report.

Notably, my firm was retained in 2010/2011 by Greater Shepparton City Council to peer review the traffic recommendations of the Shepparton North East Growth Corridor PSP, including reviewing the recommendations of the AECOM traffic report and PSP (February 2010 version) in relation to Verney Road, assessing the proposed roads against the IDM and make recommendations for any amendments to the PSP. The PSP considered at that time (including the road layout) differs from the current proposal.



I understand that the July 2018 documents will be relied upon by the Panel, and accordingly my

assessments are based on these most recent documents, except where stated otherwise.



5 The Subject Site

5.1 Site Locality

The Shepparton North East Growth Corridor is located to the north-east of the township of

Shepparton. The precinct is bounded by Verney Road to the west, Ford Road and existing low density

residential neighbourhood to the north, Grahamvale Road to the east and a Goulburn Murray Water

drain to the south, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Locality Plan

The Shepparton North East Growth Corridor covers an area of approximately 177 hectares.

The subject site (Bennett land) is located at 145 Verney Road, extending approximately from opposite

Pine Road in the south to Shepparton Christian College in the north, and covers an area of 18.23

hectares, with a frontage to Verney Road of approximately 121 metres.

Source: Amendment C118 Explanatory Report

Bennetts Land



An aerial view of the site (145 Verney Road) and surrounds is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Aerial View

5.2 Existing Road Network

Verney Road is a local main road (Road Zone Category 2) which extends approximately 5.3km in a

north-south direction between Goulburn Valley Highway and New Dookie Road.

In the vicinity of the subject site, Verney Road is constructed with a single traffic lane in each direction

with no kerb or channel and has a shared path on the west side. A posted speed limit of 60km/h

applies, reducing to 40km/h to the north of the existing crossover at school drop-off and pick-up times

(8am-9:30am and 3pm-4:30pm school days only).

Subject Site



6 Amendment C118

Amendment C118 applies to land identified in the Shepparton North East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP),

covering an area of approximately 177 hectares in area.

The Amendment seeks to make changes to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme to facilitate urban

development within the precinct, in accordance with the vision for urban growth outlined in the PSP.

Specifically, the amendment proposes to:

Insert Schedule 1 to Clause 37.07 (Urban Growth Zone). The schedule will set out specific land use

and development controls for the precinct and applies the Shepparton North East Precinct

Structure Plan, February 2018.

Rezone land from the Farming Zone Schedule 1 (RZ1) and the Public Use Zone Schedule 1 (PUZ1)

to Urban Growth Zone (UGZ1).

Amend the Schedule to Clause 45.01 Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) to reserve land for retarding

basins, open space, roads and community facilities within the amendment area, nominating

Greater Shepparton City Council as the acquiring authority.

Insert Schedule 4 to Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCP04) and apply the

overlay to all land within the amendment area.

Amend the Schedule to Clause 52.01 to include a public open space contribution for subdivision of

land within the amendment area.

Amend the Schedule to Clause 51.03 to insert may 19DCPO.

Amend Clause 81.01 of the Scheme to incorporate the two new documents:

- Shepparton North East Precinct Structure Plan, February 2018;

- Shepparton North East Development Contributions Plan, February 2018.

Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 11, 14 and 19.

Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 11PAO & 14PAO.

Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 11DCPO & 14DCPO.

Insert Planning Scheme Map No. 19DCPO.



7 Shepparton North East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP)

Figure 3 below shows the proposed Future Urban Structure for Shepparton North East (Plan 2 of the

post-exhibition PSP – July 2018).

Figure 3: PSP – Future Urban Structure

Bennetts



Figure 4 below shows the proposed Transport and Movement Plan for Shepparton North East (Plan 5

of the post-exhibition PSP – July 2018).

Figure 4: PSP – Transport & Movement

Figures 3 and 4 indicates that the Bennett land is encumbered with the following:

A “boulevard” connector street (30 metre reservation based on July 2018 post-exhibition PSP

cross-sections – cross-section 7 applies) extending east-west through the site, reverting to a

standard connector street (24 metre reservation based on PSP cross-sections – cross-section 6



applies) for the eastern-most section, with the full road reservation width located entirely within

the site.

Half of a retarding basin and adjacent open space. Interface streets with shared paths (16m

reservation – cross-section 2 applies) are required to be constructed on all sides of the retarding

basin.

An interface street with shared path (17m reservation – cross-section 3 applies) is required to be

constructed adjacent to the existing school site abutting the Bennett property to the north (with

shared path on the north side adjacent to the school). The local road and shared path is required

to be constructed entirely within the Bennett land, with development potential on one-side only.

An interface street (18m reservation – cross-section 5 applies) is required to be constructed

adjacent to Verney Road.

A north-south key local access street (17m reservation – cross-section 3 applies) is required to

bisect the Bennett land.

The relevant July 2018 post-exhibition PSP cross-sections are shown in Figures 5 – 9 below.

Figure 5: PSP Cross-Section 2 – Park & Retarding Basin Interface Street (16m)

Figure 6: PSP Cross-Section 3 – Reserve and School Interface Street (17m)



Figure 7: PSP Cross-Section 5 – Verney Road Interface Street (18m)

Figure 8: PSP Cross-Section 6 – Connector Street Level 1 (24m)

Figure 9: PSP Cross-Section 7 – Connector Street Level 2 (30m)



8 Shepparton North East DCP

Figure 10 below shows the proposed DCP Transport Projects for Shepparton North East (Plan 3 of the

post-exhibition July DCP).

Figure 10: DCP Transport Projects

DCP funded transport projects within the subject site include:



RD-02: Pine Road Boulevard connector street – construction of a two-lane boulevard connector

street and roundabout (ultimate standard contribution only). Additional purchase of land (6

metre width) to facilitate construction within a 30 metre road reserve (ultimate standard

contribution only).

IN-02: Pine Road and Verney Road (Access D): Purchase of land for intersection and construction

of 4-way signalised intersection (ultimate standard).

While the DCP items not located on the subject site do not directly impact on the ability to develop

the site, they indirectly affect it from the perspective that if items are onerous/not required, they add

an additional cost (DCP contribution) to the site, unnecessarily pushing up prices or making

development unviable.

Notably, there are two other roads within the PSP area which are included as DCP items (6 metre land

purchase and road construction costs), and two other intersections, as shown in Figure 10.



9 Opinions

9.1 Need for “Level 2” Connector Street

Trafficworks’ Traffic Impact Assessment Report prepared for Greater Shepparton City Council dated

22nd August 2014 (Ref: 113040) is referred to in the post-exhibition background report prepared by

VPA (July 2018). An addendum (Ref: 170769, dated 13th July 2018) was prepared by Trafficworks to

address the post-exhibition (July 2018) version of the PSP and DCP, but is not referenced in the July

2018 VPA background report.

Figure 10 below shows the ownership plan included at Section 2.1 of the Trafficworks addendum

report, with external access points allocated a “letter”. The numbering for the land parcels doesn’t

match the PSP. The PSP numbering is shown in blue.

Figure 11: Land Ownership Plan

1

3

4

6 12

13

14 15 17

25

26

16



Table 1 below shows the following, detailed at Section 5.3 of the Trafficworks report (2014):

ultimate anticipated two-way traffic volumes, and

road type.

Table 1: Trafficworks Calculated Traffic Volume & Street Type

Location Traffic Volume Road Type Comment

Access A 6,640 vpd Trunk Collector Peak traffic volume at completion of Stage

3 (reduces to 4,050vpd at completion of Stage 4)

Access B 1,040 vpd Collector Level 1 Peak achieved at completion of Stage 4

Access C 5,790 vpd Trunk Collector Requires trunk collector at end of Stage 3

Access D(1) 4,590 vpd Trunk Collector Required upon opening

Note (1): Access D refers to the proposed connector road located within the Bennett land.

I note that the recommended road types in the 2014 Trafficworks report are based on an outdated

version of the Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM). This has been acknowledged in Bob Citroen’s

evidence statement dated 13th August 2018.

The current version of the IDM (Version 5.10 released 11th January 2018) sets out the following design

requirements and traffic volume ranges for various street types, as detailed in Table 2 below.

Table 2: IDM Design Requirements

Street Type Indicative Maximum

Traffic Volume Carriageway Width

Minimum Reserve Width

Access Street 1,000 – 2,500 vpd 7.3m 16.0m

Collector/Connector Street Level 1

2,500 – 6,000 vpd 11.6m 24.0m

Collector/Connector Street Level 2 (Trunk Collector)

6,000 – 12,000 vpd 2 x 7.0m + 6.0m median 34.0m

Staging assumptions adopted in the Trafficworks report are as follows:

Development is anticipated to occur in a clockwise manner, commencing with the Mondous land

in the northwest quadrant and finishing with the Bennett and Sali properties in the southwest

qudrant. The development stages that have been adopted are generally aligned with ownership

boundaries and coincide with the progressive opening of the external access points discussed

below. That is:

- Stage 1: Involves development of areas 1 and 2 (including the community hub) with all

access obtained via Access A to Verney Road;

- Stage 2: involves the additional development of area 3 and opening of Access B to Ford

Road;



- Stage 3: Involves the additional development of areas 4, 10, 11 & 13 and the opening of

Access C to Grahamvale Road (including eventual reorientation of access to

Grahamvale Primary School);

- Stage 4: involves development of the remaining areas 18 & 20 and opening of Access D to

Verney Road.

I note that development of the Bennett land was assumed by Trafficworks to occur in Stage 3, with the

completion of the access point (D) to this land occurring in Stage 4.

Table 1 indicates that Access A (to Verney Road north of Access D) will only exceed 6,000 vpd until

such time that Access D is opened, at which time the volumes will fall to well within the “Level 1

Connector” range, based on the current version of the IDM.

Development of PSP areas typically occurs on multiple development fronts, depending on the

individual land owners.

There are no traffic engineering reasons why the Bennett property could not be developed first for

example, with the construction of Access D in the first stage. Under this scenario, there would never

be a demand for the connector road at Access A to be a trunk collector (Level 2 connector/collector)2.

Furthermore, the traffic volumes shown in Table 1 for Access C and Access D fall well within the range

of a Level 1 Connector, and Access B is well within the range for a standard local access street.

From first principles:

While there is some discrepancy as to the overall lot yield, the VPA background report mentions

in the order of 1,500 lots.

The accepted traffic generation rate is 8 vehicle movements per lot per day (both the Trafficworks

and preceding Traffix Group reports adopted this rate).

The corresponding overall daily traffic generation for the PSP precinct is estimated to be 12,000

movements per day.

Some of this is likely to be internal (local social visits, schools, neighbourhood shops, etc.).

In my opinion, the PSP should include at least three connections to the external road network, and

each should be a level 1 connector with a 24m road reservation.

2 The volume of 6,000vpd is an arbitrary figure for the difference between connector and trunk connector cross-sections. A

standard (level 1) connector has a capacity to carry up to 10,000vpd or more with abutting property access.



9.2 Access to Grahamvale Road

I understand that VicRoads’ position is that it will not support any access to Grahamvale Road to the

PSP area, except via adding a fifth leg to the Ford Road/Grahamvale Road intersection.

Grahamvale Road is the heavy vehicle bypass route for Shepparton, with a speed limit of 80km/h.

Along the precinct frontage, Grahamvale Road comprises a two-lane two-way sealed carriageway with

sealed shoulders, located centrally in a 20-metre road reservation, bounded to the east by the

Shepparton-Tocumwal railway line and the west by a G-MW irrigation channel.

Doyles Road, just south of Grahamvale Road currently carries approximately 8,000 vehicles per day

(vpd) (26% heavy vehicles) between the Midland Highway and the Dookie-Shepparton Main Road (New

Dookie Road). By 2031, it is predicted that this figure will increase to 9,900vpd.

The frontage of the PSP to Grahamvale Road extends approximately 1.3km.

Even on major 6-lane arterials of state significance carrying 50,000+ vpd, VicRoads’ access

management policies allow for widely spaced controlled intersections, typically at 800 metre spacings.

The projected traffic volumes for Grahamvale Road fall well below the range where duplication is

considered, and on such roads, closer intersection spacing is typically acceptable.

To the south of Grahamvale Primary School, there are some tight curves and a number of direct

property access points and an uncontrolled local road connection on Grahamvale Road which suggests

that a new access point to the PSP area (preferably further south than shown on the PSP map, in the

vicinity of the existing primary school) would not be unreasonable, unexpected or unsafe.

I am of the opinion that it places an unreasonable constraint on the development of the Shepparton

North East Growth Corridor to prohibit any connection to the growth area from Grahamvale Road

south of Ford Road.

Notably, this will place considerable additional strain on the local road network to the west and

southwest of the site (Pine Road, Graham Road and Verney Road in particular). The southern parts of

Verney Road have direct property access, as do both Pine Road and Graham Road, with all three being

local residential environments.

Grahamvale Road is much better placed to take some of this traffic load, being designated as a higher

order road (and truck route) with predominantly non-residential uses adjacent.

9.3 Access C Potential Closure

Trafficworks 2018 addendum report refers to potential closure of Access C (to Grahamvale Road), in

particular impacting on Access D, increasing volumes/congestion, and triggering a need for additional

mitigating works at the Verney Road/Pine Road intersection which may not fit within the existing road

reservation and may require additional lanes/land/costs to be considered within the PSP area based

on SIDRA analysis presented in the 2018 Trafficworks addendum report.

This is not a minor impact, and such a decision would need to be made prior to adopting the final

version of the PSP and DCP, as there are potentially significant costs and impacts on Verney Road and

Pine Road residents which haven’t been thoroughly considered.



9.4 Suitability of 5-Leg Roundabout

VicRoads has indicated that its preference is for a five-leg intersection (roundabout-controlled) at the

north-east corner of the site (to Ford Road/Grahamvale Road). VicRoads’ preference is for the

southwest leg of this intersection to serve as the only access point to the precinct from either

Grahamvale Road or Ford Road.

Figure 12 below shows VicRoads’ proposed form of that intersection.

Figure 12: VicRoads’ Proposed Modified Intersection at Grahamvale Road/Ford Road

While the July 2018 version of the PSP shows the connection as a trunk collector, the VicRoads plan

indicates a lower order (Level 1) collector.

It is important to note that the original traffic modelling for the precinct undertaken by Traffix Group

on behalf of Council in 2010/2011 was based on a connector street layout which extended from Pine

Road to Grahamvale Road, connecting to Grahamvale Road on the north side of Grahamvale Primary

School.



The proposed Access C to Grahamvale Road (shown as IN-03 on both the exhibited February 2018 and

July 2018 versions of the PSP) is already a compromise to this location, being further to the north and

less desirable for vehicles entering and exiting the precinct, with the predominant movement being

to/from the south.

As previously noted, I see no traffic engineering reason why a connector road access point could not

be maintained to Grahamvale Road, and it should be located further south, in the vicinity of the existing

primary school as originally proposed in 2010/2011 so as to appropriately serve the needs of the PSP

area and minimise the impacts of the PSP development on existing established residential areas along

Pine and Verney Roads.

There is very little northbound traffic demand from the precinct (in the order of 10% overall), and for

all other movements, heading to the northwest corner of the precinct to exit would be back-tracking,

and would not be the most direct or desirable route.

In addition, the proposed modified intersection layout occupies a substantial part of the PSP land,

which is not currently within a PAO. It appears that the primary purpose of VicRoads’ proposed

roundabout is to improve the existing truck bypass route and accordingly any costs (including

acquisition of land, roundabout construction costs, etc.) should not be borne by the PSP area as there

is no nexus between the project and the development of the PSP area.

9.5 RD-02 Road Reservation Width & Alignment

The February 2018 advertised version of the PSP required 26m reservations for Level 1 Connectors and

34m reservations for Trunk Collectors.

The latest version of the IDM requires 24m reservations for Level 1 Connectors and 34m reservations

for Trunk Collectors, with trunk collectors required to comprise two 7m wide carriageways separated

by a 6m median.

I note that the revised (July 2018) version of the PSP has been modified to match the IDM requirements

for a level 1 connector (24m reservation) and I agree that this is appropriate. The revised (July 2018)

version of the PSP also reduced the trunk connector requirement to 30m, which falls below the IDM

requirement for this street type. The PSP provision includes two 5.8m wide carriageways separated

by a 6m median.

The alignment of RD-02 (and the intersection of Verney Road/Pine Road) has been skewed to the

north, to avoid any land take from property 16 (125 Verney Road).

Property 16 will be rezoned to provide for standard density residential development and under the

proposed PSP, will be able to enjoy access to RD-02 without contributing to any construction costs.

In the circumstance where the land owners of Property 16 do not redevelop however, I note that based

on the siting of the existing dwelling on that parcel, RD-02 could be “straightened” without needing to

demolish the dwelling. This would be a better design outcome and would also provide a more

equitable approach.

Figure 13 shows the intersection alignment as currently included in the PSP, and Figure 14 shows how

the intersection and road alignment could be straightened without impacting on the existing dwelling

at parcel 16. The required land for the straighter alignment could be included as a DCP item, and could

be acquired under a public acquisition overlay (PAO) provision so as not to hinder the orderly

development of the PSP area.



Figure 13: PSP Layout for IN-02 (Pine Road/Verney Road)

Figure 14: Aerial Showing How Straighter Intersection can Avoid Existing Dwelling

24m



The proposed connector road alignment (RD-02) also bends northwards, staying entirely within the

Bennett land (property 13) for the full depth of the property before turning southeast to run along the

western boundary of Grahamvale Primary School. This unnecessarily extends the length of the

connector.

Figure 15 below shows my preferred connector alignment within the PSP area, as well as local road

and frontage road recommendations (there does not appear to be a need to provide a frontage road

along the southern boundary, facing the rear of existing residential properties).

Figure 15: Recommended Revised Road and Access Arrangements

I note that Bob Citroen’s evidence states at page 10 that … “it is agreed that the location of RD-02

entirely within parcel 13 does not seem equitable … I recommend that RDR-02 in the PSP be realigned

to the south of open space OS-02 and the adjacent retardation basin RB-02 and that the key local access

street be shifted in an easterly direction to maintain north-south connectivity between RD-01 and RD-

2 clear of the reserves”. This alternative of putting the connector into property 17 instead of 13 would

also be a suitable outcome subject to it continuing to connect to Grahamvale Road as shown above.

Connector (Level 1 – 24m)

Key Local Road (16m)

Frontage Road (12m)

External Access to Precinct

Staggered T-

intersections to

avoid a cross-

intersection

adjacent to the

school.



9.6 Interface Street – Verney Road

Figure 7 shows that the road reservation requirement for the interface street fronting Verney Road is

18m, comprising a 7.3m wide carriageway, a 4.35m verge on the east (development) side and a 6.35m

verge on the west (Verney Road) side.

In my opinion, this is an excessive requirement, for the following reasons:

The frontage road will carry low volumes, serving dwellings on one side only.

The footpath requirement applies to one side only.

Visitor car parking demand will be generated from one side only and accordingly the statutory

Clause 56.06-8 carriageway requirement for a level 1 access street (5.5 metres with parking on

one side only) would be appropriate.

The verge on the west side (Verney Road side) should be reduced, not increased, from the

standard, as there is no requirement for a footpath or services on this side, and the verge adjacent

to the Verney Road carriageway has already been provided within the Verney Road reservation.

In growth areas, interface streets are typically narrower (not wider) than the standard level 1 access

street reservation requirement, having regard to the above.

A 12m reservation would be sufficient to provide a 4.5m verge on the “dwelling” side (including a 1.5m

footpath), a 5.5m carriageway and a 2m verge/setback to the Verney Road reservation.

Reservations down to 10m are not uncommon within metropolitan growth areas for similar frontage

roads.

In my opinion, a 12m reservation for frontage roads is appropriate in this instance, and the 18m

requirement (exceeding the IDM local road provision by 2m) is excessive, unnecessary and unjustified,

having a negative impact on yield and therefore affordability of the end product.

I also note that on the west side of Verney Road, rather than a frontage road treatment, much of the

abutting residential development is separated by a 5 – 6m landscape strip.

This is not an inappropriate treatment in my opinion but would desirably have properties with a Verney

Road outlook and be rear loaded by means of a ROW.

I believe that the PSP does not need to be so prescriptive and should allow development to provide

either a frontage road or landscape strip.

9.7 Interface Street – School

Figure 4 shows that a local access street (cross-section type 3) is required on the south side of the

existing non-government school and also on the west side of the school, extending south (through the

Bennett property) to form a T-intersection with the east-west connector (Pine Road extension).

I note that while it is common for public schools to be located on three road frontages to accommodate

street parking for student pick-up and drop-off, non-government schools are much more likely to have

a single road frontage and are typically required to meet their parking demands entirely within the

school site.



Figure 6 shows that the road reservation requirement for the school interface street (cross-section 3)

is 17m, with the cross-section being the same as a standard 16m local access street but with an

additional 1.0m within the verge on the school side to provide a 2.6m wide shared path instead of the

standard 1.5m footpath.

The east-west road on the southern side of the non-government school is proposed to be located

entirely within the Bennett property, and is not a DCP item, meaning that the Bennett property would

be required to fund the entire cost of the road (including the additional cost over and above a standard

local access street to provide additional land and a shared path for the benefit of the school), while

only taking development access on one side of the road.

In my opinion, this is neither an equitable nor sensible traffic engineering outcome. In particular:

There is no need for a road to abut the school site,

The road is an internal access road, not connected directly to the arterial network, and can provide

no meaningful service to the school,

The road gives a poor design outcome for the development of the subject site, i.e. only allows

single-sided development, and

It is not usual to provide a shared bicycle path on a local street.

9.8 DCP Compensation

A development contributions plan (DCP) is a mechanism used to levy new development for

contributions to planned infrastructure needed by the future community.

A DCP identifies infrastructure to be provided. The infrastructure:

must serve a neighbourhood or larger area,

must be used by a broad section of the community, and

will in most cases serve a wider catchment than an individual development.

A DCP can include partial funding for projects (including road and intersection projects). The process

for determining what portion of a project might be DCP compensable would typically be:

determine what infrastructure is required within a property to service that property if it were to

be developed in isolation, and

determine what is required on an area or precinct-wide basis to service the whole DCP area.

The DCP would normally fund the difference between the two, i.e. the works required over and above

what is required to develop the property in isolation.

In relation to the Bennett property, the access requirements for the property if it were to be developed

in isolation are calculated as follows:

The property is 18.23 hectares in size.

Trafficworks adopted a yield estimate of 10 lots per hectare (gross area), corresponding to 182

lots in the “before” case. I note that it would likely have been less, given that there would still

have been a requirement for open space, drainage/retarding, etc. The yield would normally be

based on the net developable area (NDA).



The Trafficworks report adopts a rate of 8 trips per dwelling per day. This corresponds to 1,456

vpd on the basis of 182 lots.

If a single access point to Verney Road were constructed to serve the property, the resultant traffic

volume of 1,456 vpd on this access road would fall well within the “access street” category under

the requirements of the IDM.

The construction requirement would be a 7.3m carriageway within a 16m road reservation.

On this basis, the DCP should include costing for anything over and above a 16m road reservation and

7.3m carriageway for the proposed Pine Road extension within the PSP area.

Alternatively, the connector road could be positioned across a shared boundary so that the equivalent

construction of a local access street requirement (land and carriageway) is provided by each developer

and the burden can be shared between two adjoining properties.

The traffic volume estimate for RD-02 (Pine Road extension through the Bennett property) is 4,590vpd

under full build-out of the PSP area (as stated in the 2014 Trafficworks report). This falls well within

the Level 1 Connector classification under the IDM (up to 6,000vpd), and the corresponding

requirement for this classification is a 24m reservation with an 11.6m single carriageway.

The compensation should therefore relate to the additional land requirement of 8m and the additional

carriageway requirement of 4.3m if the connector is located entirely within the Bennett land (not

straddling a boundary with an adjoining property).

I note that Bob Citroen’s evidence statement dated 13th August 2018 refers on page 11 to a volume of

over 3,000 vpd for a case where RD-02 serves a “stand-alone development for parcels 13, 16 and 17”,

an determines on that basis that a connector street level 1 is required in the “before”.

I do not agree with this assessment.

Parcel 13 is the Bennett property, Parcel 16 is the smaller property immediately south of the Bennett

property (125 Verney Road), and Parcel 17 is the Sali property to the south.

Parcel 16 has an area of only 0.4 hectares. If it were developed in isolation at standard residential

densities, it would accommodate in the order of 5 – 6 dwellings, and would likely retain its existing

direct access point to Verney Road.

If the Bennett and Sali properties were developed in isolation, I have no reason to believe they

wouldn’t be entitled to their own access point to Verney Road in the absence of a PSP. There are a

number of closely spaced local access road connections to the south which would be similar, including

King Richard Drive and Ross Allan Drive (only 180 metres south of the PSP area). These two streets, on

the west (same) side of Verney Road are spaced less than 100 metres apart.



10 Conclusions

Having perused relevant documents and plans and undertaken traffic engineering assessments, I am

of the opinion that:

a) development of the Bennett property in isolation and in the absence of a PSP would require a

single local access street connection to Verney Road (likely to the north of Pine Road so as to avoid

a cross-intersection),

b) “Access C” to Grahamvale Road should be shifted south adjacent to Grahamvale Primary School,

consistent with the earlier 2010/2011 development plan,

c) subject to b) above (or retaining Access C in its current location shown in the July 2018 PSP), RD-

01 and RD-02 will be level 1 connector streets carrying less than 6,000 vpd and requiring a 24m

reservation,

d) the DCP should fund the difference between a 7.3m carriageway and an 11.6m carriageway for

all connector streets and should fund the purchase of 8m of land to increase the cross-section

from a 16m local access street reservation to a 24m level 1 connector reservation,

e) RD-02 should be realigned to provide a straighter alignment, including a straighter cross-

intersection at Verney Road/Pine Road,

f) item e) will require some land take from Parcel 16 for the intersection and this can occur (via DCP

and a PAO to ensure timely delivery of the intersection) without impacting on the existing

dwelling,

g) having regard to the locality and key traffic generators, VicRoads’ proposed connection to the PSP

from the Grahamvale Road/Ford Road intersection is not necessary for the precinct but Access C

(preferably in a more southerly location than shown on the PSP) is necessary,

h) in the absence of Access C (regardless of the proposed connection to the PSP from the Grahamvale

Road/Ford Road intersection), traffic volumes on Access D (IN-02 – Verney Road/Pine Road) will

exceed 6,000 vpd and will require trunk collector construction (30m reservation, with 14m

reimbursed by the DCP),

i) in the absence of Access C (regardless of the proposed connection to the PSP from the Grahamvale

Road/Ford Road intersection), SIDRA assessments indicate that there is insufficient capacity at IN-

02 and revised assessments and a re-design will be necessary, likely requiring additional land for

north-south stand-up lanes on Verney Road,

j) frontage roads to the southern boundary of the PSP are unnecessary,

k) if frontage roads are to be provided adjacent to Verney Road, Ford Road and Grahamvale Road,

they would be one-sided (in terms of services, footpath and parking requirements, etc.) and need

only be 12m wide,

l) the PSP does not need to be prescriptive about the provision of frontage roads and should allow

development to provide either a frontage road or landscape strip,

m) frontage roads to the non-government school (Shepparton Christian College) are unnecessary,

provide no meaningful service to the school, give a poor design outcome for the development of

the Bennett land and should be removed, and



n) the above-mentioned items require resolution prior to incorporating the PSP and DCP into the

Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme.

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and there are no matters of

significance which I regard as relevant which, to the best of my knowledge, have been withheld from

the Tribunal.

HENRY H TURNBULL, RFD

B.E.(Civil), M.I.E.Aust., M.I.T.E., F.V.P.E.L.A.

15th August, 2018


G25445R-01A.docx

Appendix A: Practice Note – PNVCAT2

Expert Evidence


G25445R-01A.docx

STATEMENT OF WITNESS

Name

Henry Hume Turnbull

Position

Principal Consultant, Traffix Group

Address

Suite 8, 431 Burke Road

GLEN IRIS

VICTORIA 3146

Qualifications

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

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

Bachelor of Civil Engineering, University of Melbourne

Life Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers

Member, Institution of Engineers, Australia

Life Fellow, Victorian Planning & Environmental Law Association

Experience

I have in excess of 40 years’ experience in Engineering including:

ten years Country Roads Board of Victoria,

two years with TTM Consulting, and

twenty-nine years with Turnbull Fenner Pty Ltd/Traffix Group Pty Ltd.

Additional activities and appointments include:-

Sessional member, Planning Panels Victoria (1982-2017)

Member, Priority Development Panel (2004 - 2010)

Councillor, Shire of Euroa (1980-1983)

Shire President (1982-1983)

President, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (1999-2002)

Life Fellow, Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association (2003)

Bail Justice (Victoria)

Area of Expertise

I have substantial experience and expertise in major road design and construction, contract

administration, road construction material and construction methods, development impact

assessment, including traffic generation and parking generation characteristics, traffic management

and general traffic engineering, road safety and transportation planning.

I was a member of both the recent Minister for Planning Advisory Committees making a review of

Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) that led to changes being incorporated into the scheme on 5th June, 2012.


G25445R-01A.docx

Disclosure of Interests

I disclose that I have no private relationship with Margaret or Paul Bennett. Traffix Group has worked

with other companies involved in this submission.

These relationships have not impacted on my ability to provide impartial Expert Evidence to the Panel.

Engagement and Scope of Report

I was retained by Margaret and Paul Bennett to undertake traffic engineering assessments and to

prepare an evidence statement in relation to the proposed planning scheme changes affecting 145

Verney Road, Shepparton (the Bennett Property – Property 13).

Facts and Assumptions

As detailed in evidence.

Reference Documents

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

TIAR Traffix Group peer review (March 2011),

Traffic Impact Assessment Report (Trafficworks Pty Ltd, September 2014),

Addendum to TIAR (Trafficworks, July 2018),

Bob Citroen’s evidence statement (13th August 2018),

Shepparton North East PSP (February 2018 exhibited version of July 2018 version),

Shepparton North East DCP (February 2018 exhibited version of July 2018 version),

Infrastructure Design Manual (Version 5.10, January 2018),

Relevant sections of the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme, and

Relevant experience.

Summary of Opinions

See Conclusions section of the evidence statement.

Provisional Opinions

Not applicable.

Identity of Persons Undertaking Work

Henry H Turnbull as per the evidence statement.

Jodie Place (Associate, Traffix Group) assisted with preparation of the evidence report.

Report Completeness

Final report.

Amendment C118 to the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme Shepparton North East Growth Corridor (Bennetts Property

G25445R-01A.docx

Appendix B: CV – Henry Turnbull